Note below some comment on the US pushback against the European shift toward Soviet-style totalitarianism (i.e. the J. D. Vance speech), as well as comment on the partisan politicization of US justice.
When considering the issues here below, first set aside the simple-minded dualism of “atheism versus religion”, as if that were the actual alternatives. That is a dead approach to working through these issues.
Better, as my paraphrase of Mao goes, “Let (8 billion) flowers bloom.” C’mon, we are a creative bunch. We can do better than that dualist extremism that distorts the issues entirely and locks people within limited and false contrasts.
And props/kudos to all those people comfortable to remain within a religious tradition for whatever reason (i.e. sense of family, community, shared enterprise, etc.), people who have found ways to ignore the darker stuff in their traditions and focus on the good elements and thereby moderate their positions. Go my friends and family, go.
So, a sincere “Clap, clap, clap” to all moderation of religion projects. As Jefferson and Tolstoy said, “Pull the diamonds out of the dung”. Like Jefferson’s abbreviated New Testament that tried to include only the original teaching of Historical Jesus. An original version of the “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel research, the closest that we get to what the man actually taught.
See Bob Brinsmead’s comment below in relation to his latest essay on the Hellenization of Christianity.
Some excerpts from Bob’s comments:
“The Christianity built on the Christ myth which has been the central plank of Christian civilisation is not a friend of democracy, rights of women, or emancipation of slaves, opposition to divine right of kings. For over a thousand years, lay persons were not allowed to read the Bible and some of the first people who insisted this was a human right and had a copy of the Bible in their house were in danger of being put to death…
“Just as the 18th century was about to dawn, a young student by the name of Akenhead was hung in Scotland, the home of the Enlightenment, because he dared to suggest that Moses did not write the first five books of the OT. There was no religious liberty in Protestant- founded America until the Declaration of Independence and the forming of the Constitution of the US guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the separation of church and state which thereby became the pioneer in liberal democracy…
“The recognised Fathers of America were traditional Christians — that is to say, they did not believe in the Creeds of the Church which spelled out the divinity of Christ. In other words, they did not believe the Christ myth of the church. Neither did Abraham Lincoln a generation later. Jefferson said that it would be more pardonable to believe in no God than to believe in atrocious teachings of the theologians. Lincoln said that Christianity is not my religion…
“The fact is that as long as the Christ myth prevailed as the central teaching of Christendom, there was no religious tolerance but a blood-soaked history of intolerance of dissent from the formation of Nicene Creed of 325 when Constantine issued an edict of death for any dissent from that Creed…
“Historical Christianity was no friend of liberal democracy. During most of its history, Christendom was a totalitarian union of Church and State. It’s record of human rights was terrible, its treatment of women a disgrace, its support of the institution of slavery a huge embarrassment, its defence of the divine right of kings (even by the great John Wesley) and record of religious tolerance a blot on its history. The tragedy of history is that the church made its deification of Christ its central glory instead of the teachings of Jesus declaring, “Love your enemies…be compassionate as the most High is compassionate” (Luke 6; 28-36)…
“Let us learn something from the American Fathers of liberal democracy who, while embracing the essential teachings of Jesus, rejected the Christian doctrine of Christ as a myth that was inimical to the foundation of a liberal democracy.” (End of Brinsmead quotes)
Critical to successfully fighting a battle against a monster is to know the basic elements that shape the monstrous system that you are fighting. To understand the real issues involved in your struggle.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are fundamentally the same on the most basic beliefs/themes, notably the nature of the deity that is the cohering center of their belief systems. The highly conditional theologies of these religions (conditions to appease and please their Gods) render them incapable to communicate the greatest theological/ethical discovery ever presented to humanity.
For two millennia we have had the stunningly liberating alternative to the theologies of these religions, the insight to inspire the final great stage of human liberation, freedom in the depths of human consciousness/subconscious from the demands and conditions of religious threat theology.
A common wisdom sage, two millennia ago, gave us the ultimate TOE insight, a profoundly nonreligious insight. He took the central human ideal of love to its highest reach as “nonretaliatory, unconditional love”, revealing it as a universal and nonreligious ideal.
He stated that God was a nonretaliatory, non-tribal, unconditional deity- i.e. “sun and rain given to all alike”- and then urged us to similarly be like our Creator.
His great insight can be summed in the single most profound statement of ethics and theology ever uttered, “Love your enemies because God does”. Base your behavior on the true nature of God as no conditions love.
