The establishment of a state religion called progressive liberalism


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The battle over forcing businesses to participate in same-sex marriages is actually an attempt by the left to establish a state religion called progressive liberalism.

It is important to note that Madison was making this case [in arguing for the first amendment in the Bill of Rights] not in the context of arguing for permitting the free exercise of religion but rather in the context of arguing against the establishment of any religion by law. His point was that no one ought to be compelled to affirm as true a religious tenet he took to be false and that no one should be compelled to participate in a religious rite that violated his own understanding of his religious obligations. [emphasis mine]

The author goes on to point out how the effort by the left to require businesses to participate in same-sex weddings is exactly the same as what Madison feared, the creation and imposition of a state religion, except in this case the state religion calls itself secular and has few if any links with God.

Read it all. When I read it my mind went “Bingo! He has hit the nail right on the head.”

Share

9 comments

  • Cotour

    “But you cannot create other institutions that serve as embodiments of that religion in the society’s broader life.”

    “The florist can be Christian as an individual, but his store can’t be, because institutions, unlike individuals, are creatures of the law and our law already has a religion: progressive liberalism.” (lets call it a cult and not a religion)

    These points have been being made and some solutions and practical operational business philosophies and strategies have been offered to minimize the down side risks. I point out again that Constitutional concepts and rights are not always absolute in application as some believe in the real world, there is opportunity on both sides to inflict damage. Action and counter action.

    As long as one is ready willing and able to identify and execute what must be done and not be so stiffly wed to their ideals that they are unable do what must be done and ride their ideals into the dust. First we eat, then civilization. Conservatives might have to get a lot dirtier than they thought that they would have to get in order to make things “right”.

    When you are dealing with strategies straight from an emissary of the devil himself you fight fire with fire. The Master of these strategies?

    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_saul_alinskys_rules_for_radicals_against_liberals/page/full

  • Cotour

    Read it and understand what we are all dealing with:

    http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

  • Max

    Very good article. He makes the case very well of the attempt to establish a Progressive state religion. The use of the founding fathers language and reasoning behind prohibiting such action is a nice touch. As you say, hit the nail on the head.
    A person’s right to the free exercise of religion does not extend to their business in which they own because the business is licensed by the state. By extension, churches are licensed by the state with their 501(c) registration that allows them tax-exempt status. They will lose the status if they do not preform and recognize gay marriages and other demands of the state. This will, in effect, make all religions one under federal control.
    A few years ago I argued against the “Flag Burning Amendment”proposed by Sen. Oral Hatch when he was running for president. Had the amendment and ratified by the states, it would not have fixed social security, balance the budget, stopped illegal immigration,or helped the homeless or cured poverty or cancer. The only thing it was intended to do was to stop “flagburning” and make us all feel good about ourselves… and to establish the state religion.
    That’s right, the progressive right tryed to establish religion first by putting the word “desecrate” into the amendment which is not a legal term but religious one. You cannot desecrate an object unless it was first consecrated and it would have to be ruled this way by the Supreme Court.
    Now the progressive left have bullied their way with political correctness and intolerance to achieving what the conservative Progressive right could not. Their silence and lack of opposition speaks plainly for their support of the progressive left. They are, “moving forward”

  • Joe

    This is the current regime to a T, thanks for the intro Cotour!

  • Alexey

    Just want to remind. Christianity spread so fast because of tolerance and acceptance Gentiles. Read Paul letters. Business should serve anybody, no exceptions.

  • Your comment sounds nice, but it also indicates that you really haven’t been playing close attention to what is happening. You should watch a few of the interviews of the owners of Indiana pizzeria, or the interview of the Washington florist. They are tolerant and humble. They also understand the distinction between serving anyone, including homosexuals, without discrimination, and participating in what their religion considers a sinful act. You should learn this distinction as well.

    The links above will take you to the interviews. After you watch them I dare you to say these Christians were intolerant. The only ones intolerant in these affairs are the homosexuals trying to destroy those who disagree with them.

  • Cotour

    The thing that is missing is an appropriate protocol that businesses like these need to think about and work out before hand and employ in such situations where although the customers may not be totally satisfied they will have no legal recourse and no offence can be taken.

    Their honesty and religious beliefs are not a shield strong enough to stand behind. And ideally as you will point out (and I do not disagree with you) they should not have to. But we do not live in the ideal we live in the America that we find ourselves in and must be properly prepared to first survive and then be civilized.

    Is it perfect? No, but we must proceed with our logic and reason and fashion the tools that are needed and work with what we have got.

  • Alexey

    Thanks, there are shades of gray, I agree with argument. However, as mom told, two wrongs don’t make it right. Meaning, early Christians understood very well how to expand religion, again in Paul. We have to be as smart as they were and do not fall in atheist trap. Besides, any argument should start from No shopping for customers, first come first served, regardless. Only then, shades of gray.

  • Cotour

    Dear Alexy ,

    I will share something I was forced to devise a couple of years ago with you, it is a kind of equation that explains raw power, read it and see if you agree with my conclusions. It is both disturbing and in a way comforting because in it we are able to understand a part of the political conversation that is not talked about and not understood. This is how I understand power to operate.

    S.O.M. describes the black and white of power, we are discussing the gray scale within which we the people exist. Understand it and “see” what is invisible while immersed in the gray scale. Your mother was correct but only to a certain degree.

    STRATEGY OVER MORALITY / S.O.M. C JGL 2011

    EXTREME LEADERSHIP THOUGHT PROCESS AND ACTION WHERE THE ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS, WHERE MORALITY IS ONLY A HUMAN CONCEPT, ADHERED TO BY “OTHERS”.

    How civilizations, governments and wars throughout history are founded, fought and must at their existential core operate.

    EXPLAINATION:
    Strategy Over Morality describes a two-tiered “conversation” between a Public and their Leadership where the Public believes there is only a single, no tiered conversation occurring and that single conversation relates to the Public’s morality model perspective.

    A model in which leadership can choose to formulate an interpretation of their core fiduciary responsibilities which becomes paramount over and above the public’s morality model. Where plausible deniability can be claimed when “immoral” acts or strategies are employed by leadership or by arms length leadership proxies.

    In this “conversation”, leadership steps “down” to the public’s level and presents information, agenda or strategy in a tailored, palatable package the public can believe and comfortably accept. Leadership then steps back to their “higher” level, formulates and executes “necessary” agenda and strategy where the public’s interpretation of morality is not relevant.

    CONCLUSION: The public lives and operates under a moral code perspective which they assume their leadership is constrained by. This is a subjective false perspective conclusion on the part of the public, in fact leaderships core fiduciary responsibility requires that leadership is or can be selectively or necessarily void of “morality”.

    TERM DEFINITIONS:

    PUBLIC: The individual citizens of any civilization, society or country.

    LEADERSHIP: Any macro governing body concerned with the formulation and implementation of laws, strategies and policies, both civil and military.

    LEADERSHIPS CORE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES: Above all else the promotion and survival of the society, culture, boundaries, power and treasure.

    Related questions:

    1. Who’s benevolence and self interest model would you rather live under, yours or your enemies ?

    2. What steps will you not undertake in order for your benevolence and self interest model to prevail ?

    3. When does morality trump power and treasure ?

    4. What influences leadership and agenda ?

    Answers and Rules of operation:

    1. You never want to live under an enemies benevolence and self interest model.

    2. You will take any steps in order to live under your benevolence and self interest model.

    3. In order for “morality” to be implemented it is initially trumped by survival and power. “First we eat, then civilization”

    4. The possessors of power and treasure always influence leadership and agenda.

    5. Leadership never willingly gives up power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *