If there is one thing that we can take on faith, it’s that Christians are dangerous when they are in power. Once they try to institute a system of government in their own image, the carnage wrought by the joy police as they strip everyone of their rights to live and love as they choose will result in cultural devastation and endanger lives.
When it comes to other competing political philosophies, things get very murky very quickly. For example, consider the quip famously attributed to Winston Churchill that goes, “a democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Now I ask you: What is a democracy?
Merriam-Webster defines democracy as: “Government by the people” and “rule of the majority.” Based on such elastic terms, is this the embodiment of the system referred to by the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln of a “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” or, conversely, is it the popular depiction of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. What distinguishes a government tasked with promoting the will of the people from the pragmatism of might makes right? Does this explain the right-left divide when we have such divergent understandings. More importantly, which side has it right or wrong – or are they both wrong?
Admittedly, many on the right bristle at the notion of a democracy; invoking Benjamin Franklin’s reputed retort to a woman who asked what kind of government they had created with the response, “a republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.” Going back to Websters, we find a republic defined as: “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officials and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.” I can’t help but ask whether the terms democracy and republic in practise may be a mere distinction without a difference.
Briefly, I want to translate this into Canadian where our party polarities (leaving out the NDP) are liberal and conservative. Our handy dandy dictionary defines liberal as: “one who is open-minded or not strict in observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways,” while a conservative is defined as: “one who adheres to traditional methods or views.” The takeaway from reading these two terms tells us not only that the dictionary writers are liberals, but that, the framing of political philosophies between our two nations are like comparing apples to maple flavoured poutine with a cup of Timmies as a chaser.
You will note that, at least in theory, the US focuses on the structure underlying the process of governance while Canadians are divided along ideological lines. I believe that either interpretation essentially misses the point when it comes to the crux of the political divide. Let’s throw another monkey in the wrench and add a few more terms for consideration.
It seems that both sides have been slipping in and out of labels for some time and our moveable feast of political theories incorporates many additional options. We will consider a few using the popular illustration using the analogy of a farmer with 2 cows. Here is a sampler:
Communism is where you have two cows. The state takes them and gives you some milk.
Socialism is where you have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbour.
Fascism is where you have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
Bureaucratism is where you have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours it down the drain.
Capitalism is where you have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
Given the bias of the author, you can read descriptors that are either more scathing or flattering, depending on their bias. Ultimately, our problems only begin with the fact that the theories themselves are so nebulous. For instance, how can a political theory take into account the varied preferences, convictions and beliefs of any segment of a society – let alone a nation? Worse yet, how is this possible on a global scale as many collectivists seek to create?
Before going any further, I should be transparent about my biases. While I could be described as oriented toward social conservatism under a capitalist system, this is both insufficient and meaningless due to the above-mentioned influences. Ultimately, it is not important because I plan to critique, not theories, but application. It is meaningless to waste time over discussing hypothetical political systems. Instead, I plan to take an honest look at what happens when man wrests the controls completely from the authority of God.
To demystify what has taken place in the west – focusing on what I’m most familiar with: Canada and the US – I want to look at the results from our desacralizing our nations. While this label is insufficient and encompasses competing forces attempting to steer us toward one of the panoply of options – we will refer to this as secularism. There is no point in disputing ideals when we can do an autopsy on reality.
Regardless of preferred leanings, all can agree that we have moved volitionally away from the Judeo-Christian ethic. The fact that so many labels could be attached to our circumstances only shows the weakness of a foundation built on the shifting sands of man’s prevailing predilections. We were told that we needed to replace the dogmatic and antiquated vestiges of a dying mythology – and this is the result. We can pontificate on what we specifically have been running to, but there is no denying we have been running from God. There were certain promises contained in this transition.
- The premise is that we were moving to a values-free system. No more trappings of Christianity that had seeped into the culture through school prayers and Bible readings. We needed to be respectful and tolerant of all faith systems and unbelievers. Neutrality would welcome those who have been disenfranchised in from the cold and move us to a more equal society.
- This change was an evolution into the realm of reason and enlightenment. We would drop our animus against science by no longer engaging in the pretense that there was a creator. We were on a Darwinian journey and had evolved in our thinking to set aside ignorance and reject the risible claims of the Bible. Our best and brightest would disabuse us of false pretexts and unclutter our thinking.
- We were growing in compassion and would meet the needs of all by adopting a more inclusive and collectivist mindset. We would elevate those who have been marginalised and make the system more fair and equal for all by promoting the weak and humbling the privileged. Through redistributing resources and opportunities, everyone would have the chance to flourish. To the extent that there are inequalities still extant, they are necessary as reparations for the abuses of the past.
More could be added, but you get the idea. A strong motivating force was to finally “break the chains” of oppressive Christian traditions with the assurance that we were becoming a kinder and gentler society. Even “Republican” President, George W. Bush stated he represented “compassionate conservatism” – implicitly indicting the heartless nature of biblical standards. Across parties, whatever fiscal identity they adopt, almost without exception, candidates tout their socially liberal bona fides. Surely, if a more evolved people with the benefit of acquired wisdom are working in tandem having driven a stake through the heart of Christianity, we ought to anticipate that a soft landing on the isles of utopia is imminent.
Given the smorgasbord of prospects to identify our current political realities (see above), I have decided to go with the rather anodyne and purposefully vague descriptor of secularism. A more fitting term would probably be statism (since this is a state vs church scenario and the decrees of the state reign supreme).My preference otherwise would be “spirit of the age,” but that might unduly rankle any unbelievers in my audience who grasp the biblical significance. I will attempt to my utmost ability to leave any editorializing out of the descriptions. Anyone taking umbrage at the veracity of the depiction are free to challenge me in the comments below. Now, without further ado, let’s see what the fruits or secularism have birthed:
Truth:
Under secularism, truth is subjectivized. There are no objective truths – only “your truth” and “my truth” – thus rendering the very term to be moot. In application, we see that concessions regarding subjective truth are not consistently applied. For instance, a man or woman (boy or girl) can speak their truth about their “felt gender” – even in contravention of biological reality. Public interpretation of their “truth” claim, however, must validate the subjective gender identity with failure to do so subject to possible legal penalties. We have also endured censorship based on the decision of “fact checkers,” and the creation of the “Trusted News Initiative” to assess whether content that is disseminated is deemed to constitute mis-, dis-, or mal-information. Either those granted such powers are projecting their opinion, or they are purporting to ensure integrity based on objective truth standards. To make the dual claim that truth is subjective and can be objectively judged for veracity based on the reliability of subjective judges is incoherent.
Victimology:
Under secularism, victimhood is a virtue. To deny this would be require admitting that labelling an individual or demographic as victims would be a cynical ploy to keep them down. On the surface, one’s status as a victim or victimizer is based on group identity tied to one’s “race,” “gender,” sex, socioeconomic status, etc. A victim can be among the most entitled members of society provided they fall under a specific special interest group. In real terms, victim status is inextricably tied to ideology. For instance, a poor black Christian conservative directly descended from slavery is uniting with white oppressors if they reject the label and the premise of victimhood. Conversely, a wealthy black secular professor born into privilege who espouses critical race theory, voices his disdain for classism, and claims to be oppressed is a victim. In fact, those with all the trappings of “white privilege” are celebrated as allies for upholding the narrative and claiming – at no personal cost – their complicity in propagating this irrevocable state of affairs.
Fathers and mothers:
Under secularism, fathers and mothers are relegated to irrelevance. In addition to the above, there is a push to remove any reference to mothers and fathers – including campaigns to end Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. This is done based on arguments that these terms are problematic for homes with parents who are single by choice, homosexual, or “transgendered.” Traditional fathers are subject to ridicule or contempt for perpetuating the patriarchy – as is the idea of mothers who stay at home to rear their children. Parenting is to be outsourced to “experts” and the state who increasingly claim not only co-parenting status, but that they be acceded to as ultimate authorities.
