... And The True Believers Are Currently In Charge In America
by Michael D. Hume, M.S.
Religion has been very-much in the news lately. The controversy over the plan to build a mosque at Ground Zero in Manhattan, and over the contemplated burning of the Koran at a tiny publicity-seeking church in Florida, has raged on the airwaves for weeks now... it's making everyone understandably edgy. When we were kids, religion was supposed to be the answer to the world's troubles, wasn't it? Now it's being painted as one of the causes.
The media went into a frenzy when a recent poll showed that a surprising number of Americans (over twenty percent) believe President Obama is Muslim. He, and his press agents, have asserted he's Christian (though his church apparently taught "black liberation theology," an economic-justice philosophy, under the banner of Christianity without referring much to Jesus). I've asserted that Obama is really a "polichristian," meaning he's as Christian as voters in focus groups need him to be, and that he's a strong supporter of something I call "Socialislam" - redistribution of wealth combined with accomodations for Islamic causes in preference to those of any other religion.
I've heard it said that Liberalism - also known as Progressivism, and even as Socialism and Marxism - is a religion. This is an assertion at which liberals scoff. But what is a religion, really? If you look at the elements by which religion is popularly defined, the assertion that liberalism is a religion is pretty hard to refute.
For instance, most people think a religion starts with a noble idea, a well-intended philosophy toward treatment of others, put forth by a devout founder. Throughout the last 150 years, liberalism has had just that. Well-intended people who perceived oppression of the poor by the rich began to assert that "redistribution of wealth" was an idea whose time had come. Of course, well-intended policies often end up with unintended consequences when implemented in the real world, and they say "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." It turns out that socialism, and its near-cousin communism, has never actually worked to create the Utopia envisioned by such founders as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and by later disciples such as Vladimir Lenin, Woodrow Wilson, and others. Like the good intentions espoused by other religions, such as Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, etc... the plan sounds great but runs into trouble in practical application. I mean, how many times have you heard that the notion of celibate priests and nuns just isn't "practical?" Maybe... but some people believe it is, and try to practice it (some with some success, though you hear a lot of stories about those who fall). And liberals still believe in wealth redistribution despite the fact that it's never led to anything but discouragement of entrepreneurship and decline of the economy.
You see? It's all about what people "believe."
How about science? Science is often described as being in conflict with religion, because there's no "proof" of things like God, or an afterlife, or a spiritual existence out there somewhere... you know, stuff we crazy religious people believe in, despite the lack of scientific evidence. Never mind that no one's ever proved there isn't a God, or a Heaven, or whatever... the burden of proof, say the critics of religion (most of them liberals, incidentally), is on the religion to prove God's existence. Religious leaders sometimes do lament that God doesn't seem interested in proving His existence to scientists. But God (if any) love 'em, they keep believing in Him anyway, and living their lives as though He were real. How about liberals? Liberals believe in global warming, as an example. They'll even tell you science has proved the existence of GW, in fact, though that's not true. In fact, hundreds of scientists will tell you there's actually evidence that mankind has not impacted the global climate, but liberals will ignore that evidence. It isn't "evidence," you see, just because it's true... to be considered "evidence" by liberals, it has to line up with the template of what they believe. So they keep living their lives (and trying to run ours) as though GW were real. For instance, they ban cheap, safe lightbulbs in favor of curly-Q flourescents that actually contain a dangerous amount of mercury in each bulb - and ignore the "evidence" that the inevitable breakage of those bulbs is environmentally dangerous! Why? Because they BELIEVE the curly-Qs are better for fighting GW. Liberals want to pass a cap-and-trade "energy" bill which will actually cripple the energy industry, but insist the law's needed to battle this GW they believe in so strongly.
Doesn't that sound like a religion... and a dangerous one at that? But wait: there's more on the science theme. Liberals believe in ESCR - embrionic stem cell research. Medical science has proved (with evidence, and facts, and everything) that ASCR (adult stem cell research) not only doesn't require the creation and destruction of human embryos, but is actually MORE promising in terms of getting new cures than the embrionic version! But liberal lawmakers want to fund ESCR and cut funding for ASCR. Why? Why would they do that? Because people of OTHER religions prefer ASCR, and liberals want the version preferred by them - for reasons that can only be described as religious - despite scientific evidence against it. It's a holy war!
