Tag: John Eidsmoe

Arrogance and Ingratitude

Richard Barnes

The Enlightenment temperament, anti-Christian and schizophrenic (see Humboldt), impelled the growth of “indigenismo” in the late nineteenth century and continuing onto the present day. This is a cult that emphasizes Indian America over the Spanish heritage, with bitter and unhistorical disparagement of the latter (see Tree of Hate, p. 116). 

The roots of this of course lie in “our own house” with the blatant propaganda of Las Casas, eagerly seized by Spain’s European enemies and by the intellectual elite of the day and of this day also.

This in turn propelled a publishing industry promoting the Discovery as a Spanish invasion of the Americas which was purposefully destructive of Indian cultures which were superior to what the invaders brought from Europe’s Christian civilization.

Such instruction, affirmed with the certainty that proceeds from ignorance, culminated in a neat inversion of reality: a land of noble savages and quiet, peaceful aborigines minding their own business, building enlightened cultures and civilizations, suddenly set upon by blood-thirsty, superstitious, Christian Neanderthal monsters who tortured, destroyed, and murdered with genocidal fury. 

And, of course, it did not take long for calumny of Spain and Columbus to bleed into contempt towards anything having to do with the Americas, especially the United States.

Perhaps the culminating event of this ahistorical propaganda was the 1980 publication of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, whose more honest description would be “A Marxist Prescription For Teaching United States History To Our Children”. 

It is no surprise that Zinn’s work dedicates many pages to that great genocidal maniac, Christopher Columbus.

So from Samuel Eliot Morison paying homage in 1955 “to Christopher Columbus the stout-hearted son of Genoa who carried Christian civilization across the Ocean Sea” we have come to the National Council of Churches in 1990, pontificating, “What some historians have termed a ‘discovery’ in reality was an invasion and colonization with legalized occupation, genocide …. “

Thanks to such tendentious “teaching”, few today know that on January 2, 1492, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella led a triumphant procession to the Granada city square where both knelt in gratitude to God for the liberation of Spain from almost eight centuries of Moorish rule. The event followed the surrender of the city by the Moors, having accepted the terms of either leaving Spain or staying in allegiance to her with the promise of religious liberty to worship according to their conscience. These terms were accepted and were honored by the royal house.

Among the multitude who accompanied the king and queen was a man committed to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Indian continent by a route that would avoid having the need to go through enemy Muslim lands. Later in that very same year, 1492, with the financial support and fervent prayers of the king and queen, he launched his three vessels to reach India by sailing west from Spain. He would have reached India, except that his calculations were off: the earth was quite a bit larger than he estimated. And the Americas stood in the way.

The man was Christopher Columbus.

For centuries the Americas recognized the greatness of the man: there are more places and sites named after him than after any other man. The capital of Ohio is named after him, as is the site of the capital of the nation, District of Columbia.

However, after the French Revolution, the attacks and slanders and half truths were relentless and eventually took their toll, culminating with the publication of Zinn’s fake history. Zinn, usually known as a Socialist, but actually a radical Marxist, despised our history and was determined to destroy its roots. In this, he has been wildly successful but by the time his work became known, thanks to its promotion by actor Matt Damon in the 1997 movie Good Will Hunting, much uprooting had already taken place.

If you would like to know more about Christopher Columbus and also the truth behind Zinn’s polemics, you might want to find and read John Eidsmoe’s Columbus and Cortez, Conquerors for Christ and Mary Grabers’ Debunking Howard Zinn. 

The above thoughts come to mind because of my chance “sighting” of a monumental bronze sculpture which began appearing on my horizon as I drove on the northwest coast of Puerto Rico. It was a stunning sight which became larger as I approached. 

However, when I came parallel to it, I saw that the area on which it stood was fenced in and locked and the surrounding terrain was overgrown and unkempt. I drove on to my destination and asked about the statue only to learn that folks knew very little about it and did not seem to care to learn more.

Some time later, I returned with several of my children. A gentle rain fell, which added to the grandeur of this phenomenon. A police cruiser happened by and stopped as I signaled him to ask what he knew about the statue and whether it would soon be open to the public. He knew hardly anything about it, other than it was “grande”. 

What I later learned was that the statue is the work of Russian artist and architect, Zurab Tsereteli, who built it as The Birth of The New World, intending to dedicate it to Ohio’s capital, Columbus. As I understand it, the work was completed in 1991 in time for the 1992 quincentenary of the world changing voyage. 

However, Columbus rejected it. As did New York, Boston, Cleveland, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. The city of Cataño, Puerto Rico, near the San Juan metropolitan area, offered to accept it but that intent was foiled when the FAA opposed such a tall structure five miles from the airport. Finally, a private citizen near the town of Arecibo accepted it and private funds enabled its assembly and installation.

And so it sits near the coast. A 300-plus foot tall representation of Christopher Columbus, twice as tall as the Statue of Liberty and every bit as impressive, in my layman’s opinion. And if you look into it, as I did, you will encounter vitriol and angst and disgust and ignorance, such as this:

“I am sorry for the artist, but this statue is the same as if the Jews had made a statue to Hitler!”

Or this:

“Columbus is a symbol of Genocide, not a hero to be celebrated.” 

Such statements and sentiments are so far from reality and historical truth as to be embarrassing. But shame is no longer something to be shunned or avoided. Ignorance is a point of pride to many today. 

We are reminded by Arnold Toynbee, “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder.” 

If we cannot understand and appreciate the massive gates that were opened by men such as Columbus, we are a truly ungrateful and arrogant people who need to be re-awakened to the earth shattering — in a very positive sense — impact of the voyage that took place in 1492.

Mexico’s Turbulent History — Part II: The Conquest of Mexico

Richard Barnes

This is the second in a series of posts about the history of Mexico written by my friend, Mike Ashe. For those who would like to learn more about Cortes and his alliances with the surrounding tribes as well as his fascinating dealings with Montezuma, I recommend John Eidsmoe’s Columbus and Cortes: Conquerors for Christ. Did Hernando Cortes subjugate the people of Mexico — or did he liberate them? Mike touches upon this in the previous post and he will be writing more about Spain’s role in future posts. I look forward to them.

To give context, I’ve reprinted Mike’s concluding paragraphs from the prior post.

From Human Migration — Mike Ashe

“We cannot leave the ancient world without looking at the Aztecs’ polytheistic religion and its demands on its people, including human sacrifices to satisfy their hundreds of gods but primarily four main gods: 1) Tlaloc (god of rain) 2) Huitzilopochtli (god of war and sun 3) Quetzalcoatl (most famous Aztec god means feathered serpent) god of civilization and 4) Tezcatlipoca (god of destiny).

All four gods were the children of Ometecuhtli.  Some of these gods like Tlaloc can be traced back to the Olmec and Mayan civilization.  The child god Quetzalcoatl represents the good and his brother Tezcatlipoca not so good, as some scholars believe….

…. Tlamacazqui were the Aztec priests; they were responsible to please the gods in ceremonies, offerings, and sacrifices.  Many scholars believe that during troubled times sacrifices were performed to honor the gods.  Priests would open the chest of the victim/volunteer and offer the beating heart to the gods.  Men women and children were all sacrificed based on which gods needed to be pleased.  Their skulls were displayed in the temples as trophies to the gods.  Recent DNA testing shows that the majority of those sacrificed were enemy soldiers or slaves.  There are some wild estimates of the number of sacrifices per year which cannot be confirmed. The Spanish accounts served as the basis for many estimates but most seem exaggerated to many scholars.”

The Conquest of Mexico — Mike Ashe

In the conquest of the Aztecs Hernando Cortes only had 450 men when he initially faced off against them. In order for him to conquer the Aztecs he created an alliance with the Tlaxcala and other enemies of the Aztecs in the region, which eventually provided him with 250,000 warriors to command. The Aztecs had lived off their weaker neighbors for centuries creating this opportunity for Cortes. 

Montezuma (leader of the Aztecs at that time) fell out of favor when there was a food shortage and smallpox had killed about half the population. 

Cortes’ advantage over their enemy was some of his men were on horseback (which terrified the enemy), they had guns, armor, having steel weapons, disease and an ally in the region.

Three millenniums of Mesoamerican civilization came to an abrupt end when Hernando Cortes conquered and killed thousands of Aztecs and ushered in centuries of Spanish Rule in 1521.  As a frame of reference, the Mayflower arrived in New England in 1620 a hundred years after the conquest of the Aztecs.

Next: Colonial Times

Hernan Cortes (1485-1547)
For readers who would like to read more about this period of our history, I recommend Columbus and Cortez by John Eidsmoe. Much of this book is comprised of citations from primary sources in addition to excellent historical background.

The Bible on Quarantine Part 1

Richard Barnes

Sometimes, this blog will “stray” from its focus on Venezuela. 

This is one of those times.

In our modern age, it is easy to scoff at any writing that has “The Bible” in its title, unless the purpose of the writing is to mock, degrade, or lightly esteem. However, our own founding documents, to which we adhere to this day (whether joyfully or grudgingly) were written in an era when the Bible was the most cited source in all polemics.

John Eidsmoe, in his Christianity and the Constitution reports on exhaustive research by Professors Lutz and Hyneman who reviewed “an estimated 15,000 items, and closely read 2,200 books, pamphlets, newspaper articles, and monographs with explicitly political content printed between 1760 and 1805 [our founding era]….

“…the source most often cited by the founding fathers was the Bible, which accounted for 34 percent of all citations. The fifth book of the Bible, Deuteronomy, because of its heavy emphasis on biblical law, was referred to frequently….”

In fact, in the 1770’s, when the Declaration of Independence was written, the Bible accounted for 44% of all citations. In the 1780’s, when the Constitution was written, it accounted for 34% of all citations. More than any other by far.

My point is simply that, however much the Word of God may be mocked by our illustrious elites and moderns, it clearly was foundational to the thinking of our founders and to the origins of our nation.

So, what does it have to say about quarantines and how might that apply to the “lockdowns” afflicting much of our country and the world?

The link below is to Thoughts on Quarantine by Chris Zimmerman.

I believe it is of utmost importance that we see all things by the Light of God’s Word. He not only defines reality, He created reality. He has determined how we should live. We stray from that path to our detriment and risk.

Our lenses should be the Bible, not daily press briefings or newspapers or the internet or — heaven help us — Hollywood celebrities.

Next week, the second part of this post will focus on a country which, knowingly or not, actually followed the biblical model pretty closely. How have they fared compared to the rest of the world, which has not?

The following is from the Chalcedon newsletter.

Thoughts on Quarantine

Chris Zimmerman

“Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.” Rev. 18:10

In recent weeks we have witnessed the frailty of all the systems of man worldwide. Indeed, Revelation 18:10 should come to mind to all of us and shake us to the core in the realization that when God’s just judgment comes it can bring down any stronghold of man in an instant. With the endless stream of press conferences and news, we have heard repeated assertions that all actions done in response to the recent virus spread and resulting quarantine are to protect lives and must be accepted as valid (read: morally right) regardless of the consequences. But, of course, for the Christian examining all things in light of Scripture, questions should arise:

1. Are the actions taken in alignment with Biblical laws on quarantine?
2. Against whom should these actions legitimately be taken when valid?
3. What is our responsibility to protect lives in respect to this issue?
4. Where are the Christians who should be leading in this battle for the truth?

We have seen the actions at the federal and state levels and, no doubt, felt their impact. Social distancing, prohibitions against gatherings of 10 or more (sometimes even fewer), restrictions on retailers and more have been mandated. It seems with each passing week the doomsday predictions were justification for further restrictions. As the weeks slowly crawled by we began to hear a growing crescendo of cries against the quarantine actions under the banner of “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” and, thus, invalid. Is there truth to this? What saith the Scriptures?

While all of Scripture is God’s Law-Word, central to this discussion will be the laws of hygiene and disease found in Leviticus 13-15. It is here we can see the patterns, precepts and principles of God’s commands that must be the foundation of any of our thinking on the issues of disease and quarantine. What do we see? We see that there are responsibilities for family, church and state with respect to these questions. God’s Law speaks to the reality of disease in a fallen world and gives us the lawful responses to it. These responses not only limit the spread of said disease but support its elimination at the same time while minimizing the impact on the larger community and its dominion work.

First, the actual practice of quarantine is thoroughly Biblical. What is described as leprosy in our translations can be better understood as typical of any infectious disease. As Rushdoony points out,

“It is important to note that the concern is for the welfare of the family and the community; neither can be sacrificed out of pity for the victim. It is thus noteworthy that we have here the source of the idea of quarantine . The concept is Biblical. As applied by Orthodox Jews and by orthodox Christians, it has included the quarantine not only of infected persons but also of infected animals and plants.” (1) [emphasis mine]

Rushdoony’s point is that pity for a diseased victim should not override the well being and health of the family and broader community by allowing the infected person to destroy either. Indeed, he goes on to say,

“Quarantine, it should be noted, is a moral fact: it asserts that there is a good and evil response to a situation. Quarantine does not say that the sick man is evil, but to expose others to a serious illness or disease is evil, and therefore separation is good, healthy, and necessary.” (2)

So, this is an open and shut case today, then, right? We have a virus making its rounds across the world so all actions taken by the state are, thus, good and right? Or, is there more to this issue than initially thought?

“Many commentators have seen the forms of “leprosy” or diseases described in Leviticus 13-14 as types or symbols of sin. However, as Harrison reminds us, the Bible never does so. Disease is simply presented as disease, one consequence of a fallen world. Quarantine is a separation of disease, and more quarantine is a separation of evil from society. This is very important to note. We do not flee from disease and sin, but rather separate sin and contagious disease from the community. Our Lord says, “I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil (or, the evil one)” (John 17:15). Modern separationism too often quarantines the healthy and the moral, not the diseased and the criminal members of society.” (3)

There are two points that are missed when considering whether quarantine actions are lawful. First, note that in all cases it is the sick individual that is quarantined, not the healthy. As pointed out in these same chapters, the fact that the healed member is required to be consecrated back into his priestly, dominion work means that the healthy member is expected to continue in his, without interruption. Rushdoony recognized this in the earlier quotes where, historically, infectious persons, plants, homes, etc were placed in quarantine; in other words, those confirmed to be sick or, as Leviticus 13:1-8 points out, those who were believed to be sick by outward evidence . This requirement of outward evidence is crucial as it strikes the balance between the freedom of the individual (this would include protections opposed to mandatory invasive testing) against the protections for the community. We have a similar practice in the legal sphere: the Biblical requirement of “innocent until proven guilty” is likewise to be applied here as “healthy until proven diseased.”

Second, Rushdoony has pointed out that disease in the Bible is “presented as disease, one consequence of a fallen world.” Inherent to true freedom are the risks of life in a fallen world: you could fail in business, you could be injured or killed in a collision or you could be exposed to any number of sicknesses that abound in our world. That world, true, is being renewed by the Lord through His actions and those of His people in their dominion work but the pushing back of the curse means we must deal with the problems of the curse along the way. This means exposure to a hidden illness is not the same as being made ill by it. We regularly swap viruses and bacteria in our daily interactions with others without a single incident due to the body’s normal, God given immunities. So, while we must apply the laws of quarantine to those who are actually ill and manifesting the symptoms thereof, we must also protect the work for the kingdom among those that are healthy.

The implications of this in light of the present debate are enormous: so called “social distancing” should be between the diagnosed ill and the healthy, not between the healthy alone. Businesses should function as normal but those that become ill should remain at home until healthy. Risks of disease have always been present in any large gathering of people, today’s virus notwithstanding. It is a simple fact that we must choose to live in the reality of this fallen world, God’s world marred by man’s sin and full of risks (and blessings), or we will be forced to submit to increasing tyranny “for our own safety.”

We must therefore recognize that while it is wrong for Christians to think that the state has zero authority in regard to disease it is also equally wrong to lock down the healthy with the sick. Christians alone bear the Truth in this world and we need to be about the business of directing the debate on this issue accordingly so that true freedom can be realized. To just blindly follow the masses only adds to our judgment and is our assent to tyranny.

(1) R. J. Rushdoony, Leviticus, Vol. III of the Commentaries on the Pentateuch (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2005),135.

(2) Ibid., 136.

(3) Ibid., 144

One of the most mocked books in the Bible, yet its remedies have always had a salutary relevance to a healthy society throughout history. We see yet again that God’s injunctions are less draconian or cruel than those of men: Leviticus requires quarantines of the few; most modern governments are requiring quarantines of the many (except for themselves, of course).
This is NOT in line with proper quarantine
Quarantines have worked throughout history

https://mailchi.mp/791fbab642b8/our-worries-get-in-the-way-3046954?e=be71bf23aa