Love is the most common and powerful reality in life, a fundamental impulse of the common human spirit. The natural impulse of love is to treat all others universally and unconditionally. But the myriad conditions of religious traditions deform this true and natural impulse of love, rendering it subhuman by constricting it with religious conditions, and claiming that such religious conditions please a similarly conditional deity.
Conclusions:
Religious traditions, along with their priesthoods, have presented themselves across history as the true and authoritative representatives of God to humanity, “divinely appointed” (a self-referencing claim of religous elites) to tell people who God is and how to appease and please deity.
Religion as the epitome of institutionalized conditions cannot communicate the true nature of deity as the Ultimate Unconditional Reality. Religion, as essentially a conditional institution, cannot therefore communicate the true nature of love as unconditional and universal. Because their theologies are highly conditional (theology long functioning as humanity’s highest ideal and authority) religious traditions cannot communicate the true nature of the ethical side of the “behavior based on belief” relationship.
Most egregious in the mix, religious traditions have presented deity in terms of primitive threat theology and its subhuman/inhumane features- i.e. (1) God as tribal (favoring true believers, damning unbelievers, keeping people divided with animosity toward differing others), (2) as a dominating King/Lord/Ruler who demands human submission (i.e. the primitive myth of “humanity created to serve the gods”), and most dangerous- (3) God as a punitive and destroying deity, manifesting divine wrath through apocalyptic destruction of the world and eternal hell myths. Such beliefs have long deformed human systems of “justice” to be harshly punitive and violently destructive.
Holding such an ideal and authority before humanity- i.e. God as tribal, dominating, and punitive destroyer- well, is it any wonder that we have had the brutal and bloody history of religious traditions? Again, that long felt obligation of people to base their behavior on belief that has been informed mainly by religious beliefs across the millennia.
That felt obligation arises from our primal impulse for meaning and purpose, to act like our ultimate Daddy (Creator) and thereby fulfill our real purpose in life.
What Jesus referred to when he ended his message with “Be unconditionally merciful just as your Father is unconditionally merciful” (Luke 6). Stated even more potently as “Love your enemy because God does”. That contradicted entirely the previous theologies and ethics of all mythologies/religions.
Historical Jesus’ stunning new teaching on love as an unconditional reality, a nonreligious reality, changes everything in human thought, emotion, motivation, and hence in human response/behavior. He presented a truly humane definition of our highest ideal- love- what identifies us as authentically human.
Any thorough reformation of religion must go beyond tinkering at the periphery to engage a full-frontal dealing with the core issues of the deformed and dehumanizing nature of religion, religious deity, and thereby do proper reformation of human ethics. Stop beating around the bush and go directly to the heart of the monster.
This project is about properly cleaning up humanity’s highest guiding ideals/authorities, what the military guy and Richard Landes argued in stating that you will only continue to see eruptions of violence and mass-death, and related pathologies, until you go after the ideas that incite and validate such eruptions. I would hone that to argue that you have to go after the “cohering center” of such systems of belief, the monster theology that gives life to the rest of the complex of bad ideas.
Here below are Bob Brinsmead’s essays on Historical Jesus, the first showing that Jesus took up the Old Testament protest against sacrifice and he was eventually killed for protesting sacrifices (the overthrowing of tables at the Temple in Jerusalem).
The stunningly profound contradiction is that Paul then rejected the actual story of that historical person, and his message, to create the entirely contrary myth of Christ as the supreme sacrifice of a godman to appease an angry God. There is no more profound contradiction in all history, and it dominates the New Testament.
Bob’s other essay details the history of how Hellenism shaped Judaism, Christianity, Paul’s Christ myth, and subsequently our Western civilization. I have previously posted James Tabor’s comments on this in “Paul and Jesus”.
See the following essays of Bob Brinsmead at…
https://bobbrinsmead.com/the-historical-jesus-what-the-scholars-are-saying/
https://bobbrinsmead.com/the-doctrine-of-christ-and-the-triump-of-hellenism/
The essays are linked here by permission of the author.
These comments in a recent post from Bob, the full version of the excerpts posted above.
“The Christianity built on the Christ myth which has been the central plank of Christian civilisation is not a friend of democracy, rights of women, or emancipation of slaves, opposition to divine right of kings. For over a thousand years, lay persons were not allowed to read the Bible and some of the first people who insisted this was a human right and had a copy of the Bible in their house were in danger of being put to death. Even after the Bible had been translated in the 16th century, no one in Christian nations was permitted to engage in any literary criticism of the Bible.
