I would like to take a moment this morning to post the last part of my conservative response to liberalism series. (PART 1 HERE) - (PART 2 HERE) I haven't touched on this for a while now, since the topics of discussion were leading elsewhere, but I do feel it necessary to finish what I started. So, here is my last response to Mr. McKinley's Proud to Be A Liberal article.
To quote;
"Liberalism is "The Pursuit of Happiness." It is the freedom to create an environment where the individual can excel. What is freedom if it cannot be used to better our lives? A truly free society must be one where its members can rise above their limitations and expand their futures. We call it "The American Dream," and it's alive and well in the heart of the Liberal. Liberals believe in equal opportunities for all to rise above our means. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our education levels. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our social status. And Liberals believe each and every family should have an equal opportunity to make this world better for their children."
Once again, we are met with Mr. McKinley stating that liberalism is creating freedom. I cannot except this as true, however. Liberalism seems to do nothing but get in the way of freedom, and in the process, get in the way of the pursuit of happiness (as they are often times one in the same).
Liberalism is about growing government bigger. The modern liberal holds that the government can solve all the problems of the day. This 'big government' does nothing but block the individual's freedoms; it stops them from living as they want to. The bigger government gets, the less chance any individual has to do with there life what they want. If laws are put in place saying a person can't own a gun unless the are screened for months, register yearly, report there comings and goings, and face charges if their gun is used (even if they aren't the ones using it), than you are putting forth a situation where many wouldn't bother owning a gun. A freedom taken away. (This freedom is even constitutionally defined)
The modern American government is in our life constantly. It is telling the schools what to teach our children, and discouraging those who disagree and wish to homeschool. This is called, in many cirumstances, indoctrination. Don't get me wrong here, I don't believe that every class in every school is some type of government indoctrination. However, when the government says that the school cannot teach Creationism as an alternative to evolution, that is indoctrination. It is presenting only one side of the issue at hand and not letting any type of free decision to be made; it is stopping free-thinking from ever occuring.
In the end, do we really want the government to be growing, giving a small group of people more and more power? Sinful man, in his fallen state, cannot in most cases be trusted, unless fervently seeking God. Yet, our government has turned away from it's Christian founding. This government was founded by God-fearing people who looked upwards for the solutions to what they saw around them. The constitution was written on the premise that the government needs to stay as small as possible to allow freedom and liberty to reign across the land. The founders admitted their fallen, sinful nature and understood that power would corrupt government; they knew that the size of the government needed to be small to preserve the nation; and they knew that it was from a gift of God that they had a chance to form this country.
So where are we today? Our government is growing (along with the national debt), our President publicly states that we are not a Christian nation (even though we were founded on Christianity), our President is going around the world apologizing for our actions (instead of being proud of our heritage and what we have acomplished), and our people are turning their backs on God, leading to the moral deprivation of the individual.
Liberalism the pursuit of happiness? No, it's not. It is going farther and farther from it everyday. Only when man understands his governments role, and this nation is truly One Nation Under God, will this country be free and the people free to pursue happiness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Mr. Lovelady (I shan't be so informal as to call you by your first name without your consent, I apologize for the informality earlier),
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, it seems that your post may hold the key to continuing the religious debate which, if I may speak for myself and take for granted some of the comments of others, your audience acquiesced to move off of. I hope you were not goading us into such a thing. That might make some feel less than appreciated, though you commendably thank us all in our own turns.
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is quoted as saying "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I hope the rest of your audience does not feel the same after the bombing of Liberals as an anti-Christian institution.
I do grant you appreciation for the need to finish what you started, however.
Have A
Mr Good Day
"As long as you have the blessing of your parents it does not matter even if you live in the mountains."
-Greek proverb
Just a few things I noticed and wish to comment on. First of all, would not the founders of our nation have been considered liberal in thought, word and deed? Wouldn't they have also been considered less than Christian as well when they separated from the Church of England?? Furthermore, the founders of our county were not necessarily the best example of fine, Christian men; having mistresses, fathering children of their slaves, drunken extremists. Now, if that is the pride of our nation, lets talk morality shall we....
ReplyDeleteSecond, you are, as MR. Good Day suggests saying that liberals are not moral or Christian. The paragraph that you quote, quite frankly, suggests that liberalism allows greater responsibility, thus leading to more freedom. There cannot be freedom without moral responsibility. That is not a liberal or conservative view, it simply is. A few contradictions, however, you site gun control as a liberal problem when we as immoral humans have made it clear that we cannot control ourselves with guns, I for one am more than happy to have those restrictions in place. Second, you are for less government yet want a law in place that would force a woman impregnated by an act of rape or molestation to carry a child without choice. Is that more or less government and is forcing someone to do something they may not want to a moral act? The government holds parental rights in highest regard and once pregnant are you not that childs parent and therefore legally entitled the right to choose? Just as parents choose to teach children creationism in their own homes, which is most likely a better teaching grounds for such, given the thought that most people don't want others talking to their children about religious or spiritual things without their consent or presence. I also clearly remember having religious discussions in school where we talked about the bible, Christ, other peoples' feelings on the subject. Do you have children? That would be a good place to start on forcing your morals on others.
