Karl Marx was convinced that religion was the opiate of the masses. That, no doubt, was the reason he decided to make a religion of his screwy economic theory. Surely it must have occurred to him that if people were willing to accept improbable miracles on faith, they might also be convinced that economic policies that fly in the face of reality and human nature could also gain a foothold.

And he was right, in spite of the fact that his notions have failed time and again all around the world, inevitably ending in the tyranny by the few and the enslavement of the many.

Nothing, we’ve been told, succeeds like success. But as socialists and communists have shown for the past century, thanks to the terminally gullible, occasionally nothing succeeds like failure.

Today, in the greatest irony of all, you have major religions following the tenets of Marx while simultaneously ignoring those of Christ. You have a Catholic pope parroting left-wing propaganda and showing far more concern about global warming than about Christians being burned, crucified and beheaded, by Muslims.

At the same time, you have Protestant church leaders siding with terrorist groups and calling for the divestment of investments in Israel, in spite of the fact that most American Protestants support the Jewish state and understand that Israel would like nothing better than to live in peace with its neighbors, if only those neighbors would stop trying to exterminate them.

Here in the U.S., we have seen the Boy Scouts, Catholic adoption agencies, along with Christian bakers, florists and photographers, all come under attack because they have, to some extent, not accepted sodomy as a norm.

We are all told to shape up and accept homosexuality on its own terms because, as five members of the Supreme Court pretty much stated in its majority decision, these people are simply in wuv. The decision I’m anxiously awaiting is the one they will inevitably be called upon to adjudicate, the one involving consenting bigamists and polygamists. I would think that so long as all the petitioners were consenting adults, Anthony Kennedy, for one, would have a very tough time explaining why twenty people should be denied the same right as two people to express their wuv by exchanging wedding vows.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, whatever your politics or personal beliefs, you have to admit that the Democrats are experts when it comes to seating justices who will see things their way. Republicans, on the other hand, seem content to pull names out of a hat.

If you doubt it, consider that between them, Clinton and Obama have appointed Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor. No surprises there. Each of them has voted exactly the way Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, would if they were on the Court.

On the other hand, between them, Reagan and the two Bushes placed seven justices, including one Chief Justice, on the high court. Although they got it right with Scalia, Thomas and Alito, it might as well have been Obama who paved the way for Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter and Roberts, to wear bathrobes to work.

One surprising fact I recently discovered about the current Court is that in spite of the fact that fewer than one in four Americans is Catholic or Jewish, all nine justices are either one or the other.

When I recently suggested that after all their recent computer hacking, the least that China could do was let us know what was on Hillary Clinton’s private server, a couple of readers decided I was being serious. I guess with some people, you have to add a “ha-ha” at the end of a sentence before they know you’re joking.

In both cases, they let me know that China would never hand over any damaging email. Instead, they would use it to blackmail Mrs. Clinton. I looked in vain for the “ha-ha,” so I decided they were serious. But the notion of blackmailing Mrs. Clinton strikes me as funnier than my line about the Chinese.

After all, we already know what she did and said in connection to Benghazi; we know she used a private server in violation of law and ethics; and that she and Bill were pocketing millions in bribes while she was Secretary of State. In spite of all that, seventy million Democrats are dying to vote for her in 2016. Does anyone really believe that anything the Chinese could disclose, including the alleged affair she’s long been rumored to be carrying on with Huma Abedin, vice-chairwoman of Hillary’s presidential campaign, could cool their ardor? After all, Bill Clinton was elected twice, and tales of his sexual misconduct were more than rumors.

It’s not just the sorry state of politics that makes our society such an embarrassment. Millions of unmarried women give birth, and they’re celebrated. Moreover, the boy friends get to brag about it with no fear of financial or legal consequences. Actors, actresses, singers and athletes, go on TV and boast of their addictions to booze, drugs and sex, and they’re applauded. Bruce Jenner decides he’s a woman and the Commander-in-Chief praises his courage.

Worst of all, not only do most Americans now pride themselves on being non-judgmental, they’ve been taught to regard it as a virtue.

Finally, when the University of Missouri at Kansas City sought a celebrity to headline a gala marking the opening of a women’s hall of fame, they first reached out to Hillary Clinton. But they were told it would cost them $275,000. I know that sounds like a lot of money to the university and to most of us, but you have to remember that 14 short years ago, she and Bill were flat broke, if you don’t count the $20 million in book advances.

Once the organizers of the gala got over their shock, they decided to invite Chelsea Clinton. For a 10-minute address, she agreed to show up for a mere $65,000. Never mind that, on a prorated basis, that still works out to $390,000-an-hour.

No one family — not the Bushes, not the Kennedys, not even the Kardashians — has more chutzpah than the Clintons. In spite of having billions in the slush fund they refer to as a Foundation, they never weary of griping about the disparity of income in America — arguing how unfair it is that corporate CEOs make a hundred times as much as their employees . However, they see nothing out of kilter about Chelsea being paid much more for 10 minutes of her time than any of the hardworking waiters, waitresses and busboys, at the event will earn in a year.

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote: “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” If Fitzgerald had ever met the Clintons, he might have added: “They are hypocrites of the worst kind.”