Culture
Why Liberals Want Moral Freedoms and Business Restraints
Or “Why Conservatives Want Moral Restraints and Business Freedoms.”
Both of these statements could be the title for today’s subject. I was tempted to put both in one long sentence, but that would have only worked two hundred years ago when titles were long. This article is also about “Freedom and Form” in human societies. That also could have been the title.
So, I rolled the dice and chose the “liberal” title to catch your attention. Now, that I’ve got you thinking, let’s discuss a possible Best Explanation of this seeming contradiction. First, let’s define the terms liberal and conservative.
Two worldviews are currently fighting for supremacy in America and other nations around the world. One is the Christian worldview upon which this nation was founded that finds its roots in the teachings of biblical revelation. Generally speaking, a conservative political and social philosophy is consistent with the Christian view of life. That’s why in 2000 a high percentage of Christians voted for George E. Bush because he was generally known as a conservative politician. Christians, or traditional values people, vote conservative if they’re consistent with the Bible’s perspective.
The other worldview that has gained ascendancy in American life in the past forty years could be described as atheist, secular, or progressive (that’s what they like to call themselves). These words are all synonyms. Generally speaking, a liberal political or social philosophy is consistent with the atheist view of life. That’s also why in 2000 a high percentage of secularists voted for John Kerry–because he was known as the liberal politician. Secularists or progressives vote liberal if they’re consistent with their worldview.
Thus conservatives share a Christian view of reality. Liberals share an atheist view of life. That’s not an opinion–it’s just a fact. Not all conservatives are Christians; Not all liberals are atheists. However, Christians tend to be conservative and secularists tend to be liberal. It can be no other way.
Now back to the seeming contradiction. Have you ever wondered why liberals always want freedom, liberty or lack of constraints in moral areas (such as sex, marriage, abortion etc.), but on the other hand they strongly favor governmental controls, restraints or regulations on business and all forms of the free enterprise system? That doesn’t appear to be consistent. Why not freedom in morals and freedom in the marketplace? Or why not restraints on morality and restraints on business?
On the other side, conservatives want restraints, controls, or regulations on personal morality in society such as sexual immorality, the sanctity of life and marriage (between a man and woman), but on the other hand seek freedom, liberty, and a lack of constraints in the realm of business and commerce. We might ask again: Why don’t conservatives want either freedom or controls in both categories?
Not only are both camps inconsistent on freedom and regulation, but also choose opposite realms for liberty and control. Conservatives want morals to be regulated and enterprise to be free. Liberals want businesses to be regulated and morality to be free. Some examples will make this point clear.
In 2008, those who supported Barack Obama cast their votes for the liberal (atheist) view of life. Barack Obama is not just a liberal–he’s a radical liberal–the most liberal senator in the US Congress form 2006-2008. As a liberal president, Obama believes in freedom in morality such as abortion and lesbian, gay, bi-sexual transgender values such as the White House LGBT “Party” that was held this week.
On the other hand, he strongly believes in controlling business and free enterprise as seen by his strong arm tactics in the “Cap & Trade” legislation passed by the House. He shows this tendency in other business areas such as the take-over of various banks, government ownership of GM, his new stable of “czars” and the coming vision of government controlled health care. Obama and his followers want moral license to do anything they want; They also work hard to place mammoth controls and regulations on the American free enterprise system.
George W. Bush represented the polar opposite as president. He wanted restraints and controls on embryonic cell research, abortion, and did not support the homosexual liberation agenda. On the other side, he gave tax cuts to business, encouraging growth and creativity, and put his trust in the free enterprise system and liberation of the markets.
So WHY do liberals want moral freedom and business control–and conservatives desire moral controls and freedom for businesses?
I believe there are two best explanations for these differences.
First is the reality of form and freedom in human existence–the need for balance in life. Human beings have been designed by God to need both order and flexibility in their lives. We need “form” for stability and continuity, and we need “freedom” for creativity and expression. If all we have is “form,” our world is stable but robotic. If we are simply “free” then life becomes flighty and unsure. A balance of form and freedom are need to give wholeness to life.
In fact, true freedom cannot exist without wholesome constraint. For example, if everything in the room in which I’m writing was “free,” then chairs would be floating in the air, tables wouldn’t hold together, my computer would dissolve and there would be chaos. The “form” in the materials around me allow me as a human being to move “freely” through the room without being decked by a levitating table. My freedom is dependent on necessary form.
All of us live our lives in a balancing act of form and freedom. We have life habits such as homes in which to live, jobs to do, alarm clocks for wake up– i.e. patterns that are necessary for stability and security. But we also need the spontaneous and free side of life where we can call a friend, take a trip, do something crazy–i.e. acts of freedom and creativity that bring a zest and joy to life. If life has too much form, we get bored. If there’s too much freedom, we probably won’t live very long.
So these dual realities dictate our pursuit of both form and freedom in life. Liberals balance it out with freedom in morality and form in business. Conservatives strike the balance with order in morality and freedom in business and vocation.
And here’s the second reason why they choose what they do.
I believe it’s the truth of spiritual warfare. There’s a God and there’s a devil. That’s the Best Explanation.
Here’s how it works. God is the perfection of moral character. He is the standard of morality–what is right and what is wrong. He is righteously and justly for sexual purity, honoring marriage, respecting life, and moral self-control which is foundational to happiness and holiness. He knows that all immorality is both self-and-socially-destructive–and will separate a person from his holiness for eternity. God requires “form” in our moral relationships for our good.
He is also the Creator of the universe and all it contains. He wants man to take dominion over the earth–to steward and improve it. This can only be done through freedom, creativity, innovation, and few restraints on industry and enterprise. God’s “invisible hand” of freedom is the key to invention, prosperity and success. And God desires his creatures to be moral so that they can be productive.
So followers of God are for controls on morality and freedom in business.
It’s the equation for success.
But there is also a devil, impacting the hearts and minds of people who do not believe. This being–called Satan or Lucifer–influences non-believers in his direction. Satan wants to destroy people (John 10:10), and the easiest way to do this is to blind them to right and wrong. That’s why he’s for free sex, fornication, pornography, homosexuality, killing babies, altering marriage–and anything else that cripples the human spirit and separates them from a holy God. He also desires to bring them to poverty of life and health through government controls of commerce and industry. Satan wants people immoral and poor.
So followers of Lucifer (either consciously or unconsciously) are for freedom in morals and controls on business.
It’s the recipe for destruction.
Thus, the Best Explanation for this contradiction is that there are two primary spiritual forces in the world shaping people’s thoughts and positions. There is a God and there is a devil.
That explains it best.
Now you know what conservative and liberal mean. You know where each idea comes from. The genius of America was the power of morality producing freedom and prosperity–through faith in God. The downfall of America will be achieved through the decay of immorality that produces poverty–through faith in men (devil-inspired).
As we -approach the 4th of July–I pray that we will choose faith, morality and liberty–for our good and God’s glory.
49 Million to 5
The following article is brilliant both for its exposure of the hypocrisy of the pro-abortion movement (and relatively free pass given to Muslim terrorists) as well as its detailing of the evil practices of George Tiller, the late, late-term abortionist and his political accomplices. Though I wrote recently that “Murder is Always a Wrong Moral Choice,” Ann puts in perspective who has committed the most murders over the past forty years. The mind-boggling answer is in the title. After you read the article, read the title again and let it sink in.
This insightful column reminds me of the same lies and hypocrisy that surround the treatment of the Puritans in contemporary literature. We’re led to believe that the Puritans (those bigoted Bible-believing Christians) were cruel and evil. They killed witches in Salem in 1692. Well, I researched that subject a few years ago and found that that exactly seventeen persons were killed during the witch trials. That was wrong. It was too harsh a punishment for the crime. But it was seventeen people.
Since 1972, the pro-abortionists have killed 49 million innocent children. The score there is 49 million to 17. So who are the evil ones? Who are really the mass murderers? Do the math and make the call. Don’t let historical revisionism blur your vision.
I don’t always agree with Ann Coulter’s comments or demeanor. But I agree 100% with her piercing analysis of this issue of life and death. No one has said it better. I read this articles three times to let it sink in. I encourage you to do the same. RB
By Ann Coulter
In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs
Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence — with minor edits — of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that “most pro-lifers are peaceful”?
For years, we’ve had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting “Allahu akbar” as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting “Abortion kills a beating heart!” as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan. Why aren’t liberals rushing to assure us this time that “most pro-lifers are peaceful”? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.
According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion — which is consistent with liberals’ hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.
In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let’s recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.
Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I’m fairly certain they’ve killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number “3,000” keeps popping into my head.
So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life — and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller — only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.
But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as “domestic terrorists.” At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they’d like to send to Guantanamo.
Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother’s womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists — not a squeamish bunch — in the entire country would perform them.
Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother’s life or to prevent “irreversible physical damage” to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned “substantial and irreversible conditions,” which, in Tiller’s view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being “temporarily depressed” on account of their pregnancies.
In return for blood money from Tiller’s profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist.
In 1997, The Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton’s White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals’ protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller’s abortion mill.
Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas until Obama made her Health and Human Services Secretary, received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller. Sebelius vetoed one bill restricting late-term abortions and another one that would have required Tiller to turn over his records pertaining to “substantial and irreversible conditions” justifying his late-term abortions.
Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison also got elected with the help of Tiller’s blood money, replacing a Republican attorney general who was in the middle of an investigation of Tiller for various crimes including his failure to report statutory rapes, despite performing abortions on pregnant girls as young as 11.
But soon after Morrison replaced the Republican attorney general, the charges against Tiller were reduced and, in short order, he was acquitted of a few misdemeanors. In what is a not uncommon cost of doing business with Democrats, Morrison is now gone, having been forced to resign when his mistress charged him with sexual harassment and corruption.
Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America — coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller’s fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.
The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: “A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born.” As long as we’re deciding who does and doesn’t have an “absolute right to be born,” who’s to say late-term abortionists have an “absolute right” to live?
I wouldn’t kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn’t want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?
Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, then don’t shoot one.
Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Slander,” ““How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” “Godless,” “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” and most recently, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America.
Got Your Permit to Study the Bible?
I’m in Southern California right now with my family which really brought the seriousness of this story to mind. Do Bible-believing Christians understand that a season of persecution could be right around the corner in this nation? Actually, not around the corner: Recently, it showed up at the front door in San Diego county.
The following story of suppression of faith will be even more likely if homosexual behavior and marriage are legitimatized by law–one more reason for you to fight the good cultural fight in your state and nation and stay on fire for liberty of conscience. RB
Carlos Ray “Chuck” Norris is an American martial artist, action star and television and film actor who also writes a weekly column for Human Events. This article appeared on 6-2-09.
by Chuck Norris
Recently a California pastor and his wife were required by San Diego County officials to obtain a permit to hold a Bible study in their home.
“What?! Is this a joke?” I wondered as I heard the news for the first time. It was no joke. Rather, it’s a First Amendment nightmare and possibly a foreshadowing of what’s to come.
Are you prepared for a future in which you hear, “Got your permit to study the Bible?”
On April 10 (Good Friday), a county code enforcement officer visited the home of David and Mary Jones after receiving a complaint about their Christian gatherings. The Jones’ attorney, Dean Broyles, president of The Western Center for Law & Policy, conveyed in disbelief, “The county asked (Mrs. Jones), ‘Do you have a regular meeting in your home?’ She said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you say “amen”?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you pray?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you say “praise the Lord”?’ ‘Yes.'”
The officer then warned the family to “cease and desist” the “religious gathering” or they would face weekly fines. A few days later, the county delivered a citation claiming that the Joneses were guilty of “unlawful use of land” and mandating them to “stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit.”
At first, I thought, “They must have a large congregation meeting in their home to warrant this type of citation and prompt this type of commotion, right?” Actually, according to their lawyer, the Joneses have been hosting weekly Bible studies in their home for about five years, with an average attendance of only about 15 people.
Broyles appropriately responded, “If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?”
Well, this past weekend, barraged by hundreds of complaints after WorldNetDaily broke the news to the international community, San Diego County officials informed the world that they’d backed down from requiring the Joneses to obtain a permit. Despite their retraction (based solely upon public pressure, I might add), however, I am appalled at how far the county’s enforcement and encroachment crossed the constitutional line and became a flagrant disregard for Americans’ right to exercise their religious faiths. And I’m concerned that we will see far more of these overreaching governmental actions in years to come.
As Mary Jones shared with Fox News: “The implications are great because it’s not only us that’s involved. There are thousands and thousands of Bible studies that are held all across the country. What we’re interested in is setting a precedent here — before it goes any further — and that we have it settled for the future.”
I’m not expecting county officials to be constitutional lawyers, but they should be aware of these basic precepts of America’s makeup. For example, prior to the San Diego officials’ recanting their position regarding the Joneses’ Bible study, Chandra Waller, the general manager of the county’s Land Use and Environment Group, declared, “The Bible studies are one that’s probably in a very gray area.”
“Very gray area”? Is there anything “very gray” about the First Amendment?
I agree again with Broyles, who explained further to Fox News: “The government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. I believe that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave if they saw that here in the year 2009, a pastor and his wife are being told that they cannot hold a simple Bible study in their own home.”
Part of the genius of America’s Founding Fathers was to provide and secure a foundation for our freedom of religious belief. The First Amendment simply reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Could it be any clearer that government may not prohibit “the free exercise thereof”?
Now more than ever, we need to be like the Joneses! Fight for the First Amendment and your freedom to exercise your religion.