jump to navigation

Starting to get it: secular author notes leftism has become a religion July 21, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, error, General Catholic, paganism, persecution, secularism, Society, the enemy, Tradition.
trackback

And like all religions, it has creeds, dogmas, liturgies, expiation, errors, and heresies.  Sexular paganism is not a religion to be trifled with, nor is it one that engages in happy, endless dialogue.  It is the most aggressively, forcefully expansionist religion the world has seen since islam burst forth in the 7th century, and it brooks no competition.  Between the savage rock of militant islam, and the irresistible force of sexular paganism, the Church is meant to be crushed.

The guy below almost gets it, but then falls apart at the end. He does not seem to have the Faith to guide his understanding of events, and thus falls for the propaganda he’s been exposed to since infancy:

From the dawn of the modern age, religious thinkers have warned that, strictly speaking, secular politics is impossible — that without the transcendent foundation of Judeo-Christian monotheism to limit the political sphere, ostensibly secular citizens would begin to invest political ideas and ideologies with transcendent, theological meaning. [I would say it goes back way before the modern age. Christianity is a religion encompassing every aspect of life, but so is every other religion!  It is only in the “modern age” that people have bought the fantasy that they could compartmentalize their religion into a little box they open on Sunday. What that has meant in practice is that religion has shrunk as the secular state has grown, until…….]

Put somewhat differently: Human beings will be religious one way or another. Either they will be religious about religious things, or they will be religious about political things. [Exactly. Because we were created that way]

With traditional faith in rapid retreat over the past decade, liberals have begun to grow increasingly religious about their own liberalism, which they are treating as a comprehensive view of reality and the human good. [This has been going on much longer than a decade, silly]

[Now the wheels come off….] But liberalism’s leading theoreticians (Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville, Mill) never intended it to serve as a comprehensive view of reality and the human good. On the contrary, liberalism was supposed to act as a narrowly political strategy for living peacefully in a world of inexorably clashing comprehensive views of reality and the human good.

The key to the strategy was the promulgation of the pluralistic principle of toleration.

And that is where the endarkenment philosphes, in their arrogance, got things disastrously wrong.

The men above, and others not listed, deliberately wanted to curb “religious extremism” (read: the influence of the Church). They set about creating a “tolerant” state that would do  just that.  Of course, “extremism” to one is being faithful to another. And the philosphes tended to find any public witness offensive – they were in fact the far left of their time. So the notions they encouraged – government indifferent to religion, trying to greatly curb religious influence on government – in fact created a situation that simply flipped the paradigm in Church-state relations from the Church occasionally having the whip hand to the state always – always – being the dominant power.   As time has gone by, as acceptance of the secular liberal state has advanced, Christianity has been forced into retreat. But man being a fundamentally religious creature, instead of religion really going away, the very good and holy religion of Christianity has been replaced by a neo-paganism.

Many traditional Catholics have argued that this result was inevitable. That any nation/culture not founded explicitly as Catholic and with Jesus Christ as its visible head would eventually become a competitor, and even enemy, of the Church.  Our secular pagan superstate certainly seems headed irreversibly in that direction, and has for some time.  The folly was in ever thinking that right, moral, and just government divorced from Jesus Christ could even be maintained.  It cannot.

And so Jefferson, Locke, et. al., are the direct intellectual forebears of today’s sexular pagans.  Jefferson laughed at Christianity, generally, and yet he is the true “father” of our government.  It seems hard to argue that where we are at today, as a nation, is an aberration.  It seems more likely to look back in admiration at how long this nation was able to cling to its Christian heritage in spite of the derangement of its founding.

So, it would seem we are in for a very rough ride.  But God overcomes all.

And He will, but in His good time.

Comments

1. Noah Moerbeek - July 21, 2014

“Many traditional Catholics have argued that this result was inevitable. That any nation/culture not founded explicitly as Catholic and with Jesus Christ as its visible head would eventually become a competitor, and even enemy, of the Church. ”

I think persecution, even in a Catholic country, is inevitable, because God wills it to be so.

I don’t think I could point to a major country on earth where the Church has not eventually been persecuted by the state? Even the Holy Church persecutes its own from time to time.

Tantumblogo - July 21, 2014

Good point. It’s hard sometimes to keep in mind all the possible variables. What I have been trying to point out is the grave problems associated with the forms of government that have arisen in light of the Enlightenment period, even if those forms have brought some benefits or are not as bad as others.

To me, it seems increasingly as if the point we are at now was made very likely, if not inevitable, centuries ago.

But, that’s not to say that whole sweep of history may not be part of God’s plan in heading towards the Parousia, or simply a general chastisement, or one of many such things.

2. Christopher - July 21, 2014

I just posted this on the previous posting, but it is even more relevant here, so please pardon my redundancy.

“The modern secular state arrogates, through the very act of claiming to be the representative of the people and their will, powers to itself far, far more expansive, invasive, and destructive powers than any preceding form of government ever did.”

I don’t have any particular reference in mind when I say this, but I seem to remember that the “enlightened” architects of the very idea of a democracy cautioned that this could happen. Of course, the endarkenment, as you so aptly call it, led them all to think in terms of individualism and secularism, so it was an inevitable conclusion that such a system was to be preferred. I, myself, still struggle with the ideas that 1) a democracy or republic is NOT actually a preferable form of government, and especially 2) that a monarchy WOULD be.

I must say, I warm up to the idea of monarchy a LITTLE bit more each time I read something like this or read or hear a news headline about our government’s oppression, but I can still hear the Americanism taught to me in school (Catholic schools from K-12) ringing in my head and SCREAMING that monarchy is evil.

I recently engaged in a conversation about this on the Fisheaters forum, and was assured that there have been more benevolent monarchs than malevolent ones. I can only imagine (with great, great difficulty) what our nation would be like under the rule of a wise, holy Catholic monarch.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: