In Part I we looked at the kind of ideology
that shows up when someone searches for meaning without civilization. To
review, these are people who:
·
Seek something to give meaning to their lives.
·
Reinterpret what they see in the world to suit
their version of reality.
·
Define an extreme version of belief as “good”
and all else as “evil.”
·
Believe they are superior and dehumanize anyone
not among them.
·
Tolerate no belief outside their orthodoxy.
·
Seek power over anyone not associated with them
in full, or annihilation of any who cannot be coerced to submit.
·
Believe that whatever they do is justified.
·
Delight in hating all who believe differently.
These are descriptive of Islamist extremists, such as the
Orlando attacker—and similar attacks in Paris, Brussels, Beirut, San Bernardino, Boston, and a growing list of places around the globe.
But these apply almost exactly to another type of religion.
Another religion that wishes to impose its ideology through coercion—although not
through annihilation, yet.
I read a couple of articles on the same day last week, and I
made some mental connections I hadn’t before.
This is the conclusion of “The First Church of Secularism and Its Sexual Sacraments” by Mary Eberstadt, in National Review:
The so-called culture war, in other words, has not been
conducted by people of religious faith on one side, and people of no faith on
the other. It is instead a contest of competing faiths: one in the Good Book,
and the other in the more newly written figurative book of secularist orthodoxy
about the sexual revolution. In sum, secularist progressivism today is less a
political movement than a church.
If that’s true, then we have a state religion, supported by
the administration, the media—news and entertainment in large part—education at
all levels, some businesses, organizations, and groups, and even some churches.
Non-adherents are officially discriminated against, just as our founders wanted
to prevent.
They have doctrine—beliefs that they define as moral. And
they require adherence. Eberstadt talks about a particular aspect of the
religion, which informs much of the rest:
Its fundamental faith is that the sexual revolution—that is,
the gradual de-stigmatization of all forms of consenting non-marital sex—has
been a boon to all humanity….
The first commandment of this new secularist writ is that no
sexual act between consenting adults is wrong. Two corollary imperatives are
that whatever contributes to consenting sexual acts is an absolute good, and
that anything interfering, or threatening to interfere, with consenting sexual
acts is ipso facto wrong.
I predict the “consenting adults” aspect is not permanent;
among the discussion is ascribing “consent” to younger and younger children.
And “consent” might be redefined in time. But for now, they use the “consenting
adult” idea to persuade themselves of their morality.
Sex without consequences or obligations is a basic tenet of
the religion—in contrast to Christianity and other civilizing religions—more
than most other tenets:
After all, Christians and other social dissidents today
aren’t threatened with job loss because of writing in self-published books
about the biblical teaching against stealing, say. Military chaplains are not
being removed from office and sidelined for quoting from the book of Ruth. No,
every act committed against believers in the name of today’s intolerant
“tolerance” has a single, common denominator, which is the secularist
protection of the perceived prerogatives of the sexual revolution at all costs.
The new intolerance is a wholly owned subsidiary of that revolution. No
revolution, no new intolerance.
I don’t think this idea that secular progressivism is a
church is merely a metaphor. It is too complete.
Another piece I read is “Why Liberals Support Muslims Who Hate Everything They Stand For” by John Hawkins. He uses the word indiscriminateness, which I think we will
find useful, even though it’s an awkward, unlovely word.
His piece attempts to explain why refusing to condemn
Islamist terror—for fear of incidentally condemning Islam in general—is more
important than supporting homosexuals. Because there is a hierarchy, which
indiscriminateness explains.
The word is first explained by Evan Sayat in a speech to the
Heritage Foundation, whom Hawkins quotes:
They [liberals, or
secular progressives] were raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a
moral imperative. That the only way to be moral is to not discriminate between
right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies because your
act of discrimination—discriminating between these things might just be a
reflection of your personal discrimination, your bigotries.
They were raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a
moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. The
second bullet point, and this is an essential corollary, is that
indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. It
leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over good, wrong over
right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.
Why? Very simply if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than
anything else then success is de facto unjust.
There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than
anything else and the greater the success the greater the injustice. Conversely
and for the same reason, failure is de facto proof of victimization and the
greater the failure, the greater the proof of the victim is, or the greater the
victimization.
To a non-adherent to the doctrines of secular progressivism,
this is obviously convoluted and wrong. For example:
Why do so many liberals seem to loathe America even though
we’re the richest, most successful country in history? Because the very fact
that we’re the richest, most successful country in history proves we must be
doing something wrong and unfair.
Why do white Americans have to be benefitting from racism and
“white privilege?” Because white Americans are a majority in the United States
and they’re doing better than most other racial groups.
Just to complete Hawkins’ thought on how this relates to
Islamist terror, another quote:
They are unable to admit that among religions, Islam has a
unique problem with terrorism, violence and rape. They are not capable of
admitting that there is a particular risk to bringing in Muslim immigrants.
Even when a Muslim tells everyone he’s killing people because of his religion,
liberals can’t acknowledge his motivation because to do so would mean that
they’d have to admit Islam has issues.
I’m considering the possibility
that “indiscriminateness” is a precursor to the “sex is always good” doctrine.
The assumption that recognizing relative goodness is itself bad leads to
rejection of good, leaving bad as preferred.
We know that family is the basic unit
of civilization—a foundational good.
So it isn’t surprising that an orthodoxy that insists on savagery over
civilization would glorify the specifics that undermine family.
They believe that sex outside of
marriage is always right, when it is always wrong. They believe that marriage
is whatever any two (or more) people say it is between them, when it is
actually a permanent commitment between a man and a woman, who are biologically
capable of reproducing and responsible for raising offspring to adulthood. They
claim that a woman doesn’t need a man, even for parenting, ignoring the
scientifically proven negatives and growing catastrophic social consequences
for a society with more children raised without fathers.
Then comes the coercion: a pizza shop that never services weddings is attacked and temporarily shut down for
answering a hypothetical question about whether they supported “gay marriage,”
which they answered “heretically.”
image from here |
A florist who has always served two particular
homosexual customers, and considered them friends, declines servicing their “wedding.”
She is prosecuted, not for a crime, but for a refusal to submit to the
orthodoxy. Her business is shut down. Her assets are seized. And she is
deprived of a way to support herself in her imminent (and now forced)
retirement. The punishment may be greater than for actual criminals—rapists,
drug dealers, embezzlers. All this even though she committed no crime, never
refused service to anyone based on sexual orientation, or even deprived the two
from getting the wedding service they wanted, which was readily available at
multiple other locations.
Adherents to the secular
progressive religion intolerantly suggest she could have just ignored her
religion and serviced the “gay marriage,” unaware of their intolerance toward
her, while also seemingly unaware that the simple solution was for the
homosexual couple to be tolerant and go to another florist.
Similar stories are mounting for
bakers, photographers, and even a farming family that used
to allow weddings in their barn—where they live with their children upstairs,
but were not permitted to say no to a “same-sex marriage” in their own home—unless
they shut down their business altogether. They had been
willing to allow the celebration elsewhere on the property, just not their
home. That wouldn’t satisfy the orthodox. They were therefore deprived of their
livelihood, and possibly their home.
Beyond the state-imposed religious
position on “same-sex marriage,” and this church’s sacramental ritual of child
sacrifice which we call abortion, there are other doctrines that can only be
explained in terms of a fanatical coercive religion.
Consider global warming—as it was
called when it stopped being called global cooling, recently changed to climate
change—defined as, “humans are detrimental to the earth and should be reduced
in number and effect” [as long as the religious adherents are not deprived of their goods and conveniences, we might
add]. Anyone questioning this doctrine is a “climate change denier,” and
already there are calls for not only taking away their rights to work in
various fields, but to imprison such heretics (here and here).
Economic policies from the secular
progressive faithful always fall on the side of, “take from those who produce
and give to those who do not produce,” with the self-congratulation that this is
“fair,” which is their way of claiming it is moral to steal if it’s done in the
name of their religion.
Gun control has come up loudly
since the Orlando shooting—it comes up loudly after every shooting. And it is
as perverse as their other doctrines: terrorists, madmen, and violent criminals
should not be allowed to indiscriminately mass murder; therefore we should not
allow law-abiding citizens to own or purchase guns.
If you’re a thinking person, you
recognize the logic failure there; but those of the secular progressive
religion do not. They go on faith that keeping law-abiding innocent people from
defending their own lives is the way to prevent terrorists and criminals from
harming us. Only wild-eyed faith could lead to such a line of thinking. And yet
the Democrats in the US Congress are holding a sit-in demonstration on the House floor (literally sitting on the floor), throwing a tantrum to get that
outcome, so certain are they that they are acting “morally.”
There are a couple of scriptures
that are becoming vividly true applied to our day:
20 ¶Woe unto them that
call evil good,
and good evil; that put darkness for light,
and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!—Isaiah 5:20
That seems to describe the secular
progressive religion quite accurately. It also describes radical Islam.
This next one is slightly less
familiar.
9 And it came to pass that
he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is
the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil.
10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches
only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the
church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of
the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of
abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.
11 And it came to pass
that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many
waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds,
tongues, and people.—1 Nephi 14:9-11
It’s from the Book of Mormon. I wondered at the meaning of the “great and
abominable church” while growing up, because I had a limited understanding of
the word “church.” For many years now I’ve understood it to be anything outside
the gospel of Christ. But I think that isn’t refined enough. There are many
good people who are not Christians (and many Christians who are not good
Christians). I think that people will be judged on their willingness to do good
and be good as best they can understand it. Many such people will recognize God’s
truth when invited to see it in this life. Others may not have that chance in
this life, but the true Judge will know their hearts and judge them, so we do not
have to.
I think it is likely that among
Muslims worldwide there are many seekers of good, who do not wish to coerce and
bend others to their will—and do not wish to be coerced. But there are not such
people among radical Islamists.
I keep hoping there are some
seekers of good among adherents to the secular progressive religion, who are
merely misguided in their search to be “moral,” and would change if they could
see the truth presented clearly. Some have just been indoctrinated—radicalized—through
the propaganda surrounding them. Like fish swimming in water, unware of the
water because it is everywhere they go.
If there are those, I invite them to learn to love truth, and
learn to love people, and tolerate people with differences—and by doing so
learn to love the true God.
For those of us who love truth—along with freedom, prosperity, and civilization—we should know we are dealing with radical religionists. We cannot compromise with them. We can try to avoid contention when possible. But we must stand for truth; the alternative is to suffer coercion to succumb to their great and abominable church.
No comments:
Post a Comment