What is the “Gray”?

Many Americans believe that anyone with the wisdom of a few years knows that there is a gray.  When chance brings them together with someone who believes that there is only black and white, they either write them off as a “religious whack job”, “tolerate” them and breathe a sigh of relief when they are gone or they are outright hostile towards them.  Children who believe there is only black and white are ridiculed by teachers and counseled by school counselors in an effort to “help” them—as though they have something wrong with them!

So just what are black, white and  gray?  Black is, of course, evil and white is good.  You know, Satan and God.  Black and white are metaphors of morality.  Many people have a moral code that is a bit fuzzy around the edges.  They can usually differentiate between right and wrong but they are also often hesitant to try to unravel the moral complexities.  Their hesitation stems from emotion triumphing over logic, an inability to admit that something they have done is wrong or a lack of a solid standard upon which to make the judgment.  These are the promoters of the gray.  The gray is supposedly an indefinite area between the black and white.  It is an area of moral uncertainty of indefinite size that varies in each person’s unique moral code.

A moral code is typically defined by a number of things in a person’s life.  It is influenced by one’s upbringing, one’s peers, etc.  It is also influenced by contact with or isolation from religion.  It is influenced when one’s parents divorce and it is influenced by the outcome of prior decisions.  It can be as unique as a person’s frame of reference.  This potential for wide deviations was recognized as destructive of society from the very beginning.  Humans enforced a strict adherence to a shared set of values, or moral code, as they built their societies.  Those who failed to adhere to the shared moral code, what we think of now as the law, were shown the door very quickly because it was recognized as a disqualification for association with that society.  We recognize the same truth today when we sentence criminals to prison or even to death.

… freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it. A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, …” — John Locke, Second Treatise, Ch. 4 § 21.

The shared moral code of the United States is based upon the Christian Holy Bible.

Our law and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind.  It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. …this is a religious people.  This is historically true.  From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation…we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth…this is a Christian nation.

 

                                                                                                                              Justice David J. Brewer

                                                                                                                              Holy Trinity Church v. U.S.

Justice Brewer was, in penning the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, not suggesting that Christianity is in any way the “established” religion of the United States.  He went on to write a book entitled The United States A Christian Nation:

But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation?  Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it.  On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  Neither is it a Christian nation in the sense that all of its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians.  On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders.  Numbers of people profess other religions, and many reject all.  Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially.  In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

                                                                                          Justice David J. Brewer

                                                                                          The United States A Christian Nation, (1905)

What Justice Brewer, and the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States, says in his opinion is that the Christian religion provides the standard by which morality is measured in the United States.  It forms the basis for the core philosophies that comprise the foundation of the United States of America.  One of those philosophies is articulated in John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government. Below, the first several lines from Second Treatise are quoted:

Sec. 1. It having been shewn in the foregoing discourse,

1. That Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood, or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, or dominion over the world, as is pretended:

2. That if he had, his heirs, yet, had no right to it:

3. That if his heirs had, there being no law of nature nor positive law of God that determines which is the right heir in all cases that may arise, the right of succession, and consequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined:

Continued exploration of Second Treatise reveals even more references to God and First Treatise refers to the Bible and God even more liberally.

There are other philosophies contemporary to or pre-dating the establishment of the United States that do not reference God.  Many would have us believe that these formed the basis for the nation.  A serious examination of history by any fair-minded person will reveal the truth.  It is an exploration that is rewarding and educational and I encourage all to do the research for yourselves.

The point one hopes can be made is that there is a solid standard by which all Christians, by definition, can measure to discern the difference between good and evil.  The United States, and a vast majority of Western civilization, can trace their laws and their current moral codes back to Christianity.  So why is this important?  It is important in this discussion because the “gray” and its promoters are, knowingly or not, engaged in decaying the very foundations upon which our civilization and government exist.  “Who could want to do that?”, you ask.  The sad fact of the matter is that anyone with a good education in history or the will to pursue self –education of same can find the proof of what I say above readily—and I do mean anyone, including our enemies.

“This grasp of the duality of all phenomena is vital in our understanding of politics.  It frees one from the myth that one approach is positive and another negative.  There is no such thing in life.  One man’s positive is another man’s negative.  The description of any procedure as “positive” or “negative” is the mark of a political illiterate.

Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals (Vintage books, 1971) Page 17

When the idea of the gray was born it was not intended to be a weapon aimed at our country.  The concept of the “gray” comes from Taoism or Daoism and the gray appears early in Western society as well, in the form of Plato’s Dialectic.  They both share a central theme: There is good in everything evil and there is evil in everything good.  One cannot know precisely how much of either is in a specific action and, therefore, everything is shades of gray.  The basic principles of the dialectic:

  1. 1.        Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time (this idea is not accepted by some dialecticians).
  2. 2.        Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides (contradictions).
  3. 3.        Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).
  1. Change moves in spirals (or helices), not circles (sometimes referred to as “negation of the negation”).

One sees the symbol of the Tao message in many places in modern society.  It is the symbol called Yin and Yang.

 

Yin & Yang

The moral uncertainty reflected in the gray was compelling to a couple of young Germans.  They were seeking a weapon to fight capitalism and both understood that one must attack the foundations of capitalism to destroy it.  In Western civilization the foundation of capitalism is Christianity and both had been taught so at university (if you question this learn the history of the Knights Templar).  Karl and Friedrich finally developed the theory that they believed capable of toppling Western civilization.  They called this theory Dialectical Materialism.  The book they wrote is called Das Kapital.  The political/economic system it advocates is called Communism.

How is Communism aimed directly at the heart of the West?  One of the core tenets of Communism, or Dialectical Materialism, is that man has no soul.  Communists believe that man is merely animated matter.  Without a soul, the argument for God-given Rights is undercut.  This is also the purpose behind the advancement of Darwin’s theory of Evolution.  The links between Marx and Darwin are well documented.  Anything that is destructive of the foundation is elevated and anything that strengthens it is ridiculed.

The United States is founded upon the belief that Rights are directly conferred by God upon each individual person.  The excerpt below is from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The Founders warned us repeatedly to not lose sight of the origins of our Great Nation:

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

The Founders knew what Marx and Engels knew: the political destruction of the United States depends upon the destruction of the foundation of our nation.  The theft of faith from millions of Americans by our schools and institutions and the all-out war the “progressives” are waging against religion finds its origins in this simple understanding.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them…Whatever may be conceded to the influence of a refined education…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.[1]                     

                                                                                                                                                                  George Washington

The gray is, quite simply, the decay of the foundations of the United States of America.  Once the standard has been removed from sight and the ambiguity of the gray prevails the United States will cease to exist.

One evening a young lady went out with a wealthy man.  They were having a quite wonderful time and all was going well.  At the end of the evening the man realized that he was not going to be able to charm the young lady enough to get her to have sex with him, so he asked her: “Would you sleep with me for $20.00?”.  The young lady looked offended and replied that she would not.  Undaunted, the man asked, “Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?”.  The young woman enthusiastically nodded her approval but was taken aback at the millionaire’s next question: “How about $50?”.  “What do you think I am?”, the young lady fumed.  The man replied, “We have already established what you are–now we are just debating the price.”.

                                                                                                                                                Unknown to author

 


[1]James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899) Vol. I, pg. 220, September 17, 1796.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s