"Totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in its objective sense..."

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

As I said in a previous post, the United States is in twilight.  But perhaps not for much longer.  A federal judge has just ruled that Congress can regulate mental activity.  Let me repeat that: a federal judge has ruled that Congress can regulate mental activity.  See here.  Once we accept this, that government has a right to "regulate mental activity," then we must ask: what sort of mental activity will be regulated?  Christian opposition to same-sex "marriage"?  To abortion?  Will homilies which preach against homosexuality fall under such regulation?

Arguing that Congress's Commerce Clause power gives it the authority to mandate the purchasing of health insurance, this federal judge said that:

"As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power….However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality."

Again, once we accept that Congress has the power to regulate mental activity, we are on a very dangerous and slippery slope.