One of the most effective ways to undermine a religion is to corrupt it from within, making it unrecognizable to its own adherents. In the United States and Europe during the 2020s, Christianity has been experiencing internal transformations that would have been unthinkable for the past 2,000 years. Many Christian denominations now teach that traditional sexual morality is obsolete, that gender distinctions are irrelevant, and that all religions and even non-religions are equally valid. While some Christian groups continue to reject these modern interpretations, such views have nevertheless gained significant traction.

The transformation of Christianity can be largely attributed to the influence of liberalism. However, it is crucial to distinguish between political liberalism as a governing philosophy and the partisan distinctions of contemporary American politics. Both the Democratic and Republican parties operate within a fundamentally liberal framework that prioritizes individualism, rights, and freedoms over traditional religious authority.

Liberalism originated in Western Europe and the Americas as a political movement seeking to apply Enlightenment principles to government. It is characterized by individualism, opposition to authority, and a focus on natural rights. Christianity, on the other hand, emphasizes collective responsibility, divinely ordained authority, and the continuity of tradition. The fundamental tension between liberalism and Christianity arises from their opposing foundations: Christianity derives morality and social order from divine revelation, whereas liberalism asserts that rights and moral principles exist independently of God.

Historically, liberalism has sought to create secular states in which religion is either privatized or treated with indifference. This trend can be traced back to the French Revolution, which sought to abolish any form of authority derived from divine rule. The American constitutional framework, heavily influenced by deist thinkers such as Thomas Paine, similarly established a government that made no explicit reference to God and treated all religions as fundamentally equal.

Despite appearing to champion ideals such as human rights, justice, and freedom—principles that sound superficially Christian—liberalism diverges from Christianity in how it defines these concepts. For Christians, rights and freedoms are inherently tied to divine law and moral order. In contrast, liberalism treats them as self-evident truths without requiring a theological foundation. The liberal worldview prioritizes individuals and minority groups over the family structure, which Christianity upholds as the cornerstone of society. This shift in priorities is evident in liberalism’s strong advocacy for feminism, LGBT rights, and mass immigration—issues that challenge traditional Christian teachings.

In response to the rise of liberal thought, Christian leaders throughout history have pushed back against its secularizing effects. Pope Pius IX, for instance, condemned the religious indifference promoted by liberalism in his 1864 Syllabus of Errors, arguing that its principles were incompatible with Catholic doctrine. He warned that liberalism’s relativistic approach to morality and authority would ultimately erode the foundation of Christian belief. One of the biggest concerns in Catholic countries was that liberals sought to remove Catholicism as the state religion. The papacy had always maintained that in Catholic-majority nations, Catholicism should hold official status. Liberalism rejected this, advocating for religious neutrality in the state. Pope Pius IX cautioned that such religious indifference would lead to a corruption of public morals. He also noted numerous cases where liberals directly attacked the Church, including confiscating its land and arresting clergy for performing their duties. In his condemnations, he referred to these efforts as the work of the "Synagogue of Satan," describing how liberal forces attempted to submit the Church to cruel servitude, undermine its foundations, and ultimately erase it from existence.

Subsequent popes continued to denounce liberalism for relegating divine and natural law to the realm of mere opinion. Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Immortale Dei, wrote, "To hold that there is no difference in religions that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. This is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name." The academic Bernard Laurent echoed these concerns in his work Catholicism and Liberalism, Two Ideologies in Confrontation, observing that "The different popes, each in his own way, never failed to lament the impact of this revolution on human values. They all refused to see society subordinated to individual freedom and to allow human and moral purpose to be thus undermined." He also pointed out that the Church condemned economic structures that prioritized capital above labor.

The conflict between liberalism and Christianity was not limited to philosophical debate; in many instances, it escalated into violent confrontations. Notable examples include the Cristero Uprising in Mexico and the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939, where Catholic forces clashed with secular liberal governments.

Now that we have established the philosophical differences between liberalism and Christianity, it is important to examine how liberalism actively corrupts Christianity today. This occurs in two key ways: from within and from the outside.

From within, liberalism fosters a culture that promotes behaviors and values antithetical to Christian teachings. Consider the prevalence of pornography, the normalization of OnlyFans for young women, and the widespread acceptance of birth control—all of which prioritize individual gratification over moral principles. Public schools have largely removed religious education while simultaneously promoting progressive views on sexuality. As a result, many individuals are raised in an environment saturated with secular liberal values, leading them to question or reject traditional Christian doctrines.

This influence manifests in the Church as well, with many denominations facing internal pressure to conform to liberal standards. A clear example is the issue of homosexuality. Christianity has long held that homosexual acts are sinful and contrary to natural law. However, liberal ideology asserts the opposite, treating homosexuality as a mere lifestyle choice. This ideological conflict has led to intense pressure on church leaders to revise traditional teachings. Some denominations have yielded to this pressure. In 2024, the United Methodist Church officially removed its doctrine stating that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Similarly, the Anglican Church and several other Protestant groups have made similar doctrinal shifts in recent years. Even in denominations that officially maintain traditional teachings on sexuality, many members ignore them. Polls show that in liberal countries, large numbers of self-identified Catholics support gay marriage, despite the Church’s clear stance against it.

Liberalism’s external attacks on Christianity are equally concerning. In many liberal countries, laws are passed that directly infringe upon Christian beliefs and institutions. Catholic charities and adoption centers have been forced to close for refusing to place children with same-sex couples. Businesses like Masterpiece Cake Shop have been legally targeted for adhering to Christian moral principles. Government entities have exhibited clear anti-Christian bias, as seen in cases where civil rights laws are weaponized to suppress religious freedoms.
​
Ultimately, liberalism forces Christians to choose between obeying the laws of God or conforming to the demands of a secular state. The aggressive push to remove Christianity from public life, combined with the internal erosion of doctrine, presents a dire challenge for the future of the faith. Yet, as liberalism declines globally, there remains hope that Christianity will resist these pressures and reaffirm its foundational teachings.

​

The fundamental question of governance, policy, and economics is not merely what is best for society but rather who gets to decide what is best. This argument, posed by economist and social theorist Thomas Sowell, challenges the assumption that a centralized authority can effectively determine the needs and interests of diverse populations. Instead, Sowell suggests that power over decision-making is the key issue, not just the pursuit of ideal policies. In a world where government intervention and top-down control are increasingly normalized, his perspective remains relevant. This essay explores the implications of Sowell’s statement, the dangers of centralized decision-making, and the benefits of decentralized governance in fostering individual freedom and responsibility.

One of the most significant takeaways from Sowell’s quote is that the concept of “best” is inherently subjective. What is considered best for one individual, community, or nation may not be best for another. For example, in education policy, some families may prioritize STEM education, while others emphasize classical liberal arts. If a centralized government mandates a one-size-fits-all curriculum, it disregards the diverse needs and values of different communities. The same applies to economic policies: while higher minimum wages may benefit some workers, they may simultaneously lead to job losses and higher costs for small businesses. In both cases, what is “best” is not universally agreed upon, reinforcing Sowell’s assertion that the real issue is who has the power to decide.
​
In contrast, decentralized decision-making acknowledges cultural, economic, and personal differences. A free-market approach allows individuals to make choices based on their specific circumstances rather than relying on a detached governing body to impose a universal solution. This approach leads to greater efficiency, as people and institutions closest to a problem often understand it best.

History provides multiple examples of how centralized control over decision-making can result in inefficiency, oppression, and unintended consequences. The Soviet Union, for instance, sought to determine what was “best” for its economy through a centrally planned system, controlling wages, prices, and production quotas. However, the lack of localized knowledge and personal incentives led to widespread shortages, economic stagnation, and ultimately, the collapse of the Soviet economy. This failure illustrates Sowell’s argument that centralized authorities lack the necessary insight to make the best decisions for individuals and communities.

Similarly, modern welfare programs often suffer from a disconnect between policymakers and the people they intend to serve. Government bureaucrats, detached from the realities of day-to-day life in struggling communities, create policies based on theoretical models rather than practical, lived experiences. As a result, many well-intentioned social programs fail to produce their desired effects, leading to cycles of dependency rather than empowerment. The problem is not necessarily the goal of helping people, but rather the assumption that distant policymakers should have the authority to dictate solutions.

If centralized decision-making fails to adequately address societal needs, the alternative is decentralization—placing decision-making power in the hands of individuals and local communities. Sowell argues that people closest to an issue are the most qualified to decide on solutions, as they possess firsthand experience and a direct stake in the outcome. This principle is evident in the free market, where competition and consumer choice naturally regulate industries without the need for excessive government intervention.

A decentralized approach extends beyond economics into governance. Federalist systems, such as the United States, distribute power between national and state governments, allowing local authorities to tailor policies to their populations’ specific needs. This ensures that laws reflect regional values and conditions rather than being dictated by a distant bureaucracy. Similarly, in education, the rise of homeschooling and school choice initiatives reflects the belief that parents, rather than the government, should have the final say in their children’s education.

Decentralization also promotes accountability and adaptability. When power is spread across multiple governing bodies or institutions, people can “vote with their feet,” moving to areas that better align with their values and needs. For example, states with lower tax burdens or stronger personal freedoms often attract migration from states with higher regulations and less individual autonomy. This natural process of competition ensures that policies remain responsive to the people they affect.

In today’s world, Sowell’s question remains as relevant as ever. Governments, corporations, and institutions increasingly assert control over major aspects of daily life, from economic regulations to personal freedoms. Social media platforms dictate acceptable speech, universities enforce ideological conformity, and public health agencies impose broad mandates with little input from individuals. These trends highlight the growing divide between top-down decision-making and individual autonomy.

While governance and structure are necessary for any functioning society, blind trust in centralized authority leads to diminished personal freedoms and poor decision-making. Sowell’s perspective calls for a fundamental reevaluation of how power is distributed. Rather than asking, “What is the best policy?” society should first ask, “Who has the right to make that decision?” The more decision-making power remains at the individual and local level, the more responsive and effective governance becomes.

Thomas Sowell’s assertion that "the most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best"challenges modern assumptions about authority and governance. The fundamental problem in policymaking and societal organization is not just the pursuit of ideal solutions, but who gets to impose those solutions on others. The dangers of centralized control, as seen in history and modern governance, reinforce the need for decentralization and individual choice. Ultimately, a thriving society is one in which decisions are made by those closest to the issues at hand, ensuring that governance remains accountable, adaptable, and aligned with the diverse needs of its people. Sowell’s insight serves as a critical reminder that power over decision-making is the true battleground—not just the policies themselves.

There is something deeply unsettling about parading your wife around naked in public, particularly when done under the guise of “fashion” or “art.” Recently, Kanye West did just that, presenting his wife, Bianca Censori, in a fully nude outfit at the Grammys before she was allegedly arrested for indecent exposure. This was not some avant-garde statement or an exercise in free expression—it was the public degradation of a woman under the control of her husband.
​
West has long fashioned himself as a man of faith, a deeply religious Christian. But there is nothing remotely godly about a husband who treats his wife like a prop in his personal theater of self-indulgence. The Bible speaks clearly: “Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them” (Colossians 3:19)

Before she met Kanye, Bianca Censori did not dress like this. But since becoming Mrs. West, she has been stripped of clothing and autonomy alike, reduced to a prop. A husband who loves his wife does not degrade her in public. A man who honors his marriage does not use his wife’s body as a spectacle for controversy.

And to those who argue that she “consented,” let’s remember that consent is not the gold standard of ethical behavior. If someone consents to being harmed, manipulated, or humiliated, that does not make it right. There are many circumstances where people are coerced—whether emotionally, psychologically, or financially—into decisions they would not otherwise make. Just because someone agrees to something does not mean they are being treated with dignity.

The blatant disrespect towards his wife in this situation is appalling. Kanye West may be many things, but in this regard, he is nothing more than a wicked man in designer clothes.