Social Darwinism

Politics is in the news again, as it is every four years during the
Presidential race, and on a lesser scale every two years with the election
of our Representatives and Senators. The pundits and politicians present
platitudes and promises that would help save America or "civilization as we
know it," but seldom do they actually provide a solution to the ills
plaguing society. I guess I am a remnant of the "old school," having been
raised with a sense of moral responsibility impressed upon my mind through
instruction, and on my backside with a leather strap. Unfortunately this new
generation receives neither instruction or discipline, and the abysmal
ignorance of God, declining moral responsibility, and disregard for godly
living has created a void that is being filled by humanistic thinking that
views man as nothing more than an animal on a par with a cockroach; the only
difference is his molecular sequence. I was handed a clipping from the Fort
Worth Star Telegram th is past week with the following heading: "Dem
platform panel backs gay marriage." Details are provided in what follows:
"The national Democratic Party's platform committee endorsed gay marriage
Saturday [August 11, 2012, TW] for the first time and called for the repeal
of a federal law that recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman."
Scott Dibble (one wonders if the "r" was left out of the last name) speaks
with the wisdom of the world: "Young people are looking for a political home
right now. This has become a defining moral question of our time." By the
way, Dibble is gay; what else would you expect? To bolster the Democratic
Party's new platform on this matter, Dibble adds, "This certainly has been a
journey for people for this country a journey for our president." The
article closes with a statement regarding the Democratic Party's call "for
the repeal of a 1996 law, signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, that
recognizes marriage as between a man and a! woman."

It is rather unfortunate that the "religious elite" of our society has
clamored loud and long that politics and religion do not mix. An appeal to
the imaginary "separation of church and state" clause in our Constitution
appears to have settled the issue, and any attempt on the part of preachers
and good and godly men and women to expose that myth is met with an eyes of
suspicion and disdain. No, it is not the business of the church to engage in
politics; but it IS the business of the church to stand for and proclaim the
will of God, whether it be in the factory, the home, or in the halls of
Congress. I read of nothing in the Bible that says the child of God is to
teach everywhere except in government circles; do you? So some observations
are in order.

First, why would any faithful Christian want to align himself with a
political party that has an agenda so opposed to God and His divine will? I
simply ask you, beloved: Which party comes to the defense of homosexuality?
Which party supports and defends abortion? What political party now wants to
redefine the home as God would have it so as to include marriage between two
people of the same sex? What party would favor the removal of the Bible from
public display, or strip our country of monuments and memorials that give
honor to the God Who, in His divine providence, brought about a nation so
blessed as ours? To ask is to answer. To vote for a "representative" in the
halls of Congress who favors such ungodly behavior is to say in effect,
"This man or woman is MY Representative; he or she represents me." When you
step into a voting booth this November and pull the lever for such ungodly
Representatives or Senators, you are, in the words of the apostle John,
"partaker in their evil deeds" (2 John 11).

Second, Mr. Dibble would have us to believe that the newly established
platform supporting homosexual marriages will in no way affect our religious
freedoms. Quoting from the article, he writes: "We also support the freedom
of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as
religious sacrament without government interference." The wording is
carefully chosen so as to leave the impression that those who oppose such
unions will be free to teach as they wish. But that is not what Dibble said.
He specifically said that religious entities will be given freedom to decide
how to administer marriage; the government will decide the definition of
marriage - not the Bible. In Canada, where homosexual marriages have already
been made the law of the land, opposition to that law is considered
opposition to the government itself and susceptible to prosecution. Isolated
cases of preachers and churches being fined and/or imprisoned are already a
reality in Canada. It will happen here.

Third, our President looks upon those who would adapt a more conservative
approach to government in economics and social issues as practicing, in his
words, "thinly veiled social Darwinism." He bandies about the phrase in an
effort to make it appear that responsibility in economics is actually
irresponsibility. If you have ever seen 'The Princes Bride,' you may
remember where Inigo Montoya made the observation regarding his inept
leader's repeated use of the word "inconceivable." It is certainly
applicable here: "You keep using that word ... I do not think it means what
you think it means." A closer look at the words "social Darwinism" reveals
that it does not mean what the President thinks it means. Darwinism is
related to the idea of evolution, and in particular evolution by natural
selection. Humanism takes its "no-God" philosophy, shackles it to Darwinism,
and in the realm of societal progression seeks a utopia on government's
selection of the fittest . It is, in short, the idea that the government
should aggressively step in and direct the course of human evolution.
"Social" is defined by Wikipedia as the "characteristic of living organisms
as applied to populations of humans and other animals. It always refers to
the interaction of organisms with other organisms and to their collective
co-existence, irrespective of whether they are aware of it or not, and
irrespective of whether the interaction is voluntary or involuntary." Hence,
"social Darwinism" is the government's intervention in the interaction of
humans in any given society. Common sense tells us that when Government
attempts to force upon a people a behavior that it (the Government) deems
acceptable, then, and only then, are the words used in their true context.
When Government attempts to force upon its citizens a new concept of moral
behavior, such as "same sex marriages," acceptance of abortion, et al. that
is "social Darwinism." ! When a people refuse to accept what government
forces upon them because of what they perceive to be their God-given rights
and responsibility, that is anything but social Darwinism. Someone once
observed that if he were allowed to define the terms he could, in effect,
prove anything. That is precisely what the President of the United States
wants to do - redefine terms; and the truth suffers as a result.

Finally, you and I are engaged in a battle for the very survival of a
culture built upon God and His word. Few of those who maintain a "thus saith
the Lord" in matters of doctrine would deny the importance of doing all
within their power to uphold the purity of the church. Why is it that some
refuse to see the responsibility we have to uphold the same purity when it
comes to the system of government under which we, at least for the present,
have the power to choose. Our Constitution still reads, "We the people ... "
If we remain silent, refusing to let our light shine, timidly bowing to the
foolish notion that "politics and religion don't mix," we will have no one
to blame but ourselves when these freedoms are taken from us. Yes, we have
the sacred obligation to submit to the government, whatever form, or however
evil it may become. But while we still can, we have the same sacred
obligation to do all within our power to prevent the rise of social
Darwinism presently being promoted by the humanists and atheists, as well as
misinformed and misguided politicians.

by Tom Wacaster