The Vacuum of Secular Humanism
Nature abhors a vacuum and when one is created, something will fill it. What does can be very, very bad.
Looking back through human history, humans have always had a need for a supreme being (or beings), meaning they have always needed a religion. I theorize that there is only one God and that through the ages, he has revealed Himself to mankind only in ways a human mind at the time could understand Him - but that’s a discussion for another day.
Somewhere along the line, humanism took hold and man began to think he was greater than God – or at least His equal and decided no religion was better than another. Instead of reconciling the differences or, as America did, committing to the precepts that individuals should be free to exercise their religious beliefs without interference from others, man decided a total absence of religion in all affairs common to the citizenry was the way to level out the situation.
So, they decided secularism was the way to go and in America, invented the concept of “separation of church and state” by intentionally misreading a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. So the idea of a secular government, one that seeks to eliminate every vestige of religion in the act of governance, was born.
But in the natural world, when you evacuate something from a given space and do not fill it with something, a vacuum is created – and we all know how nature feels about a vacuum, don’t we. Secularism is a vacuum of belief, of principles, of values.
No more than a secular government can guarantee an apolitical government, it can never guarantee a government free of religion.
The void secularism creates will be filled by something, and that “something” is almost always something bad.
If anything, a secularization of government encourages the gaps to be filled with the politics and brinksmanship of humanism instead of the religious concepts of a universal morality and virtue.
When this happens, the actions of government are driven by what the rank and file believe the power structure desires, not what is commonly understood to be morally correct – or in many cases, even what is legally correct under duly passed laws (just think about how many laws have been broken by our own FBI and DOJ over the past few years).
Secularization creates a sort of structural socialism where traditional religious dogmatic morality is removed, and the prevailing political morality is substituted. Just as it is true that there can be only one master plan in a socialized economy, there is only room for one idea or direction in a secular government - and that is the direction of the leader.
And how do you progress in such a system?
You do whatever it takes to support the morality of the leader.
I would draw a parallel here between what Hayek said about socialist controlled economies in that there is no room in them for any morality other than that of the sovereign because to function, that organism must only act in accordance with the plan the sovereign has devised.
Hayek noted:
“Since it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own. They must, above all, be unreservedly committed to the person of the leader; but next to this the most important thing is that they should be completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything. They must have no ideals of their own which they want to realize; no ideas about right or wrong which might interfere with the intentions of the leader.
Advancement within a totalitarian group or party depends largely on a willingness to do immoral things. The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule. There is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves “the good of the whole,” because that is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done. Once you admit that the individual is merely a means to serve the ends of the higher entity called society or the nation, most of those features of totalitarianism which horrify us follow of necessity.”
I know it seems mild, but you can see Hayek’s proposition at play every day when Jen “Peppermint Patty” Psaki mounts the podium and defends her Dear Leader. She will proudly and with conviction, say literally anything she needs to say to protect Joe Biden, no matter how obviously false or counterintuitive. She has no ideals of her own, she only exists to serve the regime – and for her service, she is about to be rewarded with a multi-million dollar TV contract with MSNBC, the rabid, radical, Alinskyite, propaganda arm of the progressive Democrat Party.
Look around – every servant of the Democrats is rewarded for their lack of morality or virtue. There is a long list of people who have profited from doing bad things in the name of the Democrat Party and their motive force, the progressive movement. Comey, Clapper, Brennan, McCabe, the Clintons, the Obamas and the Bidens have all benefited tremendously from their service to the cause through sham book deals, grift, graft, sweet TV gigs, you name it.
You must hand it to the progressive movement; they damn well protect those willing to do the dirty work – and they protect them very well. You can conspire to take down a duly elected president without ever worrying about going to jail. While you might suffer a few slings and arrows for a bit, you will be resurrected on the other side as an untouchable with wheelbarrows of money.
This is what fills the void of secularism in government (and in schools and public life). It is no surprise that when there is no religious morality and men make their own rules, they will make them to benefit themselves.
It’s why the worst get on top.
Nail head, meet hammer.
I was invited a couple weeks ago to join a FB page, The Atheist Experience. I ignored it thinking it would just turn into circular mental masturbation, but posts kept coming up in my feed because of folks on my friends list making comments. By and large, my original misgivings were conformed, but a couple days ago, someone asked a reasonable question about reconciling having a hard time believing in a Creator and being in recovery. Alas, I broke down, joined and with the best of intentions shared my experience, strength, and hope, a major tenet in recovery even if you cannot bring yourself to believe in a Higher Power.
I've been attacked, called names, told my ignorance is entertaining and so on. So, tongue firmly planted in cheek... kinda, I'd respond with things like - I'll pray for you. Which I have, but telling them I have got the same reaction as if I'd thrown acid in their faces. I never stated any affiliation with any religion, and openly admitted my mistrust of organized religion, but according the these self proclaimed, enlightened and tolerant, mental giants, I'm a sad little Christian with nothing better to do that ram Jesus down their throats. I never once mentioned the Son of God, but kept my comments vague intentionally, only admitting I was once among their ranks, but came to an understanding later in life that has literally kept me out of jails, mental wards, and breathing still.
Reading this, I was tempted to want to post this missive of yours in its entirety on that page, but that urged passed quickly, though I'm still wavering. I used to do a lot of speaking and was once asked how I handled an inattentive or even hostile audience. My reply has always been the same. That's not up to me. My task is to simply offer the evidence of my own experience. Something I say might resonate with someone, or maybe it just plants a seed as it did with me, so that when I was at my lowest, I had a thought come unbidden from something someone once said I believed at the time I was only half paying attention to, but was like a life preserver when I was drowning.
All we can do is try right?
Excellent!