Farrell: Missing the Mark With Religion - Part II
By Steve Farrell
Libertarianism, or what sometimes flies under the banner of neo-Conservatism, has it's own pint-sized political party, but more importantly the "faith" of Libertarianism has a Titanic-sized impact upon the religious inclinations of the leadership ranks of the Republican Party, upon many of the prestigious think-tanks which feed its members their gospel, and upon those Democrats who are more inclined to think of themselves as "conservatives."
Libertarianism's central claim to fame from a political standpoint is that it represents an anti-statist, limited government answer to Modern Liberalism, in that it sets out to contract the reach of the state. This, they say, should be to the benefit of all private interests, including religion.
But whether or not the promise resembles the product is put on trial by Libertarianism's thesis on religion in public life.
Namely, just like Modern Liberalism their thesis contends that: 1. You cannot legislate morality. 2. There should be a strict separation of Church and State. 3. Government actions must not aid (nor attack) any religion. (1)
Those three rules of thumb make this creed's anti-statist, anti-socialist, pro-constitutionalist philosophy, at the very least, questionable. Or to put it bluntly, its party platform stance on religion is lifted verbatim, not out of the Constitution, nor out of the philosophy of America's Founders, as they allege, but out of the text of the Warren Burger Court's "Lemon Test," the reference point for every government and private sector attack on religious freedom in the past thirty years.
It was the 1971 Lemon Test which established the three pronged standard for future and past law, as follows: "All laws or statutes must have a secular legislative purpose. Next, they must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Lastly, their principle or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion." (2)
That Libertarianism and the Lemon Test are indistinguishable is plain as day, making Libertarian's central dogma 'Secularism'. And although some Libertarians will defend Secularism to their last breath, Secularism is from start to finish one born-in-the-gutter bad idea.
The whole idea of secular law strikes at the foundation of American government, which government was the one government on earth whose sole design was to secure the "unalienable Rights," which "all men . . . are endowed by their Creator." (3)
When the Founders accepted the idea that certain rights are "Unalienable," they were saying this: There is a source of law which exceeds the wisdom of man, that source is God, and to that source all manmade organizations, including representative governments, must humbly bow.
One cannot usurp such a right, or such a law. It is eternal.
John Locke, in his 1690 "Second Treatise on Government," quoting from Hooker (Eccl. Pol. iii. 9) explained: "Human laws are measures in respect of men whose actions they must direct, howbeit such measures they are as have also their higher rules to be measured by, which rules are two - the law of God and the law of Nature; so that laws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made."
Every ordinary citizen during the Founding era understood this elementary school taught truth. They had a source document "the Bible," and "inspired reason," to define what their rights were, and nobody, but nobody had better usurp those fixed rights!
Libertarianism, however, denies the right for Americans to look to God and His revelations as the source of their law and their rights!
Which obliges us to ask, to what source shall a child of God look for the law and his rights under Libertarian rule? Shall they look to a decree of a King, to the verdict of a Court, to a vote of a Congress, to a theory of a Scientist, to a formula of an Economist, to a machination of a Social Engineer, to a promise of a Politician, to a Time/Newsweek generated Opinion Poll, or to a here-today-gone-tomorrow ethical value of a Humanist?
Indeed, it is to such as these that the Libertarian is forced by his own reason to seek, for he is so preoccupied with his liberty, and his free markets, that he fails to understand that both are only possible within the confines of inspired and unchangeable law.
By denying the existence of higher law he puts the law and our rights "on the market place of ideas," as one libertarian publication puts it as if to say it is safe, wise, and responsible for "so celestial an article as freedom" to be bartered as a common good by master manipulators, opportunists, bullies, and loudmouths.
The result is, they make the law, precisely what Communist Founder Karl Marx wanted it to be.
"There are," said Marx, "besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience." (4)
That new basis was Secularism. And how would Secularism come about?
Communist Party USA Founder William Z. Foster said the grand key was to first separate religion from public life, and make it a private affair only. Thus in public, the only acceptable perspective would be "materialism, internationalism, and . . . ethics," or in other words, Secularism. (5)
That the attending moral vacuum would then be more readily filled by Communism is obvious.
This is what's wrong with Libertarianism. By default it embraces its own nemesis, Communism. In as much as it does this, it misses the mark about religion and becomes a "conservative" accomplice to Modern Liberalism, a veritable Trojan Horse within the Republican Party, and an enemy to all human liberty, and to "the foundation of the fabric" of that liberty, "religion."
Next: "Missing the Mark With Religion Part III: Compassionate Conservatism."
1. 2000 Libertarian Party Platform (see link below).
2. Barker, Lucius J., and Barker, Twiley W. "Civil Liberties and the Constitution: Cases and Commentaries," Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1994, p. 30.
3. Declaration of Independence
4. Marx, Karl. "Communist Manifesto," 1848
5. Foster, William Z. "Toward a Soviet America," Balboa Island, California: Elgin Publications, 1961 (a reprint of the 1932 version which was captured by the US House Committee on Un-American Activities), pgs. 316-317.
Also of interest is this quote from Lenin: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism. Our propaganda necessarily includes propaganda for atheism." See Schwarz, Dr. Fred, "You Can Trust the Communists to be Communists," Long Beach, California: Chantico Publishing Co. 1966-69, p 155.
2000 Libertarian Party Platform
About the Author:
NewsMax.com pundit and Federal Observer contributor, Steve Farrell, is the author of Dark Rose, an inspirational novel critics are calling "a modern classic." To get your autographed copy, click hereiUniverse.com..
The Farrell Archives