A Christian Society?

So often we hear people, particularly religious people, speak of our nation as a "Christian Society." Of course, I've never heard one of these folks actually define what that means. To be fair, I suppose it's not a particularly easy thing to define. 

For example, is a Christian society simply a society in which a majority of its citizens call themselves Christians? In the United States this was certainly the case for most of its history, although I'm not sure it remains so today. Anyway, just because a citizenry calls itself Christian, doesn't mean it believes and lives the Christian faith. Such contradictions are apparent with individuals, so why not with nations as well?

Or perhaps a Christian society means the nation is governed by what we consider to be Christian principles; that is, principles based on the Gospel, the teachings of Jesus Christ. Well, if we actually examine the policies and laws of our current government at local, state, and federal levels, the presence of Gospel values seems to be rather rare. Not only are the Ten Commandments increasingly ignored, but the Beatitudes? Well...they're considered irrelevant, certainly nothing on which to base legislation.

These thoughts popped into my aging brain the other day as I re-read the Gospel according to Mark for an upcoming Bible Study session. Mark, who likely wrote the Gospel while in Rome, must have experienced first-hand the persecutions instituted by Emperor Nero. He and the Christians in Rome, who lived under the Empire's totalitarianism and the personal tyranny of Nero, suffered from a level of persecution probably not seen again until the 20th century. I suspect many of these early Roman Christians hoped for a day when the empire might actually be motivated by Christianity. 

Today we have a world in which Christianity is by far the most persecuted religion in the world, By some estimates Christians are actively persecuted in over 160 countries. And I expect this doesn't count the more subtle denigration, social exclusion, and media attacks of Christians increasingly common in the countries like our own.

True Christianity, of course, cannot abide any form of totalitarianism, an ideology  which demands complete control of all aspects of human life by the state. Here in the good ol' USA, a nation populated by those who have historically prided themselves on their love of freedom from all forms of tyranny, we are witnessing a movement toward a form of authoritarianism wielded by those who have forgotten that "we the people" are sovereign. Constitutional rights -- rights endowed by our Creator -- are considered expendable when national crises arise and push those who represent the people to the limits of their authority and capability. And so, they try to exceed both and assume essentially unlimited powers. Although freedom, once lost, is hard to regain, far too many citizens today don't seem to care. 

Some wise sage, I can't recall who, once said that when we give up our freedom we soon forget its value. Even those who regain it often find freedom too much of a challenge and let it slip away once again bit by bit. And those whom we empower? Although they publicly express a loathing of totalitarianism, they privately admit much admiration for its supposed efficiency. I guess it's just the way of the world, really nothing new, simply a symptom of a fallen, sinful people.

Last evening I turned to a volume I hadn't read in a dozen years and was struck by the wisdom of the author. The book was published in the UK in 1940. This was a  time when Great Britain was at war with Hitler's Germany and yet was also aware of the threat posed by another totalitarian state, the Soviet Union. What follows are a few pertinent passages I think worthy of sharing.

"To speak of ourselves as a Christian Society, in contrast to that of Germany and Russia, is an abuse of terms. We mean only that we have a society in which no one is penalized for the formal profession Christianity; but we conceal from ourselves the unpleasant knowledge of the real values by which we live."

Today, sadly, many in both the UK and the USA, are "penalized" for their profession of faith, especially by the technocrats who run social media, which has become perhaps our primary means of interpersonal communication. 

The author went on to write: 

"...a society has ceased to be Christian when religious practices have been abandoned, when behavior ceases to be regulated by reference to Christian principle, and when in effect prosperity in this world for the individual or for the group has become the sole conscious aim."

The author, speaking of the UK of 1940, asks if his society is still Christian simply because it had not yet become something else. He seems to believe that, yes it is, because it wasn't completely pagan. I suppose 80 years ago he was correct. Although I would disagree with his use of the word "pagan" when really we are faced with something quite different from traditional paganism. The growing tendency, at least today in the United States, is to become a-religious, which is certainly not a pagan trait. I suppose this, though, is just a matter of semantics.

The author then turns to one of my heroes, Christopher Dawson, who wrote that non-dictatorial states stand not for traditional liberalism but rather for democracy. Dawson continues "to foretell the advent in these States of a kind of totalitarian democracy." To many this would seem a contradiction, but it's not. Democracy, unchecked by constitutional limitations, inevitably becomes a dictatorship of the majority, often an emerging majority, in which minorities -- for example, Christians -- suffer persecution. 

We then read the following, which should give us pause today as we witness the rapid deterioration of our constitutional rights:

"By destroying traditional social habits of the people, by dissolving their natural collective consciousness into individual constituents, by licensing the opinions of the most foolish, by substituting instruction for education, by encouraging cleverness rather than wisdom, the upstart rather than the qualified, by fostering a notion of getting on to which the alternative is hopeless apathy, Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is its own negation: the artificial, mechanized or brutalized control which is a desperate remedy for its chaos."

As all of this happens, as Liberalism brings about its own destruction, we still "insist upon the preserves of 'private life' in which each man may obey his own convictions of follow his own whim: while imperceptibly this domain of 'private life' becomes smaller and smaller, and may eventually disappear altogether."

Where does this most easily happen? According to the author materialism is both a symptom and a cause.

"The more highly industrialized the country, the more easily a materialistic philosophy will flourish in it, and the more deadly that philosophy will be...And the tendency of unlimited industrialization is to create bodies of men and women -- of all classes -- detached from tradition, alienated from religion, and susceptible to mass suggestion: in other words, a mob. And a mob will be no less a mob if it is well fed, well clothed, well housed, and well disciplined"

And so, today many of the institutions that define our society have left neutrality behind and become openly anti-Christian. Should this trend continue, and I can think of no strictly human effort that will stop it or slow it down, eventually Christianity and Christians will be considered and treated as enemies of the state. In our author's words, the course for the Christian then becomes "very much harder, but it is simpler."

As you can see, even from the few passages I have quoted, the author was prescient in his understanding of where Western society was headed 80 years ago, and where it is today. The essay, written by the poet, T. S. Eliot, is included in the book, "Christianity and Culture." It's one of those books I turn to every decade or so just to remind me that God is in charge and that, without His guidance, humanity will make a mess of pretty much everything. I addressed only a few of Eliot's thoughts, those that set the stage for his major thesis. Read the book. You'll enjoy it. 

What Are They Saying?

I keep hearing people say some very odd things, sometimes stupid things. I'm sure many don't realize how strange their words sound, but maybe if they actually thought about what they're saying, they'd stop saying it. For example:

"We're all in this together." 

No, we're not. The protected classes certainly aren't. These include the multi-millionaires and billionaires, the Wall Street denizens, most professionals, tenured academics, government bureaucrats at all levels, media talking heads, and of course, members of Congress, state legislators, mayors, and city council members...and so many more. All of these well-protected people are pretty much isolated from the more dire effects of the coronavirus panic...at least its short-term effects. These are also the people who make most of the decisions that affect the hard-working citizens of the USA.

Another group includes the non-working poor; that is, those who receive regular welfare payments, food stamps, Medicaid, and all the rest. They, too, have been largely unaffected by the pandemic, at least financially. Their checks have continued and they've even received a nice big bonus. I know this because I've spoken privately with a lot of these folks, my soup-kitchen friends, and most are very content with the current situation. Interestingly, several told me they are receiving even more meals and other food and household products since the pandemic, largely because charitable contributions and governmental assistance have increased dramatically. Yes, there are some exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

 
Another group includes me; that is, those of us who are retired and receive monthly checks from the U.S. Treasury. My income isn't very high, but it certainly didn't drop. Indeed, it experienced a nice rise when my bank account received that government bonus check. Other than experiencing a little "cabin fever," most of us have weathered the pandemic fairly well.

There are a few other unaffected groups, but let's turn our attention to those who have been hammered most by the coronavirus debacle: the working poor and the middle class. Also included here are the entrepreneurs, the folks who create jobs and keep our economy going. Unfortunately, these are the people who, disproportionately, have lost their jobs and income and may well lose their businesses. 

The leftist totalitarians, who demonstrate an insatiable desire to run every aspect of our lives, consider businesses, especially small businesses, so very non-essential. Big businesses are generous with campaign contributions, but most small businesses reinvest their profits where they will do the most good: in their businesses and employees. The fact that small businesses employ 50% of American workers means nothing. The left, you see, wants everyone to work for the government; that is, they want socialism. If you're a barber in Michigan, if you own a bar in Chicago, a gym in New Jersey, a restaurant in Manhattan, or a gun shop in LA, and if you decide to reopen your business, you can expect special treatment from the dictator wannabes who lead these states. How about a hefty fine or a cozy bunk in one of their jails? After all, they've made room for you because they've freed so many child molesters, rapists, and other criminals. Lifelong politicians don't have a clue. Remember that when you cast your next ballot.

Then there's this one:

"Join us in supporting America's essential workers."

I heard these words during a commercial aired by some company that wanted us all to know they provided material, moral, and emotional support to healthcare workers, fire and police, and other key "essential" workers. The commercial included a rapid-fire series of images of the kinds of people who fit their narrow criteria. It was one of those "pat ourselves on the back" commercials by a company that has furloughed a bunch of their own "non-essential" employees.

My problem relates to the essential vs. non-essential designation. It really boils down to decisions made by politicians or government bureaucrats who likely have never worked in the private sector or had to invest sweat equity in a business they owned. We see the result when power-hungry governors and mayors fine or order the arrest of owners of small businesses who actually believe the Constitution was written to protect them from tyrants. 

These same un-Constitutional decisions are too often influenced by political considerations. For example, why is a Walmart employee essential, but a local deli worker non-essential? Why is a Planned Parenthood abortionist essential, but an orthopedic surgeon who performs knee, shoulder, or hip replacements non-essential? Why is a news reporter more essential than a priest, minister, or rabbi? After all they're all protected by the First Amendment. And why is a member of Congress, who really does very little, essential, but a barber, who provides a needed service, non-essential? Believe me, my barber, a wonderful man named Salty, has done far more for me than my congressman. When it comes to the economy, pandemic or not, every job that feeds families and keeps people employed is essential...period!

And how about these words...

"You are violating the governor's orders..."

These were spoken by a police officer and addressed to the owner of a gym in Bellmahr, NJ. 

Colonel Patrick Callahan, New Jersey State Police Superintendent, stated that in addition to a summons for violating Governor Phil Murphy's stay-at-home order, the owners of Atilis Gym were charged with making a public nuisance. Gym owners Ian Smith and Frank Trumbetti had stated that they intended to remain open. They took every necessary precaution to protect their members from the coronavirus. They followed all the guidelines to ensure social distancing, as well as proper cleanliness and disinfecting of equipment. One of the owners correctly stated that it was primarily a Constitutional issue, that the governor's executive orders violated the Constitutional rights of American citizens. They had broken no laws. 

At this point I intend to write something that will upset many of my readers, but I really don't care, because it is the truth.

The gym owners, because they are willing to sacrifice their livelihood and their freedom, to place it all on the line in support of their Constitutional rights, are men of courage. As someone who wore the uniform of the United States Navy for several decades, I swore an oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." I also swore to obey the orders of those "appointed over me." But if an order violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- i.e., if it were illegal -- I could not legally obey it. The New Jersey State Police also take an oath and it too requires that they defend the Constitution of the United States; indeed, that's the very first element of their oath.

Although the governor has shown himself to be a power-hungry little dictator, the people of New Jersey can handle him through the electoral process, assuming they are wise enough to discern what's he's doing to their freedoms. My real problem, though, is with the police. The police, according to the NJ State Police General Order #1, may arrest or issue a summons only when someone has violated the law. The governor's orders, however, are not laws. Laws can only be enacted by the state legislature. Why, then, are the police acting as they are? I can think of only two reasons: (1) They are simply ignorant and don't realize what does and does not constitute a law. In other words, they do not understand the U. S. or New Jersey Constitutions and the rights of citizens; or (2) They fear the consequences of disobedience, should they fail to summons or arrest those who violate the governor's illegal order. In other words, they don't want to be fired or otherwise punished by the governor.

The upshot? The gym owners have shown themselves to be courageous men with a deep respect for our Constitutional freedoms. And the police who are involved in this injustice? Watching some of the interactions between police and those asserting their freedoms, one senses the officers are somewhat embarrassed to challenge these law-abiding citizens. One also hopes they are merely ignorant, because I'd hate to think of them as cowardly.

I have always had tremendous respect for our law enforcement officers at every level, local state, and federal. But when they encounter corruption at the highest levels, they are faced with a choice. They can go along, hoping it will go away. Of course, it won't, not until it is openly confronted. They can refuse to take part and either be fired or perhaps allowed to resign. Or they can fight it using whatever means available to them. Sadly, most seem to choose the first option.

Many of these governors are currently being sued for taking such draconian, un-Constitutional actions. As these suits move through the courts I expect the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against the governors. I simply can't imagine the justices agreeing to set aside the Bill of Rights because of a virus.

"You can't save everyone. You're gonna lose people. That's life."

No, Governor Cuomo, that's death. 

New York's governor, Andrew "Liveshot" Cuomo, uttered these words when questioned about his order demanding nursing homes accept patients infected by COVID-19. This order, which the average 10-year-old would realize was idiotic, resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of New York's senior citizens, those most vulnerable to the effects of this virus. I actually take this decision by the governor personally because, at the age of 75, I'm right there in the mix with all these elderly people who are no longer with us. 

Why did this happen? The governor told us: "You're gonna lose people." And if "you're gonna lose people," I suppose you might as well lose those who count the least. This is how today's leftists think. Sanctity of life means absolutely nothing to them. Not only are some jobs more essential than others, so too are some lives. 

The unborn, for example, are essentially meaningless. They simply don't count. For some on the left, who strive to limit the effects of humanity on the planet, the best approach is to stop humans from being born. If contraception doesn't do the job, just snuff 'em out in the womb. The aged, too, have become unnecessary. Not only do they no longer contribute much to society, but it also costs far too much to keep them alive. The numbers tell the story. They're living so much longer now. Social security, government pensions, Medicare...it all adds up. Just send a bunch of infected folks into those nursing homes and let nature run its course.

Of course, creating a culture of death that supports abortion and euthanasia also helps undermine the left's most powerful enemy, organized religion, especially those faiths that actually cherish God's gift of life. And while I'm on the subject, thank you, Mr. President, for encouraging the states to open up our churches. It's about time. Let's hope they listen.

Some church leaders have been courageously defying governors' orders that blatantly violate the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the amendment that bars government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Here's a recent article addressing the issue: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/religious-leaders-weigh-defiance-if-theyre-asked-to-close-church-doors-again

And kudos to the Catholic Bishops of Minnesota who decided to allow parishes to celebrate Mass with parishoners present despite the order banning services by Governor Tim Walz. Their action obviously put the pressure on the governor who then rescinded his order. See the story: https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/after-minnesota-bishops-plan-to-defy-mass-restrictions-governor-eases-rules

Communist China and Other Liars

There's a lot of public and private lying going on today. This always happens when a crisis arises. When the going gets tough, the incompetent and lazy and self-centered simply lie.

The lies of the self-important are usually designed to deflect attention from their current and past incompetence to the real or imagined mistakes of others. Once the crisis hits, they realize, or others make them realize, that their incompetence either caused or aggravated the crisis. Such knowledge, of course, must be hidden from the public. Hide the truth, identify a suitable scapegoat, and attack it aggressively. The truth, of course, is hard to hide, so this works for only a while. Eventually the truth becomes known. 

Sadly, the self-important, which include many politicians and most of the national media, are the least of our problems. The most dangerous of today's liars are not incompetent; they're simply evil. Perhaps the best example are the Chinese Communists.

The Chinese Communist Party really can't be called a political party because it's the only party permitted in China. Indeed, if you tried to start an actual political party in China, you would surely be arrested and likely imprisoned...if you were lucky. 

It's important to be aware of this, a key identifier of all totalitarian states. No totalitarian government, whether based on ideology or a cult of personality, can tolerate intellectual or political competition since it will always lose the argument. It must reject the very idea of truth, because it never has truth on its side. This is why those on the extremes must always distort history, creating fictional versions that support the ever-expanding structure of lies they want us to accept.

And here we encounter another key identifying trait of all extremist ideologies, whether national socialists like Hitler or international socialists like Lenin: their remarkable capacity for spreading lies. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Fidel -- yes, the whole bunch and so many others -- all encouraged telling the lie so long as doing so aided the spread of their ideology. For them the end always justifies the means, any means. 

This might lead you to believe that such extreme ideologues are not unlike most politicians who tell lies so easily when it suits their purposes. Yes, indeed, most politicians lie on occasion, and the longer they've spent in politics, the more comfortable they become with telling the lie. This is why I try to avoid voting for any man or woman who's spent a long career in politics. But communists and other socialists are different from run-of-the-mill politicians. The latter lie occasionally, but the former lie constantly. They must because their failing policies are indefensible.

Communist China's a wonderful case in point. Every agreement, every treaty, every official statement made by the ruling Chinese Communist Party is based on and filled with lies. The lie is present even in the nation's official name: the People's Republic of China. The people have no say in their government which cannot be described, by any definition I'm familiar with, as a republic.

Just look at how the party has handled the virus. When COVID-19 began to spread in Wuhan, the authorities clamped down hard on the doctors who were telling the truth about the budding crisis. Most were arrested because in a socialist state the truth will get you imprisoned. (See this story: Los Angeles Times.)

