IN AN excellent essay titled, “The Futility of Liberalism and the Hope of Traditionalism,” at The Orthosphere, Alan Roebuck continues to elucidate the basic tenets of liberalism. He makes the important point that liberalism, properly understood, is the reigning state religion. He writes:

There is nothing improper in making this claim. Every society must have some sort of (at least unofficial) state religion because a religion is primarily a system of thought that describes reality, and leaders must always have a way of thinking to guide their decisions. Furthermore, the majority of the population needs to approve of the reasons the leaders give for their decisions, or at least to find those reasons tolerable. Therefore it is no insult to liberalism to call it a religion. On the contrary, this is to take it seriously. It is not its status as a religion that makes liberalism illegitimate; it is the specific doctrines of liberalism that make it a menace.

What is the evidence that liberalism is our state religion? Ask yourself, What system do most teachers, professors and even, God help us, many clergy, teach? What way of thinking is taught as (or assumed to be) true by most journalists? What ideas are portrayed as true, good and beautiful by most artists? What ideas are assumed true by most politicians? If you answered anything other than “liberalism,” you have not been paying attention. You may use another name than liberalism, but the substance is the same.

And what system of thought do most of our leaders use to make their important decisions? When the Supreme Court says that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional even though the Constitution says nothing about homosexuality, when the President signs legislation outlawing incandescent light bulbs, and when a state governor signs legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, they are following the dictates of liberalism. And in a sense they have no choice in the matter, at least most of the time: If America’s intellectual leaders mostly say liberalism is true, and if America’s populace mostly agrees (or at least doesn’t openly disagree), then America’s political leaders must generally go along with liberalism or risk the wrath of the people. [cont.]

—- Comments —-

Terry Morris writes:

That is a very long essay. I will have to finish reading it later. But…

Yes, we may rightly say that Liberalism, and all laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, is the Supreme Law of the Land. And that “the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” I think this is, in short, basically what Mr. Roebuck is saying.

This is why liberal political slogans like “Federal law [automatically, by virtue of its being law] trumps State law,” and “Immigration is an [exclusively] Federal issue” are so easily foisted on the biblically and Constitutionally illiterate masses. Ultimately liberal ideology must be enforced by the all-powerful federal government. If, in one respect or the other, it proves too weak to enforce liberal principles (equality of outcomes, unrestrained liberty and so forth) in any part of the U.S., then the answer is to strengthen the federal government to the point it can enforce these principles, which, of course, means weakening State and local governments, since the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts (Although liberals are prone to say that the whole is greater than the sum of parts, but that’s another story.). It is really that simple. Replace the words “This Constitution” in the Article VI Supremacy Clause with the word “Liberalism,” and it all makes sense.

Jesse Powell writes:

I object to characterizing liberalism as a religion.  It should be recognized that the major error in liberalism is precisely its lack of a God; its lack of a religious perspective.  Liberalism is based on adherence to a few simple ethical rules such as freedom, equality, non-discrimination, and some other ethical principles that are often employed such as the person who is affected the most should decide.  Adherence to a few simple ethical rules as the entirety of one’s moral system is typical of atheism precisely because the atheist in general does not understand or accept the overriding organization and order of life.  Liberalism is the expression of the atheistic world view first and foremost; it is the loss of the religious perspective that pretty much leads directly to liberalism.  The ethical rules of liberalism are not wrong as far as they go; the problem is they are simplified and incomplete.  They are simplified and incomplete precisely because they lack the overriding order that is provided by God.  The moral system of the liberal and the typical atheist is primitive; the moral system of religion is complex.  The primitive atheistic moral system leads to moral fragmentation as there is nothing “above” to organize the fragments of moral thought into a greater whole.  The religious moral system provides for moral cohesion since the religious moral system has God at the hierarchal apex to provide for the order of the overall whole.

Liberalism’s problem is not that it has “specific doctrines” that are false and not aligned with reality; its problem is that its “doctrines” do not have the character of religious doctrines since the overall moral system of liberalism is without God.  In other words liberalism is not a false religion, it is a non-religion.  Its essence as a non-religion is the problem, not the falseness of its “teachings.”  It doesn’t have “teachings” in the religious sense because it lacks religious character in the first place.

I think characterizing liberalism as a false religion obscures the fact that it is the atheism in liberalism that is the fundamental problem; indeed liberalism itself is essentially atheism.  Loss of religious faith is what created liberalism and the restoration of religious faith is what will destroy liberalism.  The emphasis should be on the restoration of religiosity itself.

Laura writes:

“Religion” typically refers to a belief system that recognizes the existence of a supernatural reality. But any comprehensive worldview that provides people with meaning and answers some of the basic philosophical dilemmas of existence serves the same purpose as a religion. Some people prefer to think of liberalism as a substitute religion. I prefer Mr. Roebuck’s formulation.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

Alan Roebuck’s piece reminds me of something the popular Catholic lecturer Peter Kreeft said to a homosexual man who described himself as a “gay” “Catholic.”

Kreeft asked him, “OK, but which one is your religion?” I thought that was perfect. It captures the essence of Roebuck’s point, which is that liberalism is the supreme governing worldview of the modern West, to which all other things are expected to bend, from the Bible to the Constitution to architecture to the arts.

What is really remarkable is how much effort is required to make someone see this elemental point. In my experience, though, whenever he does see the point that liberalism functions as something of an unofficial ideology or state religion, it can have a transformative effect.

Please follow and like us: