HIDDEN MEANING

In the way the world used to be, there was "The Party Line," which was a reference to the authoritatively announced policies and practices of the Communist Party. Every communist, whoever and wherever he might be, was to toe the mark and parrot the party line. Woe be to he who didn't.

In 1951, the FBI arrested  Julius (a dedicated member of the Communist Party) and Ethel Rosenberg (a Communist Party activist) for relaying America's atomic secrets to the Russians. They had received classified notes and sketches from Ethel's brother, a soldier who had worked at the atomic bomb facility in Los Alamos, New Mexico. The headlines dubbed their crime, "The Crime of the Century."

THE PARTY LINE ON THE ROSENBERGS

The Party Line swung into high gear; the official word was that their arrest, trial, conviction, and eventual execution was the American government's persecution of two young and innocent idealists. During their trial and up until the time of their deaths, the Party Line had worked so well that uprisings in protest of their arrest, trial, conviction, and coming execution occurred around the world. Their trail had begun on March 29, 1951, and they went to the electric chair on June 19, 1953.

In December 1952, 1,000 people came to Ossining, N.Y., to bring messages of support to the Rosenbergs at Sing Sing. On the day of the execution, 5,000 protesters rallied at Union Square in New York City. Clergy, writers, and scientists from all over the world supported the Rosenbergs. Pope Pius XII, appealed for clemency. Albert Einstein and Jean Paul Sartre spoke out. In Milan, Paris, and London, people protested at U.S. consulates. In February 1953, a New York Times survey reported that the Rosenberg case was the "Top issue in France." Such was the power of the Party Line.

SUBTLE CHANGE

The very words, "Party Line" cause a negative reaction when we hear them. That's because we associate it with the Communist Party, communists, and Mother Russia. Therefore, unnoticed, our language has been changed so that, although we use different words, we still mean "The Party Line," it just doesn't grate on our ears.

From a political standpoint, the two parties don't use the term "party line," they use "talking points." When an issue arises, the Democrats and the Republicans distribute a memo of talking points to their members which tell them what to say. That's why when we hear them talking on TV about a current issue, they all sound the same; that's because they've all read the same memo. "Talking points" sounds much better than "Party line." The change was subtle.

 For example, in November 2013, the Democrat Party advised their talking points over the Thanksgiving dinner, talking points which included, among others,  raising the minimum wage, background checks for gun buyers, and ending tax loopholes for out sourcers. (What fun!) Under each of the talking points was a subset of what to say about each topic and how their position differed from the Republicans.

What's interesting about those talking points is that, at that time, the issue of nationalized health insurance was front and center, but that hot topic wasn't on the talking points memo, so we assume that talking points also tell us what not to talk about.

IT'S NOT JUST THE PARTIES

Being more specific, universities are putting out their party lines by publishing memos on what you can say and what you can't say. Princeton put out a 4-page memo in its Human Resources Dept. noting that "man" was unacceptable; "people," and "human being" are. "Man and wife" is a forbidden term, "spouses" or "partners" are OK. "Man-made" is forbidden; "artificial" is fine. "To man the fire hoses" is wrong, but you can "operate" them. A reference to our "forefathers" will be rejected, but "ancestors" won't. "America is the land of opportunity" is a no-no as is "America is a melting pot." To say that America is the land of opportunity is to imply that other lands aren't and therefore inferior to the USA. To say, "America is a melting pot" is to imply that other cultures are inferior and a person must adapt to ours.

We also see the party line in journalism when the newspapers report about those who are looting, burning, beating/murdering, blocking streets, hurling rocks and other missiles at police. They are "protestors," not "rioters" who are engaging in a "protest," not a "riot."What occurs on a violent weekend night of such mob action is called, "unrest."

Since Americans are conditioned by experience to react negatively to the idea of a party line, we came up with another term, one which means the same thing, but disguised. The party line is now, "political correctness." That sounds better to American ears. Who doesn't like to be correct in his thinking and his speech? We all want to be correct, but we don't want to be accused of mouthing the party line, yet, that's what political correctness is. It's saying the approved things, self-censoring the unapproved things; it is therefore, the Party Line. Let's call it what it is. As the saying goes, "It is what it is."

This may soon apply to the Christian message whose basic points aren't the approved party line: Jesus Christ is God in the flesh; Jesus is the only way to God; there is no human merit in salvation; all are dead in trespasses and sins and spiritual bankrupt; all religions are false. We can say those things in our churches, but woe be to he who says them in the public square. Yet, we must obey God rather than men.

BEWARE THE DANGEROUS MAN

Biblical prophecy tell us there will come the most dangerous man ever to exist in world history, he  “who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (II Thessalonians 2:4). His rule will, for a while, be so absolute that he'll control the world’s economy (Rev. 13:16-17). He'll be so violently anti-Semitic, that he can only be Satan-possessed. (Dan. 11:40-41), and in fact, he will be one of only three in world history whom Scripture describes as being possessed by the devil. The iron fist of the anti-Christ's rule will richly deserve the description, a reign of terror.

Because Satan doesn’t know when the rapture will occur, he's always had someone in every generation ready to possess and take control of the world after that event, some man who will proclaim himself as God and wreak the carnage the Bible predicts Man of Sin will wreak.

MAN'S BENT

And that brings us to man’s penchant to always wanting to be God, a desire that goes back to Eden (Gen 3). When a person who desires to be God comes into power, he brings with him promises and plans to make our existence a paradise on earth. Stalin had his various five year plans. On the way to his goal of producing a Utopia, he imposed forced labor, a reign of terror, and the ruthless extermination of all who opposed him. Historians estimate that Stalin (whose name means, "Steel') was responsible for the deaths of 20 million, although Alexander Solzhenitsyn put the figure at 60 million.

Mao, who made himself the god of China, is thought to have killed somewhere between 40-75 million. He too had his five-year plans to get back to Eden.

HOW DO PEOPLE RATIONALIZE SUCH EVIL?

How do people approve of such barbaric atrocities? It’s not hard; the way they look at it is that anything and everything is justified in moving toward a man-made Utopia and man, the god, must make sure it comes. This is how, even in America, the most corrupt politicians find millions to support them, millions who know their god is corrupt. It’s because the corruption is done all in the name of a greater good—the promise of a coming man-made paradise.The proffered end justifies whatever the little god does to try to get there.

LET'S TAKE A MISERABLE TRIP

In more modern times, let’s go to Poland, a country which benefited (I use the word loosely) from communist rule. The year is 1989. Let’s visit the home a doctor. The communist officials who had promised paradise, based on the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the philosophy of Marx and Lenin, set her salary at $17 per month, $3 less than the assigned average salary of the coal miners who earned $20 a month. (That's what they called social justice.) She had no telephone, a deprivation assigned her by the little gods in the name of social justice, or maybe they just didn't care. One wonders how any of the miners are to get in touch with her during a medical emergency, but, again, who cares? Those planners of Utopia didn't.

After we visit with her, let’s have dinner with the editor of the largest Catholic weekly in Poland. He and his wife and child live in an apartment building with no elevator. We get some healthy exercise by climbing the urine-drenched stairs to the sixth floor and enter his apartment which measures 6x10 feet. Their child is asleep in the closet; we notice a mattress on the floor next to the dining table on which the parents sleep each night. As we talk to our host, he tells us that the waiting list for an apartment like his is 20 years.This is Utopia?

Let’s go to a store and do some shopping. Not much to choose from, but we decide to purchase a few things. When we go to check out, the clerk totals our bill on an abacus. (This is 1989, for goodness sake!)

This is a culture, a monoculture. where there is no dissent, no gender, and no conflict; the little gods don't allow the unique and the great to exist. There are no offbeat weirdos nor eccentric crazies. There are no more self-made successes and inspiring figures. They're long gone. There is enforced conformity, a conformity enforced by a little god. The say what they are permitted to say; they do not say what they're forbidden to say. That's the way it was in 1989 in Poland.

THE WAY IT IS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION

The Bible and history testify to the same truth, as always: every country, nation, and culture over which someone has installed himself as God has become a dismal, depressing wreckage in the bone yard of history. Will we ever learn? No.We continue to believe their Utopian promises and excuse whatever they want to do to chase their mirage.

But always and forever, God raises up a remnant, a Daniel, a Shadrach, a Meshach, and an Abednego, a Peter and a John and thousands and thousands of others throughout history who stand ramrod straight and say, “No. We must obey God rather than men.”

ONE LITTLE, TWO LITTLE, THREE LITTLE DOMINOES

Behold the domino. Make it three. Make it three little dominoes standing ramrod straight in in a neat, tight little row.

The first domino is a doctrine straight out of Scripture: man is born with and continues to be infected all his life by a sin nature, that is, a bent to sinning (Ps. 58:3; Eph. 2:3). When a person sins, he sins by choice and is therefore accountable for his sin. Wherever he is in life, he is there because of choices he made, good ones, better ones, best ones, and bad ones. Wherever he will spend eternity, he'll do so because of his choice to trust Christ or to trust his works. Accountability. Responsibility. Right on!

LEGISLATING MORALITY

As long as the first little domino remained in place, the second little domino, personal responsibility and accountability were in place, therefore, punishment was in place as the second little domino. Law and accountability to that law were there to hold the would-be criminal in check, thus legislating morality. 

Behold the falling domino. Men rejected the doctrine of original sin. This meant one thing: man, by his unaided logic and mind must put a substitute doctrine in its place in order to explain why men sin, do bad things, lie, steal, cheat, and hurt other men.

Behold the victim. Men came up with a substitute doctrine: men cheat, lie, steal, and commit crimes, not by choice, but because they're oppressed by other men, men higher up in the social structure. This suppression and repression mean that their acts aren't morally wrong, they're only reacting to what has been done to them; they are the helpless victims of the capitalists and the capitalist system which is holding them down.

So, they strike back the only way they can via criminality. How else can they wear the latest pair of Nikes, install the coolest hubcaps? They crave the Nikes and the hubcaps, but the system is holding them down, so the only way to get them was to take them from somebody else. They're entitled to do so. It's the system that's at fault. It's victimizing people.

THE WAY IT WAS

The way it was not so long ago, we knew that a person was where he was because of choices he made--he made the choice not to work. He lived off the enforced collection of money from others. He chose to use what money he had to buy and inject drugs into his veins and inhale them into his lungs. He chose to sell his soul for a buzz and for nanoseconds of pleasure and to let the taxes of others support him. He chose to cause the accelerated decay of his body and soul. Not so long ago, we looked at him and rightly said, "It's his fault." But that was then, this is now.

THE WAY IT IS

But the way it was is not the way it is. Today, we believe that he's where he is because of mysterious forces arrayed against him, forces too powerful for him to fight and overcome. It's those greedy capitalists (as if communists and socialists aren't greedy) and their system that are oppressing him.

Behold the second falling little domino. The first falling domino has now caused the fall of the second. Now there is no such thing as a criminal; that's the substitute doctrine. We redefine the criminal as a victim and with the fall of the second domino, since there are no criminals, there can be no punishment, so the third domino falls.

Behold the third domino. Since there are no criminals, so there are no jails. We've redefined thoser now in jail: they're political victims of the system; you don't punish victims, you let victims go free. So, abolish the jails.

FAR FETCHED

This sounds far fetched, something out of the Twilight Zone, right next to left field and off the wall. But it's not. This is the prevailing theory of the Millennials, right now, right as you're reading this.

The Millennials are those among us between ages 19 and 35. They've come through an educational pipeline which has taught them to think that way, a way starkly different than their grandparents. Those at the mid to outer limits of that age group are in the work force--they're lawyers, teachers, professors, journalists, celebrities, social workers, textbook writers, parents, and politicians in the prime of life and energy. They're redefining criminal behavior.

They're now writing the TV shows and making the movies. They're beating their drums 24 hours a day with their message. They're moving into the corridors of power. Some are already there or are at least aspiring to get there.

When a nation rejects the Bible, their foolish hearts are darkened to the point that they lose common sense.

Behold the fallen dominoes!

Darkness descends. 

INTIMIDATED DOCTORS

Back in the 1970's and 1980's, doctors on the east and west coasts were terrified. And their cowardice gagged their mouths.

To understand the why's and wherefores of all of this, we need to go back to San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York City during those decades. It was then that the medical profession was realizing that they were about to have an epidemic on their hands and they were scared.

In the spring of 1983, there were 1,500 diagnosed cases of AIDS, but the problem was that the rate of infection was relentlessly doubling every six months. Researchers hadn't isolated the AIDS virus and if you can't isolate it, you can't kill it and you can't cure it.

But that's not the real story. By the late 70's, although they hadn't isolated the virus, researchers knew exactly, absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt, what was causing the AIDS epidemic--AIDS was a sexually transmitted disease which aggressive promiscuous behavior was turning into an epidemic.

Knowing the cause, they needed to make it known to warn a certain segment of the public. But that never happened. Had you been in those cities back then and had you visited a city clinic, you would find no pamphlets which gave the needed warning. Any pamphlet you came across would only say that AIDS might be prevented by more sleep and more exercise. The doctors, the politicians, and the public health officials were lying and they knew it. But they were scared.

There were precious few speakers and writers who tried to warn the people and the few who did were intimidated, called names, and shamed publicly. They were accused of being "homophobic fascists," among other things. Pickets surrounded their businesses. The attacks became so bad that one speaker who was going to debate the subject in San Francisco didn't show up for the forum because she was concerned for her safety.

One man who dared debate the subject and tell the truth before a live audience of a hundred angry people was vilified and at the conclusion of the meeting feared that violence was going to break out. Out of the one hundred in the room, no one stood with him, not one doctor, not one politician, not one public health official. In fact, the top official of the Centers for Disease Control who remained mute, later said, "We didn't want to be seen as interfering with an alternative lifestyle." (We note how the intimidated official bowdlerized his statement to say, "alternative lifestyle.")

Yet contrast this with the polio epidemics which appeared in the U. S. from time to time. The medical profession and public health officials warned the population by broadcasting the best information they had far and wide, informing as many people as possible of whatever preventative measures they thought necessary, even to the point of city officials closing city swimming pools. 

On the economic front, health aside, the care of AIDS patients and other related diseases was costing the taxpayers a million dollars day. Still, you could hear the crickets chirping. Heeding the Bible could have stopped the epidemic in its tracks, but no, the society demanded its "alternative lifestyle" as the euphemism called sin. 

Any attempt to close the San Francisco bath houses, all of which were accelerating the epidemic, was met with stubborn and successful resistance. Neither the politicians, the medical personnel, nor the public health officials spoke up and the reason was fear.

Why such opposition against the truth? It was because the homosexual community didn't want anything, anybody, even the truth, to taint their image and curtail their lifestyle. Most of them knew the truth but marched demanding the government find a cure and blaming President Reagan of murder and genocide for withholding government money to fund the search for a cure. (He hadn't.) It was as if the Great White Father in Washington should be the one to find the cure. Their accusations were irrational hyperbole coupled with faux moral outrage.

There's an anthropological lesson in all of this: Romans 1:26-27 speaks to the point about the human being--"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in own persons the due penalty of their error."

"And receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error" nails it, as does Romans 1:19: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

They had rather suffer and die and their friends and family suffer and die rather than admit the truth and abandon their sin. And suffer and die they did. By 1994, nearly 200,000 had died from the epidemic. Sin's payday was all around them, yet they continued to suppress the truth and vilify anyone who tried to tell it.Yet, by following two verses from the Bible, 200,000 people would not have died.

The sin nature of the human being is tough, tough indeed.What did the prophet Jeremiah say? Didn't he say, "“The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?"