Most people would agree that once you "join" a religion, you tend to doggedly stick to that religion's beliefs and practices and are not particularly open to changing. For instance, once you "find Jesus," you insist on acting like a Christian, believing in Christ, and practicing Christianity by following the rituals and acts dictated by your Christian church or sect. Right? In fact, the liberal American president, while campaigning for the office, referred particularly to small-town Christians as "bitter clingers," clinging to our guns and religion. So isn't liberalism just like that? Once you are converted to liberalism, you would never even consider agreeing with any conservative principles. Despite the fact that cutting taxes tends to grow revenue to the government as it creates businesses and jobs (and more taxpayers), liberals believe "the rich" should be taxed, and taxed good. That's economic suicide when practiced at the national level, but the devout liberal wants to tax, tax, and tax some more and spend it all (and MUCH more) on motivation-killing entitlement programs. It isn't logical; it's a belief. Kinda like trying to convince, say, a Mormom that Joseph Smith didn't really find the Book of Mormon on golden plates which would have to have weighed too much for him to carry out of there, as he claims he did. That's OK... I can't prove he didn't, and I have great respect for my Mormon friends who believe he did. It isn't logical to me, so maybe it was a miracle. Just like it'd be a miracle if the current liberal dash toward socialism actually failed to wreck our economy beyond repair.
Then there's the tendency to take over society's institutions to provide protection for, and promotion of, the religion. The Catholic church has been widely criticized for this (see the Spanish Inquisition), but practically every religion's done it. How about liberalism? Well, take a look at (1) The Media, (2) The Academic Community, (3) The Government - and its control of The Military - and even (4) Hollywood in America. Liberals have taken over a century to do it, but they've got 'em all. You have to work hard to watch the news, go to school, or even catch a movie without getting a heavy dose of liberal indoctrination to swallow. It's not as overbearing and, well, death-related as the Inquisition, but it's every bit as effective in terms of mind control. Americans love their TVs and movies... so that's where the indoctrination is served up. Spain, several centuries ago? Well, that was a different deal, requiring different tactics... but the intent and effect are the same.
That reminds me of another thing religions love to do: if you don't like the word associated with their "church," they change it, or change its meaning. The word "catholic," after all, is basically a word meaning "legitimate." The whole idea, back when the naming committee was working on coming up with a label for the Roman church, was to let you know right away that this was the legitimate religion. Later, in the United States, the words "socialist," "communist," and even "liberal" became distasteful to the populace (possibly because of the havoc wrought on everyday life by liberalism)... so they changed to the much nicer-sounding "progressive." Who doesn't want to be "progressive?" Who would stand in the way of "progress?" Only those right-wing money-grubbing fat cats, that's who!
So what do we have so far? Ideas that sound good but aren't real-world practical? Check. Dogged beliefs and practices in the face of contradicting science? Check. Reliance on non-logical miracles to drive your beliefs and behavior? Check. Mind-control of the population through usurpation of the institutions of society? Check. "Politically correct" labeling to trick you into joining? Check.
Liberalism is looking like a religion.
But of course, no religion would be complete without its prophets, its messiahs, its charismatic leaders. Do liberals have those? And how! You know who they are. How could you avoid knowing who they are, given their mastery of The Media? I don't even have to write this paragraph. Sufficient to say: Prophets and Messiahs? Check. Big-time check.
So what did I miss? By any measure you'd apply, liberalism is a religion. And a dangerous one. Because we citizens took our eye off the ball and elected too many liberals, liberalism has actually taken charge of the U.S. It's like a state religion now.
I am looking forward to Election Day, when we can take personal responsibility and throw the bums out peacefully. That's the miracle of America - no shooting-type rebellion required to change our government. And we will be the miracle that separates this liberal church from our state.