whole other class of afghan leaders who are commanders. now they call them warlords and that entered the freight those guys started fighting each other and they tore the city's apart and then in the week of that can the taliban. so now we are in the country and i think we have come in with something of the same idea the soviets had which is this is a primitive country and a lot of trouble and if we can restore everything and produce material benefits for the people they will be grateful and they will come over to our side. there's more to it however. the interested in the benefits like anyone is but there's a question of the reconstruction of the afghan institution, the society, the family structure and reconciliation of all these factors on the afghans seem.

the taliban business is not completely separate from the contentions within the afghan society over dominating the idea of afghanistan. not from the 20th annual eagleforum.org collegial summit benjamin wiker discusses his book "worshipping the state: how liberalism became our state religion." this is about a half-hour. >> there is a power of the state. benjamin wiker of ttp hd from vanderbilt university and has taught at many colleges. dr. wiker road morrill darwinism. how we became hedonists showing how darwinism undermined the ethical foundation of christianity and islam. because its materialism cosmology is incompatible with

the natural law. he's also co-written books as the architect of the culture and ten books that screwed up the world. his book today is worshiping the state health liberalism became our state religion. [applause] >> thank you very much for bringing me here once again. it is dr. wiker. that's okay. everyone does that and so it is no sin, not even a small one. it became our state religion. the title of my book is obviously a little in your face i guess you'd say. it makes a rather outlandish claim so it seems. first it implies that liberals were shipped the state and second that liberalism itself has become a kind of established

religion that brings us to an obvious set of questions. is this overblown rhetoric to sell the book? liberalism has become our establish state religion and liberals somehow do in fact worship the state and we can add on top of this one does it matter. what does it matter? let me begin with that last question first. what does it matter if liberalism is in fact a religion or at least functions like a religion? because if it functions like one and it is a religion than christians and other opponents of the agenda of liberalism can litigate to disestablish it as a state imposed a world view as a new and effective strategy christians and other like-minded folks can turn the tables on the liberal secularism by or bringing cases to disestablish

at as the state imposed world view in education, federal agencies, and even in the courts. now the success of this kind of endeavor will depend on the world developed argument showing that liberalism is in fact not only functioning like a religion, but actually is a religion. the government violates the first amendment it's a much larger argument than we could have today to get so i'm providing a quick overview. so we can ask that question is secularism, liberal secularism a kind of religion? that is a strong claim, but it's not one that i'm the first one to make.

everyone should read him and most famously with 19th century political repression. the secularization of the west is that the secular state very soon became an object of worship once abolished god. they do not believe in something beyond the world they will or should the world. but above all they will worship the strongest thing in the world. but the strongest thing in the world now is a modern secular state and that is why it has become an object of worship. that's why it's become sacred or

made sacred and we can trace this secular realm secular civil government put itself frwrd wi civil religion meant to displace christianity. in one form or another you had these political religions are rising in communism and nationalism and so forth and that is where the term political religion was claimed to describe that very phenomenon. that is with these political religions we find that when god is removed and the church is suppressed, the goddess worshiped. that's what happened in the french revolution with the religion of humanity and of

reason. that's what happened in the nationalism and fascism and communism and they are all well studied examples of the political religions. that's what i call for shipping the state, heart of liberalism. i classify them as part of the was some. i'm focusing on modern liberalism that you are familiar with. that is what we associate with of the liberal democracies in europe and now more and more in america. i turned that soft was on said that's what we are going to focus on today. to understand what kind of claims i am making behalf to the history of liberalism. it's a blueprint for the history of liberalism that we need to sort out all of the confusions that we find that leads to the start. so i'm going to provide a clear understanding of what liberalism

is to be a trace it back 500 years as the founder of modern liberalism so we need to do a lot history to understand that at its roots when we look at the roots of modern liberalism what we find is a dual movement which defines what liberalism really has been over the centuries in one form or another simultaneously a rejection of christianity because it occurs in the christian context and simultaneous increase of this world as part of the material world as an alternative and only home. they're the intellectual heirs of this twofold desire for freedom and you will know latin so you know the word means free in latin but it's also the root word in liberalism.

modern liberalism that if you trace it back to the origin as defined by the desire, the dawa desire to be free from the burdens of christianity, free from christianity to the getty and the desire to be freed to enjoy the world and its pleasures unhindered by any obstructions. so liberalization from christianity and the real increase in of this world which is actually kind of the new paganism as you have seen over the last two or 300 years and that is the obvious thing about secularization that means the christian as agent for the last to be the means the liberation from christianity. so the twofold desire that the fines liberalism explains why liberals end up being atheists

rejecting christianity and simultaneously hedonistic immersing themselves in the pleasures. seven and a christian liberalism that you find the aclu and "the new york times" and political correctness is what has occurred after 500 years of the kind of liberal revolution for the christianized culture as a rebellion against christianity and they're very clear about this. the goal of the fines liberalism as a positive form. you have to understand that to understand liberalism. the desire to move the church and replace it with a secular state aimed at providing the worldly pleasure gave liberalism its structures, beliefs and goals so the desire to displace

christianity and replace it with liberalism to find the intellectual moral, cultural and political goals of liberalism. as the takeover the functions that excludes the christian church. it uses the power of the state to establish itself as the reigning world view that is as established world view like a religion. liberalism is not there for a narrowly defined political position. it is not natural. it's the one that it tries to replace. since it's every bit as extensive it functions just like a religion. in our case an established religion with its own specific dogmas and doctrines.

it was questionable in the teachings that follow upon them and that's the origin of the political correctness by the way. liberalism therefore satisfies what scholars of religion called a functional definitions. if we look at its typical beliefs that would be to believe. whether the typical beliefs that define it as a cluster of the world even seeing as extensive as it is the liberals tend to be secular mind if not the fiesta. the heavy a ray of moral positions even though they are advocates of the relative as some from the liberation agenda and the provision of abortion, but a quality evin interchange ability and the normalization of marriage, the right to abortion and perhaps even infanticide and

of course you have euthanasia. liberals also favor a big government and declared the government should be secular and secular rising. that is they mean by this that it should hold the basic world view of secular liberalism and establish it by the force of law that isn't natural. and that as we know means two things. first, that the government should drive religion especially christianity all of the public square and it is the privatized ghetto on the other side of the separation. second of the government should impose the predictable of array of liberal positions. in the belief system they've got their own cosmological few that is the big picture. the way the understand the universe is essentially and self

consciously godless and materialistic. that is it reduces human beings to the matter of their bodies, treats them as one more kind of animal and no way privileged or distinct from other animals and what life or death are. it's a chemical activity. that means liberalism will have a particular way that it views politics and i call this a view of politics that is it simply defining human nature entirely by its bodily need come from comfort and pleasure and avoidance of pain and religiously accordingly. the belief that you find among liberalism and first it should be obvious when recovering these things that it presents a full creed. at least some of you are aware of the full christian creed that

talks about everything. so you've got this extensive review by denying him it defines the natural will buy materialism and human nature and materialism and defines him in good and evil including marriage and this does by hedonism. ..

our worship from god to humanity in that this worldly transformation of humanity by state power and to our last lecture, if you are trying to replace god, you need a lot of power. that is what the modern secular piassava lot of power and if you're trying to replace god you have to have a big budget, and that is why we are in a fiscal collapse in the west. so that is my attempt to squeeze in that last arrest three there. >> you got it. >> i know. start fast. go right to questions. >> in the back there. >> thank you. my name is mark. religion as discussed is really hard to find. just about every paper, every book. a different definition of what we're talking about.

since that the definition you're working from, the functional definition. >> in this instance, yes. >> could you talk a little bit about why you did that is the best way to approach the definition of religion? >> that is a great question. first of all, i will say, the very notion of religion was actually invented by modern secularism in an attempt to doom of christianity to be one more species of a genus, no better or worse than any others. so there's actually a long history of the notion of invention having been invented. the vast complexity does not exist. in answer to the second part, we talk religion today because we have been taught to talk about it in class. fine, that is liberalisms home turf. then you can say, what do you mean by religion? well, scholars have had a really difficult time explaining what is the -- stamp collecting is a

great passion. it is a religion? i know. would you die for it? so they have trouble. they come up with a functional is to view or and essentials to you. essentials means they are actually out there worshiping the capital. functionalist means they're using religion to function. using liberal worldview the function like a religion. for the sake of litigating, you are on a less difficult to situation to rely on a functional as to count because that is what the court does anyway. that, is, for example -- i can't remember if the court case. the supreme court confirmed, i think unanimously, that satanism and we can worship and several other different kinds qualify as religious worship protected in state prisons because they have an overly broad definition. that is fine with me. it is bright enough to attach itself to liberalism. therefore it cannot be an established world view pushed by

the federal government. so it is strategic, rather than exact. this is a messy world. >> i think we have a question down in frontier. >> side. i madeleine. my question is, since the philosophy of classical liberalism, especially economically much more in line with what we currently believe as conservatives, when you're talking about this, are you referring -- the difference between what the 19th century believed as classical liberalism and liberal mistake. >> i was hoping you would answer that question. that thank you for it. giffords in dollars to do that. no, i didn't. because i take that up in my book. it is even messier than a religious question because the question is obviously, what is at the foundation of classical liberalism. by that you mean, i assume, the liberalism that you can trace back to john locke. generally that is what people

mean. that is why i tree john locke in great detail in this book, worshiping the state. and i am disappointed tell you, i tried to give conservatives understand that john locke is deeply ambiguous. and alternately he affirms the same world view as the contemporary level up to five contemporary liberalism you're trying to battle but a fine human beings solely as creatures whose desires are this worldly. that is, he cuts you off and presents a kind of soulless politics in which economics is the highest defined science. in doing that committee creates one more kind of politics. the result being that conservatives have a difficulty articulating why it is that morality should enter into political decisions. that is, they want to define everything as simply by, does it contribute to economic life or not. those are the pleasures of the

body. defining human beings. that is the problem. >> question over here. >> thank you for a very interesting talk. this going back to two points. the first one, the french revolution and the consecutive incidents. and the second fact that you are just picking about the fact t secularism is also an attempt to control of morality. just mentioned a huge impact on the defn from the very structure of the region. and facing the contingency these days.

