Repost: Christ the King

Originally posted here.

Imagine that, after having made a thorough study of the issue, you have been convinced that anthropogenic global warming is real and that its effects will be catastrophic for humans.  However, in your studies, you have also come to treasure the scientific enterprise.  You realize that coercion is utterly incompatible with the spirit of free enquiry on which science rests, and since government by its very nature involves coercion, you think it important for the purity of science to maintain a Separation of Science and State.  Although you are convinced that global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous, you realize that people of good will disagree with you, and you decide it would be wrong to impose your beliefs on them.  Therefore, you decide that the government should design policy according to what you are convinced is the dangerously false belief that carbon emissions are not a worry, and to avoid any taint of Science-State collusion, the entire subject of the greenhouse effect and the evidence for it should be concealed in public schools.  If climatologists want their children to be brought up differently, they can send them to private schools.  You defend this position of government ignoring the whole issue of global warming as one of “neutrality” between those who think it something urgent to counter and those who think it unreal or unimportant.

This is the position of a Christian who supports the Western ideal of “separation of Church and State”.  Don’t doubt that basing education and policy on false moral and religious beliefs (promoting sin and impiety) will have grave consequences for millions of souls.  And don’t imagine that there is anything neutral about established atheism.

11 Responses

  1. Liberal: but we have proof of (insert scientific claim here), God’s existence can’t be proven

    Reasonable person: (proof of God’s existence)

    Liberal: but that’s just philosophy

    And so it goes down the rabbit hole.

  2. […] Source: Throne and Altar […]

  3. Scientists are also citizens and inextricably involved in the govt machinery of coercion.
    They are also free to vote according to their scientific beliefs.
    I would add more, a scientist may work in an interested manner too–believing in a certain amount of CAGW danger- he is justified in advising the Govt-and even imposing his beliefs since even a scientist must seek truth for the good for his community.

  4. AR,
    Reasonable persons do not mix theology with politics and do not go on brandishing “proof of God’s existence”
    Liberalism is a political error foremost and not theological.

  5. Jacques Maritain has an interesting take on this: “If it were true that whoever knows or claims to know truth or justice cannot admit the possibility of a view different from his own, and is bound to impose his true view on other people by violence, the rational animal would be the most dangerous of beasts. In reality it is through rational means, that is, through persuasion, not through coercion, that the rational animal is bound by his very nature to try to induce his fellow man to share in what it knows or claims to know as true or just. And the metaphysician, because he trusts human reason; and the believer, because he trusts divine grace, and knows that “a forced faith is a hypocrisy hateful to God and man”, as Cardinal Manning put it, do not use holy war to make their “eternal truth” accessible to other people, they appeal to the inner freedom of other people by offering them either their demonstrations or the testimony of their love. And we do not call upon the people to decide because we are aware of our ignorance of what is the good, but because we know this truth, and this good, that the people have a right to self-government.”

  6. Liberalism is a theological error. It’s a revolt against God’s ordained hierarchy.

  7. >AR,
    Reasonable persons do not mix theology with politics and do not go on brandishing “proof of God’s existence”
    Liberalism is a political error foremost and not theological.

    The two are related.

    >Liberalism is a theological error. It’s a revolt against God’s ordained hierarchy.

    Exactly.

  8. Maritain is an idiot. Should we not have laws against theft or littering because everybody’s not convinced?

  9. As for laws against theft or littering, or anything else, these fall within his remark that “we do not call upon the people to decide because we are aware of our ignorance of what is the good, but because we know this truth, and this good, that the people have a right to self-government,” that is, the right to live under laws of their own making and magistrates of their own choosing.

  10. The problem is that laws made by popular will have a tendency to be horrible.

  11. Everyone who realizes this understands how deep the West is fallen – so deep that it cannot take supra-scientific thinking seriously, only something we have the right to do “privately”. Most people are so strongly conditioned to be modern that they just don’t see how integralist and theocratic thinking could make any sense.
    A formal separation of Church and State can only happen in a society where different spheres are sovereign and where the role of the State is minarchistic. And if a people really wants to honour God, it would certainly be unsatisfied with even this model.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: