[Paleopsych] Auster: How Liberal Christianity Promotes Open Borders and One-Worldism

Premise Checker checker at panix.com
Thu Apr 14 13:48:36 UTC 2005

How Liberal Christianity Promotes Open Borders and One-Worldism
4.12.3 [Part 2 of 2 appended]

[He makes a very good point, namely that if you don't treat god as the 
Other, you can wind up treating peoples and civilizations very different 
from your own as the Other. I've gotten used to appeals for a return to 
true Christianity of the "this is how I want the world to be" sort without 
producing any evidence even for the existence of god. My own gloss on 
Christianity, and Judaism, for that matter, is that God is a liberal. He 
created the world and gave humanity rules to live by, which they promptly 
disobeyed. God kept making covenants and people kept failing to live up to 
them. God constantly overestimate human nature, as liberals to. By the 
time of the Roman Empire, God got so fed up with His creation that He 
decided to do away with Heaven and Earth (but not Hell) completely. Being 
merciful as well as just, He offered escape from Hell to those who would 
accept the offer, namely to ask His son for forgiveness. It seems that God 
is not obliged to carry out this promise (the doctrine of Grace) and it's 
unclear what else needs to be done (the doctrine of Works). God remains a 
liberal still: in the next to the last chapter of the Bible, God promises 
a second Heaven and a second Earth. What's new to me is Auster's emphasis 
on what I overlooked, namely that there will be individual nations on the 
second Earth. I am still concerned with the tiny matter of evidence, 

                             By [1]Lawrence Auster

     According to historian Arnold Toynbee, civilizations grow and survive
     by overcoming successive challenges, and break down when they fail to
     meet some new challenge. With regard to mass non-European immigration
     and its attendant problems of multiculturalism, Islamization, and
     globalism, America and other Western nations face a challenge unique
     in history: to save ourselves from open-borders chaos and cultural
     destruction without becoming, in our own eyes, "racist," "mean,"
     "exclusivist," and "un-Christian." This is a moral and intellectual
     dilemma that most contemporary Westernersif we bother thinking about
     it at allfind paralyzing. Unable to solve it, we have opted for a
     state of active or passive surrendera condition from which we are only
     intermittently stirred by shocking acts of violence such as the
     September 11 attack on America or the jihadist slaughter of Dutch
     filmmaker Theo van Gogh.

     In fact, the moral dilemma described above is illusory. It is based on
     the false premise, unique to Western and especially modern Western
     society, that to preserve one's own nation or culture is somehow to be
     unjust toward other nations and cultures. Whenever this sentiment has
     gained ascendancy, as under the influence of ancient Stoicism or of
     modern leftism, it has led men to believe that the only just social
     order is a world state, in which there is no Other because everyone
     belongs to the same society. The problem with this idea is that a
     world state can only exist by depriving individual nations of their
     right of self-government, indeed of their existence, and by subjecting
     all mankind to the rule of a distant and unaccountable regime.
     Therefore, based on all our experience of politics and human nature, a
     world state could not be just either. Traditional Christianity
     resolved, or at least managed, this conflict between the particular
     and the universal by locating true universality in the City of God,
     while recognizing the limited but real value of distinct societies on

     But a moral tension that remains manageable so long as different
     peoples with their respective cultures are living in different
     societies, becomes insoluble when radically different peoples and
     cultures are living in the same society, especially if it is a
     democracy. If a democratic country has a large and culturally
     different immigrant minority, the native majority cannot readily
     announce that they are against the continuation of more immigration,
     because if they did so, the immigrant group, who are now the
     majority's fellow citizens, would feel that the natives regard them as
     undesirable. As civilized, democratic people, the native majority do
     not want to insult the immigrant minority, or to deny their equal
     humanity, or to create even the slightest appearance of doing those
     things. So instead theymeaning wesurrender to the situation, accept
     continued mass immigration, and allow their country to be steadily
     transformed by an ongoing influx of unassimilated peoples and
     incompatible cultures.

     Our challengethe Toynbean challenge we must meet if we are to save our
     civilizationis to understand that the moral assumptions that have led
     us into this paralysis are false, and to break free of them. But this
     is extraordinarily difficult for us to do, because these assumptions,
     which are liberal assumptions, have over the past century become
     closely bound up with the Christian religion, the spiritual core of
     Western culture and identity. To work our way out of the present
     crisis, therefore, it will be necessary to criticize certain aspects
     of modern Christianity. This may offend some readers, particularly
     Christian conservatives who have come to identify Christian belief
     with American political virtue itself.

     The problem would be lessened if people understood that Christianity
     is not a governing ideology, and that it is distorted when seen as
     such. The path and goal of Christianity is life in Christ, not the
     organization of society according to any particular scheme. Over the
     last two thousand years, Christianity has been compatible with any
     number of political forms, ranging from the Roman empire to medieval
     feudalism to modern democracy, so long as they have been reasonably
     benign and compatible with a Christian life. And here lies the
     paradox: though Christian faith is the center of the West's historic
     being, it cannot by itself provide the enduring structure of Western
     society or of any other concrete society. As indicated by Jesus in his
     distinction between the things of Caesar and the things of God,
     religious faith must work in a proper balance with worldly
     concernsamong which are considerations of political power and of
     culture. The balance is delicate and many things can go wrong with the
     spiritual-secular partnership. For example, if the Christian community
     breaks free of the surrounding earthly society and ignores the
     ordinary dictates of political prudence, or if it becomes corrupted by
     bad ideas emanating from the society itself, such as those of modern
     liberalism, it can become destructive of the surrounding society and
     culture. It can easily spin off into utopian universalist notions,
     such as the open-borders ideology, that spell the death of any

     In the remainder of this article, we will first recount the process by
     which Christianity has become liberalized. Then we will look at the
     doctrines, particularly the "cult of man," that define this
     liberalized Christianity and help engender the cultural radicalism
     that so threatens our society. Finally we will consider the role this
     liberalized Christianity has played in advancing open immigration and
     one-worldism, especially through its literalist reading of the

Confused Christianity

     When the liberal order was born in the seventeenth and eighteenth
     centuries, it did not immediately appear, at least in America, as a
     social force hostile to religion. Far from attacking or banning
     religion, liberalism marked out a religiously neutral public space
     where religious conformity would not be demanded and a person's
     religion could not be used against him. The various Protestant
     denominations plus Catholicism and Judaism were tolerated, and a
     genericand rather strictProtestant morality was authoritative
     throughout the society. In his journey through America in the 1830s,
     Toqueville was deeply impressed at how in America, more than in any
     other country in history, religion and liberty worked in harmony.

     But over the past two centuries, as the demand for individual freedom
     has become ever more insistent and far-reaching, the respect accorded
     religion and religious morality in American public life has steadily
     diminished, a process that has reached an extreme stage in recent
     years. Education, the arts, entertainment, architecture, public
     monuments, and many other areas of society in which religion was once
     honored or deferred to, or which were at least open to a religious
     sense of life, have become thoroughly secularized, as has the
     Christmas holiday itself. For the first time in American history,
     prominent individuals and established political movements, not to
     mention many movies and television programs, are openly atheistic and
     hostile to religion, seeking, in the name of liberal tolerance, to
     drive religion out of the public sphere altogether. Or, to be more
     precise, they seek to drive Christianity out of the public sphere,
     while welcoming non-Western religions such as Islam. The only
     Christianity tolerated by these left-liberals is a desiccated
     Christianity that keeps up the external forms and formulae of the
     faith but no longer adheres seriously to any Christian beliefs that
     are distinct from those of liberalism. Even conservative Christian
     leaders have given up the traditional idea of America as a basically
     Christian society and now subscribe to the liberal view of America as
     a level playing field where different beliefs, including non-Western
     beliefs, can strive for influence.

     The effects of this leftward drift on the mainline Protestant churches
     and on significant parts of the American Catholic Church have been
     profound. No longer looking for the meaning of life in God and Christ,
     but in the celebration and achievement of human rights and
     equality,or, rather, defining God and Christ in terms of human rights
     and equalitythese liberal Christians tend to look at every issue
     through the lens of social justice, one-worldism, and U.S. guilt, and
     are deeply committed to diversity, multiculturalism, and open borders.
     The liberal belief in the equal freedom of all human beings as the
     primary political and spiritual datum leads inexorably to the idea
     that our nation should open itself indiscriminately to all humanity.
     President Bush's proposal to give a green card to every person on
     earth who can underbid an American for a job is an example of this
     utopian attitude, and is plainly motivated, at least in part, by the
     liberal evangelicalism to which he subscribes.

The Church and the cult of man

     In America, as we've said, a moderate liberalism that deferred to
     Christianity gradually became more secular and radical over time and
     brought much of the Church along with it. In Europe, by contrast, the
     left was in open rebellion against Christianity from the eighteenth
     century onward, seeking to create a new, materialistic society in
     which all human needs would be met without reference to anything
     higher than man. Catholic Popes thundered against these developments.
     Pope Pius X declared in 1903: "[W]ith unlimited boldness man has put
     himself in the place of God, exalting himself above all that is called
     God. He has ... made the world a temple in which he himself is to be
     adored ... "(1)  The Church was fighting a losing battle, however.
     With the ever-advancing march of secularization and the seeming
     triumph of human technological power over nature, the belief in man's
     spiritual and material autonomy had become so well-established by the
     mid-twentieth century that the Church felt it had to adjust itself to
     these new developments instead of condemning them.

     This momentous event was announced by Pope Paul VI in his closing
     speech at the Second Vatican Council, in December 1965. The Council,
     the Pope declared, had not been content to reflect on the relations
     that unite her to God.

     [The Church] was also much concerned with man, with man as he really
     is today, with living man, with man totally taken up with himself,
     with man who not only makes himself the center of his own interests,
     but who dares to claim that he is the principle and [the] final cause
     of all reality. Man in his phenomenal totality ... presented himself,
     as it were, before the assembly of the Council Fathers.... The
     religion of God made man has come up against the religionfor there is
     such a oneof man who makes himself God.^ [Emphasis added.]

     And how did the Council respond to this heretical specter of godless,
     secular man, of "man who makes himself God"? Far from condemning this
     monstrous falsehood and asserting the superior claims of the Christian
     faith, the Council, said the Pope,^

     was filled only with an endless sympathy. The discovery of human
     needsand these are so much greater now that the son of the earth has
     made himself greaterabsorbed the attention of the Synod.... [W]e also,
     we more than anyone else, have the cult of man...^

     A current of affection and admiration overflowed from the Council over
     the modern world of man ... [The Catholic religion] proclaims itself
     to be entirely in the service of man's well-being. The Catholic
     religion and life itself thus reaffirm their alliance, their
     convergence on a single human reality: the Catholic faith exists for
     humanity ...^ [Emphasis added.]

     Thus, alongside God, the Church seemed to have added a second Lord,
     man, with everything ultimately focusing on man instead of God.(2) In
     so doing, the Church adopted the very heresy of modernism that Pope
     Pius X had warned against sixty years earlier.

     Pope John Paul II, a twentieth century Christian humanist who is
     mistakenly believed by many to be a staunch traditionalist, fully
     subscribed to the Vatican II doctrine, having been one of its leading
     framers. In his first encyclical after becoming Pope in 1978, he
     declared that human nature has been permanently "divinized" by the
     advent of Christa startling departure from traditional Christian
     understandings of the distinction between God and man. He has
     repeatedly put man on a pedestal, as when he spoke of his "gratitude
     and joy at the incomparable dignity of man." While in keeping with the
     spirit of Vatican II, this extravagant praise of man is very far from
     the language we would expect to hear from traditional Catholics or
     Protestants, who adhere to the Augustinian belief in man's basic
     sinfulness and his continuing need for God's mercy.

     Under the post-Vatican II Popes, including John Paul II, the cult of
     man has worked itself into the body and practice of the Church. In
     place of the Creed, which begins, "I believe in God, the Father
     Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth," a diocese in France sings a hymn
     that begins: "I believe in God who believes in Man." In another
     diocese, instead of the Creed a poem is read which begins:^

     I believe in meson of an almighty Father,
     creator with him of a more human world...
     I believe in me because he believed in me ...

     Equally important in lowering Christianity toward the human level are
     the radical liturgical changes that were initiated in the 1960s. In
     the traditional Eucharistic service, the priest faces away from the
     congregation, toward the altar, toward God, so that both congregants
     and priest are communing with God. In the New Mass, the priest faces
     the congregation as he consecrates the host and chews it in the sight
     of all. This democratization of the Liturgy of the Eucharist destroys
     its sacramental nature, turning it into a celebration of human,
     instead of divine, community. And, of course, in many Catholic and
     Protestant churches in the United States, folk songs, "singalongs,"
     electronically amplified contemporary music, and other pop culture
     manifestations have replaced sacred music and liturgy.^

Cultural radicalism and the cult of man

     Some readers, especially those who are not religious, may wonder what
     all the fuss is about. Why is the cult of man a problem, they may ask.
     Why is it a bad thing to make humanity the ultimate focus of our
     religious as well as of our secular concerns? What harm does it do if
     we honor "man who makes himself god," and so free ourselves from the
     weight of the traditional, judgmental God hanging over us? My answer
     is that the cult of man is harmful because it does not (as it promises
     to do) ennoble human beings, but degrades them. It is, in fact, a
     principal source of the cultural radicalism that is dragging down our
     whole society and making it incapable of defend itself from evil and
     from enemies. Three aspects of this cultural radicalism are relevant
     here: moral liberationism, cultural egalitarianism, and the worship of
     the Other.

     - Moral liberationism

     From the traditional Christian perspective, God is our father, as well
     as the archetypal "father figure," the source and structuring
     principle of our existence. Other and lesser "father figures" include
     our country, our culture, our government and laws, even the laws of
     nature. These are the biological, cultural, and spiritual givens of
     our existence. They place limits on what we can be, even as they
     provide us with the very world in which we can live and realize
     ourselves. To put man in the place of God implies a rebellion, not
     just against God as traditionally understood, but against all "father
     figures" and the structuring order of reality that they represent. If
     there no reality higher than ourselves, then there is nothing
     preventing us from releasing our lowest tendencies.

     Thus the humanistic distortion of religion is only one part of the
     picture I am describing. The rebellious cult of man may begin with the
     denial of God's supremacy, but it doesn't end there. It ends with the
     denial of all things higher than human desirelaw, morality, culture,
     nation, and even nature itself.

     - Cultural equality and the double standard

     Another consequence of the cult of man is radical egalitarianism,
     particularly in the area of culture. If there is no truth higher than
     humanity, then there is no objective basis on which to determine the
     relative value of various human things. All human thingsall
     culturesmust be of innately equal value. But if all cultures are of
     innately equal value, how then can we explain the persistently
     backward state of some cultures? At bottom, there is only one answer
     to that question: the backward cultures must have been artificially
     placed in their inferior situation by the better-off and more powerful
     cultures, namely our own.

     Thus the denial of higher truth makes all things seem equal, which in
     turn requires an explanation for why things are not actually equal,
     which in turn leads to a belief in some all-pervading oppression to
     account for the actually existing inequalitiesan oppression that is
     always blamed on the West, or America, or Christianity, or capitalism,
     or the white race, or white men, or the patriarchal family, or George
     Bush, or what have you. And the attack on the West does not end there.
     Since the less advanced condition of certain other peoples and
     cultures is our fault, we must, in order to raise them up, excuse them
     from normal standards while subjecting ourselves to the harshest
     standards. This is the [3]leftist double standard, of which I've
     written about previously at FrontPage Magazine.

     - Worship of the Other

     Finally, and most dangerously, the cult of man leads us, not just to
     put down our own culture and sympathize inordinately with other
     cultures, but to worship other cultures. Again, we need to think about
     why this is so.

     Central to Western culture, in both its Jewish-Christian and its
     Greco-Roman forms, is the experience of God or truth as transcendent,
     beyond the material, beyond man. A similar experience is central to
     other cultures. Man partakes of, and is perfected by, a truth whose
     source lies beyond himself. If we lose or reject this experience of
     transcendence and start to glorify human rights and human desires as
     our highest value (an attitude that the ancient Greeks would call
     hubris and that traditional Christians and Jews would call idolatry),
     we will still feel the need for the divine quality of "beyondness,"
     but, since man has now become for us the highest value, we will
     inevitably begin to seek that quality in human beings.

