Missing the Mark with Religion, Part 7
As a child growing up in New York, I was attracted to the opposite sex. When I saw a pretty little girl flash a smile, my heart fluttered, my cheeks blushed, I shuffled my feet and shyly looked the other way.
I always liked girls. No one had to tell me that I should. I just did.
When I became a teen, little changed. I still adored them, though when I thought of females, I began to think of marriage. Holy matrimony seemed like a prerequisite to happiness and completeness. Don’t ask me why. It was instinct. I knew I was born to be married; and fortunately, no man, woman or institution stepped in to pervert nature’s instincts.
Public schools, you see, and even television, still defended traditional values and helped reinforce what nature had implanted.
Ben Franklin, a man from a value-laden era, and a man who was not the philanderer anti-American historical revisionists make him out to be (he firmly believed in the law of chastity, for instance), (1) expressed long ago what I by nature felt as a teen. In an attempt to persuade a young friend to reject the idea of a mistress and embrace the institution of marriage, Franklin wrote:
Marriage is the proper remedy. It is the most natural state of man, and therefore the state in which you are most likely to find solid happiness. Your reasons against entering into it at present appear to me not well founded. The circumstantial advantages you have in view by postponing it are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the thing itself, the being married and settled.
It is the man and woman united that make the complete human being. Separate, she wants his force of body and strength of reason; he, her softness, sensibility, and acute discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the world. A single man has not nearly the value he would have in that state of union. He is an incomplete animal. He resembles the odd half of a pair of scissors. If you get a prudent, healthy wife, your industry in your profession, with her good economy, will be a fortune sufficient. (2)
He might have added, for it fit, “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (3) and God’s command to our first parents, “[to become] one flesh.” (4)
Franklin and the revelations are right. There really is something about this marriage thing, an extraordinary opportunity ordained by God and Nature to become something we cannot be alone (and not become with a person of the same sex).
Two people, man and woman, mutually bound by love and sacred covenants, become one flesh in the natural unity of sexual intercourse; they become one flesh through children, who literally possess their combined genetic code; they become one heart and mind through the common endeavor of raising these children through thick and thin; and hopefully, through their common devotion to God, His laws, and their duty to serve their fellow man and, firstly, each other, they become one forevermore.
But this is not all. They also become one, as Franklin noted, because of natural differences between man and woman, which interlock and complement each other in a wonderful symphony achieved through a lifetime of give and take, sacrifice and patience, struggle and mutual reform.
It is an ingenious and inspired plan devised to stretch man, refine him, and teach him to love others more than he loves himself, a plan which, besides being religiously sanctioned, has met with the approval and sanction of every great civilization.
Family and National Stability
And here’s why: All societies have learned that the family is basic and fundamental to national stability and happiness. When families fall apart, so do nations.
French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville knew that a collective animosity or negligence toward the family was the sort of destabilizing force that fomented revolutions, while strong families prop up and prosper free government, as was the case in early 19th century America. In his classic work, “Democracy in America,” he observed:
But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace. There his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm; and as he finds that an orderly life is the surest path to happiness, he accustoms himself easily to moderate his opinion as well as his tastes. While the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs. (5)
America rose, Europe fell. No wonder.
Unfortunately, the cultural differences between Europe and the United States are now dimming. Generally, we still have stronger families than they, and thus more stability, strength and freedom; but, simultaneously, the anti-family values that brought the terror and instability of the French Revolution have gained a considerable and militant foothold here in the United States, and may, if left unchecked, beckon our downfall.
Marx’s Loathing of Family
It was the ideology of communism founder Karl Marx that led the charge against marriage and the family that unsettles us today. In language fuming with hatred, loaded to the hilt in reckless, sweeping generalizations and on fire with revolution, Marx decried Western Civilization’s belief in the “hallowed co-relation” of husband to wife and parent to child as a “bourgeois claptrap [artifice]” which is “disgusting.” To him and his cohorts, capitalist children are thought of by their parents as nothing more than “articles of commerce and instruments of labor,” whereas wives and daughters are thought of by their capitalist husbands and fathers as nothing more than “common prostitutes”; and bourgeois marriage is thought of by men in general as nothing more than “a system of wives in common,” (6) for, according to Marx’s dark view of the Capitalist Christian culture, every Capitalist, like every Christian, cheats on his wife and abuses his children.
Such a world!
But he didn’t stop there, no. Since the family stinks, then why not a free-sex society where anything goes? It sounds all too familiar. Marx has, in many respects, won the day. He teaches in our schools, writes the scripts in Hollywood and sends down edicts from the bench.
