By Steven Farrell

Author's Introduction: Since colonial times, forces in this country have maintained a diligent attack on what was the sure foundation of American law - religion. Not unlike religious freedom opponents today, the British government of the 1760s and 1770s scolded colonial pastors for preaching politics from the pulpit, but were suspiciously silent when state-appointed Anglican priests did the same.
This example repeats itself today, as conservative believers like Buchanan are declared divisive and dangerous, and liberal believers like Lieberman are proclaimed pluralistic and safe.

Some things never change. But one thing has: Today, the dominant ideologies in both political camps are antagonistic toward an open religious discussion. Secularism, the new religion of the state, is pervasive - while the Founders' perspective on faith and politics, which blessed our country and the world for two centuries, has been locked away on a dusty shelf, behind a glass encasement, in the Library of Congress.

It is in the hope of freeing the Founders' locked-up perspective, and to the duty of exposing the failings of their "safekeepers," that I have dedicated this multi-part series.

One of the most controversial and confusing of all issues for many is, just what is the proper role of religion and morality in public life? In search of the right answer, today, we are compelled to conclude that there "is a famine in the land” - with nearly all sides of the debate muddled up to their necks in poor history, poor politics, poor reasoning, and all too often, poor religion - having nothing better to offer than a multifaceted deliberation where few seem to know where religion and morality are appropriate, and where they are not. The unspoken consensus, though few will admit it, goes something like this: It is appropriate to inject religion and/or morality into political debate and into public policy just so long as the moral slant parallels my moral view of the universe, and it is highly inappropriate if it does not.

Creed Number 1 - Modern Liberalism

One popular point of contention on the issue, modern Liberalism, favors the relative ethics of Humanism and Socialism sprinkled creatively with Judeo-Christian teachings.

Its cardinal dogma is that "the ends justify the means,” or "anything goes” just so long as the political goals of the revolution are served. It is a flexible creed which turns a blind eye to any dilemma of conscience that a constant round of moral reversals should cause, one which fights against all religious involvement in public life - while aggressively campaigning for a broader and broader interpretation of what is public - yet one which will applaud any decidedly liberal professor of religion, and campaign to insure that just such ministers are honored and glorified by Noble Peace Prizes, by public statues, by public text books, by public school curriculum mandates, and by cultural awareness seminars for "public” employees.

Recognizing the religious nature of most human beings as a fact - while publicly denouncing the same as speculation - this creed employs other strategic uses of religion, such as placing a constant parade of victims before our eyes, hoping that the moral sensitivities of mankind will be corrupted into seeing a logical link between the Biblical invitation to "love thy neighbor as thy self,” and the Marxian mandate to "rob from the rich to give to the poor.”

Further, while this creed has banned our forefathers' Judeo-Christian based teachings from the classroom, it has mandated (in many places) the teaching of the religious traditions of the American Indian, who, consistent with this creed, view property and natural resources in terms of collective ownership.

The truth is, Modern Liberalism does not oppose moral law, rather it haughtily believes that it has a fresher, higher, smarter moral perspective than that contrived by the rough and puerile rabble, and thus the advocates of this creed feel compelled to share it, to order it, to mandate it.

With the power of the state behind them they have met with great success in decreeing their religion throughout the land. Among this creed´s leading precepts we find:

1. Unborn babies do not possess the inalienable right to life, but fungi, fruit flies and convicted murderers do.

2. Ranchers and farmers do not have the right to control, develop, and utilize their private property as they please, but rodents, predators, and desert tortoises do.

3. Business owners who have put blood, sweat, tears and a great deal of financial risk into engendering an enterprise do not possess the right to creatively manage their employees as per their best interest, but distant bureaucrats do.

4. Religious fundamentalists, heterosexuals, capitalists, and white males do not have the moral right to be treated equally before the law, but hedonists, gays, socialists, and minorities of every other variety do.

5. Since, the advocates of this creed believe in arbitrary law, and the Hitlerian principle of collective guilt - gun manufacturers, gun dealers and parents who legally own or sell private firearms do not have the right to leniency and protection before the law for crimes committed by others with those weapons, but criminals who choose to misuse those same weapons do.

6. The children of industrious and intelligent parents who have labored a lifetime to provide property, finances, employment, and education for their family members do not have the right to be eligible upon their parents death to inherit what is rightfully theirs, unrelated children of indolent and ignorant parents do.

7. Finally, because this creed defends the utilitarian moral position that the good of the group and the rights of the group always exceed the good of the individual and the rights of the individual - except when the curators of this creed say it doesn´t - its proponents are fully in favor of: the state being fully in charge of every businessman´s social responsibility, every school teacher´s curriculum, and every parent´s children; and the state being fully trusted and fully the dictator of every fine point of moral conduct - except deviant conduct, which must be protected - and thus of the state being fully worshipped.

That is, traditional Christians and Jews do not have the right to worship as they please, but Humanists, Statists, and Communists do. This is the ideology of Modern Liberalism, what some call dysfunctional morality, and others call Statism. It is most closely associated with the Democratic Party, and the fact that roughly 50 percent of all America worship before this alter of state, begging for free food, unjust privileges and endless moral accommodations, it is a sad testimony of the pathetic state of religion, morality, and education in the United States today.