[Rushtalk] Liberalism = State Religion?!?

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at verizon.net
Mon Mar 25 12:21:18 MDT 2013



Worshipping the State

Worshipping the State

By: <http://www.humanevents.com/author/benjamin-wiker/>Benjamin Wiker
3/25/2013 08:56 AM


Author and speaker Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D. has 
published eleven books, his newest being 
the State: How Liberalism Became Our State 
Religion. His website is www.benjaminwiker.com


As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and 
against gay marriage we might stand back from the 
whole judicial fracas and ask ourselves a larger 
and hopefully more startling question: “What is 
the government doing deciding what marriage is?”

This is really two questions in one. First, how 
did it come to be that we, as a culture, are in a 
position where something seemingly so natural, 
something that existed long before any 
governments were around, is now up for debate? 
Second, why is it that we would look to a branch 
of the government to settle that debate?

The answer to the first question is rather 
complex. For centuries (not just decades) 
liberalism has been picking away at the Christian 
foundations of Western culture. Liberalism is, in 
essence, a secular and secularizing movement; it 
is historically defined by its opposition to 
Christianity. Wherever secular liberalism 
spreads, Christianity recedes. Look at Europe.

Christianity defined marriage by what we might 
call radical monogamy: a life-long, entirely 
exclusive union of one man and one woman. No sex 
before marriage. No concubines. No polygamy. No 
divorce (except for infidelity). No 
homosexuality. No fiddling with little boys.

The pagan Roman culture into which Christianity 
was born smiled on sex wherever, whenever, and 
with whomever it occurred. Marriage was an 
important social institution in Rome, but it was 
not defined by radical monogamy. Concubines? No 
problem. Sex with your male and female slaves? No 
big deal. Divorce? Happens all the time. Got a 
favorite boy? Don’t we all. Like pornography? 
We’ll paint the walls of your villa next week.


Homosexuality was as widespread in Rome as it was 
in Greece, and, yes, in Rome there was gay 
marriage. Right at the top of society. The 
emperor Nero married one Pythagoras, and we have reports of other such unions.

That was the marital, sexual status quo of the 
society into which Christianity was born. As Rome 
fell, and Christianity rose, the Christian 
understanding of sexuality and marriage 
transformed the Roman Empire­proto-Europe, we 
might call it. With that transformation the 
radical monogamy of Christianity became the 
social, moral, legal standard, so normal that it 
was regarded as natural. It is only because 
Christianity won out over pagan Rome that we are 
having arguments about marriage today. If 
Christians had been summarily extinguished by 
imperial Rome, radical monogamy would have 
disappeared with it, along with opposition to homosexuality.

Christianity’s radical monogamy is indeed based 
in nature, in the obvious complementarity of the 
sexes, male and female. But admittedly it asks a 
lot of nature, pushing beyond mere convenience, 
and upwards to perfection. In a very real way, 
Christianity asks more of marriage than mere 
mortals­in all our weakness­have the power to 
give. But that is, in fact, a central doctrine of 
Christianity: we are fallen and need God’s grace 
to do what is truly good, truly right.

Modern liberalism, arriving on the scene, said 
“no” to Christianity. “No” in the secular sense 
of denying the existence of God, and hence of the 
whole social, moral, legal apparatus of 
Christianity. But also “no” in the allegedly 
humanitarian sense­Christianity asks too much; it 
sets the bar for sexuality and marriage too high.

And so liberalism said, “Radical monogamy is too 
much to ask. Loosen up the strings on sexuality and marriage.”

The sexual revolution is the loosening up of 
strings­so loose, in fact, that we have returned 
pretty much to the situation of ancient pagan Rome.

So, that’s the answer to the first question. We 
are debating what marriage is, and considering 
instituting gay marriage, because history has run 
a great arc. De-Christianization has led us right 
back to pagan Rome, to the good old pre-Christian 
days when sexuality was free to run wherever the 
passions led it. The re-affirmation of homosexual 
marriage just completes the historical arc.
Now for the second question. Why are we looking 
to one branch of government to settle the issue of what marriage is?

Historically, liberalism is a top-down 
revolution. It uses the power of the government 
to reform society­through control of public 
education, through the courts, through executive 
orders, through bureaucratic agencies. All organs of the state.

Liberals look to the state, in the way that 
Christianity looks to the church­as the 
institution responsible for evangelizing society. 
When persuasion doesn’t work (through public 
education or media propaganda), they resort to the blunt use of judicial fiat.

That’s why liberals want the Supreme Court to 
redefine marriage in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

But that makes it, at the same time, an issue of 
church and state­the secular state saying to the 
Christian church, a very imperial “We say that 
marriage is this. You will affirm gay marriage. 
You will bend the knee before the state.”

And that just means, “Christians, you will bend the knee before liberalism.”

Author and speaker Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D. has 
published eleven books, his newest being 
the State: How Liberalism Became Our State 
Religion. His website is www.benjaminwiker.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130325/ecf73bb3/attachment.html 

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list