Is there any claim to truth that you believe, and consider it indicative of being a good person to believe and a bad person not to believe? If so, then the claim is either a moral or religious claim, or a historical claim with moral or religious significance. And it is either true or not true, justified or not justified. Believing that murder is wrong is a true and justified moral belief, and indicative of the goodness of the one who believes it. Believing that it is good for doctors to mutilate the genitals of a child who has a mental illness is not, and is indicative of the badness of the one who believes it. Believing that a loving God exists and providentially orders all existence for the good is a true and justified religious belief, and it is morally good to believe it. Believing that God doesn’t exist and that life is a meaningless competition for power is not, and it is evil to believe it.
Some factual claims also fit into this scheme. To accept the anthropological and biological fact that there are two and only two genders is both true, justified, and morally good to believe because the alternative indicates a denial of human nature as God created it, a denial which is immoral, an act of impiety at the least. To accept the factual existence of a “trans person,” as opposed to the factual existence of a person with a particular mental illness, is both false, unjustified, and morally evil to believe for the same reason. To accept the historical fact of the Incarnation is true and justified, and to deny it is objectively evil, for it contradicts Revealed Truth. One might be invincibly ignorant of this fact, and so there may be no subjective guilt in not believing in it, but it is still an objective evil not to believe what God has revealed and for which there is impeccably credible authority and abundant rational evidence.
But unless a moral or religious claim, or a fact that has moral or religious significance is known to be true from either rational inquiry ensuing in demonstration or because of the eminent reliability of the authority making the claim, one is not obliged to believe it to be true, or to believe its acceptance or not is indicative of moral goodness or evil. However, if you happen to believe in some factual claim, let’s narrow it down to a factual historical claim, one that you consider true but not because you investigated it, indeed, not requiring any investigation on your and anyone’s part; and one you feel guilty about even the possibility of not believing, then you are dealing with a historical claim with religious significance, such as the Incarnation.
A belief that is seen to be unquestionable and indicative of moral goodness or badness, nay, as salvific or damnable, is a religious belief. One should only hold a religious belief after personally inquiring about its truth and goodness, and ensuring that the authority declaring it is trustworthy. And if this belief is a historical one that is not per se religiously significant, unlike the Incarnation, then it is not a religious belief, and one is morally free to either accept it or not, based upon the evidence. And believing or not in its truth is not indicative of goodness or evil. If you happen to hold a belief that you treat religiously but really isn’t, and that our godless society treats as a sacred dogma, then it is an idol, neither true, justified, or good. And it’s probably the belief of another religion than yours, and one that is not pleasing to God.
All political orders are downstream from culture, and culture is downstream from religion. The root of culture is cult. And the governing authorities of all political orders protect their unity and strength by establishing and protecting, by institution, law, and social habituation, religious claims and the practices that embody and teach them. This is as true for medieval Christendom as it is for modern so-called secular liberal democracies, though the ruling class of the latter is not honest about it. It is right that they do so, for it is their job to promote the good as they see it, and societal unity in the truth about the Good is the sine qua non for establishing it, even if it’s not the actual Good but only an apparent, false one, as it is in today’s political orders.
Freedom from the authority of the Good is the “good” that has been established and is protected in today’s global political order, and it is based upon the religious belief, also established and protected, that there is no such thing as authority, only power. It is, of course, a false, unjustified, and evil belief, indeed, the most evil one possible. If you believe otherwise, and act upon it, say, by putting your praying body too near a baby-murder building, the FBI will show up at your door in the middle of the night with twenty-three armed thugs ready to murder you for asserting the authority of the Good over the unimpeded power to murder babies. One is still permitted, for now, to utter the morally factual claim that baby-murder is wrong and should be illegal, for the power regime is not worried about private beliefs with no power to back them up and seriously contest the religion of the regime.
Here is an example of an idol in the realm of scientific fact with religious significance. That the earth rotates and revolves around the sun might be the truth, but it has never been scientifically demonstrated. This is admitted even by many top-notch atheist scientists. But why don’t you know this? Because it is treated not only as scientific fact but also as religious dogma, for it serves the purpose of discrediting and humiliating the authority of the Catholic Church, which was required so that liberalism could substitute itself for its authority. It is still a required dogma today for aspirants to any academic or scientific position. Here is one in the form of a historical event with no intrinsic religious significance, though it is imputed to it. The right sect of the power regime considers the American Founding as a kind of divine political incarnation, while the left demonizes it with various isms. Neither of these dogmas can be questioned if you want to hold even the smallest lever of power or possess any public prestige. Here is one that does have an intrinsic religious significance, though not in the normal sense. Questioning the sacred IXXI narrative, even though just a little open-minded inquiry shows it to be rationally insupportable, still makes one a pariah in public. The Scamdemic was a religiously-significant historical event and liturgical spectacle, with an infallible magisterium, “the science,” sacramentals, the masks, and sacraments, the injections. You were supposed to believe, in spite of your lying eyes and with blind faith, that there was a real pandemic and that the governing authorities cared about your health, even as they tortured and murdered you. All the people now dropping dead is, by fiat, “an unexplained mystery.”Katherine Watt sums up the unspeakable truth that not even the strongest “anti-vaxxer” religious apostates will admit:
On interpretation of selective silence
Some things are difficult for some leading voices among the Covid-times anti-tyranny voices to say publicly. Four of those things:
Vaccines and biochemical weapons are interchangeable terms for a single product class jointly manufactured and distributed by pharmaceutical companies and the US military for use by militarized health care providers on targets.
Observed harms caused by use of biochemical weapons labeled as vaccines, on targets, are intentional.
Intentional infliction of pain and death, on targets, using biochemical weapons labeled as vaccines, is State-sponsored. Governments have done it to their people in the past, are doing it right now, and clearly indicate their plans to continue doing it in the future.
State sponsorship of the intentional injury and killing of people is coerced through central bank control of money, such that governments are under the direct daily control of central banks, and democratic rituals (such as elections and legislative activity) are performative only. Government officials who try to refuse sponsorship of intentional mass murder (i.e., by speaking or legislating in authentic, non-performative ways) are subject to overwhelming reprisals: currency destruction, economic collapse, lockouts from international financial transaction systems, fomented internal civil disorder, government overthrow and assassination.
Covid has been a global demonstration that financial control mechanisms (banker behavioral control of governments) and political, medical-military ‘public health’ control mechanisms (government behavioral control of civilians) work as designed and installed.
Through the real-time Covid lens, it’s become possible to discern the same demonstrative, murderous hand at work in conducting civil and world wars, famines and economic collapses, especially in the last three centuries.
Are there any other claims you accept of a moral or religious nature, or of a historical nature that have a religious significance but not intrinsically so, religious in how the claim functions politically, psychologically, and spiritually in society? In how it is bound up with a sacred narrative that is unproven, unquestioned and unquestionable? In how its incantation both produces and removes guilt? In how belief in it covers sin and imputes righteousness? In how it is legally protected and established as a unifying sacred dogma? In how it is publicly remembered and liturgically enacted? Can there really such medievalish, superstitious claims being made by our “representatives” in our secularized, scientific, pluralistic world? Are heretics really still being burned at the stake?
If there are, and if you believe any of them, and if the claim you believe is not a historically relevant fact of your religion that is known to be true by you, as well as intrinsically morally and spiritually significant, then trample on it and repent of ever holding it. For it is an idol, the result of being unwittingly initiated into the antichrist religion of the satanic state.
https://ko-fi.com/thaddeuskozinski
TK a little clarity on one point. you wrote "That the earth rotates.... might be the truth, but it has never been scientifically demonstrated." Have you read about Foucault's pendulum? This simple invention proved to his entire scientific community that the earth rotates. You can go to hundreds of displays of the pendulums scattered everywhere around the world and they all verify the earth turns.
I agree with your premise, we are witnessing the idol of scientism around the world. Tens or hundreds of millions of lives have been offered to this false god in the last three years. The Green Deal hoax is going to likely kill billions unless it is stopped. All of this is the fruit of Enlightenment and Progressive thinking when it becomes disassociated from Christ and the laws of creation and Creator Father God. It is worshipping the Devil.
Thaddeus you posted this article just a short time ago and it’s now arrived again ? Or am I missing something?