     But what quality do human beings have that can stand in for God's
     transcendence, his quality as beyond and wholly other? Simply this,
     that other human beings are other and different from us. If we combine
     this divinization of man (which is already harmful enough) with the
     liberal belief in the equal freedom of all persons, or, even worse, if
     we combine it with leftist notions of Western guilt and multicultural
     equality, then the more "Other" the others are,that is, the more
     different, foreign, alien, incomprehensible, or even dangerous and
     evil they arethe more "transcendent" they will seem to us, and the
     more we will worship them. In the most extreme form of this attitude
     (though it is terribly common today), secular or Christian liberals
     laud a terrorist murderer like Yasser Arafat and cast a sacred glow
     around everything connected with Islam, while reviling conservative
     Christians as a monstrous threat, simply because Arafat and Islam are
     radically Other from America and therefore seem to stand beyond the
     suffocating confines of our radically secularized society.

     To put this idea another way, as human beings we are free to deny God,
     but we are not free to do away with our need (because it is built into
     our nature) for something that is beyond us, that transcends us and
     provides the meaning of our existence. So, when people deny God, who
     is, as it were, the "vertical" transcendent, they start to look for a
     "horizontal" transcendent as a substitute. This horizontal
     transcendent is, pre-eminently, other people. Furthermore, as I said,
     since God is that which is most Other from ourselves, the more
     different other people are from us, the more they seem like God or
     fulfill the function of God in our psyches. Thus the worship of man
     devolves into the worship of other men, other cultures, other peoples,
     combined with a contempt for our own. This is the mystical cult of
     multiculturalismthe uncritical identification with the Other, whoever
     the Other may happen to be.

Liberal fundamentalism

     For Catholics, the ultimate authority for the idea of unconditional
     openness to foreigners is the pronouncements of Pope and the Church
     hierarchy. For liberal Protestants, it is the Bible, namely a
     literalist interpretation of certain scriptural passages. One of the
     most important of these is Jesus' parable of the Final Judgment in the
     25th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, when the Son of man comes and
     gathers all nations before him:

     Then shall the king say to those who are on his right: Come, you who
     are the blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom which has been made
     ready for you from the beginning of the world. For I was hungry and
     you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink, I was a stranger
     and you took me in, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you
     visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.

     When the just people ask when they did these things, he answers:^

     Truly I tell you, inasmuch as you have done it for any one of the
     least of these my brothers, you have done it for me.

     As author and immigration reformer Roy Beck has pointed out, a
     literalist reading of this parable gives Protestants the idea that
     every prospective immigrant to Americaindeed every needy person in the
     worldis, literally, Jesus. I myself have seen evangelicals who, on
     hearing arguments for reasonable immigration controls, replied: "Would
     you turn away Jesus if he was at the border?" The notion that everyone
     trying to get into America is Jesus obligates Christians on pain of
     hell to give every prospective immigrant what he wants, or rather to
     get the U.S. government and taxpayers to give him what he wants, even
     though the great majority of immigrants come here not because of
     persecution or misfortune but simply because they desire the greater
     opportunities (and the cornucopia of government benefits) available to
     them here.

     The parable of Matthew 25, like other difficult passages in the Old
     and New Testaments, becomes grotesque if taken in a literal sense,
     without reference to the full context of meaning in which it appears.
     For example, Jesus is certainly not telling his disciples to help
     law-breakers, yet liberal Christians take his words as a command to
     harbor illegal aliensand not just an occasional illegal alien, but an
     ongoing mass invasion of them. Jesus is also not telling his followers
     to use the government to advance their ends. The Gospels show the way
     to eternal life in God through Christ. The supreme commandment is love
     of God and neighbor. Such love is intrinsically a voluntary,
     individual act, or the act of a cohesive group of believers, as when,
     for example, a congregation votes to send money to fellow Christians
     who have been devastated by a natural disaster. But what today's
     liberal Christians find in the Gospels is a political platform.
     Instead of minding their own business and practicing charity to their
     neighbor, they want to use the power of the state to compel their
     fellow citizens to hand over their country to foreigners, foreign
     cultures, and foreign religionsincluding religions and cultures that
     seek the destruction of Christianity and the West.

     Another of the liberals' favorite biblical passages is God's command
     in Leviticus 19 concerning the proper treatment of foreigners:

     When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him
     wrong. But the stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as one
     born among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were
     strangers in the land of Egypt.

     While liberals have often quoted this passage to provide support for
     an open borders policy, it has little to do with immigration. The text
     refers to one who "sojourns," meaning a temporary resident in the
     land, not an immigrant. It is telling us to treat such a stranger as a
     fellow human being, not to vex or persecute him. It is most decidedly
     not telling us to open our borders to a mass immigration of such
     strangers, so that they can change our society from what it is into
     something else. If you, taking a literalist approach, believe that it
     is telling us that, then you must also believe that Jesus' command,
     "Give to him who asks of you," means that we should instantly hand
     over our entire national product to leftist international
     organizations who are demanding the global equalization of wealth and

     But what about that commandwhich we can't get away fromto "love the
     stranger as yourself"? The main Gospel authority concerning love of
     others is the passage in Matthew where Jesus, asked what is the
     greatest commandment, quotes two verses from the Torah: "You shall
     love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
     and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And a
     second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt
     22:37-39.) The key to understanding this teaching is that love of God
     comes first. It is the love of God that disciplines us toward the good
     and restrains our self-aggrandizing impulses, including the impulse to
     display conspicuous compassion for others. An unconditional love of
     neighbor apart from love of God would lead us to mad acts of
     do-gooderism or self-sacrifice.

