Radio station was welcoming herb to philadelphia. They were holding a business breakfast at the Marriott Hotel in philadelphia. My responsibility that day was to literally do my Morning Radio Program from the hallway outside the ballroom where 500 businesspeople at the invitation of our Radio Station would be there to welcome herb. During an extended commercial break, i was to run inside to the ballroom, go up to the podium, and be the person to introduce him to the crowd and to the city of philadelphia, run back out to the console and continue doing the radio show uninterrupted. That was my assignment for the day. A little footnote to the story, that did occur and ill never forget when i walked up to the podium and i did the introduction, he comes up now and herb is a wonderful guy and a renegade, good fellow in my view. I have to stand around at the podium now for the obligatory handshake and photograph, and when i do he leans over and he whispers in my ear, may i smoke . And i said, pardon me . Its 8 00 in the morning, by the way. He said, do you mind if i smoke . And im thinking, what control do i have of the whole dynamic . Im a cigar smoker. Sure, you want to, smoke. I left the podium. He stood there and chain smoked for the next 30 minutes while he delivered his remarks. Which you dont see too often in the year 2004. In any event before the smoking experience he was a guest on my Radio Program and almost as an afterthought i raised this subject with herb, the founder and chairman of southwest airlines. Give a listen. Do you mind if i hit you with an unrelated to the good will sort of conversation we are having and ask you a 9 11 question . Not at all. This is interesting. In the 7 00 hour, i have to be mindful of the time, this is so darn important, in the 7 00 hour initially i had john layman, former secretary of the navy, who is a member of the 9 11 commission on the program. Layman last week with Condoleezza Rice is asking her a series of questions and he says to her, were you aware at the time you came into office as the National Security advisor that there was a policy in place im paraphrasing her, he said where if the airlines singled out more than two individuals of a particular ethnic stripe at one time for questioning they ran the risk of being fined by the department of transportation . Condoleezza rice said she never heard about that. I interviewed layman later and i said, mr. Secretary, what were you talking about . He said Political Correctness has become so pervasive that the airlines have been operating under a threat that if they didnt handle their screening in a p. C. Manner, they could get fined. Have you heard anything about that . Yes, i have. As a matter of fact it goes back to the clinton administration. Where the Justice Department said that they were concerned about equality of treatment with respect to screening, and my understanding is that thats why the random element was put in. In other words, we would just choose people at random. As opposed to picking them out for some particular reason. That of course calls for a great many more people to be screened. Just so we dont offend somebody else. I think that was the root of it, yes. Theres the explanation. You want to know why individuals with no common alts are secretaried in the commonalities are selected in the screening process, herb tells you the story. And i then continued on this path of pursuing the subject. Because when he told me with all of his background that there was merit to that which john layman had suggested, i decided there was something here a story that needed to be hold. Although i bring to the table no necessary expr tease in Airline Safety you can watch this and other programs online at booktv. Org. Youre watching book tv on cspan2. Here is our primetime lineup for tonight. Up next and now from the 20th annual Eagle Forum Collegian summit Benjamin Weicker discusses his book worshiping the state, how liberalism became our state religion. This is about half an hour. Our theme of the power of the state. Benjamin wicker obtained a ph. D. In at six from Vanderbilt University and has taught at many colleges. Moral darwinism, how we became hedonists showing how darwinism completely undermines the ethical foundations of christianity, judaism, and islam. Its materialism cosmology is incompatible with natural law. Also co written books, the architects of the culture of death and ten bucks that screw up the world. His book today is worshiping the state, how liberalism became our state religion. [applause] been did the title of my book is obviously all little in your face, i guess you could say. Rather outlandish claims. First it implies that liberals where should the state and second that liberalism itself has become a kind of established religion. That brings us to an obvious set of questions. First of all, is this just overblown rhetoric to sell a book . Liberalism really has become our established state religion. And liberals somehow do, in fact, worship the state. We can add on top of this, what does it matter . Let me begin with that last question. What does it matter if liberalism is, in fact, and religion or at least functions like a religion. Because it functions like one and if it is, in fact, is a religion they can litigate to disestablish it. I mean to propose this quite seriously. Likeminded folks can turn the tables on liberal secularism by actively bringing cases to disestablish it as a state imposed you. Even in the courts choate. The success of this kind of endeavor will depend. It is, in fact, not only functioning like a religion but actually is a religion. The establishment of the federal government had to violate the First Amendment. That is what worshiping the state does. A much longer argumentum we could have today, so on providing a quick overview. So we can ask that question, is secularism, liberal secularism a kind of religion . That is a strong point, but it is not one that i am the first one to make. If you look at the work among others and most famously error clubland, the 19th century and 20thcentury political religions like communism, nazism, we find that one of the most interesting effects of secularization in the west is that the secular state very soon became an object of worship. Here i love to bring in a quote by g. K. Chesterton. Once abolished god and the government becomes the god. People do not believe in something beyond the world. There will worship the world. Above all there will worship the strongest thing in the world. Now, the strong this thing in the world now is the modern secular state which is why it has become an object of worship. That is why it has become sacred were made sacred, and we can historically trace this back to the french revolution. I hope you studied it. You did have a purely secular civil government but is so forward with its own civil religion meant to displace