A very long time ago, a Catholic by the name of William of Ockham came up with a theology essentially saying that the Church should be subordinate to each government where a house of worship stood, and should weave into the Vatican teachings support for the local officials' agendas on grounds of God's Will; Ockham then on to date was pronounced a heretic by the Vatican, and from day one had trouble supporting his argument with logic.

 

But modern government faith-funding...at least APPEARANCE thereof...seems to have resurrected Ockham's theology, giving it artificial legs where logic fails.

 

Many USA officials, distributing no-strings Federal money one way or another re religions in their locales, happen to think Christian Apostolic post-Ascension Scripture: means mere elected officials are "rulers" in the Scriptural sense even where Constitutions are actual sovereigns 'appointed by God' to keep order; means where assorted secular leaders globally agree Christ is not Divine, or Christ isn't in a Eucharist, or violent jihadists are the true voice of God correcting the world including other Muslims, or that God intends non-"rulers" to live in financial stress/poverty, and so forth, as "rulers" though merely sworn before God to uphold secular operations of law they're still within Scriptural parameters and appointed by God notwithstanding party or lack of one; means they may opine God has inspired them to promote homosexual interest in all children, promote mass-scale abortion, and promote euthanasia and sterilization  and contraception  for global zero population growth (without need to then ease up on that "born to poverty" idea); and means that anyone at odds with such concepts including migratory right of all earth doesn't sit well with God, who demands such nature of stewardship of His earth.

 

Might explain why there are 100 million and growing unchurched in the USA, despite about 80% being Christian...some may just avoid Church rather than be thought of as endorsing such Ockham-like rubbish, or rather than risk retribution for speaking against it (bin Laden is a con man who used to rant about apostasy, so who needs THAT kind of tone even if in different context, given HR 1955 et al). Might also explain why Chicago archdiocese Churches don't promote Vatican-themed EWTN, though Cardinal George is a major USCCB member and praises Rome...when on EWTN, anyway.

 

Now, the same officials make lemonade out of such lemons: the more unchurched there are, the more "proper" it is to shut Churches and not include new ones in future zoning and development plans...hey, if unchurching isn't a sign of mass atheism, what is, right? Has any society required more than easy explanations via soundbytes? Let's invidiously scold Christians and others for offending the "predominantly atheist population" with their songs and such! And all those "atheists" know know dadgum liberation theologies brought us megatons of immigrants, yet non-religious stoicism demands compassion, so what can we do now but use mass omnibus Socialism to calm all that faith-fundeds caused? Why, those jerks are so anti-democracy they won't let even mere spectators vote on clergy, ordination practices, or faith deposits! What Nazis! THEY know religion is just psychology anyway! (With one story for religious and another for secular, does anyone else smell a candle burning at both ends?).

 

The salient here is that by whatever goofy admixture(s), the endgame is to be free of religion in Western society, with at least totemic totalism to manage the idle.

 

Sidebar to "rampant atheism": there IS a big anti-Catholic sentiment at present, apparently that faith being called "Crusaders against Islam" and responsible for global immigration management...in nature of being a "master faith" causing its Protestants to goosestep with it, as handmaids to Socialism. I know many people look at the circumstance of faith-funding, mythic or not, and further rant against Christian clergy for it...then take overt or passive actions against congregants/property in seeming attempts to leave clergy with empty houses. Yes, even Christians do that in misguided yet improper venting of frustration.

 

And yes, I personally know that. Earlier this year, I often encountered weekday drive-bys who threatened me while yelling "(expletive) Catholic!" at me; I've had a few physically approach on foot such way, they appearing not foreign-born; on the passive side, at an evening Mass for the Assumption, a couple in very casual attire (the woman has a luau-style wrap skirt allowing half her posterior exposure) and several small children in tow walked in at the last minute, sat in front of me, and with no observable interest in the Mass themselves or for kids' sake let the kids fidget, whine, and run around while dad sat cross-legged with his elbows on the pew back...such is typical of passive protests preceeding outside confrontations after Mass, so I left very early to avoid drive-bys.

 

Naturally, some parishoners miss the irony of saying "maybe if Catholics adopt what some officials campaign on they'll lay off"; parishoners voting for "better" clergy seem to miss point secularists call ANYONE in a collar a "Nazi causing the status quo from which we must proceed in regrettable manner"; and aiming to dry up worship or passively protest one's Church seems akin to punching yourself in the nose so nobody knocks you out. Even clergy embracing the "new age" at least demonstrate Ockham's folly, especially where lay remaindermen muse "shouldn't we let officials have police uber-powers to keep us safe, what with so many Godless unchurched likely to victimize us in large numbers, or be agents of Laden or foreign Communists or something?".

 

As it is, religion hype is at such a level in Illinois, one wonders if the current August 15-17 Greek food fest this year held at the new St. Dimitrios in Gurnee (paid for by public State funds) will later somehow, somewhere be described instead as "proof of Eastern Orthodox laity enjoying freedom of worship during the Feast of the Assumption".

 

Still, whether via going unchurched to avoid semblance of tacit endorsement(s) real or displaced, or via furtive commotions and protests of remaindermen, such things may not be the best barometers of widespread embrace of humanist objectivism, dispassionate Socialism, or both. All we can do is forgive all concerned, and hope for a better tomorrow while not ourselves carrying such errors forward.