Now, months later, when the party offers statistics on the spread of the Coronavirus in China, you can be certain the data are intentionally inaccurate. This week we've begun to hear reports of tens of thousands of cremations taking place in Wuhan, where the virus apparently originated, and this despite the "official" death toll of 3,305. (See this story: International Business Times.)

The Communist Party can't completely hide the truth, so it changes the conversation and offers the world a spectacular lie: the United States Army is responsible for introducing the virus into Wuhan Province. 

Interestingly, many politicians and members of the mainstream media accept the Chinese "data" without question and use it to attack their favorite target: the president. In other words, they base their own lies on the lies of those whom they know are lying. Yes, it's all very interesting, and would actually be entertaining were it not so serous and so deadly.

Political Correctness

Among modern man's more puzzling traits is his seeming unwillingness to name that which is trying to destroy him. It's a particularly dangerous trait since it even goes so far as to disguise its own name. We are urged to call it "political correctness" which has both an innocent and positive ring to it. But political correctness really has little to do with true politics, and because it is inherently deceiving, it is far from correct. In truth it is nothing but a lie. 

I've always believed that all lies have their origin with Satan and his flunkies. He is, after all, the father of lies, as Jesus reminded those who refused to accept Him:

"You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies" [Jn 8:44].

How many today accept these words of Jesus? How many accept that Satan even exists? I'm reminded of that line from the movie, The Usual Suspects, when Kevin Spacey's character Verbal says: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist." This revelation didn't originate in Hollywood, but is actually found in the book of Revelation:

"The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it" [Rev 12:9].

Yes, he "who deceived the whole world" continues to deceive, and has many willing to help him. The idea of political correctness, indeed even the actual term, was a clever semantic innovation by Stalinists in the Soviet Union in the 1920s. Its purpose, then and now, is to bully and/or brainwash the public in order to squash debate on any subject that might undermine the state's ideological foundation. For the communist this includes virtually every subject imaginable, from art to science, from architecture to engineering, from philosophy to politics, and, yes, even religion. We don't call them totalitarians for nothing. 

Because atheism is among the basic tenets of communist ideology, that original political correctness and its modern descendants strive to eliminate all things religious from the public square. Christian values are particularly troublesome to authoritarian and totalitarian regimes because of Christianity's embrace of freedom, the freedom of the individual to choose the good. This, of course, runs afoul of the state's desire to control every aspect of the citizen's life. 

In a totalitarian state political correctness can be enforced rather easily: the government need only exert its extensive state power through education, forced re-education, imprisonment, or even execution. But in a constitutional republic like the United States, the application of political correctness demands a more subtle approach. By flooding the educational establishment with ideological fellow travelers, the state can control the thinking of future generations. Other tactics include publicly accusing violators of being homophobic, racist, sexist, or any other convenient "ist" that connotes hatred. Once applied by the elites and their allies in the media, these labels tend to stick, and go on to ruin reputations and remove the targets and their ideas from the public discourse.

Progressives also target constitutional protections, particularly those supported by our Bill of Rights. They ridicule the Constitution as another old document, or as President Obama said in his 2017 farewell address, "It's really just a piece of parchment" and presumably no longer applicable to the lives of modern Americans. For progressives it must instead become a "living document," one demanding constant change so it can reflect our society's evolving norms. I also recall when Barack Obama echoed this interpretation by stating, "The Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism." Such thinking, of course, makes the Constitution as written by our founders irrelevant.

Many see political correctness as essentially harmless, but I suggest it becomes truly dangerous when those who exercise state power adopt it as their governing attitude.  Just look at the record of the police in the U.K. In the 12 months ending in March 2008, the police in the U.K. made 1.5 million arrests, while nine years later, in the 12 months ending in March 2017, they made only 780,000 arrests. Now this might lead one to believe that this almost 50% decrease in arrests resulted from a corresponding decrease in crime. But this assumption would be wrong...very, very wrong. Although arrests were down by 48%, crime increased drastically. In just the past year violent crime in the U.K. increased by almost 20%, rape by 22%, knifings by 26%, and in a nation where gun ownership is almost non-existent, gun crime increased by 27%. Similar increases were reported for both burglary and robbery.

Why so few arrests in the face of so much crime? The answer is simple. Instead of solving real crimes, the police have focused on "hate incidents" and "malicious communications." In London, which by the way is now more dangerous than New York City, arrests for making offensive online comments rose 53%. And so freedom of speech, once a cherished right among the British, gets crushed by political correctness...and so do peoples lives.

St. Michael, protect us...from ourselves.

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!