Now we have a smoking gun proving that at least one prominent Alaskan intellectual, UAA professor Stephen Haycox, does want government to become a substitute religion. In a comment piece published by the Anchorage Daily News entitled "Anti-government folks have it wrong", Haycox applauds Warren Buffett's recent call for the super-rich to pay more taxes, and decries the anti-government spirit that has taken hold of a sizable minority of Americans. He correctly notes that excessive deregulation can encourage risk-taking that disregards the welfare of the greater society and glamorizes greed. Two of the more egregious examples he cites are the sale of bundled, multigrade mortgages where the bundling conceals the toxic paper, and the growing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and their failure to pay fairer taxes on that wealth.
But what's disturbing is the following passage:
"In a secular society, such as we have become, government plays the role of the church in religious society; it reminds us to be moral and gives us guidelines for that morality. Some individuals will consistently do good without that reminder. Everyone thinks they can be moral without help, but a great many can't carry it off; some have no intention of even trying".
Haycox openly admits it; he wants government to play the same role that a church does in a religious society. This means by inference that he wants government to assume the character of a religion. And not just "a" religion -- but the official state denomination after the manner of Islam in Saudi Arabia. And of course, this is accompanied by the typical panoply of saints and icons who we must venerate, the most common being intellectuals and social insurgents. Churches which deviate from this tyrannical secular morality are savaged by the intelligentsia and the progressive left, with calls for revocation of the churches' 501(c) status if they dare publicly disagree with such issues as elective abortion and the promotion of homosexuality as a valid and protected lifestyle.
But since when it is government's responsibility to promote any particular "morality"? Government's responsibility is merely to promulgate the law and enforce it; it is NOT government's responsibility to impose any preferential "morality". Our responsibility is to obey the law, not to celebrate it or promote it.
The Constitution is most explicit on this issue; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means that so long as religion obeys criminal laws, government stays the hell out of the business of religion, while reserving the right to prosecute those who commit crimes in the name of religion, such as Warren Jeffs. It does not mean that government gets to imposes adherence to its own religion cloaked under the innocent-sounding guise of secular humanism.