There are two fitting alternate titles for this topic.
1. Fighting the Establishment of a State Religion in America.
It is important to this discussion that individuals who might be subjugated by such an influence established in law understand the wider definition of religion. Religion requires no supernatural supreme entity for its existence:
Religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.As will be discussed later, the new religion of the time is the supreme need of preventing world catastrophes such as
But first, let us examine the opponents of existing legitimate and currently peace-loving religions: militant atheists and anti-theists.
While extreme atheists and anti-theists are well known for haranguing those who think of themselves as theists, and even those who merely are tolerant of theists, they never utter a word about pursuits or interests of supreme importance to other groups that are used to drive the growth of government.
Indeed, one of the most visible of these anti-theists, the late Christopher Hitchens, was an admitted communist. Funny -- isn't it? -- how a media-renown and eloquent man such as Hitchens never acknowledged how his views on a "just" society constituted a religion for him.
Ah, but so it goes with all supermen who bemoan the obstacle of individualists. It must be upsetting for them to watch "lesser" men "foolishly" seek guidance from concepts outside themselves rather than accept guidance from men who know themselves to be superior.
Establishing a state religion, where heretics may be punished by law, surely seems like the kind of solution of which supermen would approve for ruling the hoi polloi.
And just as surely, this is what America's founding generation was trying to prevent when they added the opening phrase to the 1st Amendment to the constitution.
-- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; --
2. Our Need to Reclaim the Age of Reason from Scientism
Scientism: Belief that science has all the answers. Once a favored theory is accepted it is treated as if it were sacred. Any who disagree are to be stripped of their science credentials and cast out.
Scientism provides a wonderful tactic, when promulgated by a soviet-style media and Leftist bent academics, to move forward with unpopular policies "in the pursuit of truth as proven by science."
Of course no part of this charade is remotely scientific. Its purpose is to bestow the prestige of the science label on rationales for unpopular or unconstitutional government policies while simultaneously scaring most critics into silence and marginalizing the rest. When critics persist, then out comes an enforcement arm that seeks to stem unfavorable discussions of those policies not only by labeling them illegitimate, but by publicly discussing how prosecutions are being considered.
How the implications of this trend to establishing a state run religion in America threatens the onslaught of a new Dark Age will be discussed in subsequent posts.
Part 2: “Knowing Neither Morals, Nor What is High Ground”
Updated to include links (because Blooger eventually forgets.)
Neanderpundit » The new priesthood of junk science
Fighting the Growth of a Theocracy in America. Pascal first sent a link to this post to me many days ago, and I have been looking forward to seeing him post it. Tired of waiting, let me cut to the chase on this. In Crichton's “State of fear” he posits ...
Posted by Og on September 8, 2014 at 3:00 AM
***Update two, proof from their own lips:
Rajendra Pachauri, former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
“For me, the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.” -- sourcePart 3: "Those Forced to Pass a Religious Test Have Standing in Court."