Here comes the puzzle of religious liberty, at least as it has played out for us. The subtraction of beliefs leaves, as a remainder, “no one’s religious beliefs,” or more accurately, non-belief. Non-belief thereby becomes the established state worldview. Secularism takes the place of an established religion. Secularism is not neutral. It is a quite definite worldview, with its own version of the cosmos and the place of human beings in it, one in which God has been subtracted. The state-sponsored subtraction of religious beliefs in the name of religious freedom ends up establishing a worldview based upon the subtraction of God from the cosmos. -Catholic World Report
Our founding fathers enshrined religious liberty as our first right because while we should render that which is Caesar’s to Caesar, we must render to God that which is God’s. Caesar will never like this, for it implies that Caesar isn’t God—that there are obligations higher than those to the state; that the state is necessarily limited. When we claim to be one nation under God, we’re saying we’re a nation under God’s judgment. Man is not the measure of all things. -Public Discourse
I’ve come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can’t have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we’re the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can’t get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being. -Iowa State Daily
“In all 50 states, two people of the same sex can live with each other and love each other, they can go to a liberal church and have a wedding ceremony performed, they can work for a liberal business and have marriage benefits, if the church wants to and if the business wants to,” he said. “It’s very much live and let live.” But that’s not what those who want to redefine marriage are asking for. “What they’re asking is for the Supreme Court to redefine marriage, and then have government use the coercive power of law to force people like you and me and our religious communities and our businesses to recognize a same-sex relationship as if it’s a marriage,” he said. -Heritage
America prides itself in being “the land of the free.” But as it turns out, liberty is not free itself. It comes at a cost. Part of that cost was paid by the precious lives of Americans who sacrificed everything for their country. But in times of peace, citizens must also foot the bill by being responsible and virtuous. A free society does not just magically work. It requires a people who are willing to cooperate with each other and selflessly care for one another. If we love liberty, we must also love justice, kindness, mercy and charity. Otherwise, the liberty that we dearly love will disappear, and the America that we call exceptional may join the ranks of failed experiments in democracy. -Values & Capitalism
Conservatism opposes universal, outsourced collective responsibility with engaged, personal community responsibility. When a liberal claims that as a society we owe each member access to health care, the conservative responds not that we owe each other nothing, but that we all long to belong to communities where we care for each other. The conservative solution is a community fundraiser put on by a sick man’s friends and family, neither bureaucracy nor autonomy. We are born with responsibilities not only to ourselves, but our families. Our families sustain us selflessly for years before we can even pretend to be self-sustaining individuals. The stable social soil of a family and community create the bounded realm of liberty within which one can attempt to grow into a good person. -Intercollegiate Review
Rarely in the last ten or fifteen years have we seen so clearly the fruits of relative truth. It’s so easy, when relative truth gains a foothold in a society with a strong tradition of absolute truth, to dismiss any criticism of relative truth as silly — “Oh! It will never come to the President of the United States breaking the law! It will never come to companies and organizations getting favorable treatment for supporting the government! None of this will ever cost lives!”
If any series of events could ever show us the danger relative truth, the direction of our nation, our culture, our society, this last month should have been the first dose of sour milk out of the carton.
The US Government did nothing (except lie to cover its tracks) while Americans were dying on a small slice of American soil in Libya. The IRS has been treating those who believe in smaller government and the right of Israel to exist as a nation with contempt. The Government has been snooping on Journalists in a broad based probe trying to figure out who leaked the truth about something they’d rather you not know about. The EPA has been favoring groups it agrees with over groups it does not. We’ve suddenly discovered that wind farms kill hundreds of birds in protected species each year, and no-one is prosecuted — while BP was find one hundred million dollars for the death of protected birds in the recent spill of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. It turns out that much of the money poured into “green energy companies,” actually went to the donors of the current President. The forces for abortion have supported (with government aid at all levels) the wholesale breaking of the law, up to and including murder in the raw. As Planned Parenthood says, “your children will thank you for supporting abortion.”
The truth is that the liberal left has been telling us they believe the law is relative all along, if we would just listen. This:
“The Constitution is only as alive as we collectively have decided it is today,” Sagal told Gavin, adding, “I’ve been calling it the Tinkerbell of national charters because Tinkerbell only lives if you clap, right? Or if you say, ‘I do believe in fairies, I do!’” -NewsBusters
Inevitably leads to this:
On Monday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that the Constitution would have to be reinterpreted in order to curtail civil liberties to prevent terrorism. Bloomberg likened such reinterpretation to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, which he says allowed for greater gun control to preserve public safety. -Big Government
During her testimony on the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared that she, President Barack Obama and other political officials at the top of this administration have the authority to decide which laws to enforce, and which ones to ignore. -Breitbart
There is a direct line between a relativistic view of the law and tyranny.
As they are discovering in Bangladesh, there is a direct line between relative enforcement of the law and the collapse of large buildings where thousands of people work. You can die because of the maleficence of your legal system, after all. Just go to any abortion clinic supported by Planned Parenthood.
It has been a busy month, indeed.
Now we have a choice. Do we stand and watch while our culture falls, grabbing all we can for ourselves on the way down? Or do we stand against the fall of our culture?
If you want to stand against the fall of our culture, the place to begin is with insisting that absolute truth matters — that our lack of agreement over what the truth is doesn’t eliminate the fact that such truth exists. The solid platform on which our entire culture, our very lives themselves, stand, is on the acceptance and pursuit of such truth.
We have come to the point in our national life where what matters is “doing what’s right,” rather than “doing what’s legal.” Isn’t this a good thing? Isn’t it better that we look at each situation, determine what the best outcome is, and then decide for ourselves how to get to what we think the right outcome is?
Think about this: There was a Garden with two people in it. They looked at a particular tree and decided it was good for food. They had a little help in the form of a snake, of course, but after some discussion with the snake, they decided they could determine what was wrong, and what was right — they could decide what the right outcome was, and how to get there.
So they ate.
And then they discovered there were unintended consequences. Suddenly they were ashamed of their bodies. Suddenly their relationship with God, their relationship with one another, and even their relationship with the Earth itself, were all broken.
They faced death.
The problem, you see, is unintended consequences.
We just don’t have brains enough to understand every possible unintended consequence. No matter how much data we collect and process, no matter how many experts we get together, those pesky little unintended consequences come in the back door while we’re not looking.
The question on the surface here is: should we kill a few eagles to get to clean power?
The question underneath is: do we respect the law — even the laws that we’ve made?
The answer to the second question is the important one. Should we govern ourselves through laws that apply to everyone equally, or at the whim of some ruler who thinks he knows better than the rest of us? Who gets to decide that hunting eagles as trophies or to protect livestock is bad, but killing eagles to generate “clean energy” (which isn’t so clean anyway) is okay?
Are we to be ruled by laws, or men? Have we forgotten the meaning of the very question?
The problem with experts is they are expert in their own experience. Not yours.
Maybe you’ve been putting your earbuds in your ears and screaming as loud as you can. Maybe you’ve been ignoring the news, head down in [...]
You may — or may not have — heard that the Government is thinking about setting up an “Internet sales tax.” In fact, a bill [...]
Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all [...]
Hoplophobia is far and away the most dangerous of all phobias, because of its unique nexus to political action. Because sufferers act out their fears [...]