The last part ended with a question that this part shall now answer.
Why? Because ‘religious’ views are just one example of a ‘world view.’ I asked earlier, “Ought not our attitudes and behaviors in political society be driven by our views about the world? If not our own views about the world, then whose views?” The very nature of a ‘world view’ is that it is all encompassing. If we are not allowed to advocate for things personally and publicly because of our views about the world, then obviously we do not live in a free society. Obviously, if certain views are not permitted expression, then other views are; these other views are determined by others, who exempt themselves from the same constraints they demand on others. It is not difficult to see how this will end up. People must be able to advocate for things for any reason that they choose, or else it is tyranny, or the makings of it.
Note that the actual Constitution is that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion- that is, it cannot make a law dictating that any particular world view must be every one’s views. The secularists, in demanding that only their views are allowed expression in the public sphere, effectively violate the spirit and intent of the first amendment.
In another post we can have the good fun of proving that secular humanism is as ‘religious’ as any other religion, but for now I’ll settle for my penny illustration, and remind the reader that secular humanists have their own positions on topics that religionists likewise have an interest in. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If the secular humanist is allowed to be informed by their position on a topic, the religionist is allowed to be informed by his position on that topic.
The reader may think that this is much ado about nothing, but I have actually had liberal secular humanists tell me that I have to have a secular reason for everything I advocate in the public sphere. For example, they would allow me to have views on something like gay marriage that are informed from my ‘religious’ perspective, but if I’m going to act on it in public, I cannot do so because of that religious perspective. Theoretically, if I could come up with a ‘non-religious’ perspective that drives me to oppose gay marriage, they’d allow me to advocate for it in the public realm.
These folks literally didn’t think I should even be allowed to advocate for something or vote for something if it did not have a ‘secular’ rationale. In one case, no sooner was this sentiment out of the liberal elitist’s mouth when he realized how closely he sounded like a raving communist. In a rare victory, the atheist walked it back by acknowledging that in order to enforce what he had just said, men would have to be stationed next to each person as they voted grilling them as they made each choice, carefully screening the rationale for each one to make sure that the choice was made on ‘approved’ grounds. The ‘walking back’ was as totalitarian as the initial line of argument, but it was cute, and fun to watch. I don’t often see progressives recognize the irrationality and wickedness of their own arguments, so you can understand why I remember it so well even now.
But is it the case that this way of thinking is found in the random leftist radical and no where else? I don’t think so, but it is besides the point. The random leftist radical, seeing every one of their views as worthy of implementing on the public stage, is a perennial activist. These people fill the halls of power. I do not deny that they often have the sincerest of intentions. Many clearly do, but guided by their world view, as they surely are (and denying you the right to be guided by your own), they feel compelled to ‘help’ as they see fit. Since they do not believe that there is any meaning beyond this life, for anyone, they tinker-tinker-tinker in a quest to make THIS life as ‘meaningful’ as possible.
While religionists are generally content to mind their own business, raise their families, start businesses, and so on and so forth, the secularists enter the government in a quest to serve the ‘public good.’ Consequently, the government tends to attract these folks. Oh, and power-hungry maniacs. And they don’t think the religionists are allowed to act on their own beliefs in the public sphere.
I wish to give you an example of this so that you won’t think I’m just making baseless generalizations. When I’m done, you’ll see why this post has gone the way it has, and how it ties into the contents of the Jaffe Memo.
For that, you will need to wait for Part 4.