Posted by
Randal Lee Manning Jr. on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:57:29 AM
I have not posted in a long time. Ever since that long boring article about baseball, I have not felt compelled by an idea, to post another blog. But, alas, today an idea hit me like a breath of fresh air, and it may just be the case, that this idea is too profound not to post. Have you ever misplaced your keys, and feverishly looked around the house for them, only too realize they were right in front of your face the whole time? That is what this idea is. It has been staring society in the face for fifty years, but as of yet, I have not heard anyone articulate it. The idea involves the relationship between the welfare state and the rise of secularism, particularly in western society.
With the Democrats coming to power in congress there has been a substantial amount of rhetoric along the lines of creating a welfare state. Welfare state is not how they describe what they are doing (or want to do), but it is what they hope to create in American society. A welfare state is a state that cuts the budget of military and defense spending and at the same time raises taxes to provide for the "welfare" of it's citizens. This can come in many forms such as, but not excluded to; socializing higher education, socializing the medical industry as well as providing more government money to social welfare programs. With the Democrats in Congress we have already seen that they will pass a national initiative to raise the minimum wage and we have even heard grumblings in states such as Massachusetts and California about the need for socializing the health care industry. Furthermore, it is yet to be seen whether or not the Democrats will push for a tax hike. They may not for the next two years but if the executive branch of the government is won in 2008 then they will increase taxes. These taxes will then be used to expand the welfare state that I posit, they hope to create.
It is within this backdrop that my awakening came about. I wondered to myself what the Democrats were using as a justification for this blatant disregard of the spirit of the revolution, no too mention the Constitution. Excluding the last fifty years, this type of government intervention into the economy and individual's lives has been largely frowned upon. So I ask what has changed?
Across the pond, over the past fifty years we have seen two themes emerge in most European countries. 1) The establishment of socialist democracies, as opposed to our capitalist democracy. 2) The acceleration and establishment of secularism. In the U.S.A both of these trends have tried to establish themselves within our country, and although they have made significant headway, they have failed to institutionalize themselves in America, thanks in large part to Presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush (my heroes have always been cowboys). To those with a clear understanding and conscience of the aforementioned spirit of the revolution you can probably tell where I am going with this, however if you are lacking the above qualities you are probably confused as to why I am criticizing the two main pillars of progressivism (a.k.a socialism and godlessness), secularism and the establishment of the welfare state. While these two pillars, if you will, are heralded by secular progressives (or whatever term you want to use to denote the members of these movements) as evidence of progress in society, I contend to you, that they are evidence of regress in society and that one created a need for the other.
Here is the thought and the realization that prompted me to write this blog; the decline of the church and the rise of secularism created a need for an outlet among citizens in a society, to help and provide for the general welfare of society. So, as an example, a well meaning citizen who has lent himself to the ideals of secularism but has a desire to help those in need (which could very possibly be a innate human quality, and also in itself is a testament to a Creator), with the Church not being an option, does not have an outlet in which to express his heartfelt desire to help people in need. Where then does this individual turn? Perhaps he creates a government institution to do this, all the while he feels happy that he has filled this void, but is unaware that the government is assuming a role in society that it is not meant to fill, and now has another, broader sphere of influence, in which it was not meant to have. What then, is the logical conclusion or ends of this phenomenon? Well in a society that claims to live up to and honor the idea of separation of Church and state, it is no longer a tenable ideal, in the above construct. Because it becomes unavoidable that the states fulfills roles in society that the Church is meant to, thus confusing the boundary between the Church and the state. The state then becomes more and more like the Church and reduces or marginalizes the impact the Church is able to have on society, thus paving the way for secularism.
What then does the secularist retort? Well he says "there is no need to buy into fairy tales just to reap the reward of social welfare, particularly when the provider of social welfare is an inherently dogmatic and intolerant institution." There are two primary advantages of maintaining well defined roles of the Church and the state (for both the believer and the unbeliever). The first is a pragmatic advantage. Despite claims otherwise, the Church has been providing social welfare for almost 2000 years now and has become efficient at it. From hospitals, to orphanages, to homeless shelter, soup kitchens, schools among other missional activity within the Church, the Church remains the best and most efficient option for providing for social welfare. Especially when compared to large, uncaring, impersonal and inefficient government bureaucracy. The second is pragmatic also but has a hint of idealism. Like our founding fathers we should fear the power of the government. Furthermore we should look for ways to limit it's power and intrusion into our lives. Collectively we can do this by minimizing the roles the government plays in society, in order to ensure our personal freedoms. We can then go one of two ways. We can continue to allow the Church to be marginalized by society by allowing the government to assume roles that are rightfully the Churches, logically this would swell and expand the size and the power of the government. Or we can limit the government by reinstating the role of the Church in society, which would lead to more personal freedoms and a more effective system of social welfare, as well as limiting the size of the government.
How then do we achieve the goal of empowering the Church and limiting the government. There has been some legislation, namely faith based initiatives, passed by Bush that have attempted to do this. However this is not the most effective or impactful way to do it. This part is actually rather simple, but requires widespread practice. You have heard that it is said, "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to the Lord what is the Lord's" (I do not mean to jest or redefine Biblical teaching) but I say to American citizens "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and not a penny more." Basically what I am proposing is that Americans (religious or otherwise, but most certainly conservative), give the government the minimum amount of money required to be in compliance with the law. Then research sound and impactful faith based institutions, that allow for write-offs, and donate your money to them rather than to the government. You pay the same taxes but limit the size of the government and empower the Church, all the while giving to institutions that are more efficient at creating social welfare. If we continue down the same path we will have the opposite, the government being broadened and given roles that are not meant to be in the domain of the government, and all the while marginalizing the Church and paving the way for secularism, by making the Church a financially weak actor. This is not desirable either to the true Christian or the true Conservative.