one is there is an attempt by the french government to define i hebrew moral that will be taught in this school which is precisely an attempt to switch from the question -- christian morality to a very secularized one. and this attempt is very strong, precisely because it is linked to an old traditional perspective in teaching morals the school. the fact is, this kind of moral now is liberated. and the second part is that there is also a project to redefine this kind of social fact that has been averted and agreed upon in the beginning of the 20th century. actually, there would be a newer type in this kind of definition to redefine and the interaction

between the origin and the week. >> that 1905 law is the third french rule of law about separation of church and state. okay. that is important law, in fact. and the reason is that our first amendment says nothing about the separation of church and state. you are aware of that. nothing in all. it was borrowing in a way the french republic's understandings of the secular separation of church and state that define how it was that the 1947 court case was actually litigated and how it determines our understanding of the first amendment today. that is, in france it was 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 jefferson's statement about creating a secular state. this was done through the sort of liberal takeover of our law studies in america. i get to the state -- takeover of the universities in order to bring the state as well. it began in the 1860's. importing radical european secular liberalism to the universities, you know what the reason was, no american university head -- could give you a graduate degree. you had to get to europe to get it. you go to europe and in the mid-1800s, you steady german university. we get the most radical secular enlightenment used brought back to america. it got and cost in our universities. by the end of the 1800's it formed the foundation of our entire understanding of the intelligence from the university

pushed down to our culture, and part of that was in all, the development of law schools. that is our law schools contaminated. you have to go back to the end of the 1800's to find that out. one of the things that the imported, with all due respect, was this bad idea from the 1905 law. i know. yes. neither of us were there. okay. that's good. not to blame. you're off the hook. okay. >> the thing about liberalism is they pretend to be tolerant but are so intolerant of religion. >> at least of certain kinds. they have no problem tolerating any other religion but christianity. note that. there is a reason for that. i've read some articles white can liberals understand what is lamas up to. they have a long history of -- because liberalism is defined as

starkly against christianity, it tried to in that 18th and 19th century lift up other religions as superior to or equal to christianity. that is where the study of religion came from. in doing that there would lift up any religion as better than christianity or at least equally as good. knocking christianity off the central pedestal in the culture. that is sell your new age professor can go out and worship trees and argue that all christians are not to need to be taken out and a public square. so it is not just that they are against religions. they are against christianity and for any other religion that will help them in their battle to unseat. >> thank you, benjamin wiker. [applause] >> you're watching book tv on c-span2. our prime-time lineup for tonight.

>> looking back at publishing events for 1999. that year the new york times book review chose an affair of state, the investigation, and beats mitt, and trial of president clinton as one of their novel picks.

>> which book of yours solve the most? >> curiously i think one of my recent books about the first world war. to my -- i wrote about it because my father was in the first world war. like most british people i am fascinated by the first world war. killed so many of our fellow citizens. but i wrote it simply because i wanted to write it. i said to my publisher, well, i'm afraid it won't sell very well in america. i have a huge american. an important consideration, but i was quite wrong. it sold tremendously well in the united states. it sold nearly 200,000 copies in the united states. i think that's it has developed,

i don't know if it was there 20 years ago or 30 years ago. there has developed some disturbing trends from the first row or in the united states. why, it's difficult to say. >> also on the 1999 new york times book review list of best nonfiction books is morgan about finance your j.p. morgan by dean strauss and reading the holocaust. continue to watch book tv over the next several weeks for more from our last 15 years on there. >> watch our program on the first lady who officially change the name of the executive mansion to the white house and added the west wing, edith roosevelt. today at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. live next monday our series on first-place continues. >> when helen taft became first lady in 19091 of the first thing she did was to address having cherry trees planted around the tidal basin. the early 20th-century was a mess.

the japanese heard about her interest and they decided to give 2,000 trees to the united states in her honor. everyone was shocked. the trees that were sent or older, very tall, and but-infested. it was decided that there would have to be burned. in fact, president taft and self-made decision that there would have to be burned. the japanese were very accommodating and understanding and decided to send 3,000 to trees which arrived in 1912, and we still have a few around the tidal basin. >> meet helen taft, wife of the 27th president, william howard taft monday 99:00 deadline eastern on c-span and c-span three, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> up next on book tv radley balko talks about the militarization of the police and the united states, including the expanded use of s.w.a.t. teams to deal with low-level crimes. he argues that today police officers have be