Missing the Mark With Religion, Part 2
Essay one addressed Modern Liberalism as the religion, albeit the false religion, that it is. Next, enter stage right, Libertarianism.
Libertarianism, or at least that mainstream brand of Libertarianism which zealously waves that oxymoronic political banner “Political Conservative, Social Liberal,” has its own pint-sized political party, but more importantly the faith of Libertarianism has a Titanic-sized impact upon the religious inclinations of the leadership ranks of the Republican Party, and upon many of the prestigious think-tanks which preach republicans their gospel.
Libertarianism’s central claim to fame from a political standpoint is that it represents an anti-statist, limited government answer to the ‘new’ religion of Modern Liberalism, in that it sets out to contract the reach of the state. “Contract the size of the state,” they say, “and all private interests are benefited—religion included.” Amen.
But, then, “faith without works is dead,” isn’t it? And needless to say, in politics, lively, pretty promises are all too often found dead on arrival, abandoned to the hungry and ugly dogs of fine print – and Libertarianism’s thesis on religion in public life is where all the fine print ugliness begins
Namely, the Libertarian Party contends that:
1. One must not legislate morality.
2. Church and State must be strictly separated.
3. Government must not aid, nor attack religion. (1)
Admittedly, for most, this trio sounds about right. But that is only because this bold claim as regards the proper role of religion and morality in public life has been repeated loud enough, often enough, and long enough in the public classrooms and public facilities, on the air and in print, at political conventions and in common conversations, that it has come to have a ring of truth about it – when truth is what it lacks the most.
Consider: this party platform stand, coming out of ‘right’ field from the most doctrinaire, the most ‘let’s return to the Founder’s,’ the most anti-statist, anti-big government party in the business, is lifted verbatim not out of the US Constitution – as one might suppose – nor out of the philosophy of America’s Founders – as Libertarians often allege – but right out of the text of the Warren Burger Court’s “Lemon Test;” that very point of reference used to justify nearly every government and private sector attack on religious freedom in the past thirty-three years!
That is troublesome, isn’t it? It should be.
The 1971 Lemon Test ruled:
1. All laws or statutes must have a secular legislative purpose.
2. Such laws or statutes must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
3. The principle or primary effect, of such laws or statutes, must neither advance nor inhibit religion. (2)
We must ask the honest Libertarian, “What’s the difference between the Libertarian stand and the modern liberal, liberty destroying stand of the Warren Burger Court? And the honest answer can only be “There is none!”
And so, if we were to call a spade a spade, we would be compelled to say that Libertarianism’s three-point stand on religion and Liberalism’s three-pronged Lemon Test are indistinguishable, one and the same, twin sisters, partners in crime. Making Libertarian’s central religious dogma of “contracting the reach of the state so that religion might prosper,” at best, suspect or misguided—at worst, something that has the appearance of locking hands with Liberalism as if it had a hidden goal to persuade old school capitalists of the “enlightened self-interest” camp to be baptized into the ‘new’ progressive camp where dollar signs in one’s eyes are deemed compatible with vacancy signs in one’s soul.
The Soulless Capitalist
Indeed, if one had been tasked to write a script to undermine the conservative movement in the United States, one couldn’t have done a better job. Herein is advanced a self-fulfilling prophecy for in behalf of Marx: inundating conservatism with capitalists every bit as soulless as Marx said they were, fueling the class divide. Producing, also, perfect candidates equipped to pull down the core values of the existing order in a supposed attempt to save it – a class of capitalists, that is, who never once suspect the irony or the betrayal.
For if every law must be free of moral motives, must be full of secular motives, and must not advance or aid religion, will not the zealous adherents of this philosophical camp justify using the power of the state to push the Christian conservative, or any other religious conservative out of the debate, to have him hushed, diminished, and eventually outlawed? The Libertarians claim, ‘No!’ But to be true to their stated purpose, the Libertarian must hush him, diminish him, outlaw him – and the Libertarian has.
And as the state expands, even though the Libertarian opposes that expansion, he will, to remain true to his amoral code, continue to lock hands with the Modern Liberal and his eternal enemy the Communist to eliminate the role or the influence of the Christian, the Jew, the moralist, in ever expanding circles.