“Just as the 18th century was about to dawn, a young student by the name of Akenhead was hung in Scotland, the home of the Enlightenment, because he dared to suggest that Moses did not write the first five books of the Old Testament. There was no religious liberty in Protestant-founded America until the Declaration of Independence and the forming of the Constitution of the US guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the separation of church and state which thereby became the pioneer in liberal democracy.
“What is crucial here is to acknowledge that none of the recognised Fathers of America were traditional Christians — that is to say, they did not believe in the Creeds of the Church which spelled out the divinity of Christ. In other words, they did not believe the Christ myth of the church. Neither did Abraham Lincoln a generation later. Jefferson said that it would be more pardonable to believe in no God than to believe in atrocious teachings of the theologians. Lincoln said that Christianity is not my religion.
“Jeffrey Butz has written a book claiming that the fathers of America preserved the essential teachings of James the Just- or what came to be called Jewish Christianity which never accepted that Jesus was virgin born or divine. The only part of the New Testament that the Fathers accepted was what they understood as the teachings of Jesus. But even then, as Jefferson demonstrated by his Jefferson Bible, it was the teachings of Jesus that he was able to sort out from the dung of inferior human opinions that sometimes corrupted the pure teaching of Jesus.
“The question we need to ask is this: Would Jefferson have written his famous preamble to the Constitution and established a revolutionary liberal democracy if he was a traditional Christian who embraced the churches’ doctrine of Christ? The fact is that as long as the Christ myth prevailed as the central teaching of Christendom, there was no religious tolerance but a blood-soaked history of intolerance of dissent from the formation of Nicene Creed of 325 when Constantine issued an edict of death for any dissent from that Creed. Even the Reformation did not renounce a death sentence of dissent from this Creed which affirmed the absolute deity of Christ.
“If orthodox Christianity had prevailed then instead of being proud of the Fathers of America, there would have been calls for their execution as it was for the previous 1,500 or so years. Historical Christianity was no friend of liberal democracy. During most of its history, Christendom was a totalitarian union of Church and State. It’s record of human rights was terrible, its treatment of women a disgrace, its support of the institution of slavery a huge embarrassment, its defence of the divine right of kings (even by the great John Wesley) and record of religious tolerance a blot on its history.
“The tragedy of history is that the church made its deification of Christ its central glory instead of the teachings of Jesus declaring, “Love your enemies…be compassionate as the Most High is compassionate” (Luke 6; 28-36). If that had been the Creed of the Church, then its history would never have been so stained with the shedding of so much blood and so little tolerance of its differing others.
“Let us learn something from the American Fathers of liberal democracy who, while embracing the essential teachings of Jesus, rejected the Christian doctrine of Christ as a myth that was inimical to the foundation of a liberal democracy.”
Bob Brinsmead
See below: “The common themes of the three great Western religions”
Note: Coming soon, a response to those advocating for a generalized revival of religion, apparently without a clear distinction between “good and bad” in religious traditions.
Added notes:
The closest that we get to manifesting universal, no conditions love in human society is through the principles, systems of common law, and representative institutions of Classic Liberalism, as in liberal democracy, where governments are maintained to protect the rights and freedoms of all citizens, equally. Where the state bureaucracy exists and functions to “serve the people”.
Governments best counter the domination impulse of elites and bureaucrats, preventing their impulse to excessive intrusion and meddling in citizen’s freedom, by constantly working to lower taxation and regulations.
An illustration of state intrusion that undermines liberal democracy:
J.D. Vance gave a stirring presentation warning the Europeans that they are dangerously undermining liberal democracy with their censorship crusades, silencing and banning opposition, even cancelling elections.
Here is Vance’s speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCOsgfINdKg
Here is the transcript of Vance’s speech as related to the current European shift toward old-style Soviet totalitarianism:
https://www.racket.news/p/jd-vances-speech-in-munich
Matt Tabbi’s comments on Vance’s speech and the responsive hysteria of the European left, over having their shift toward totalitarianism exposed. Note in this link how Woke leftist governments immediately throw out the same old smears of “rightwing extremism”- dog whistle for Nazi, white supremacist, etc. Such a tired old dirty trick.
https://www.racket.news/p/after-vance-blasts-europe-the-mask
And this critical element of Classic Liberalism:
A definition of habeas corpus (from varied online definitions):
This is especially critical in light of the politicization of justice systems to criminalize, censor, and silence opponents, as we have seen with the Democratic party lawfare against Trump over past years, along with the larger Woke Progressive assault on democracy through censorship and criminalization of opponents. This is now more evident in Europe and its attack on populism. That is part of a larger European long-term pathology to criminalize more and more aspects of life. Daniel Hannan noted this in his book “Inventing Freedom”, the obsession of Europeans to make endless laws that manifests a totalitarian, busybody spirit to meddle in and control all aspects of life. The cutting edge of another eruption of totalitarianism.
The habeas corpus points:
“A habeas corpus application is used by persons who feel they are being wrongfully detained. Upon application, the individual is brought before a judge who will determine whether the detainment is lawful.”
“A writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person’s release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.”
“The literal meaning of habeas corpus is “you should have the body”—that is, the judge or court should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought forward so that the legality of that person’s detention can be assessed. In United States law, ‘habeas corpus ad subjiciendum’ (the full name of what habeas corpus typically refers to) is also called “the Great Writ,” and it is not about a person’s guilt or innocence, but about whether custody of that person is lawful under the U.S. Constitution. Common grounds for relief under habeas corpus— “relief” in this case being a release from custody—include a conviction based on illegally obtained evidence; a denial of effective assistance of counsel; or a conviction by a jury that was improperly selected and impaneled.” (Miriam Webster)
And some interesting comment from Conrad Black on the abuses in US justice and how Canada could contribute to improving that justice:
“Put Canada on a (trade) war footing: We must teach the U.S. a lesson it will never forget”, Conrad Black, Feb.15, 2025
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/put-canada-on-a-trade-war-footing
One quote:
“And we should contribute heavily to American foundations that provide legal aid to the victims of that country’s corrupt criminal justice system. The great American democracy has around five per cent of the world’s population and 25 per cent of its incarcerated people. Pew Research found that in 2022, nearly 90 per cent of defendants in federal criminal cases plead guilty and of those that did go to trial, prosecutors won 99.6 per cent of them. This is due to the corrupt abuse of the plea-bargain system and the granting of immunity for perjury. We would only be following President Trump’s well-justified condemnation of the American justice system and doing the U.S. a favour in helping to force American prosecutors to try at least half of their cases and bring that appalling system to a complete standstill.”
And here Elon Musk responds to concerns about AI and DOGE, among other things,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4LOoxK4j4A
How to make AI safe? Program it with Classic Liberal principles, systems of common laws, and representative institutions that protect and promote the rights and freedoms of every individual, equally.
The great threat to democracy is not Russia- The Western liberal democracy shift toward totalitarianism.
“Nothing was as it appeared: Two years after we discovered the Censorship Industrial Complex, it’s today clear the government and media were hiding their true nature”, Michael Shellenberger, Feb. 13, 2025
https://www.public.news/p/nothing-was-as-it-appeared
Shellenberger provides an update to the US Congress on his research into the “Censorship Industrial Complex” that revealed a network of government agencies and contractors “and Big Tech social media platforms that conspired to censor ordinary Americans and elected officials alike for holding disfavored views.”
The evidence he had previously presented to Congress revealed that “Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.”
Shellenberger continues, stating that “the Censorship Industrial Complex remains almost entirely intact, and Europe, Australia, Britain, Brazil, and other nations in the West continue to seek new forms of censorship and information control, including digital identification tied to social media.”
He notes especially Europe where the “European Commission” will continue to use its “Digital Services Act” to demand censorship on X, Facebook, and other platforms.
He then makes reference to the recent speech by Vice President J. D. Vance, bluntly warning the Europeans that the real threat to Europe is not from Russia but from its own governments trying to censor the speech and rights of their own citizens, destroying democracy in the process…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCOsgfINdKg
Shellenberger continues to outline the problem “that deep state agencies within the US federal government have for two decades sought to gain control over the production of news and other information around the world, as part of ongoing covert and overt influence operations, and that after 2016, multiple actors in several deep state US government agencies turned the tools of counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and counter-populism against the American people.”
He says, “It was a deliberate effort to discredit and deplatform individuals, often branding them as threats for simply expressing views that contradicted the government’s preferred narratives.”
He then makes this critical point that the state censorship over the last decade has focused mostly on censoring and silencing “populists”, meaning the majority of citizens seeking the restoration of their constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms. Even though this state censorship complex has been exposed, the elites behind it have doubled down on their programs to censor, propagandize citizens, and control narratives, says Shellenberger. The elites have especially focused their censorship programs on conservative and populist voices.
The rejection of Classic Liberalism by the current leaders of Western liberal democracies, notably parties on the left of the political spectrum, is the great threat to democracy today. These leftist parties have embraced “Woke Progressivism” as one of the latest fronts of socialist collectivism. But it is just more of the same old Marxist totalitarianism that destroyed societies over the last century.
See the excellent history of the 24 failed Socialist experiments by Kristian Niemietz, “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”.
Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, Joe Rogan and guest Mike Benz, and many similar others, are doing great work today exposing the complex infrastructure of the new totalitarians trying to establish leftist/Woke elite control of Western societies.
Here is the first Rogan interview of Mike Benz detailing the censorship and propaganda complex operating behind our governments…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrJhQpvlkLA&t=5s
I am endlessly stunned by the lack of awareness among those identifying as “liberals/leftists” of the true nature of liberalism. Here again is a summary of the principles, systems of common law, and representative institutions of true liberal democracy. Critical to any understanding of real liberalism is that governments should exist to serve their citizens, as in protect and promote the rights and freedoms of every individual, equally.
Most stunning to many of us is that Britain, the main birthplace of Classic Liberalism, has over recent decades been foremost in rejecting the fundamentals of liberal democracy for emerging leftist totalitarianism.
A reposting of the basic principles of a humane society: Wendell Krossa
What do I mean when I refer to “Classic Liberalism”?
And as people talk about creating a “safe AI”, why not ensure that safety by programing AI with Classic Liberal principles?
Basic principles, systems, institutions of Classic Liberalism, liberal democracy, or Western liberalism.
Daniel Hannan in his Introduction to “Inventing Freedom” provides the following lists and descriptions of the basic features of a truly liberal society or civilization:
“A belief in property rights, personal liberty, and representative government…
“Three irreducible elements. First, the rule of law…Those rules exist on a higher plane and are interpreted by independent magistrates…
“Second, personal liberty: freedom to say what you like, to assemble in any configuration you choose with your fellow citizens, to buy and sell without hindrance, to dispose as you wish with your assets, to work for whom you please, and conversely, to hire and fire as you will…
“Third, representative government. Laws should not be passed, nor taxes levied, except by elected legislators who are answerable to the rest of us… the rule of law, democratic government, and individual liberty…
“The idea that the individual should be as free as possible from state coercion… elevate the individual over the state…
“Elected parliaments, habeas corpus (see below), free contract, equality before the law, open markets, an unrestricted press, the right to proselytize for any religion, jury trials…
“The idea that the government ought to be subject to the law, not the other way around. The rule of law created security of property and contract…
“Individualism, the rule of law, honoring contracts and covenants, and the elevation of freedom to the first rank of political and cultural values…
And this full summary:
“Lawmakers should be directly accountable through the ballot box; the executive should be controlled by the legislature; taxes should not be levied nor laws passed without popular consent; the individual should be free from arbitrary punishment or confiscation; decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people they affected; power should be dispersed; no one, not even the head of state, should be above the law; property rights should be secure; disputes should be arbitrated by independent magistrates; freedom of speech, religion, and assembly should be guaranteed”.
Hannan’s book is invaluable for tracing the historical emergence and development of Western freedom down through the English tradition, from pre-Magna Carta to the present.
Definition of habeas corpus (varied online definitions): This is especially critical in light of the politicization of justice systems to criminalize, censor, and silence opponents as in the Democratic party lawfare against Trump over past years.
“A habeas corpus application is used by persons who feel they are being wrongfully detained. Upon application, the individual is brought before a judge who will determine whether the detainment is lawful.”
“A writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person’s release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.”
“The literal meaning of habeas corpus is “you should have the body”—that is, the judge or court should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought forward so that the legality of that person’s detention can be assessed. In United States law, ‘habeas corpus ad subjiciendum’ (the full name of what habeas corpus typically refers to) is also called “the Great Writ,” and it is not about a person’s guilt or innocence, but about whether custody of that person is lawful under the U.S. Constitution. Common grounds for relief under habeas corpus— “relief” in this case being a release from custody—include a conviction based on illegally obtained evidence; a denial of effective assistance of counsel; or a conviction by a jury that was improperly selected and impaneled.” (Miriam Webster)
One of the best at defining and articulating Classic Liberal ideals and principles, notably in the US version- Full interview of Vivek Ramaswamy on Lex Fridman podcast. Vivek for president. Note how Vivek frankly acknowledges and responds to deformities of Classic Liberalism on the right side of US society.