Education:
Under secularism, education has required rigid compliance with leftist ideological values. Schools know and announce that they need to train children to re-educate children away from the principles being imposed by God-led Christian families. Increasingly, scores on the core STEM subjects have taken a nosedive; replaced with instruction on social justice, graphic sex-ed, gender theory, feminism, “climate change,” etc., with many schools encouraging students to become activists in the furthering of these causes. The hard sciences are subjectivized and the soft sciences are taught as immutable. Students are graded not based on their grasp of a subject, but on how well their writings conform to the biases of the teacher or professor. Children are taught critical race theory instead of critical thinking and actively promote gender confusion and sexual “non-conformity.” Parents are not permitted to excuse their children from these programs and school personnel will even collaborate with the child to explore the prospect that they may be a “different gender.” They can now bring the child to a doctor for hormone treatments and surgery – without the parent’s knowledge or consent.
Race Relations:
Under secularism, racial divisions are augmented. For instance, as mentioned, blacks are presumed victims while whites sit in the position of privilege. Whites who uphold this power imbalance are allies, but viewing persons based on common standards and their unique circumstances are to be dismissed as racist. Affirmative action assumes an uneven playing field or black inferiority; necessitating lowering standards to give those who underperform an assist. In practice, this undermines the guarantee that those getting into schools or hired for a position are the most qualified and deserving. It also brings about the presumably unintended consequences of setting up those who receive such accommodations to fail. Black lives matter, black is beautiful, and black power are all virtuous sentiments, but replace “black” with “white” and this becomes “hate speech.” Even “all lives matter” is deemed racist. Segregated graduation ceremonies are gaining acceptance – with the corollary being a “whites only” grad. Outrage is expressed over the quotient of blacks in jail with calls for lighter sentences for minorities, even though most victims of black crime are blacks. With these imbalances and social programs that incentivizing couples to not marry mean no father in the home; thus, ensuring elevated rates of gang activity, substance abuse, physical and sexual abuse, early sexual activity, school drop-outs, criminal activity, etc. Blacks who want to resist these social pressures and promote character over skin colour are derided as Uncle Toms, Aunt Jemimas, and Oreos.
Women:
Under secularism, a woman is indefinable. A woman can be a man in drag or a man who simply claims to be a woman. She is a “birthing parent who chest feeds” – unless referring to a “man” (biological woman). A biological woman who loses to a “trans-woman” is assumed to be athletically inferior since the (former) male is not assessed as having any biological advantage. A “woman” can rape and impregnate another female inmate in prison and can lose in a women’s beauty competition to a mutilated male. Women are transphobic if they are uncomfortable with or complain about biological men entering their washroom or changeroom. Despite being beyond description, we do know that “women” need to be equally or over-represented in academia and high-level, low-risk jobs. If they decide to remain at home and raise their own children, they are wasting their skills and freedoms. Women are celebrated the more they behave like men.
Men:
Under secularism, men are similarly beyond description. They can, however, be a woman if they feel like one – whatever that means. They are toxic if they hold traditional views of man as the breadwinner and protector. The determining factor is not whether or not they are aggressive or violent, since these traits in men and women are lauded if they advance specific agendas. Christian white males are the most toxic, most privileged, and greatest danger to society – since they do not claim to be women and are more prone to hold the view that men are breadwinners and are to be the heads of the household. Males have no right to express their views on abortion – unless they favour it as this is considered to be defending the rights of women. They have no say on whether or not their partner/spouse aborts her child, but he is free to leave if he doesn’t want to assume fathering duties. Men are most admired the more they adopt feminine qualities – whatever that means.
Sexual values and attitudes:
Under socialism, sexual guardrails are largely removed. Sodomy, oral sex, BDSM, fetishism, adultery, prostitution, strip clubs, graphic pornography, sex with multiple partners, and homosexual sex have all garnered mainstream acceptance, while some are even celebrated. From a very young age, our children are desensitized through graphic sex-ed to consider their sexual desires and identities. They are taught how to masturbate, put on a condom (with samples provided for free), as well as methods and paraphernalia for vaginal, oral, and anal sex. Public nudity and profane sexual displays are permitted at “pride” parades and drag queen shows accessed by children. “Pride flags” are flown outside elementary and public schools, government buildings, and businesses that would never allow Christian content to trespass; promoting heterodoxies without regard for the wishes of parents or consumers. Pedophilia has gained sympathy and acceptance under the label of MAPs (or “minor attracted persons”). Many parents have been ejected from school board meetings for reading graphic content found in school libraries in an effort to have them removed. Child porn and sex trafficking have exploded while going under-reported and minimized (see my blog on “The Sound of Deflection.”
Respect for life:
Under secularism, life does not have inherent worth. Abortion is essentially a secular sacrament with the child’s right to live being subjugated to the sexual pursuits and convenience of the parent(s). It is all but assumed that children that don’t meet a preferred standard (i.e., Down Syndrome) should be ended in the womb – for their own sakes. Doctor induced death – known euphemistically as Medical Assistance In Dying (or MAID) is not just accepted, but increasingly promoted by the state. Children can have their bodies mutilated (since changing from one gender to another in any real sense is medically impossible) so that they will never be able to reproduce. The argument is that this will save lives given the explosive 20 higher suicide rate among the gender dysphoric despite the fact that so-called gender surgery is not known to reduce this rate. One’s ability to have life-saving organ transplants or other essential medical care demands that one be injected with an experimental injection known to be deadly and/or debilitating in the long and short-term. Numbers of people “vaccine injured” or killed by injections are censored and calls to have more inoculations despite the risk are promoted.
Freedom of speech and expression:
Under secularism, the right to speak is conditional. The fact that campuses have “free speech zones” is an admission that it does not have free expression. Hate speech, while subjective, is established on the presumption that some people or groups have the right to not be criticized or be offended. There need not be an explicit or even implicit threat. Compelled speech demands that the gender dysphoric be called by “preferred pronouns,” as “misgendering” (referring to an individual based on biological reality) is now a criminal offence in Canada. Politically correct speech has been embraced as praiseworthy having formerly been subject to mockery. Preachers have been arrested for quoting scripture and proselytizing in public. Protests in Canada are also now illegal based on what happened to the Freedom Convoy participants and similar counter-protests to rainbow activism, George Floyd, BLM, Antifa, and similar protests and riots. Pro-life displays have been vandalized and pro-life and Christian groups are routinely denied status and the right to gather on college and university campuses. Prayer and sidewalk counselling outside of abortion clinics is uniquely subject to “bubble laws” that require that they stay outside a designated perimeter. On occasion, counter-protests to leftist causes are shut down for fear that their presence may evoke retaliative violence. Keep in mind that when the state determines what protests are acceptable, there is no right to protest.
Freedom of Opinion:
Under secularism, even one’s thought life is suspect. If one supports conservative Christian causes, they have been put on the watch list as potential domestic terrorists while being routinely disparaged as “racists,” “fascists,” “misogynists,” “transphobes,” “Islamophobes,” “xenophobes,” “anti-science” or “climate deniers.” Hate can be inferred if the complainant falls under one of the “protected classes.” There has been a growing cacophony alleging even that “silence is violence” if this involves a failure to affirm or promote lifestyles that were deemed to be unacceptable or deviant only a few years or decades ago. Failure to be an “ally” – one who actively affirms leftist ideological premises – are considered to be a looming threat.
Mental Health:
Under secularism, the standards for what constitutes mental illness have drastically changed. The aforementioned “alternative lifestyles” have been dropped from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) of Mental Disorders, not based on new information, but a successful campaign to change social attitudes. Despite this broader acceptance, numbers of those reporting mental health issues have skyrocketed. While measures are adopted to eradicate criticism of divergent lifestyles and identity groups – including implementation of safe spaces, censorship, diversity trainings, and remedies against “microaggressions,” those who fall into this demographic are reporting the highest levels of mental illness and inevitably this is blamed on the still dissenting but silenced voices that are insufficiently supportive. Those who are scapegoated (often at great cost) for their usually subdued opposition, are statistically shown to be happier and not suffering from mental illness despite the vitriol directed toward them.