Ironically, meanwhile, another aspect of the Libertarian’s soullessness – that is, his insistence that there must be no bounds to “private” choices – fuels the kind of moral anarchy that in turn always fuels the state’s expansion. Moral anarchy can accomplish no less.
Undermining the Foundation of Our Unalienable Rights
There are other problems with Libertarianism’s three pronged Secularism that every American ought to consider.
The whole idea of secular law strikes at the foundation of American government, which government was the first government on earth that acknowledged and declared that the sole legitimate function of this government, or any government is to secure “unalienable rights,” of which “all men … are endowed by their Creator.” (3)
When the Founders accepted the idea that certain rights are “unalienable,” they were saying, in effect, “There is a source of law which exceeds the wisdom of man, that source is God, and to that source all manmade organizations, including representative governments, must humbly bow. One cannot usurp such a right, or such a law, for it is eternal.”
John Locke, in his 1690 “Second Treatise on Government,” quoting from Hooker, explained:
Human laws are measures in respect of men whose actions they must direct, howbeit such measures they are as have also their higher rules to be measured by, which rules are two—the law of God and the law of Nature; so that laws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.
Every ordinary citizen during the Founding era understood this elementary school, home school taught truth. They had a source document, the Bible, and inspired reason (which Jefferson described as the voice of God within) to define what their fixed rights were; and nobody, but nobody had better usurp those fixed rights! Libertarianism’s secular stand, however, denies the right for Americans to look to God and His revelations as the source of their law and their rights, in the classroom, in the courthouse, and in the halls of Congress.
Where, Then, Shall We Look?
Which obliges us to ask, to what source, then, shall the children of God look for their laws and their rights under Libertarian rule? Shall they look to the decree of a king? To the verdict of a court? To the vote of a congress? To the theory of a grant-driven scientist? To the formula of an economist? To the machination of a social engineer? To the promise of a politician? To a Time/Newsweek generated opinion poll? To a here-today-gone-tomorrow ethical value of a Humanist?
Indeed, it is to such as these that the Libertarian forces every man, including himself, to seek; for so preoccupied with his liberty and his precious purist free markets is he, that he fails to understand that both are only possible within the confines of a few good Higher Laws, laws which forever remain fixed.
Bartering Our Unalienable Rights and Our Fundamental Laws
By denying the existence of Higher Law on a few vital points, Libertarianism puts the law and our rights “on the market place of ideas,” as if to say, “It is safe, wise and responsible for ‘so celestial an article as freedom’ (4) to be bartered as a common good by master manipulators, opportunists, bullies and loudmouths” – who, in fact, insure there is no free market of ideas – only a controlled debate; for their point of view is NOT religious, and thus their point of view must be and will be heard, while Christians are silenced.
The result is, Libertarianism makes the law precisely what Communist Founder Karl Marx wanted it to be. “There are,” said Marx, “besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.” (5)
That new basis is, in part, Secularism.
And how would Secularism come about?
Communist Party USA Founder William Z. Foster taught his followers that the grand key was to first separate religion from public life, thus making religion a private affair only. Whilst in public, the only acceptable perspective would be “materialism, internationalism, and … ethics,” or in other words, Secularism. (6)
How very convenient. And is not the Libertarian worship of property over morality, absolute free markets over national security and sovereignty, and secularism over religion, just that – materialism, internationalism, and ethics?
They, no doubt, would deny it. But if they reasoned to the core, and took sides with honesty over their mountain top pride, they would have to concede true is true, and the truth hurts.
Deceiving Men Through Historical Revisionism, Enslaving Men to Their Passions, Dehumanizing Men Through Mind-altering Drugs
But there is more. Mass murdering communist, Mao Se Tung, added another ingredient to the toxic mix which would plunge America into tyranny: “we will rewrite America’s history books minus the morality, minus God, minus heroes (or men of principle),” he promised in summary – which the Lemon Test affectively did – “and then we will make the religious perspective, the moral perspective, and all chances for liberty ever the more irrelevant by pushing drugs, pornography, and free sex upon American’s youths,” he vowed next.
Why? So that the rising generation’s moral senses would be dulled, debilitated, destroyed, and, with it, their ability to govern themselves flushed down the toilet.
True to the Mao’s Marxist model, Libertarianism denies the religious heritage of our Founders, and likewise supports legalizing drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, abortion, pornography, and gambling with, it says, this end in mind: ‘liberating man from government.’
When every schoolboy Marxist understands that such things make slaves of men, raise crime rates, destroy families, and create a class of street revolutionaries (pressure from below), that in turn raises a hue and cry for government programs to control and repair the damage (pressure from above). It’s called the ‘pincer strategy.’
Calling Evil Good and Good Evil
Isn’t this about altering definitions? About placing upon the alter as sacred and good for liberty the very things which have always debauched and destroyed liberty? Isn’t Libertarianism’s liberating stand in favor of social liberalism, a defense of the very kind of ‘liberty’ Edmund Burke spoke of in his famous “Reflections on the Revolution in France,” as an ideology which exhibits “total contempt … [for] all ancient institutions,” resembling “a madman,” or else “a highwayman and murderer who has broke prison upon the recovery of his natural rights … [who] act[s] over again the scene of the criminals condemned to the galleys. …?”
Such questions need be asked.
For ultimately, this is what it means to overthrow the existing order: to make criminality and immorality a protected right under the law, and religion and virtue a public crime – that is, in the words of Holy Writ, to “call evil good, and good evil,” to “put darkness for light, and light for darkness,” to “put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (7) It is what occurred in France. It is what is happening here in America thanks to liberals and libertarians this very day, this very hour.
By way of contrast, Burke noted, “All … nations have begun the fabric of a new government, or the reformation of an old, by establishing originally or by enforcing with greater exactness some rites or other of religion. All other people have laid the foundations of civil freedom in severer manners and a system of a more austere and masculine morality.”
To overthrow the existing order is to overthrow the accumulated knowledge, traditions and patterns of history. The French Revolution is praised by every communist as the quintessential revolution for its brutal, bloody totality. Crushed were property, religion, legal traditions, social graces, you name it. Broken was the pattern of history and established was a new order under a secular constitution. All of it was done in the name of liberty—but license never is liberty.
Dull minds make for good slaves; and a moral vacuum needs to be filled.
That the attending moral vacuum would then be more readily filled by Communism or anyone of her totalitarian sisters is clear, for what other faith is possessed of the vision, the determination, the endurance, and equipped with the foot soldiers to change the old moral order for a new amoral order than this one?
This is what is wrong with Libertarianism. By default, it embraces the moral code, the religion, if you will, of its chief nemesis, absolute government, or communism. In as much as it does so, it misses the mark with religion and becomes a conservative accomplice to Modern Liberalism, a veritable Trojan Horse within the Republican Party, an enemy to liberty, to the foundation of the fabric, that necessary spring of free government, revealed religion. (8)
(Read Missing the Mark with Religion, Part 1, Modern Liberalism)
Copyright © 2012 Steve Farrell.
Steve Farrell is the Founder and Editor In Chief of The Moral Liberal (http://www.themoralliberal.com) one of the original and most popular pundits at NewsMax.com (1999-2008), and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel Dark Rose.
1. 2000 Libertarian Party Platform. The 2002 Platform is nearly identical.
2. Barker, Lucius J., and Barker, Twiley W. “Civil Liberties and the Constitution: Cases and Commentaries,” Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1994, p. 30. 3. The Declaration of Independence
4. Paine, Thomas. “The American Crisis,” number 1, paragraph 1. 5. Marx, Karl. “Communist Manifesto,” 1848
6. Foster, William Z. “Toward a Soviet America,” Balboa Island, California: Elgin Publications, 1961 (a reprint of the 1932 version which was captured by the US House Committee on Un-American Activities), pgs. 316-317. Also of interest is this quote from Lenin: “Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism. Our propaganda necessarily includes propaganda for atheism.” See Schwarz, Dr. Fred, “You Can Trust the Communists to be Communists,” Long Beach, California: Chantico Publishing Co. 1966-69, p 155.
7. Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2 Nephi 15:20.
8. Washington, George. Farewell Address