The American two-party system is at the present time in a degree of confusion. The Republican party for some time has presented itself as the party of traditional values and claimed an alliance with traditional heterosexual marriage. What is implied in this particular political appeal is a rejection of the homosexual minority and feminism. The Republicans have also allied themselves with Conservative Protestant fundamentalists such as Baptists and Pentecostals and perhaps rejecting the main line Protestant churches such as Methodist and Episcopalian. The Republicans have also allied themselves with the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of that church’s opposition to abortion. The Republican Party’s opposition to abortion and homosexual marriage is perhaps a selective moral agenda since it ignores the continual transfer of wealth to a smaller and smaller minority of the American population. As a consequence of this, wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and there is a massive outsourcing of jobs to third world countries such as India, China, Korea and Taiwan where cheap if not sweat shop labor does the work at 1% of the wages of the unionized American worker who is left unemployed and without transferable job skills.
In the meantime, there is a continual flow of immigrants, many of whom are illegal who do the work at one-tenth the price that the former unionized worker was paid.
Wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hand and the result is a pauperization of the American middle class, depriving these citizens of the opportunity to obtain stable employment and to support their families.
The Democratic Party is the party of the left since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and identifies itself with the rights and concerns of the poor, minorities, immigrants, and women.
Since the United States is a relatively prosperous and advanced country, the quasi-socialism and social action emphasis of the Democratic Party fall somewhat flat.
In some sense, the Democratic Party in its purported concern for the poor to bring minority into political and economic mainstream perhaps occupies the better moral turf. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party, in its desire and concern to be identified with what one might say, and this is perhaps the wrong word, fringe groups, such as feminists and atheists, at some point, lost the loyalty and allegiance of the American middle class. What then can we say? What is the solution to this moral paradox where one party embraces traditional sexual morality while the other identifies itself with social needs and concern for the poor and underclass? The election of President Trump reflected a third party movement on the part of the American working class who felt they were not represented and their interests not enforced and addressed. The election of President Trump reflected the great dissatisfaction of the majority of a large number of American working people with the system that was casting them aside. President Trump promised the American worker employment and assistance. I would note that the campaign of Bernie Sanders, although not conservative such as President Trump’s and in fact in some sense was a socialist movement, addressed this same issue, from a different perspective and angle. The election of President Trump has been termed a nationalist and populist rebellion. What has developed is a kind of third party. I propose a third party which embraces traditional family values and also sees the need to care for the weak and oppressed. This party I propose will address the totality of moral concern in opposing abortion, for example, and also concerns itself with a social concern that leaves no one out and gives everyone black, Hispanic, immigrant, feminist, and atheist an equal chance. Perhaps one might say I propose a Judeo-Christian political party where traditional marriage is embraced as Jesus instructed and other traditional values in the area of sexual morality are embraced but also as Jesus instructed and commanded, that we concern ourselves with the poor, underprivileged and poverty-stricken.
I would now like to address what I think are the possible reasons for what has been termed terrorism. First, I must make clear that this violence is only confined to a very small minority and most Muslims are moral, peaceable and decent people. The left has accounted for terrorism through the use of certain words and terminology and they will say that the person is mentally ill, radicalized, or extremist. My view is that these words are an inadequate explanation of this movement and phenomenon. Some Muslim countries but not all are somewhat oppressive in their culture and political setup. Saudi Arabia is known for de-limiting the activities and potential of women in this kingdom. Pakistan and I have had emails from Christian pastors in that country indicating the oppression of Christians – I am told in these emails that any conversion is illegal and in fact, one instance a pastor said where a group of girls had converted to Christianity, they were gang-raped. Just recently in Indonesia several Christian Sunday school teachers were reported as imprisoned. These may be isolated cases, but apparently these societies are somewhat oppressive to non-Muslims and women. A possible explanation for terrorism may be found in the history and the historical background of these countries and their cultures. Mohammed, upon the revelation of his religion in Saudi Arabia to him, led a conquest of Christian North Africa in which many Christians perished. The Muslim society was at the gates of Vienna, about 1550 and were involved in a very serious battle in France 750 AD. Finally, after World War I, two million Armenian Christians were subject to a genocide by the Ottoman Turks. I believe there is a historical basis for the present terrorism founded in what I have just described. I cannot emphasize more significantly that other societies in the world have been oppressive and evil whether the Nazis, during the 20th century and many other instances of this sort of evil and cruelty. It is certainly not confined to the Muslim societies. I am only suggesting here a possible historical explanation for terrorism within the history of these cultures. Evil and the work of Satan is not confined to one country, one people or one group. I can only say that my view is that a proper understanding of history will enable us to understand what is occurring today on the part of the small minority confined to certain Muslim countries.