christianity. This is simply a matter of historical fact. You had these political religions are rising. That is why the term political religion was coined, to describe that very phenomenon that is with these political religions we find that when god is where move to and the church is suppressed then the state becomes simultaneously the church and they got were shipped that is just what happened with the french revolution, the religion of humanity and reason. That is what happened with 19th century nationalism, fascism, communism. All well studied examples of political religions. Now, those are what are called worshiping the state are liberalism. I classify them hard liberalism. In worshiping the state i am focusing on modern liberalism that you are familiar with. That is, what we associate with the socialist leading liberal democracies in europe and more and more in america. I turn that soft liberalism. That is what were going to focus on today. In order to understand the claims it will have to do a history of liberalism. Wishing to fair worshiping the state is a history of liberalism as a blueprint for a bigger history that we need to sort out all of the confusions that we find. So im going to try to provide a clear understanding of what liberalism is in its essence. Actress it back 500 years to machiavelli as the founder of modern liberalism. So we need to do a lot of history to understand. When we look at the roots of modern liberalism, what we find is said to a movement which the fis will liberalism really has been over the centuries in one form or another, simultaneously a rejection of christianity because it occurs within the christian context, and the simultaneous embrace of this world as the highest bid. Of this Material World as our ultimate and only home. Now, liberals in America Today are the intellectual heirs of this twofold desire or freedom. Of course you on the latin. Cahuenga that is also the root word and liberalism. Modern liberalism then if you trace it back to its origin is defined by the desire, the dual desire to be free from the burdens of christianity, free from christianity, and the desire to be freed soon enjoy this world in its pleasures unhindered by any obstructions. So liberation from christianity and every embrace of this world which is actually a kind of new paganism, the source of the ongoing secularization and the west that we have seen over the last two with 300 years. And that there really obvious thing about secularization, secularization simply means the crystallization for the west. It means the liberation from christianity. So this twofold desire that defines liberalism explains why liberals and up being atheistic, rejecting christianity and then simultaneously hedonistic, so the entire christian liberalism that you find in the New York Times and the aclu and Political Correctness is what has occurred after 500 years of kind of a liberal revolution which began in an entirely christianized culture as a rebellion against christianity. Machiavelli is very clear about this. And its0 defines liberalisms positive form. You have to understand that to understand liberalism. The desire to remove the church and replace it with a secular state ends up providing the world the pleasures to give modern liberalism the structures, believes, and goals. The desire to displace christianity the feisty intellectual moral, cultural, and Political Goals of liberalism. As the liberal state then takes over the form and function of having any presence or influence in the Public Square, it uses the power of the state to establish itself as the reigning world view, that is, as the established world view, just like a religion. Liberalism is not there for a narrowly defined political position. It is not neutral. It is a world view every bit as extensive as the one that it tries to replace. Since it is every bit as extensive, it functions just like a religion. In our case, an established religion with its own set specific dogmas and doctrines that is the origin of Political Correctness, by the way. Liberalism therefore satisfies lets dollars of religion cole of functionalist definition. Now, we can get tough understand more of we look get it, the typical beliefs. In latin that would be creed. The typical believes of liberalism that define it as clusters of the world you liberals seem to be secular minded, if not atheist. They have a predictable array of moral positions, even though their advocates a more relativism. The sexual liberation is in the, the lead of contraception, provision of abortion, the quality, interchange ability of the sexes, and normalization of homosexual marriage, the rights of abortion and, perhaps, even in fact that the side and you have euthanasia, like to death. They favor of Big Government and declared that it should be secular and secularizing. That is, they mean by this that it should hold the basic worldview of secular liberalism and established by force of law. That as we know means two things. First, government should drive religion, especially christianity out of the Public Square and into the privatized in zero of the other side of the great wall of separation. Second, the government should impose a predictable array of liberal moral positions and everyone. Also in the belief system and got their own cause moscow view. The big picture, the way they understand the universe, nature and human nature is essentially in selfconscious the dumbest. Treats them as one more kind of drama animal. The distinctive view of what lifeanddeath far. Simply chemical activity in the debt is deceasing of chemical activity. That means that liberalism will have a particular way they did use politics. I call this in worshiping the state of soulless view of politics. It defies nature entirely by its bottling needs, comforts, and pleasures and the avoidance of pain. The legislation accordingly. First issued be obvious in covering these things that it presents a creed. Some of you are aware of the full christian agreed the talks about everything. So you have this extensive view. Decreed covers god by denying him. It defines the Natural World of materialism, defines human nature by materialism. A kind of got a solution. This does, but physical based hedonism, and therefore it determines what should be legal and illegal. That is, everything will be defined by the pleasure it gives individuals. It even defines lifeanddeath it functions exactly like a religion. Litigating against and it functions like one, but it also is one, and i cannot provide in the time allotted i must wonder section. When you look back in the 19th century and look at the origins of modern soft liberalism as socialism you find that it really was a religion. That is, a selfconscious transference, worship from god to humanity. And this was a transformation of humanity by state power and to hook into our last lecture, if you are trying to