Evangelicals Rejecting Jesus Teachings as Being Too Liberal

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

a cursory look at the libraries of your founders highlights them as levellers.. or at least according to their tastes they were highly atrracted to leveller thinking..

as to your question, the levellers where the bulk of the new model army..

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: whereislogic

... Do you think they are not intent on pushing a Progressive agenda even while dismantling the real power of the American Military?

I think those with a progressive political agenda have never succesfully demonstrated to me their governmental decisions go against the interests of those who stand to benefit from increased military expenditures (or demonstrate any dismantling of power of the American military as you put it, i.e. the growth of their economic and political power, as well as the wealth of individuals whose income is tied to military expenditures and who take the biggest pieces of the pie, does not seem tied or affected by either Democratic or Republican governments, it doesn't seem to matter, in the end, they always seem to get what they want, more money and power; edit: I probably should add: "since my time", cause the last President who seemed to have taken some actions or made some governmental decisions against the interests of these people was JFK, but that was before my time, and it had no effect cause in the end they still got what they wanted concerning Vietnam). As Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt wrote: “Public opinion is formed by interest groups (politicians, arms manufacturers, the military) that deceive the electorate by giving them false or one-sided information.” In a similar vein, historian H. E. Barnes wrote: “Since the wars of the French Revolution . . . copious and compelling propaganda [has] been continued and greatly increased to protect warfare against popular dissent, opposition, and factual analysis of issues.”

Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”​—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.

Every nation has its ruling class, even though that group may be divided into different political factions. However, many observe that the power of the military elite in every nation should not be underestimated. Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith describes the military establishment as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.” You want to talk about the “DeepState”? There's your 'Deep State', and neither Trump nor Biden, neither Democrat nor Republican, stands opposed to their interests (or will not cater to their needs and what they want; btw, they're making a killing in Ukraine right now, why would their Russian counterparts, want to win a war when they can drag it out instead and make both groups rich in the process? Don't underestimate the social benefits mentioned by Schumpeter either).

Do you believe that Christians today should not join the military and as patriots defend America?

I think 2 Cor 10:3-5 and the facts of history that I shared earlier speaks for itself.

edit: Since you brought up patriotism and I brought up Vietnam in one of my edits above, and since I quoted Professor Galbraith before...

Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations.

Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most​—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism, in the pernicious teaching that any one nation is superior to all others.

A little Brainwashing 101: