Creationist Wisdom — Example 68: Communism

FOR Labor Day we present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from Profitable Labor, posted at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — truly the fountainhead of creationist wisdom.

That article is particularly significant because it’s presented as a Labor Day message, and the author is Henry Morris IV, described as Director of Donor Relations at the Institute for Creation Research, and whose name indicates descent from Henry Morris, a founder of ICR.

But first let’s step back for a moment to put this essay in context. There are many forms of Christian communism, including Christian socialism (which is mostly a European phenomenon), and also the Christian left, a term often used in the US to describe people like William Jennings Bryan, Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, and Barack Obama (or at least his church).

When you add to that Marx’s crazed and long-debunked labor theory of value, the result is frequently a demand for state-enforced income equality, not only between genders and races, but also in an absolute way.

Such demands come from ambitious leaders manipulating the emotions of their starry-eyed followers who are unaware of what their ideas really mean. The result is a fanatical movement for egalitarianism, inevitably leading not only to confiscation and redistribution of property, but also to a variety of other “social justice” regulatory schemes.

We know what you’re thinking: Skip the politics, Curmudgeon! Talk about “The Controversy” between evolution and creationism!

Okay, here it comes — some choice excerpts from ICR’s Labor Day essay. Bear in mind that this is coming from a leading creationist outfit. The bold font was added by us:

The American celebration of Labor Day was established to recognize the important part played by workers in the development of the nation during the Industrial Revolution. Many countries today now hold similar celebrations in honor of work and those who contribute. Yet it is significant that the modern recognition of the dignity and importance of labor largely originated in Christian nations, most especially in England and America.

What will these guys come up with next — a scriptural mandate for labor unions? Let’s read on:

England was the first to pass labor laws in the early 1800s, followed by the first labor unions in the 1820s. The movement spread across the Atlantic to the shores of America, where a multitude of labor groups sprang up to champion the rights of industrial workers.

That’s nice, but if all that stuff is really scriptural, then — pray tell — what accounts for the embarrassing fact that 18 centuries passed before such laws were implemented? Not enough religious monarchies before then?

We continue:

And yet, one of the great inequities of human life seems to be the lack of a consistent relationship between the diligence of hard work and the reward received for that labor. Some men may work hard all their lives, yet live in extreme poverty. And those who inherit great wealth may see it grow abundantly simply on the interest received from investments. The problem is that perfect “profit-for-labor” equity can never be achieved while humanity’s entire dominion is under God’s curse of bondage to sin and death (Genesis 2:17).

There it is, and it’s not very subtle. Bible-based communism is the ideal (says ICR), and inequality of wealth is a “problem” due to sin. Yeah — there’s no other reason why Walt Disney should be richer than the kid he hires to run around in a Mickey Mouse costume. The “sinful” inequality of outcomes that occurs when all are free to legally pursue their opportunities in free markets, resulting in innovation and wealth creation that benefits everyone — even the poorest — is seen by ICR as being ungodly.

Isn’t it odd that refugees never flee toward nations that enforce the allegedly scriptural goal of perfect equality? Maybe those refugees are all godless “Darwinists” who don’t know what’s good for them. Thank heaven for creationists to show us the truth.

Click over to ICR and read it all if you like, but from what we’ve given you their thinking couldn’t be more clear. Not only are these people anti-science, but they’re anti-property rights, anti-free enterprise, and anti-freedom in general. Ultimately they’re anti-reason about everything. Creationism is just the tip of the iceberg.

This, dear reader, is why we continuously emphasize the virtues of the Enlightenment. Creationists who call themselves “social conservatives” are essentially irrational anti-Enlightenment theocrats. Were they ever to prevail, then life on earth would be hell — as it was in what they think of as the good old days.

So what do we learn from all this? Whenever you encounter people advocating state-enforced communism, socialism, creationism, radical egalitarianism, or anything similar, it’s all anti-Enlightenment nonsense — demanded by people who aren’t right in the head, and who should never be entrusted with political power.

And before we forget — Happy Labor Day!

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

18 responses to “Creationist Wisdom — Example 68: Communism

  1. In Romania, a country that has suffered under 50 years of communist dictatorship that included some religious persecution (mostly for political reasons), christian fundies now accuse Communism of being “Atheistic”, “Satanic”, “Masonic” and “Jewish”.

    Fundies are nuts!

  2. Fun fact: I posted on my blog that Hitler quote, the one that begins with “My feelings as a Christian point to [my Lord, Jesus Christ as a fighter who recognised the Jewish poison for what it was]” or something like that, and some guys said it sounds exactly like Romanian christian rhetoric. They would have thought it belonged to our very own fundies, if I hadn’t mentioned it was spoken by Hitler.

    So we should ask these fundies, what is the political orientation of Christianity? Is it Egalitarism/Communism? Is it Fascism/Nazism?

    The promise of the eternal Gulag following the “just” Final Judgement makes it bring the worse in both systems.

  3. Bravo, Curmudgeon, a most excellent piece!

    Social Conservatives may spout the words ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ all they like, but their agenda is the antithesis of reason and freedom.

  4. Great Claw says:

    Social Conservatives may spout the words ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ all they like, but their agenda is the antithesis of reason and freedom.

    I really hate what those people have done to the Republican party. It’s no longer an alternative to the other party — the one that’s even more explicitly statist and leftist. I never thought I’d sound like George Wallace, but … there’s not a dime’s worth of difference.

  5. I just made a minor editorial addition — an example of sinful income disparity: Why should Walt Disney be richer than the kid he hires to run around in a Mickey Mouse costume?

  6. What? No damnation for Richard Nixon?

    Since the cancer cannot be excised from the Republican Party, what 3rd party can become the standard bearer for Liberty?

  7. I like your attentiveness to the vast (and mostly suppressed) differences between the reactionary, anti-Enlightenment component of today’s Republican Party and the libertarian, pro-Enlightenment wing. Reagan was able to hold them together through sheer force of personality; his successors and imitators have not been able to rise to the occasion. (There might be a similar discrepancy within the contemporary Democratic Party, between its liberal wing and its socialist wing, but I’m not sure.)

    One minor point: though the Christian Right is radically egalitarian, it’s egalitarianism is not the same as that of socialism. Socialism maintains that an egalitarian society can be accomplished through human efforts; the Christian Right maintains that while egalitarianism is, in some sense, true, no human efforts can do anything to make society more egalitarian than it already is. So while the Christian Right in its more extreme forms condemns existing social arrangements as inherently unjust or immoral, it is also quite content to leave them as they are.

    The main exception to that generalization, so far as I know, is Dominionism, but it is a very small movement and my personal impression is that Dominionism reached its high-water mark under Bush, and since Obama took office, it’s been ebbing away.

  8. Carl Sachs says: “… differences between the reactionary, anti-Enlightenment component of today’s Republican Party and the libertarian, pro-Enlightenment wing.”

    The extremes in both parties never really go away, and sometimes they dominate. It’s relatively rare for both parties to be controlled by their extreme factions, but that’s where we are now. The trick is to identify the factions, to publicize their existence, and to strive to keep them from becoming dominant. At the moment it’s an uphill struggle.

  9. Carl Sachs wrote: “..the Christian Right maintains that while egalitarianism is, in some sense, true, no human efforts can do anything to make society more egalitarian than it already is.”

    Well one can – demanding that pseudoscience be taught under the pretense of “critical analysis,” at taxpayers’ expense. What could be more “egalitarian” than giving those working in the quote mines equal opportunity – oops, I mean equal outcome – than those working in the labs and digging fossils?

  10. I’m afraid I don’t quite see it that way, Frank.

    The Christian Right believes (wrongly, we would say) that the commitment to social egalitarianism only makes sense within a specific metaphysics/worldview, that of Christianity itself. So when they want that worldview given equal time with Darwinism, they see that as at best giving “air time” to the only view which makes social egalitarianism intelligible in the first place.

    So “teach the controversy” is not a matter of implementing the demands of egalitarianism, as an issue of social justice — it’s a matter of presenting egalitarianism as a demand — even though it is a demand that human beings, in their “fallen” and “sinful” state, cannot meet by any arrangement of institutions.

    That said, I don’t think that evolutionary biologists should take up the burden of showing that our best theories are compatible with any political philosophies, whether left, right, or center. Nor does anything stand in the way of a Darwinist being also a Maoist, fascist, liberal, conservative, atheist, Christian, etc.

    Though I’m not sure how far I want to push this point, I want to say something like this: scientific theories are neutral with respect to world-views.

  11. Carl, I’m not focusing on any deep philosophical or religious issues, only of the double standard of the anti-evolution activists (most but not all far-right fundamentalist Christians). Today on the radio I heard a caller complain that a History text book devoted gave Marilyn Monroe more coverage than George Washington. I doubt that the caller would complain about the “revisionist prehistory” text “Of Pandas and People.” In fact, that type of caller would whine that “it’s only fair” to give it at least “equal time” with real science texts.

  12. Fair enough, Frank. You’re right, the rhetoric of equality is crucial to their strategy these days.

  13. We don’t need a third party, we just need new leadership within the national Republican Party.

    Being from Indiana, I have come to have great respect for our governor, Mitch Daniels. The man says he’s not interested in running for national office, but I suspect that’s just a strategy to hold the slings and arrows from the left at bay. If he were to announce that he might be interested in national office, you can bet that MoveOn.org would launch an all-out character assassination attack.

    He’s smart, practical, pro-enlightenment, not an idealogue by any means, and definitely pro-private enterprise as a former CEO of Eli Lilly. The thing I like most about Daniels is that he is not partisan.

  14. Frank J. noted

    Today on the radio I heard a caller complain that a History text book gave Marilyn Monroe more coverage than George Washington

    I thought Marilyn Monroe was noted for her greater uncoverage than George Washington…

  15. OK, there’s a more serious point to make arising from Frank J.’s excellent post:

    Today on the radio I heard a caller complain that a History text book devoted gave Marilyn Monroe more coverage than George Washington. I doubt that the caller would complain about the “revisionist prehistory” text “Of Pandas and People.”

    I wholly agree with Frank J.’s point here that this ‘caller’ would not complain (indeed, not even perceive) the ‘revisionism’ inherent in Of Pandas and People.

    But there’s a big issue even before one gets to that hypothetical, to wit: is there really such a thing as a ‘History text book’ (that is, a standard source used in American schools) that actually does afford more space to discussing Marilyn Monroe than George Washington? Without an author and title (never mind the ISBN, one can always get that from Amazon), does such a thing really exist?

    Either (A) someone has picked up a real book — something like ‘A History of Sexual Icons in the United States’ (I’m making that up, but actually, doesn’t sound like too bad a read, come to think on it) — and presumed it was a school text book, or (B) just made up this farrago from whole cloth. I’d guess ‘B’ in this instance.

    Creationists/Fundies do this sort of thing all the time. Two years back, I had an extended (and ultimately pointless) flurry of e-mail correspondence with the notorious Dr. Michael Egnor and Casey Luskin over a claim Egnor advance in a DI blog, to wit:

    It’s a federal crime to question Darwin’s theory in a public school.

    Repeated requests for the exact federal statute indicated here, its date of enactment and penalties proscribed, yielded no end of waffle and nonsense, but never an answer and certainly neither a retraction of this piece of nonsense or an acknowledgment of error or falsification.

    Do they even know anymore when they are flat-out lying? Or does their delusion run so deep they can no longer distinguish the difference between empirical evidence and manufactured urban myths?

    In dealing with such deluded folks, it’s rather academic to consider they could recognise the ‘revisionism’ of their own cobbled-together texts like Pandas. Still worse, their lies and distortions take on a life of their own and circulate forever more. I don’t doubt there are people out there wholly convinced, by nothing more than a caller on a talk show, that American school kids have text books on Marilyn Monroe rather than George Washington, leave alone President James Monroe.

    …Mind you, how interesting might our history have been had we had a Marilyn Monroe Doctrine? Any further attempts by European powers to colonise the Americas, and gunboats are a girls’ best friend!

  16. Our good friends at Little Green Footballs have a link to this thread. Welcome, green people! What took you guys so long?

  17. It’s a federal crime to question Darwin’s theory in a public school.

    That’s very interesting. What is prohibited is the teaching of creationism and of intelligent design. The case against intelligent design went down as it did because (a) the expert witnesses in ID were unable to convince the court that ID counts as science under existing criteria of good scientific practice and (b) the school-board members couldn’t conceal their religious motivations.

    So the admission here is, the only reasons why anyone would want to “question Darwin’s theory in public schools” is because of their religious motives. Egnor has almost confessed that there’s no empirical basis for questioning evolutionary theory.

    I also liked his conflation of “evidence” and “appearance”. There clearly seems to be something like design in biological systems. Whether that appearance is best explained by design is another question altogether.

  18. Retiredscienceguy:

    If there is one thing that is clear from Curmy’s Blog here, it is that the Creationists have so badly infected the Republican Party, that kicking their sorry butts out is next to impossible. Better leadership won’t solve that problem.

    I think what we need is a Classic Liberal Party, with “liberal” defined as it was and should be. No Creationist would go near such a Party and it would appeal to much of the mush middle. It could be very competitive.