Liberals have a secular religion

The Left are a bundle of contradictions:

  • They are all in favor of moral relativism, except when it comes to their brand of (im)morality.
  • They are pro-LGBT and gay marriage, but never say anything about Muslims executing homosexuals.
  • They are militantly pro-woman feminists, but support “sex-selective” abortion and never criticize the Muslim practice of clitoridectomy.
  • They hate religion, especially Christianity, but don’t have a problem with wiccan, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, or Satanism.

The plain truth is that the Left do have a religion, if religion were defined as the fanatic belief in a transcending authority, which is impervious to reason or contrary evidence. Only theirs is a secular religion that elevates the State to the level of a deity, which if the Left were to attain power, would make the political system they install a theocracy. And that’s exactly what happened to the dystopic secular theocracies of the former Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, Nazi Germany, and the grotesque Marxist-dynasty of present-day North Korea.
Below is an insightful essay by Jonathan Wakefield, originally published in the American Thinker, who generously gave us permission to re-publish his essay in its entirety. Please help make this go viral by posting it to Facebook!
~Eowyn

The Progressive Left’s Secular Theocracy

By Jonathan Wakefield, August 5, 2012

I’m a Christian and a Tea Partier.  Obviously I want to overthrow America’s constitutional government and replace it with an oppressive theocracy.
Or so the progressive left tells me.
I encounter this accusation often, as wild-eyed MSNBC anchors shout it toward their cameras, increasingly silly columnists write it in the New York Times, and my own acquaintances say it in our political conversations.  I don’t know if these people actually believe their rhetoric or if they’re simply trying to scare others away from all things Tea Party and religious.  I suspect that it’s a combination of both.  Regardless, I can’t help but chuckle at the irony my friends on the left are simply too partisan (devout?) to notice.
The Tea Party is a small-government movement that supports freedom of religion, not the establishment of one.  I — and many Christians like me — believe in the maximum freedom possible under the minimum government required to protect us and our property.  This type of system bears no resemblance to a theocracy, which is based on strict and specific religious code.  It is God’s — not government’s — role to teach us right and wrong and our role to live by His standards.  This is best done in a free society without government intervention wherever possible.
Now — what type of system does the left support, especially those most vocal against the supposed theocratic Tea Partiers?
Massive, centralized command-and-control, of course.
In a town hall meeting in 2010, Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) said that the federal government “can do most anything in this country.”  In other words, it is Almighty.
This basic view of government — that it should wield unlimited power over every aspect of its citizens’ lives — is the opposite of the Founders’ intention for We the People to largely self-govern as free individuals.  But the left brazenly advances the Almighty version instead, wanting and expecting government to address all societal ills (both real and imagined), acting as America’s Provider, Comforter, Father, Hope, Foundation, Great Physician, Owner of All Things, Judge, One and Only Savior, and Ruler, who is the Beginning of All Wisdom and Worthy of All Praise.
Does anything strike you about that list of attributes?  Might they be used to describe someone else — such as the actual Almighty?
So while the Tea Party advances small-government principles, wanting to leave citizens free to make their own decisions and reap the benefits or suffer the consequences accordingly, the left pursues a system of big-government command and control.  They then turn around and accuse the small-government Christian Tea Partiers of attempting to impose a theocracy in America, when it is the left’s plan that is often indistinguishable from theocratic rule.
Furthermore, though many of them are secularists, they serve their plan with a religious fervor that surpasses that of Pat Robertson.  They are 100% faithful to their big-government doctrine and committed to silencing all heretics — pointing their fingers at their political opposition, condemning them as evil.  In my latest book, Saving America, I call these fanatical statists “Big-Government Disciples” and argue that they are erecting a kind of secular theocracy in which government is god, ascribing to it all the attributes listed above that typically are used to describe the True God.
So what happens if the Big-Government Disciples ultimately get their way?  What does it mean for the rest of society if the government succeeds in a taking over of every aspect of our lives and fully controlling, for example, the distribution of health care and energy (a goal that is dangerously close to being met)?
Easy: we become their servants.
Freedom of choice, thought, and expression will vanish completely.  We will all be forced to worship at the altar of their secular theocracy, serving it in the manner it commands — or suffer its wrath.  The only people this benefits are the elitists who hold the reins of power, making the rules for the rest of us (which they themselves will never follow).
If the Tea Partiers get our small-government way, though, the opposite will result.  All Americans will be free to live their lives according to their consciences, worshiping whomever (or whatever) they want, including no one or nothing.  Americans will not be forced to obey someone else’s earthly commands, except those that protect the unalienable rights of others.
So, as a Christian Tea Partier, I stand committed to restoring the constitutional small-government system that will re-liberate my fellow Americans and protect them from those who actually want to overthrow our constitutional government and replace it with an oppressive theocracy.  May freedom-lovers everywhere unite to defeat the Big-Government Disciples and dismantle their secular theocracy before they grow powerful enough to execute a Judgment Day on us all.
Jonathan Wakefield is a Tea Party leader and the author of Saving America: A Christian Perspective of the Tea Party Movement. Visit his website teapartyforchristians.com.
Saving America is available on Amazon! Click here.
Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “Liberals have a secular religion

  1. Thank you Dr. Eowyn for this excellent post. It is this very religion of secularism that is behind the HHS mandate that is now in effect, It is the king’s and his administration’s war on people of faith, and most wholeheartedly his war against the Catholic Church and all of its charitable activities. Watch out! A sleeping giant has been awakened pursuant to 43 lawsuits that have been filed against this secular religionist.

     
  2. Steven Broiles

    The Bible tells us that “As ye sow, so shall ye reap.” There’s no stopping the harvest. It is ironic that liberals, who are usually more and better-educated than most, turn out to be a mealy mush when it comes to matters of morality. Or is it really ironic?
    My experience tells me that, in matters of morality, most liberals proceed from sentiment and not principle. Every profession and occupation, and every station of life has its hazards, especially the intellectual. And their professional hazard is pride, which proceeds from the illusion of being safe. The matter of sin is ignored and explained away by therapy—precisely the wrong paradigm for moral matters. Sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will. If any intellectual paradigm can be blamed for aiding and abetting the weakness of the liberal mind, I would accuse the paradigm of evolution: It is by its scientific status NOT a theory, and of its nature agnostic and pantheistic. Once you can explain God away, everything else follows. Now we are witnessing modern liberal man and Western Civilization in its death throes.

     
  3. I am a liberal, and I can say that your assessment is one hundred percent untrue. Whether or not you think I am “moral” is irrelevant. I suppose we have different definitions of that. I can not speak for everyone that claims to be a “liberal”, or whatever label you want to give people who are Republican, but I oppose the persecution of any human being simply for being a certain race/sex/sexuality, etc. I think that is a fairly common “liberal philosophy”. I do not support the practice of aborting a child simply because they are female, nor do I support forced abortions, or anything of that nature. I think and have voiced my opinion that FGM is a horrific practice that needs to be stopped. I don’t care how long it has been going on, or who claims religion as a reason, it is absolutely abhorrent. And finally, I certainly don’t hate religion. I was born in Texas, and raised to be a “Christian”. I actually do believe in God, but I have come to the conclusion (my opinion of course) that the majority of “Christians” claim to be so, yet they do absolutely nothing that resembles the acts/philosophy of Christ. If they did, they wouldn’t be judgmental, against healthcare for all, willing to give all of their possessions to anyone in need, obsessed with guns, etc. This whole blog is judgmental, full of name calling, and many other things that are hardly anything that could be considered truly “Christian”. Obviously that makes you a massive hypocrite. I believe that people should be allowed to have guns, (though I do also believe that if some 24 year old suddenly starts stockpiling ammunition and several weapons, all which came from the internet, there should be someone that takes an interest in the oddity of it). I don’t think anyone should get a free ride, and I have never been on any sort of government assistance in my whole life. And I have a college education. AND I’m a stay at home mom! My issue lies not with your religion, but with the fact that you act like it is a national religion. We have no national religion, and our POTUS certainly doesn’t need to be Christian. Your definition of marriage is yours and yours alone. You can’t use text from the Bible in court as evidence for so-called “traditional” marriage. It is an issue of equality, and it isn’t up to the masses. I think a lot more “liberals” would respect your religion, and lessen their hostility if you would realize that we don’t have a national religion, and while we are willing to respect all religions (though not practices that are harmful) we don’t think a certain one should have so much influence in politics. Just as the Constitution gives you your guns, it gives us the right to religious freedom. (In this case freedom from) I know I am not changing anyone’s mind regarding politics in anyway, but most of the liberals I know have the same beliefs that I do.

     
    • Maybe you can offer the authorative definition of marriage? Does that include plural marriages? Marrying a relative? What advice do you have for Muslims when it comes to marriage? I’m sure NAMBLA is anxiously awaiting your definition…

       
  4. *Who AREN’T Republican. Sorry. 🙂

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *