Modern conservatism personifies a less-liberal solution to a classic liberal framework universally mistakenly as unquestionably true. But if the assumptions underlying our current political framework are false, which indeed they are, then the answers brainstormed in response to that framework are no good. It is true that a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit, but if you mistakenly regard the bad tree for a good tree, then you’ll mistakenly regard the good fruits for bad fruits. Both major American political movements of today, conservatism and progressivism, are fundamentally flawed fruits of a fundamentally disasterous tree.
Progressivism quickly brings forth the shamefully hideous and disgusting fruits expected from a bad tree, while conservatism, also bringing forth ugly fruits, does not beget fruits quite as hideous and nasty, nor as quickly, as the former. The difference is one in degree, not in kind. A less bad fruit is not the answer. Rather, an entirely new tree is the answer.
For example, “given that 1+1=11, what is the best method of calculating that answer?” This is the political framework we’re currently working under. The tree is our starting point, and the lie is that 1+1=11. The fruits, on the other hand, are the methods we employ to arrive at the wrong answer. Liberals argue that one should calculate 11 by method A, while conservatives argue that one ought to calculate 11 by method B.
What is the bad tree?
Absolute individual autonomy and absolute sovereignty of the majority are the two major components of this peculiar tree, and most Americans have been brainwashed from birth to unquestionably live out these principles. Nonetheless, these all-American liberal principles find their roots not in American legal tradition, but in the philosophical treatises of the Enlightenment Age, especially from John Locke, commonly known as the “Father of Liberalism”. These principles were developed not to conserve the immediately preceding millennium long-standing sociopolitical polity founded upon the defense of and devotion to Roman Catholicism – otherwise known as Christendom, whereby the foundations of Western Civilization were built and sustained – but to secularize and therefore obliterate it. However, both today’s liberals and conservatives wholeheartedly push these theories as facts of human existence, notwithstanding that these principles form the basis of a philosophy designed, and successfully executed, to de-Christianize civilization. A modern conservative is thus one who wishes to conserve the original radical departure from Christendom, while a liberal is one who wishes to create new radical departures from Christendom.
What are the bad fruits?
We’ll keep this article focused on the first of our newfound freedoms, the First Amendment right to religious freedom, otherwise called “toleration” by the Father of Liberalism, John Locke. Ironically, however supportive Locke was for the idea of religious toleration, he believed the State ought not to tolerate one particular religion, the religion of Papists. This is because Locke’s idea of religious freedom was essentially a religious dogma of its own, where the heretics are orthodox Catholics, and the faithful are those too ignorant or indifferent about their Faith to proselytize others in public. Look in the mirror.
Bad theology creates bad philosophy, and bad philosophy manifests bad morality. Religious freedom, and “freedom” specifically, as understood and applied today, is merely a seductive synonym for “indifferentism”. On the one hand, all religions are granted equal recognition under such a scheme; however, on the other hand, all religions are equally meaningless as well. Truth and lies thus are granted equal rights; the Satanic Temple and the One True Faith are on a level playing field. And because they’re all equally meaningless, True religion is shunned from the public forum and seen as a mere private hobby of no benefit to the common good. And because religion is as meaningless toward the public good as are color preferences, the State must be as indifferent toward religion as it is toward color preferences.
During political discourse, how often does one retort “leave religion out of it”, as if a solution wholly divorced from Divine Revelation could have the moral force to reveal anything more than a mere a personal opinion? Appeals then, to the Natural Law, the Ten Commandments, or the Catholic Church Magisterium are as heretical in our present system as are appeals to personal opinions in an Islamic Caliphate. Thus, conservatives, just as brainwashed as their liberal counterparts, concede religion as a meaningless personal preference and are left to combat far left liberals on matters of objective Evil – such as infanticide – using the same relativistic and religiously indifferent plain used to justify Evil as Good in the first place.
However, the State’s primary object is the common good of its citizens. A religiously indifferent State abandons the greatest Good of its citizens, their eternal destiny, because it operates upon the premise that either there is no True Religion or that True Religion is not relevant for the common good. On the other hand, as Monsignor John A. Ryan stated:
“If there is only one true religion, and if its possession is the most important good in life for States as well as individuals, then the public profession, protection and promotion of this religion, and the legal prohibition of all direct assaults upon it, becomes one of the most obvious and fundamental duties of the State. For it is the business of the State to safeguard and promote human welfare in all areas of life.”
But in a secular State founded on the erroneous assumption of the former, the fruits of our American tree are manifested in the moral absurdities we daily witness today, all of which are promoted and defended by law as for the common good, which includes but are not limited to: (1) infant murder on demand, (2) homosexual “marriage”, (3) no-fault divorce, (4) normalized homosexuality, (5) normalized transgenderism and transsexuality, (6) embryonic stem cell research, (7) euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, (8) pornography, (9) state enforced sex-indoctrination programs in public education, (10) widespread contraception availability, and (11) insurer mandated contraception coverage.
Our religiously indifferent State nevertheless practices the “religion of majority consensus”, for all of the above moral atrocities are mere reflections of popular opinions within particular regions of the country where the abomination is normative. But if we exclude True Religion from our consciences regarding what is morally acceptable and thus pretend that morality can be decided by majority vote, why should pedophilia not be promoted and legalized if the majority of citizens within a particular region vote for it? One might argue “consent”, but if consent laws are repealed, then why should the will of people not be carried out? If we are willing to murder children for the sake of sexual license, what would prevent the State from permitting pedophilia if only the majority demanded it? Nothing.
Such is the state of affairs in a state where Good and Evil are granted equal constitutional standing, for we live in a nation where morality changes according to the sensibilities of the majority. Incest and polygamy may be taboo today but will be legalized and promoted in the coming years just as contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and transsexuality are today. A restoration of Christendom, therefore, is in proper order and is the only viable solution to our present calamities. America must convert from a pragmatically atheist country, where the Ten Commandments are merely ten opinions, to a True Catholic State, and submit to the Universal Monarch by which Jesus of Nazareth reigns as King, and His Holy Mother, Mary, rules as Queen. Nothing but fear of public reprimand prevent Supreme Court Justices from citing the Natural Law that has been implanted on every man’s soul, as justifications in Court rulings. And nothing but a cowardice appeal to human respect prevents citizens from demanding human laws pave the way for men to seek and obtain their highest end.
Religious indifferentism, when taken to its logical conclusion, results in moral insanity. A Catholic State, on the other hand, exists not to persecute religious minorities, but to defend the common good from lies which beget irrefutable harm.