Here Comes the Total Secular State

It seems to me -- and, of course, I'm wrong more often than not -- that we are about to reach an important point in our nation's, and the world's, history. It's a point in time when we will have less time and opportunity to turn things around, to reverse course and avoid what appears to be inexorable movement toward a society in which the state dominates and controls every aspect of the individual citizen's life. Once the foundational elements of this movement are put in place -- and universal, government controlled health care is simply one of these elements -- it becomes virtually impossible to remove them. Ceding power is something that governments don't do on a regular basis. And as we become increasingly democratic -- i.e., driven more by the whims of the electorate than by the Constitution -- the popular feeding frenzy ensures the continued growth of federally generated and controlled entitlements. Social Security and Medicare will soon be bankrupt, but can you imagine any politician proposing major cuts in either program? Not hardly.

Let me give you an example. As a retired naval officer, I'm a member of a large organization called the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA). MOAA is really a lobby that ostensibly advocates a strong national defense, but actually focuses largely on compensation and benefits for active and retired military officers. Let me state that retired military officers are well compensated, and also receive fairly good health and other benefits. But MOAA seems willing to advocate for almost any benefit regardless of its long-term impact on defense readiness and costs. This is just the way of the world these days -- a sort of Ayn Rand Syndrome in which everyone places personal needs above the needs of the society. Personally, when I first put on a uniform in 1962 I did so because I wanted to serve and defend my country. I didn't make career decisions based on compensation, benefits or retirement income. I wasn't unhappy that all these things were part of the package, but they certainly didn't drive my decisions.

But today the desires of special interests always seems to outweigh the needs of the general interest; just as the immediate desires of the electorate always seem to outweigh the problems left to their descendants. Today immediate self-interest rules and so I see little hope that the citizenry will elect those willing to make the hard decisions needed to keep our nation from continuing its movement towards total state control. Congress might have sunk to its lowest approval rating in history -- closing in on single-digit approval -- but voters will still probably re-elect their own local representatives under the assumption that "our guy is different." Perhaps I'm underestimating the intensity of the public's hostility toward incumbents, but I think not. I suppose we'll see in November.

Interestingly, our current administration certainly seems unaffected by this public hostility and has continued its commitment to increased state control. In fairness, though, movement in this direction is nothing new and many previous administrations have abetted the process to some extent. But the Obama administration has moved with more determination and speed than any of its predecessors. I suspect the reasons behind the President Obama's single-minded focus are more ideological than political. In other words, I believe that his administration is willing to sacrifice political gain and longevity for what it believes are non-reversible ideological gains. And that's more than a little scary.

Unlike many of the conservative commentators and opinion makers, I am less concerned about the economic consequences of this movement toward state control. The economy is certainly important, but a nation can survive a collapse into poverty. No, my concern relates to the place of religion in our society and why the state will work hard first to control it and then to suppress it.

If you want to see growing state influence and control at work, you need not look far. Just glance to our north and see what has taken place in Canada. As Canada has become increasingly secular and, like much of Western Europe, cast aside its religious traditions, it has focused on a kind of ill-defined "tolerance" as its reason for being. Ironically, this tolerance is not universal and becomes almost violently intolerant of anyone who speaks out against any politically correct protected species. For example, to speak negatively about Islam or homosexuality is automatically labeled "hate speech" and becomes a criminal offense. And so, under the guise of democracy and tolerance what we really have in Canada is a budding totalitarian state, one already equipped with "thought police." Don't think it could happen here because of our First Amendment protections? Guess again. The courts have already gone a long way toward redefining the freedom of religion clause into a freedom from religion clause, and I expect they will continue in that same direction. The intent of the Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, was to place restraints on the government, but it has "evolved" to the point that it now places restraints on the rights of the people -- and interesting turnabout since, in this country at least, it is the people who are sovereign, not the government.

All of this is motivated by the fact that the secular state cannot succeed without total authority. It cannot abide competing authorities, especially those that contradict its driving principles. And so one of the first things it must do is eliminate, or at least co-opt, religious authority. The Catholic Church is, of course, the most obvious target because of its hierarchical structure, its unchanging stance on moral issues, and the faith of its members. You can, therefore, expect increased attacks on the Church and especially on its leadership. The administration itself will not attack the Church directly; it will leave that task to sympathetic organizations and media outlets. And, believe me, it will have its effect, just as it has in Canada and in Western Europe. I'm afraid the faithful remnant grows ever smaller.

One of the more interesting elements of all this is the role many churches and their leaders play in plotting their own destruction. They hear all those wonderful humanitarian words emanating from the halls of government and jump to the conclusion that they and the government share a common belief. They believe the statists are motivated by the same Christian moral principles that motivate them. They then join in "partnerships" with government in which government is always the senior partner, the partner with the cash. And with this seniority comes control, followed by demands to set aside church teaching for the sake of political correctness. We're already seeing this with Catholic Charities in many dioceses as city and state governments demand that Church agencies ignore the Church's teachings on homosexuality and marriage when it comes to such issues as adoptions and hiring. Instead of maintaining their independence, many Christian churches have opted instead to take the easy money offered by the government. It's so much easier than preaching charity and truth to their congregations.

I suppose all that is the bad news, but as I said at the start, I'm wrong as often as I'm right. The good news is that no state that rejects its religious foundations can survive for very long. Without that foundation it will collapse. In this I am not wrong. And the real Good News, of course, is that Jesus Christ will triumph. We are not to be afraid of the world. We are called instead to preach the Gospel, to live the Christian life by loving God and our neighbor, and to turn to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church for direction and for the graces that come only from its sacraments. We are truly blessed!