     To this, a liberal literalist might say that since the first
     commandment is to love God with our whole heart, soul, and mind; and
     since the second commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves; and
     since the second command is "like the first," therefore we're supposed
     to love our neighbor just as we're supposed to love
     Godunconditionally, with our whole heart, soul, and mind. In reality,
     Jesus tells his followers to love the neighbor as one loves oneself,
     not as one loves God. It would be an absurdity to say that God wants
     us to love ourselves unconditionally, with our whole heart, soul, and
     mind. Therefore we are not to love our neighbor that way either. We
     are commanded to love and follow God, and once we do that, we will
     feel and behave rightly toward ourselves and our neighbor as well.

     Ironically, the very words, "you shall love him as yourself," which
     liberals take as commanding unconditional love for the Other, back up
     my narrower interpretation. Since it is only possible, at best, to
     love one person or a few people as one loves oneself, not an entire
     populace or the entire human race, the passage must be referring to a
     voluntary, personal relationship, not to some politically coerced
     process of national self-sacrifice.

     Furthermore, as the Bible states over and over, God wants mankind to
     exist in separate nations. Deuteronomy 32:8 says: "When the Most High
     gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of
     men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples ..." Acts 17:26-27 says that
     God sets "boundaries of their habitation" for every nation of mankind.
     The Old Testament is filled with admonitions to the Israelites to make
     distinctions between themselves and strangers. The most extreme
     instance is in the book of Ezra, Chapters 10 and 11, where the Jews
     are commanded to disown their non-Jewish wives and children in order
     to preserve the ethnic purity of the Jewish people (which if they
     hadn't done, by the way, the Jewish people would have gone out of
     existence, and there would have been no Jewish people for Jesus to be
     born into, and there would have been no Christianity). When so much in
     the Bible counsels national and ethnic exclusiveness, it is dishonest
     to take isolated scriptural passages as a mandate for open borders.


     1. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=650
     2. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=16157
     3. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14579


How Liberal Christianity Promotes Open Borders and One-Worldism 
(Continued) by Lawrence Auster

     Tempting God

     But liberal fundamentalists are unconcerned with getting a true and
     balanced understanding of these scriptural passages, just as they are
     unconcerned with the real-world results of putting their altruistic
     beliefs into practice. They seem to believe that acting on their
     religious principles makes it unnecessary to heed ordinary rules of
     prudencean attitude that Jesus famously rejected. After he has been
     fasting in the wilderness for forty days, the devil tempts him to
     throw himself down from a high cliff, so as to prove that God's angels
     will rescue him, as promised in Psalm 91, which the devil, who
     evidently reads Scripture, quotes:

     He shall give his angels charge over thee,
     and in their hands they shall bear thee up,
     lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.^

     Jesus answers Satan: "Thou shalt not tempt [that is, test] the Lord
     thy God." What Jesus is saying here is that you must not apply the
     words of Scripture mechanically. Having faith in God does not mean
     that you can ignore physical laws. You cannot jump off a cliff in the
     expectation that God will come to your rescue. To do so is to "tempt"

     The same analysis applies to liberal fundamentalism and open borders.
     Liberal Christians argue that since God created all men, therefore all
     humanity is one, and therefore cultural, ethnic, and national
     differences don't matter and we should all be mixed into one society.
     But to believe that such a blending of humanity can be practically and
     safely achieved in the present stage of human developmentto turn
     America into an extravagantly multi-ethnic and multicultural society,
     shorn of its historic majority culture, in the expectation that God
     will save us from the consequences of this insane experimentis to
     "tempt God." It is a suicidal act of arrogance. If we ignore the laws
     of cause and effect that operate in this world, believing that our
     good intentions will protect us from the operation of those laws, we
     will only succeed in bringing ruin on ourselves.^

     Here is yet another illustration of the literalist fallacy. The
     highest human state, the goal of Christianity and of all true
     religion, is self-forgetful love. Yet it would be madness to adopt
     such love (which even in the best of circumstances is consistently
     practiced by very few human beings), as the organizing principle of
     society. James Madison in the Federalist warned against the error of
     idealizing mankind: government, he said, is designed for men, not
     angels. Jesus also warned against idealizing mankind when he told his
     disciples to be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove. To be wise as
     a serpent means that you guard yourself against the evils in human
     nature. Unlike the liberal Christians, Jesus did not indulge in vain
     Rousseauist fantasies about the innate goodness of man, or try to
     force such fantasies on society. The second chapter of the Gospel of
     John pointedly tells us that "Jesus did not trust himself to them ...
     for he knew himself what was in man." [Emphasis added.] But liberal
     fundamentalists only heed the part of Jesus' message that fits their
     liberal preconceptions. They tell everyone to be gentle as a dove,
     while conveniently forgetting the business about being wise as a
     serpent. They distort the Christian teaching of faith and salvation
     into a politics of indiscriminate global charity.^

     The Christian belief in a common humanity under God should not tempt
     us to weaken or eliminate national borders.  The division of mankind
     into distinct nations provides indispensable human needs, including
     stable social settings and systems of shared habit and culture.
     Equally importantly, national boundaries help keep human hatreds at
     bay. Common sense tells us that humanity tends to certain vices, and
     we should therefore not gratuitously remove the obstacles that impede
     those vices. It tells us that to adopt unconditional love as a
     political principle and to erase all boundaries on human behavior is
     to license unlimited aggression. But the liberal fundamentalists,
     having rejected the doctrine of man's innate sinfulness and even the
     cautions of ordinary common sense, cannot grasp these obvious facts.
     They condemn racism, while fanatically spreading the very conditions
     of unassimilable diversity that increase racial conflict. They have no
     qualms about the effects of immigration on the host society because
     they regard openness to immigration as a religious obligation, not as
     political choice governed by prudence.^

     Let us also remember that while both Christian and secular liberals
     may urge open borders for reasons of love, human motivations are
     always mixed. Much of the support for open immigration is plainly
     self-interested. Corporate executives do not want mass immigration in
     order to spread Christian charity, but to assure the presence of a
     low-wage work force. Ethnic activists do not call for amnesty to
     spread compassion, but to increase the power of their own racial
     group. Democrats and Republicans do not seek open borders out of love,
     but out of a desire to swell their respective party ranks (a deluded
     hope in the case of the Republicans) and gain political advantage over
     the other party.

     Nevertheless, in this welter of contradictory motivations, by far the
     most effective remains the moral and altruistic. As far back as 1957,
     the liberal Protestant journal The Christian Century stated in an

     We are in danger of preaching freedom and reveling in it ourselves but
     denying it to those who knock on our doors.... The denial borders on
     blasphemy in Bethlehem. Fling wide the gates and let some glory

     America is not seen here as an earthly society, with earthly
     responsibilities to its citizens. It is seen as Bethlehema symbol of
     Heaven. From this perspective, to admit immigrants into our country is
     not to let in concrete human beings with their concrete good and bad
     qualities. It is to let in "glory"a divine attribute. By erasing the
     distinction between the spiritual and temporal realms, and thus the
     distinctions among relative temporal goods, the liberal Christian view
     makes rational discussion of the immigration issue impossible.

     Yet the liberal Christianity of the 1950s was a model of
     reasonableness compared to the aggressive open-borders policy of the
     Roman Catholic Church under Pope John Paul II. Like any alienated
     liberal or one-world capitalist, the Pope sanctified non-Western
     immigrants while delegitimizing the Western nations he was ordering to
     include them. He deliberately undermined U.S. law when he came to
     Texas in 1987 and endorsed the Sanctuary Movement, a network of
     organizations that transport and hide illegal aliens who come here
     from Central America. Most appallingly, he repeatedly equated
     immigration restrictions with abortion, arguing that to refuse to
     admit a prospective immigrant into your country is as sinful as to
     kill an unborn child. Both acts, the Holy Father declared, are part of
     the "Culture of Death," which, he said, also includes such practices
     as contraception and euthanasia. His proposed "Ethic of Life" enjoined
     Christians to stand in "solidarity with society's weakest members"the
     elderly, the infirm, the unborn, and the illegal immigrant.(4)

     In portraying immigration restriction as a moral crime, but only when
     it is practiced by Westerners, the Pope would have effectively denied
     Western countries any control over their own borders. In his trip to
     the U.S. in October 1995 he further intruded himself into American
     domestic politics, declaring that any attempt to control legal or
     illegal immigration or to ban public assistance to illegal aliens was
     a sin. Speaking of Third World immigrants who want to get into the
     West, he told American audiences that we must treat our neighbor as
     ourselves, and that "everyone in the world is our neighbor."

     As immigration expert David Simcox summed up the Pope's policy,
     "Church pronouncements now affirm immigration as a virtually absolute
     right, while they have qualified the regulatory rights of states to
     the point where they are emptied of any legitimate scope of action." A
     Church official has written: "Catholic citizens are required to work
     to see that as far as possible the laws of their countries adhere to
     this universal norm [of open borders]."(5)

     We can't help wondering, what does the Church's open-borders posturing
     have to do with Christianity? Jesus preached the Gospel to the poor in
     spirit, telling them to open their souls to the love of God. John Paul
     II preaches liberalism to materially prosperous Western peoples,
     telling them to open their pockets, their borders, and their national
     identity to foreign peoples. True, Jesus told a rich young man to give
     all his wealth to the poor. But he did not give that counsel to
     everyone he met. He said it to a particular individual, who, it is
     apparent from the Gospel text, needed that particular advice if he was
     to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus did not, as John Paul has done,
     tell an entire political society to sacrifice its goods, which in the
     modern context would mean the government sacrificing the goods of all
     the people in that society, whether they wanted their goods to be
     sacrificed or not. ^

     Efforts by Catholic intellectuals to explain the Pope's open borders
     policy have only revealed how extreme it really is. The Catholic
     neoconservative George Weigel, after saying he agreed with immigration
     restrictionists that "national identity is important and that
     patriotism is a virtue," added the qualifier that "patriotism is not
     an absolute virtue and national identity is a secondary, if honorable,
     definition of one's self. Our national identity is subordinate to our
     identity as members of the Body of Christ, the Church." Weigel's
     remark that patriotism is not an absolute virtue seems unexceptionable
     from a Christian standpoint, until we realize that our "identity as
     members of the Body of Christ," which Weigel upholds as the highest
     value, translates in practical terms into his preference for open
     borders. "The general rule [concerning immigration]," he continues,
     "ought to be generosity." But if the general rule is generosity, what
     happens to the national identity that Weigel said is important? Under
     the existing open borders policy that Weigel supports, our national
     identity is not being properly subordinated to a higher value, it is
     being steadily eliminated by the mass intrusion of foreign cultures.

     Thus Weigel pretends to subsume the secular value of nationhood under
     the spiritual value of membership in the body of Christ, an idea to
     which no Christian could object. But what he is really doing is
     subsuming the secular value of nationhood under his own secular
     valuemass Third-World immigration. Weigel, as a devout Catholic,
     speaks of the Body of Christ. But what he really has in mind is Ben
     Wattenberg's Universal Nation.(6)

     Contrary to the liberal and neoconservative strands of Catholicism
     which regard the nation as dispensable, traditional Church teachings
     acknowledge the desirability of organizing mankind into subsidiary
     units, the largest of which is the nation. The writings of the Church
     Fathers say nothing about an obligation of a national community to
     sacrifice itself for other national communities. As the Catholic
     historian Thomas Molnar points out, Catholic doctrine has long
     recognized that the nation, like the family, is an entity possessing
     inherent rights and serving indispensable functions. Like the family,
     the nation has special claims on the individual's love and loyalty,
     and promotes important virtues that can be promoted in no other way.
     And the nation, like the family, needs protection. The sovereign's
     first duty is the care of his own people. He must attend to the good
     of his own subjects before he concerns himself with foreigners. The
     idea that there is some unlimited right of foreigners to immigrate
     into a country is not in Christianity. "Unconditional
     love"particularly unconditional love for all foreignersis strictly a
     New Age concept.^


     The above thoughts lead to a surprising conclusion. Most liberal
     Christians today affirm that creating culturally diverse societies is
     the moral, Godly, and just thing to dothe more diverse, the more just
     and Godly. But if it is our purpose to discern God's purpose, doesn't
     it seem far more likely that God would oppose the creation of
     multicultural, majority-less societies? He would oppose them, first,
     because they rob human beings of the stable cultural environments and
     the concrete networks of belonging that are essential conditions of
     personal and social flourishing; and, second, he would oppose them
     because they lead to unresolvable conflict and disorder. In opening
     America's borders to the world, our political leaders are not
     following any divine scheme, but are indulging an all-too-human
     conceit: "We can create a totally just society," they tell themselves.
     "We can stamp out cultural particularities and commonalities that have
     taken centuries or millennia to develop. We can erect a new form of
     society based on nothing but an idea. We can ignore racial and
     cultural differences and the propensity to inter-group conflict that
     has ruled all of human history. We can create an earthly utopia, a
     universal nation."

     All of which brings us to the biblical account of Babel. The
     comparison of multicultural America to the Tower of Babel has become
     such a cliché in the hands of conservative columnists over the last 20
     years that a true understanding of this parable has been lost. Indeed,
     as I will show, the conservative, or rather the neoconservative,
     understanding of this parable is the exact opposite of its true

     As told in the eleventh chapter of Genesis, the human race, in a burst
     of arrogant pride, attempts to construct a perfect human society
     purely by their own willa tower "with its top in the heavens, and let
     us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the
     face of the whole earth." Mankind hopes that this one-world society
     will prevent them from being divided into separate societies. But this
     is not what God wants. "The Lord came down to look at the city and
     tower which man had built, and the Lord said, 'If, as one people with
     one language for all, this is how they have begun to act, then nothing
     that they may propose to do will be out of their reach.'" God does not
     want man to build a universal city, because that would lead man to
     worship himself instead of God. So God confusesthat is, he
     diversifiesmen's language so that they cannot understand one another,
     and then he "scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth."

     It becomes clear that the Tower of Babel is not, as neoconservatives
     have often said, a multicultural society which breaks down because it
     lacks a common culture based on universalist ideals. On the contrary,
     the Tower of Babel represents the neoconservatives' own political
     idealthe Universal Nation. And the moral of the story is that God does
     not want men to have a single Universal Nation, he wants them to have
     distinct nations. "That is why it was called Babel," Genesis
     continues, "because there the Lord confounded the speech of the whole
     earth." But that's not all. Having divided men's language into many
     different languages, God does not want these many languages to
     co-exist in the same society: "And from there the Lord scattered them
     over the face of the whole earth."

     Thus God rejects the universal society, where the whole human race
     lives together speaking the same language, and he also (implicitly)
     rejects the multicultural society, where the whole human race lives
     together speaking different languages. God wants the human race to
     belong to a plurality of separate and finite societies, each with its
     own culture and language. This providential system for the
     organization of human life allows for the appropriate expression of
     cultural variety, even as, by demonstrating that human things are not
     absolute, it restrains and channels man's self-aggrandizing instincts.

     And this view of mankind is not limited to the Book of Genesis, as a
     supposedly primitive account of an early, tribal period of history
     when mankind presumably needed a more rudimentary form of social
     organization. If we go from the first book of the Bible to its last
     book, The Revelation of John, we find, to our astonishment, that God's
     plan still includes separate nations. In Chapter 21, after the final
     judgment on sinful humanity has occurred, after the first heaven and
     the first earth have passed away and a new heaven and a new earth have
     appeared, after the holy city, New Jerusalem, has come down out of
     heaven, a dwelling for God himself on earth, and after the total
     transformation of the world, when even the sun and moon are no longer
     needed to light the city because the glory of God is the light of it,
     and the Lamb is the lamp of it, even then

     ... the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it:
     and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it....

     And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

     In the New Jerusalem, the heavenly city, there are still distinct
     nations, and kings of nations, and these are the glories of humanity
     which are brought before the throne of God, and there transfigured in
     the light of Christ. Mankind, following the end of the world, is still
     providentially constituted of separate nations, which give it its
     character and distinctiveness, even as, for example, our earth is
     constituted of separate continents, islands, mountain ranges, and
     valleys, which give it its shape and its meaning. The physical earth
     is not a homogenous mass consisting of nothing but "equal" individual
     particles, and neither, in the biblical view, is mankind.

The Bible and the American Founding

     Coming back to earth after that visit to the New Jerusalem, we realize
     that we do not need to rely only on the Bible to establish the
     importance of nationhood. The Scriptural view of God's plan for human
     society turns out to be in accord with the natural rights tradition
     that underlies our own Declaration of Independence. Before we conclude
     this article, let us look at how nationhood is supported by philosophy
     as well as by revelation. As Locke wrote in his Second Treatise of
     Government, man receives his existence from God, and therefore has a
     natural right to preserve his existence, as well as a natural right to
     the liberty that is needed in order to preserve it. The Declaration of
     Independence took these Lockean rights of man in his individual
     capacity and applied them to man in his social or national capacity,
     when it affirmed that the American people are endowed by God with the
     rights of liberty and sovereignty, such rights being necessary for
     their collective preservation as a political society.

     In our hyper-individualism, we modern Americans have lost sight of the
     idea that the universal rights of man are not just individual but
     social. As the philosopher Leo Strauss observed, it is the
     hierarchical order of man's "natural constitution"the order of man's
     natural wants and inclinations as a being created in God's imagethat
     supplies the basis for natural rights such as liberty and property.(7)
     Furthermore, since man is not only an individual being, but a social
     being, the hierarchy of man's natural wants includes his need for
     membership in a coherent political community. Among other
     requirements, such a community cannot exist without organic links
     joining the members to each other and to the past; in other words, it
     cannot exist without a degree of cultural homogeneity.

     There is therefore a universal right, proceeding from divine and
     natural law, to preserve our own particular society, including its
     inherited cultural characteristics, the kinds of distinct qualities
     that, for example, make the Irish different from the Italians, and
     that make both of those national groups different from Indians or
     Indonesians. While the right of cultural preservation may not be
     absolute, it is nevertheless derived from the same transcendent moral
     order that is the source of our other political and civil rights.
     Indeed, it is part of what makes it possible for human beings to
     participate in that order. As C.S. Lewis put it, "If justice is a
     superstition, then so is my duty to my country or my race."^ When
     Lewis said "race," he wasn't thinking of biological race in our
     contemporary, reductive sense of the word, but of the historic fact of
     the English people, as an extended family sharing a common descent and
     a common history.

     In conclusion, whether we look to the Bible or to the American
     Founding tradition, we find that the dream of erecting a single,
     undifferentiated global society violates God's plan for humanity. And,
     as Genesis tells us, God punishes this universalist society by
     converting it into a Babelthat is, he destroys it.

The heart of our civilizational crisis

     That the Christian churches have nevertheless urged this universalist
     project on the West leads us to a terrible paradox. On the one hand,
     Christianity is the historic and spiritual foundation of Western
     civilization and of the nations that have constituted it. On the other
     hand, much of organized Christianity as it actually exists
     todayChristianity infused with liberal One-Worldismis the avowed enemy
     of the West and its historic peoples. This One-World Christianity is a
     distortion of true Christianity, it is what Christianity has become
     under the influence of left-leftist ideology. A more sane and balanced
     Christianity is possible, which gives due regard to the subsidiary
     values of culture and nation.

     An example of this healthier Christian attitude was the reverence that
     Pope John Paul II expressed toward the Polish nation during his
     epochal first papal visit to that country in 1979. During that
     extraordinary journey, which played a key role in the ultimate defeat
     of Soviet Communism, he spoke of Poland, not as a political and
     economic project or as an abstract idea, but as a distinct historical
     and spiritual entity, as a collective personality whose life has
     extended over centuries. Unfortunately, the Pope throughout the rest
     of his papacy gave such recognition only to his native Poland, and,
     apparently, only because Polish culture was struggling to survive
     under Communist oppression. When it came to the United States, he took
     the opposite tack. America as the Pope saw it (and indeed as American
     liberals and mainstream conservatives themselves see it) has no
     national culture of its own, but exists only as a charity service for
     the world (the left view) or as the generator of a global
     democratic-capitalist ideology (the neoconservative view).

     Nevertheless, John Paul II's magnificent, if too narrowly applied,
     evocation of national culture as the vehicle through which a
     historical people express their relationship with God can be seen as
     the model for a restored, pro-Western Church. Liberal Christianity's
     denial of the identity and sovereignty of the historical Western
     peoples has led many Western patriots to be deeply suspicious of
     Christianity, even to reject it altogether, when what is most needed
     is a comprehensive renewal of the Christian faith, the religion which
     glorifies God and his truth, not man and his desires, and which
     provides a place under God for all peoples.^

     [24]Lawrence Auster is the author of [25]Erasing America: The Politics
     of the Borderless Nation. He offers a traditionalist conservative
     perspective at [26]View from the Right.


     1. Pope Pius X, E Supremi Apostolatus, 1903.

     2. Abbé George de Nante, The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth
     Century, August 15, 1997, p. 10.^

     3."Fling Wide the Gates," The Christian Century, September 4, 1957, p.

     4. David Simcox, "The Pope's Visit: Is Mass Immigration A Moral
     Imperative?" The Social Contract, Winter 1995-96, p. 107.^

     5. Alfonso Figueroa Deck, S.J., quoted by Simcox.^

     6. George Weigel, "Why the New Isolations are Wrong," American
     Purpose, January 1992.^

     7. See Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, 1953, p. 127.^


    11. http://cspc.org/
    12. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Contact/Contact.asp
    13. http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/createcomment.asp?ID=16159
    14. http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/createcomment.asp?ID=16159
    15. http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/?ID=16159
    16. http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/?ID=16159
    17. http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=16159
    18. http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=16159
    23. http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/authors.asp?ID=650
    24. mailto:Lawrence.auster at att.net
    25. http://www.aicfoundation.com/booklets.htm
    26. http://www.amnation.com/vfr

More information about the paleopsych mailing list