That Fortress of Fraud Called Congress
Political Dualism - Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
One of the basic decisions confronting the secularists is whether they give priority to secularism, which is a result, or to democracy, which is a method. Democracy might wind up with a government that is not secular in the slightest, and a secular dictataor might insist on a secular state despite the majority of his citizens wanting it to be some other way. Secularism and democracy are not synonyms.
If they were foundationally democrats, secularists ought not to mind, after 500 years, if an overwhelmingly Christian populace voted in the blue laws again, where ordinary commerce ceased on the Lord's Day. But if they are foundationally secularist, it doesn't matter to them if that is what a society-at-large wants to do. He is still against it. But why?
Conservative Christians are suspicious of democracy also, so that is not my point. Being suspicious of the results that democracy might come up with is a perfectly respectable thing to do -- if there was one thing that gave some of the Founders bad sweats in the middle of the night, it would be democracy. H.L. Mencken once defined democracy as the establishment of truth by the expedient of counting noses, and promulgating it afterward with a club. Democracy can do bad things, like Obamacare ferinstance, and that is why we need a constitutional republic, where certain things are recognized as off the table. Certain basic issues are not up for a vote.
This is why it is important that we have certain inalienable rights that our Creator gave us, and not rights that were bequeathed by the latest referendum, or by the kindness of the king. If the Lord gives, only the Lord can take away. If the State gives, then the State can take away, and blessed be the name of the State.
The point here is that the Christian has a natural point of appeal above every human institution -- whether that institution be popular elections, that fortress of fraud we call the Congress, the faux-imperial White House, or the black-robed Nazgul who ghoulishly prey on the unborn. One of them singly, or all of them together, can be withstood by one courageous man with an open Bible. "You may not, as Yahweh reigns, do this thing." To take such a stand would require courage, as John the Baptist had to have in order to rebuke Herod, but to take such a stand would not require an ability to follow a convoluted set of political contradictions. Life is simple. God outranks the king. The king is to do what God says, not the other way around. "What a strange religion you Christians have!" I can hear someone saying.
But for the secularist, what outranks the highest human authority? What text can a secularist point to when he is trying to stand against certain democratic measures? It matters not if the democratic measure is a great idea or a howler. So long as he differs with it, it should not matter to him if the people are voting to close Home Depot on Sundays, or if they are not suffering a witch to live. There is no God above the people, right? Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
So he considers those measures extreme. But define "extreme," boyo.
No comments:
Post a Comment