When a man with strong religious beliefs aquires a position of power, Leftists vociferate over the separation of Church and State, and the horrible results of waging politics governed by religious (in other words, ethical) principles. They claim that Religion will interfere with the just application of the Law, that no-one with strong religious convictions can govern impartially, and that allowing a religious person to hold public office means that person will have to put his or her religion away while in office. Morality is, after all, a private matter.
Liberals thus were apoplectic when John Ashcroft was nominated for the position of United States Attorney General. He was going to change abortion law, bring back prayer in school, and turn the US government into a theocracy. He was going to oppress everyone by enforcing his private beliefs. You would think George Bush had just nominated a member of the Taliban for the position.
The Democrats have also strongly opposed several of President Bush’s judicial nominations. This opposition has arisen in part because of the religious beliefs of the nominees. Miguel Estrada is only one example. These people have been hounded, attacked, harassed and persecuted because of their personal opposition to philosophies and ideologies the Left promotes, even when it is well documented that their personal belifs have not colored their legal opinions. It is interesting to note that the religous test only applies to conservatives seeking office. Religious liberals (if there is such a beast) are guaranteed not to let their religion meddle in their public administration. John Kerry’s rebellion against Catholic doctrine prohibiting abortion is just one example.
The Left denounces anyone who dares to allow Religious principles to govern her thinking in political matters. But when a homosexual man engages in politics according to his version of morality, he is held aloft as a hero, a forward thinker, a pioneer, and “courageous.”
The private morality of one kind of person is acceptable to society, while the private morality of another is decried. On the surface, we see truth in this principle, but the elements are now reversed from what they once were. It was the standard in this country that men should be governed by ethics, usually as taught by Religion. And it was expected that any man who should venture into the political arena should and would take his ethics, and his Religion, with him.
Following the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government we had. His response was, “A republic, if you can keep it.” He understood that the person to whom he was speaking was part of the People, and therefore partly responsible for the continuance of the new government. This was to be a government of, by, and for the people. But today’s attitude creates a class of men who believe they should govern by right, but who are devoid of religious (and therefore, ethical) thought.
By denying some the right to apply traditional religious principles to government, they create an ethical vacuum. Against what standards shall we hold ourselves to determine if the principles we apply are correct? The creation of the ethical vacuum allows any other principle to rush in to fill the void. Liberals insist they are not promoting atheism, but that is the net effect. By forcing all religious (but especially Christian) principles from the political forum, atheism becomes the defacto state religion. Atheism now not only supplants Religion in our judicial environment, but also becomes militant in order to preserve itself and its new place in the public square, and to prevent a resurgence of Christianity. Where Liberals denounce the presence of Religion in government, they have replaced it with another morality: that of irreligion.
There are always the poor and needy, the destitute and the elderly. How do we take care of them? Traditionally, this was the purview of Religion. But in the zeal to replace Religion in the minds and hearts of the people, the Liberals have used the power of Government and the force of law to usurp Religion’s role in caring for the less fortunate. In eliminating Religion from Politics in the name of “separation of church and state,” we now have a full-blown state Religion, where the State is Religion.
The State becomes a false god that recognizes no other God, because it is the center of creation. It is the Grantor of rights. It is the final arbiter in disputes over questions of law. It owns all land within its borders. Its citizens are its subjects, who live according to its will. The State dictates how much money you make and what you will do with your money. The State is the Great Parent. When you die, the State decides how much of your estate will be given to your heirs. The State is the Beginning and the End. All money, all power, all thought, and all being are dedicated to its existence and support. To turn a phrase, “the State is the opiate of the elite.” They are intoxicated with its power. So-called “private” morality thus becomes a very public issue.