replace god you need a lot of power. Thats what up modern secular piassava lot of power. If youre trying to replace got to have to have a big budget which is why we are in a fiscal collapse in the west. That is my attempt to squeeze in that last little history there. I think you. I want to go right to questions. I hope you have many of them. Thank you. One school in naples. Religion is really hard to define. Just about every paper and book begins with some sort of definition of what were talking about. It seems that the definition you are working from his of functional definition, right . In this instance, yes. Did you talk a little bit more about why you think that is the best way to approach the definition of religion . That is a great question. First of all, i will Say Something really surprising. The very notion of religion was actually invented the modern secularism in an attempt to demote christianity to be one more species of the genus, no better or worse than any others. There is actually a long history on the notion of religion having been invented. I wish i could go into it. I will pretend that that vast complexity design exist and answer the second part. We talk about religion today because weve been taught to talk about it in class. Fine. That is the home turf. What do you mean by religion . Scholars have had a really difficult time explaining. Stamp collecting, a great passion. Religion, i dont know. Would you die for it . So they have trouble. They come up with a functionalist you are an essential is to view. A senseless means theyre actually out there worshiping the capital. Functionalist means they are using religion to function. You are on a less difficult situation to rely in a finalist account because that is what the court doesnt like. For example, that is why i cant remember the court case. I just looked at it, but white they affirmed unanimously that satanism and with a worship and several other different kinds of qualifies religious protection in state prison because they have an overly broad definition. That is fine with me. Broad enough to attach itself to liberalism and therefore it cannot be established will be pushed by the federal government. So it is strategic rather than exact because this is a messy hurdle. I think we have a question down and frontier. I get to oppress us cool. My question is, since the philosophy of classical liberalism, especially 00 to economically is much more in line with what we currently believe as conservatives, philosophy, when youre talking about this are you do you feel the difference between what was typically believe this classical liberalism and what liberal means today . Yes. I was hoping you would answer that question. Thank you. Again for 10 to do that. No, i didnt. [laughter] because i take that up in my book. Hes even messier than the religion question because the question is obviously what is it the foundation of classical liberalism . By that you mean niacin the liberals and there you can trace back. Generally that is what people mean. That is why i treat john locke in great detail in this book. Worshiping the state, and im just going to tell you that i try to get conservatives to understand that john locke is deeply ambiguous and ultimately a firms the same world view as the contemporary liberalism youre trying to battle by defining human beings solely as creatures his desires are this worldly. That is, he cuts you off and presents a kind of soulless politics in which economics is the highest find science. The result is that conservatives have had difficulty articulating why it is that morality should enter into political decisions. The want to define everything simply by does it contribute to Economic Life for not . Those of the pleasures of the body. That is to define the and beings as some of economic is. At present a long, hard argument. Wake up, folks. Its deeper than that. Very interesting presentation. Going back to the two. See have been mentioning, the first one regarding the french revolution and the consecutive. A second fact that you are just thinking about the fact that secularism is also an attempt to control. The law in 1905 in france, a huge impact on the definition from the various perspectives of the region. You know, its also these days to reasons, one being the fact that there is an attempt. A liberal more. The scope which is precisely in a tent to dissuade. A very secularized one. And this attempt is very strong precisely because it is linked to an old, traditional perspective in teaching moral, ethical a facts to be these kinds of liberation. Redefining the kind of social pact that has been agreed on in the 20thcentury. 1905 and actually there was this type of definition to redefine. The interaction. The third French Republic law. Its in year. The separation of church and state. You are aware that nothing at all. It was the borrowing in a way, the French Republics understanding of the secular separation of church and state to define how it was that the 1947 court case ever in america was actually litigated and how it determines our understanding of the First Amendment today. An attempt to get the Catholic Church out of everything and set up a purely secular state. Our First Amendment says nothing about that. These ideas then came over from europe buttressed by Thomas Jeffersons statement in vanbrugh baptist about creating secular state. This was done through a sort of liberal takeover of our law studies in america. And i go through the takeover of the universitys and worshiping the state as well. Importing radical european secular liberalism to the american universities. The reason was because no American University could give you a graduate degree. Yet to get europe to get it. Europe in the mid1800s to make unique study of the german universities and we get the most radical secular enlightenment use brought back to america, and stocks in our universities. By the end of the 1800s it formed the foundation of our entire understanding of the intelligence pushed down to our culture. The law, the development of our law schools. That is all law schools got contaminated. You have to go back to the end of the 1800s to find that out. One of the things the imported was this bad idea from the 19,053rd French Republic. Your off the hook. Liberalism, they tend to be tolerant, but there are so intolerant of religion. The least of certain kinds. There that tall no problem tolerating or any other religion but christianity. Note that. Theyre is a reason for that. I read some articles. Why cant liberals understand what islam is up to . Because they have a long history of because liberalism is defined as directly against christianity it tried to come in the 18th and 19th centuries list of other religions as superior to warrant least equal to christianity. That is what the study of religion came out
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.