Social equity:
Under secularism, equality is merely a recalibration of who is marginalized. Formerly, there was an undeniable exclusion and derogation shown toward certain people groups due to their skin colour, sexual preferences, etc. The tendency to pigeonhole and scapegoat some, however, has not disappeared, but only changed jerseys. Many who justified legal penalties against bakers, florists, photographers, etc. for not violating their faith convictions by using their services for “same-sex weddings” defended businesses that discriminated against those who refused to mask or be injected – thus establishing that discrimination is fine if applied against the “right” people. Most careers and even post-secondary certification require that those with “traditional beliefs” must meet an ideological standard or they can be denied entry, not certified, or fired. Others enjoy preferential consideration based on their “identity” rather than their skills. COVID created a compliance test whereby those opting for bodily and medical autonomy and privacy were relegated to the margins of society, denied jobs, lost their licenses, or were fired. Many of the same people who justified forcing businesses to
Economic equity:
Under secularism, the divide between the rich and poor has expanded exponentially. It is now assumed that government will be the ones to meet every need and that they have the right to whatever fruits of our labour they feel is necessary. Taxation rates are pushing more people into poverty along with inflation from government spending and the commensurate debt and deficit spending. With the push to have women enter the workforce, taxable income has virtually doubled – although many jobs have been in the public sector, thus adding to the tax burden. Vast sums have gone toward social programs to “end poverty” and provide various services to purportedly aid low-income families. At the same time, the previously noted dissolution of the family and incentivization toward that end exacerbates the problem. The greatest beneficiaries of the COVID response were the super-wealthy. Pharma companies made scandalous amounts of money as did Amazon and other large businesses and box stores excused from shutdown restrictions. The forcible closing of small businesses, gyms, and others determined to be “non-essential” suffered incalculable fiscal hardship. The massive growth in spending and “remuneration” to those victimized by the policies only added to the national debt and led to burgeoning inflation rates. Carbon taxes and manufactured shortages of food and other products have done greater damage. The numbers of those who are on the margins of poverty have never been higher and the wealthy have never been richer.
Substance use and abuse:
Under secularism, not only alcohol, but use of illicit drugs has ballooned. Canada, notably, has legalized marijuana and the creation of “safe injection sites” has created communities of drug addicts who are incentivized to inject. Despite the protestations that marijuana is not a gateway drug, acceptance of various psychotropic and hallucinogenic drugs has become more accessible and mainstream. In British Columbia, an array of formerly illicit drugs are now legal. The spread of fentanyl – facilitated by determined efforts to incentivize illegal immigration – has caused a massive spike in drug-related deaths as has the free movement of drug cartels over the border.
Family:
Under secularism, family is nebulous. The nuclear family is not only treated dismissively, but in many ways, with contempt. Cohabitation, no-fault divorce, and extramarital sex have been both destigmatized and promoted. Each of these developments elevate desires over the welfare of “sexual partners” and disincentivizes having children – who become liabilities or possessions to haggle over. By simply equating cohabitation with marriage is to admit that childless marriages do not require legal validation. “Same sex marriage” removes the procreative significance of marriage from “family.” When homosexual couples wish to have a child, they utilize surrogacy (intentionally excluding one or both parents), IVF (which creates embryos for insertion while extras are frozen or disposed of), or adoption (where the child is either denied a father or mother). The same holds true with intentional single motherhood. It should be noted that IVF is also utilized by couples unable to reproduce (with the same cost) or surrogacy (where the natal mother is essentially a human incubator), while adoption is the clearest approximation of a nuclear family. Let us also not forget the recent addition of sologamy to our menu of marital options. Sologamy is where women (whatever they are) marry themselves – and yes, it’s a thing! When the standard is simply “love is love,” no one can explain why polygamy, marrying a brother or sister, the family pet, a corpse, or one’s child would be out of bounds. Additionally, when children can decide their gender in kindergarten and have learned all the sexual positions and orifices before their teens, what is the argument that a “minor attracted person” can’t get consent with the promise of an endless supply of gummy worms.
I could continue into every aspect of our national trajectory and the results and the same trends emerge. Put simply, I challenge anyone to refute my assessment that, in every regard, we are tacking ever closer to 1984, Brave New World, Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451, Soylent Green, the Hunger Games, and every other dystopian depiction of future events. Put another way, as Justice Robert Bork, we are slouching toward Gomorrah.
Anyone wanting to chime in that this is not the kind of secularism they support, I would remind you that this is not only an outworking of a society unmoored from Christian origins, but I have not seen you linking hands with us who have been vocal critics and protesting this “new normal.” To those who believe we need to simply ramp up the efforts or allow time for a natural course correction, I remind you that this has been a rachet dragging us only one way.
With all this in mind, my next post will make the case for a Christian theonomy as the optimal solution for everyone – except those pulling the strings of tyrannical control.
Nota bene: The definition of utopia is no place.