Is A "Tolerant" USA Destined To Die?

Surfing the web a few months ago, I came across a rather under-appreciated site called "When Nations Die". This intriguing little page summarizes a radio program by Probe Ministries entitled The Decline of a Nation. Its fundamental premise is that many of the things that caused the societies of Ancient Carthage and Rome to fall are being repeated in America. Take a look at what's at the top of the list:

There are many reasons for the decline and fall of a nation, but an important (and often overlooked) reason is its abandonment of religion. Russell Kirk has said that the roots of "culture" come from the "cult." In other words, culture (cult-ure) is based upon some form of religious or spiritual worldview. Egypt was a religious society founded on the worship of nature gods and goddesses. Greece and Rome had their pantheon of pagan deities. And the list of nations in India, China, and other parts of the globe all demonstrate the principle that civilization arises from religion.

I couldn't agree more. The fundamental reason this is so stems from a little thing called "morality." Without the concept of an outside creative force that has established certain things as "right" and others "wrong," our nation would completely fall apart. The decline of America today can be attributed more to Godlessness and Relativism than any other force.

But lest I get my head prematurely stuck under the guillotine of Post-Modern social opinion, let me explain:

The basic freedoms that our government is established to protect in the Declaration of independence (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) are specifically said to have been granted by a "creator." To say that such things are "inalienable" and that all human beings possess them is to make value judgments about humanity and society. What are a few of the values being expressed here? 1. Human beings are intrinsically equal; 2. Everyone has a right to life; 3. Every person has the right to be free from tyrannical control (not all control--otherwise, why does government exist?) These three principles directly contradict the worldview of the atheist.

Lets explore: what is the foundation that atheists propose for creation and society? Evolution. What is the primary driving force of life in Darwinian thought? The survival of the fittest (the belief that some species thrive and go on to evolve to a higher form, while lesser beings falter and die). The better life forms devour the lesser: that is the rule of nature. Because atheists believe that matter is the only eternal object (and that God cannot exist), the only value that they can consistantly derive from life is that of dominance and subversion.

This was the rule practiced by the aristocracy in Europe prior to the Revolution, and it was exactly this that the Founding Fathers set out to refute. They insisted that no human being could call itself "greater" than another and that all people had rights drawn from an "inalienable" foundation. They knew their system of equality and freedom required a creator God, because the "oughts" and "shoulds" that they expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights had no basis in the outwardly observable "rule of nature." Even Thomas Jefferson, who was a staunch deist and rationalist, was loath to abandon God because he understood the truth expressed by Dostoevsky a century later in The Brothers Karamazov: "Without God, everything is permissible." Thus, in order to live the American ideal, we MUST believe that a God exists and that he/she has given us a value greater and more eternal than "survival of the fittest."

I had also mentioned that relativists were equally culpable for the destruction of this nation, and ironically, theirs is an even easier viewpoint to destroy than atheism. Relativists say that every religion is "true," and that all religions extend from the same "God-figure", but they blatantly ignore the contradictions inherent in almost every world religion.

For example, Christians say that every human being is just as valuable as every other--Hindus disagree. Their belief in a rigid karmaic caste system has led to one of the largest unpublished oppressive regimes in the world. Did you know that "untouchables" (members of the lowest caste) have been lynched, gunned down, and humiliated for something as minor entering a romantic relationship with a higher case member? (its true).

Furthermore, some forms of life (like cows) are higher than others, and often get special priviliges and protection from the Indian government (I've talked with people from India--poor and dying human beings are treated like so much refuse while cows are allowed to wander where they will and do virtually whatever they want).

Such views and actions are irreconcilable with an American system of government, whose primary documents largely draw their principles from Protestant morality. In spite of this, relativists continue to insist that all world beliefs are the same, and that all religious tenants are interchangeable. Bull. (no offense, Mr. Gandhi) If anyone truly tried to live the relativist worldview, their existence would be a living nightmare of contradictions and inconsistencies that would even surpass the horror of completely consistent atheism (where at least people would be confident about their right to impinge upon the rights of other human beings [as Nietzsche was]).

Do I believe that America should go back to a system in which church and state are synonymous? Absolutely not. However, it is my heartfelt conviction that while no one denomination should be set up as the standard in America, the core teachings of Christianity upon which this country were founded should be the creed of the majority of legislators, judges, and executive officers (as they once were). Only then, I'm convinced, can our American nation save itself from its current downward plummet into the abyss of moral depravity and historical obsolescence.

-TRC