Yet, Marx’s modern beneficiaries, the various ‘victim’s’ lobbies of the anti-family movement, ought to consider the possibility that they have been exploited alright, by political opportunists who employ “a technique that is as old as the human race, a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave” (7) – that is, exploited, and ultimately duped into slavery, by a moral, even a religious appeal from the very folks who say they abhor such things in public life!
Nevertheless, not all things are as they seem to be. Sometimes a chunk of free cheese obscures a deadly trap. Or to put it another way, in this case, behind the smoke screen of supposed rights for things thousands of years of culture, religion and law have rejected as harmful, it seems plain that a red eye emerges, wickedly, haughtily peering down on marriage and the family intent on overthrowing the existing moral and political order.
Joining hands with the same are myriads of individuals and institutions pressing forward, unwisely, unwittingly, perceiving a benefit in being thus encouraged, and thus exploited, many of them ironically doing so in the name of preserving religious freedom. Those who do, miss the mark about religion in public life, and in truth, hold hands with Marx, the Devil, and every tyrant who ever hoped to enslave the children of men.
And so we have come full circle. And yet, whether it remains politically correct or not, marriage between a man and woman, and children raised by mother and father are still divine institutions; and as such, the nation that makes war on them will rue the day as surely as the sun rises tomorrow; while the nation that rises up and defends them will save itself.
The only question is, to which will we cleave?
(Read parts 1. Modern Liberalism; 2. Libertarianism: the Oxymoronic Faith; 3. Not So Compassionate, Not So Conservative, Compassionate Conservatism); 4. Marx and the Worship of Man 5. Self-Worship: The God of Democracy 6. Moral License: Friend or Foe of Liberty?
Copyright © 2012 Steve Farrell.
Steve Farrell is the Founder and Editor In Chief of The Moral Liberal (http://www.themoralliberal.com) one of the original and most popular pundits at NewsMax.com (1999-2008), and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel Dark Rose.
See what the reviewers had to say about “Dark Rose,” and then get yourself a copy at Amazon.com.
1. Franklin was in his 80s, beset with several incapacitating physical maladies – gout, boils and huge (some have said softball size) gall bladder stones (during the time he was supposedly philandering!) – and was thought of by the ladies in France, and the French in general, as “harmless,” “sober,” “a Quaker,” a man of “simplicity and innocence,” one of the “paragons of the age,” “beloved Papa,” and was proclaimed in the title of a portrait of Franklin commissioned in France as a “Man of Character.” It was true, at this age, that women enjoyed his company, and he theirs. Especially appealing to him was that French women were educated.
But the accusations against him as a philanderer were made by political enemies, denied by Franklin and those who knew him best (teaching on the principle of chastity, he counseled his son ‘to avoid the very appearance of evil,’ as a result of these political charges), and were, besides slander and libel, at his advanced age and particularly in his medical condition, nonsense as well. The one charge that might honestly be held against him was that he fathered a child in his youth, which today’s revisionist ‘historians’ mention in such unkind ways as “he fathered a bastard child,” but they rarely, if ever, tell the full story, that Franklin was quick to rectify his mistake and took good care of his obligations to mother and child the rest of his life, even finding honorable and profitable employment for the boy as he grew older.
This helps us understand why Franklin counseled so strongly against the same weakness in others. He learned the hard way, and wished to prevent others from sharing in the same fate. In light of all this, here’s a point to ponder: To the Christian who repents, God remembers the sin no more, but ‘historians,’ particularly those who wish to destroy America’s heritage, unveil just how un-Christian, how ill-motivated, they truly are by drudging up old mud, again and again – indeed, conjuring up new mud while they’re at it.
2. Franklin, Benjamin, Letter, June 25, 1745.
3. Holy Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:1.
4. Ibid., Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:8, Genesis 2:24, 1 Corinthians 6:15-20, Ephesians 5:31.
5. de Tocqueville, Alexis. “Democracy in America,” Book 1, Chapter 17.
6. Marx, Karl. “Communist Manifesto,” for all the quotes from Marx in these two paragraphs.
7. David O. McKay, former president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, warned: “We … warn our people in America of the constantly increasing threat against our inspired Constitution. … The proponents thereof are seeking to undermine our own form of government and to set up instead one of the forms of dictatorships [which] is now flourishing in other lands. These revolutionists are using a technique that is as old as the human race, a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them.” (See: Cannon, Donald Q. ed., “Latter-day Prophets and the United States Constitution,” Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1991, pgs. 120 – 121.)