Hello all and thank you for the comments you've left. They are, as always, greatly appreciated.
ReplyDeleteFirst, to Mr. Good Day - I want to assure you that I am not trying to steer a debate in any particular direction by adding my religion into my posting; it is simply who I am as a person, and as such, my thoughts on government will overlap with my thoughts on religion. I cannot, and will not, deviate from my thoughts all that is "religious" for the sake of political correctness or any other. I am a Christian man who holds God to high esteem and longs everyday to be brought closer to Him. That my Chrisianity comes out in my writing is no surprise. It's who I am.
Let me also say that I do not believe that all Liberal ideology is in itself "anti-religous". Many parts, however, are, (and I have pointed out a couple above; I could add abortion and removal of church from public places to the list as well.) Political correctness in itself is a form of taking the church out of view. I understand if someone doesn't want to hear what is being said. If not, they should just go elsewhere. That is freedom.
And by the way, you can call me Kelby if you wish. I don't mind :)
To the Anonymous Poster - The founders of this country were breaking away from the Church of England's legalistic approach and catholicism. They were looking for a land where they could worship God how they saw to be the proper way. In England, the church had the authority over the land and wouldn't allow them to worship apart from the Church of England.
I understand that they were not all 'fine, Christian men' as they had their many falts. But the thing they did have was belief in a Creator above. I talked about this in an article titled
The Faith Our Country Was Built On - Not Worship of the State... the link is here...
http://kelbylovelady.blogspot.com/2009/04/faith-our-country.html
I would encourage you to read it to see my views of the founders religion.
I would challenge the second part of your comments by asking how liberalism can allow greater responsiblity by growing government that tells us how to run our lives? It would seem, then, that we have much less responsibility, as we are simply following what we are told to do.
I completely agree that there is no freedom without moral and personal responsibility. That is something I have been saying on this site for a long time.
As guns go, I believe that it is not the gun that is killing, it's the person killing, making the control of guns pointless in the end. Our constitution gives us the right to own them as well; and I believe we must uphold our constitution.
As for abortion, the government would not be blocking a 'choice', it would be preventing murder. A human life is not a choice to be made, it is something to be cherished and upheld to the highest. Government is there to protect the people; preventing murder is an excellent way to protect someone.
As for the teaching of creationism, I believe it would be best taught along side evolution and hindu creation and all other ideas. Let the people decide what they will believe. If there is a problem with hearing that, then allow that choice to be made and the student to be removed. That would allow full education of students and parent's choice.
So, as you see, there are many things that Liberals hold to that I view as 'anti-religous' and 'anti-morality'. I suppose, though, that depends where you get your morality from; God or humans. There are many liberal views which are not in any way based on religous values, just different ways of looking at how things should be done. That is a discussion for another time though.
And, to answer your last question, no I do not have any children. And I am not forcing my morals on others, simply presenting them in an open forum to be discussed.
Thank you all for your time and comments. Look forward to the next round :)
~Kelby
Hello from Heathrow Mr. Lovelady.
ReplyDeleteI see you have been busy. I have a short layover so I thought I would check in and see how things are going. Nothing like the smell of an Internet Terminal at Heathrow! Have you travelled much Mr. Lovelady?
I see you have some new voices. Greetings Mr. Good Day, and to who I will assume is the new anonymous voice that spoke before I left. Lest I forget, hello Mr. Klemencic. I hope you are getting your rest better than I seem to be managing.
Just a brief thought that occured to me as I read today, in the past, you have sounded like there is only one true religion, that being your Christianity. In this post, you put that side by side with Hindu as you mention creationism. I remember you mentioning Muslim at one point as well (not in a favorable light if I remember correctly). My curiosity is, what branch of Christianity are you (I know there are several), and what makes you think yours is the best?
I believe the constitutional language had to do with Freedom Of Religion, did it not? Meaning that all religion should be treated with equal respect, wouldn't you think?
My appologies for a seemingly disjointed posting here. I seem to be in a fog (oh, and not the London fog by the way, the weather is rather pleasant right now) from travel. I must press on so, until next I have a chance ...........
Mr. Thorne
Hmmm. It would seem that as I go back and revisit the entry you made regarding our Founding Fathers, it would seem that the lazy Susan you wish to call the "naivety of making one quote and closing the book" has revolved to your side of the table. For instance, Thomas Jefferson writes in a letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814 "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." In his 1787 Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson stated: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world..."
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as teaching church in school(which is considered an institution of the state), look no further than Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association :"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State." A "WALL OF SEPARATION". And upon further research, you will find that while Jefferson was fond of saying he was a Unitarian, you will find plenty of evidence supporting him being a deist, that is, someone who believes in A God, but not The God per se of Christian belief. Benjamin Franklin also considered himself a deist, which places God as an element of the environment or nature based on Reason and not the supernatural or prophetic qualities of the Christian God (though referred to in the same sense). In fact, in the Declaration of Independence they use the terminology "Creator" and "Nature's God" which was the common theist (read deist) verbiage for the non-Christian God of the time. This post is getting excessive, so I'll leave George Washington for later.
As my wrist tires for the moment (tip of the hat and a nod to Mr. Thorne's humor) I retire for the day.
And to that end Mr. Thorne:
May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind always be at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face,
and rains fall soft upon your fields.
And until we meet again,
May God hold you in the palm of His hand.
- Iris Blessing for friends and travelers
Have a
Mr Good Day
Good morning all and thanks again for the comments. It's great to see people involved in what's happening here.
ReplyDeleteFirst, to Mr. Thorne - A special thank you to you for taking the time at Heathrow to think of this site. I am glad to see your travels are going safely :) And no, I actually haven't traveled much in my time. Lots of driving around the US, but that's it. I've never left for foreign soil...
In response to your question, I would first like to say that by bringing up other religions in my posting, I am making an effort to be inclusive. If the hinduists believe their story of creation to be true and have some scientific backing of it, then it should be taught, right along side of evolution and biblical creationism. Let people decide what makes sense.
As far as what Christian grouping I am in... I wouldn't really call myself any of them. I consider myself to be a non-denominational, Bible believing Christian. I don't look to any certain church tenets to guide my beliefs, but look to my bible to see what it says. That is the way it should be, I think. Of course, we are living in an age where around 70% of "Christians" in America don't believe the bible to be true. It's quite sad to see so many professing something they don't believe.
I do hold Christianity to be the right religion for many reasons. It is the only 'holy book' with a complete revelation - a beginning and an end. The bible has never been proven wrong on any fact that has been presented from it. It has, in fact, been proven right in many surprising ways. The bible is based on historical accuracies. The bible doesn't only portray the greatness of God and Jesus, but also shows the dark side of humanity, telling of the worst of men, showing their failures. Most other 'holy books' of other religions only speak of glory and success.
The last reason I would like to present is that Jesus Christ is, undisputably and proven to be, a real person who walked the Earth. No historian (who's credible) denies that at all. His life has been recorded by the Gospels of the bible, and noted by some outside sources; historians of the time. His death, as noted by the bible AND these outside sources, was by cruxificion. This was predicted thousands of years before. Biblical prophecy of the Old and New Testaments is accurate, and can be proven as such.
Sounds like a great reason to believe to me. Accurate prophecy, accurate science, and a real man/God who walked the Earth. No other religion can come close to that.
So, until next time we talk, safe travels and God bless Mr. Thorne :)
To Mr. Good Day - These quotations of the founding fathers are, I admit, a very hard way to make an arguement. Many of our founders said things both ways. Here is another Jefferson quote, also from his Notes on the State of Virginia in 1787 -
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"
So, you see, without digging out all quotations, we are left with a difficult to paint picture. I apologize for not realizing this sooner, but quotes are useful and dangerous all at once I suppose :)
The seperation of church and state is something that has been debated on and on for a long time now. First, I am glad that you note this phrase as occuring from Jefferson and not as being in our governments constitution. It's not; most people don't know that. Really, from my studies, what is being suggested here is that the state should not impose a national religion, but allow people to practice their own, as long as it is not endangering others. This would not mean that religion could not be part of a public institution, only that religion could not be imposed on others through the government. This debate, however, through the years has been fought over and distorted so that most facts are lost in popular legend. Quite sad, I suppose.
Thank you all for your time and effort, for your comments and thoughts, and for your willingness to partake in open debate. It is what this country was built on, and what will keep it strong. Thank you all.
~Kelby
Not much time today, Kelby, but I rather enjoy the volley. I'll be around as time permits.
ReplyDeleteUntil Then, Have a
Mr Good Day
Deus et natua non faciunt frusta.
"God and nature do not work together in vain."
Latin proverb
Wow, you guys have been busy! I'd like to comment on this but I just don't have enough time to read all this and collect my thoughts enough to reply. Hope you all ya all have a great weekend.
ReplyDelete