In this gospel, liberals find both an intellectually plausible explanation for their unhappiness and psychological relief from knowing that they are now on the side of the angels.
How can liberalism — an egregiously false and destructive worldview – be so wildly popular? Granted, some oddballs are attracted to an idea because it's false and destructive, but most liberals are basically normal people. How can tens of millions of regular Joes and Janes be so enthusiastic about legitimizing homosexuality, killing unborn babies and flooding America with unassimilable and hostile foreigners?
A partial answer is that Americans are surrounded from cradle to grave by liberal indoctrination. Granted, isolated pockets of sane thinking — commonly called "conservatism" — do exist. But America, like every society, must have a philosophical system which enables the leaders and the people to understand reality and make decisions. In America, when the leaders articulate their basic beliefs, they usually speak liberalism, albeit sometimes with a conservative accent. And since America's leaders can usually be voted out of power, the conclusion is inescapable: Most Americans support (if only passively) liberalism.
But an atmosphere of liberal indoctrination, although necessary, is not a sufficient explanation of liberalism's iron grip on America. After all, the Soviet Union was even more saturated with propaganda for the ruling ideology (and with threats against those who opposed it) than America is, and yet it was probably never the case that the majority of Russians believed in communism.
No, something else is at work here. To get a hint of the missing and indispensable element, the sine qua non of liberalism's rule, consider an incident I overheard recently on Christian talk radio. A prominent Christian thinker summarized New Atheist Christopher Hitchens as being dead wrong, but "a nice guy."
Christopher Hitchens a nice guy? Given his intense hatred of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his crusade to rid the world of Christianity (and all other religions), how could any sane Christian describe Hitchens as "nice?" Even Hitchens' fans wouldn't call him "nice;" that makes him sound like a wimp.
What the Christian thinker was hinting at, when expressed more correctly, is that many people find Hitchens appealing on account of his sincere righteous indignation. For Hitchens, opposing religion is not an academic game; it's a matter of life and death. This human vitality is a welcome change from the cynical nihilism that characterizes so much of contemporary public discourse, and many find it appealing.
The basic message of Hitchens, and the rest of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, et al), is that religion is evil and the source of most of man's woes over the millennia. This message, in turn, is just a specific case of the more comprehensive message of liberalism, that traditional life – the traditional forms of religion, morality, sex roles, love of one's kin, tribe, race and nation, and so on — is evil. And liberalism's common name for this comprehensive evil is "conservatism."
This, then, is the real source of liberalism's power: It promises liberation from the evil of conservatism, a liberation that comes only through embracing nondiscrimination. Call it the False Gospel of Liberalism.
"Nondiscrimination," of course, has many names: nonjudgmentalism, open-mindedness and multiculturalism being the most common. But the single best description of liberalism's all-purpose cure for what ails us is: Thou Shalt Not Discriminate.
Like the perversion of Christianity that it is, liberalism identifies both man's fundamental problem and the basic solution of that problem. Instead of correctly saying that man's basic problem is sin, liberalism sees conservatism as the root cause of evil in both individuals and societies. And instead of offering repentance and faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins, liberalism tells us to stop discriminating.
And since most Americans breathe the intellectual atmosphere of liberalism, they are generally ready to accept liberalism's gospel. In this gospel they find both an intellectually plausible explanation for their unhappiness and psychological relief from knowing that they are now on the side of the angels. And those who repent of their conservatism and come to faith in the liberal gospel are also eager to embrace the new life it offers by dedicating themselves to participating — to a greater or lesser extent — in the great liberal jihad against conservatism.
(Please note that by using that word "jihad," I'm switching religious metaphors. Let's remember that jihad is a strictly Islamic concept. Contrary to what you hear from many anti-Christian propagandists, there is nothing in Christianity even remotely similar to jihad.)
Since man is an inherently religious animal, the famous words of Chesterton are apposite: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything." The vacuum left by the retreat of Christianity must be filled, and right now, liberalism is the most popular replacement religion. Everybody knows something's deeply wrong with individuals and society, and liberalism supplies understanding, a cure, and satisfying action.
What lessons can conservatives take to heart here? For one, we need to match the liberals' righteous indignation. It's often said that, during debate, he who loses his temper loses the argument. True enough, but he who lacks righteous indignation also loses. The dispute between liberalism and conservatism isn't an academic debate. It's a street fight, carried out with ideas and emotions instead of knives and guns. Although our appeal must be true and our arguments must be valid, if we fight according to the Marquis of Queensbury Rules, we lose. We must impress upon our listeners and readers the danger, the foolishness and the dishonor of liberalism, and the truth, goodness and beauty of conservatism. Given what's at stake — the survival of our nation — nothing less will do.
The other obvious lesson is, don't accept — either tacitly or openly — the liberal false gospel of nondiscrimination. To the average person, "don't discriminate" simply means "be nice." But that's not what it means to liberals, and their understanding rules the day. So what does liberal nondiscrimination really mean?
It means unlimited nondiscrimination. Liberalism contains no principle limiting the imperative to nondiscrimination. Common sense and the fact that every enterprise runs up against reality will limit the demands of liberalism for now. But it has become clear that liberalism is never satisfied. Equal opportunity is not enough, there must be equal results. And all groups and enterprises must have equality throughout: men and women, old and young, the various races, ethnicities and religions, all conceivable groups must be equal, or else our society is unjust.
I recently heard of a lawsuit by the mother of a wheelchair-bound high school student to force the varsity boy's basketball team to allow him to compete. The suit was thrown out, but what will happen the next time such a suit comes up? What principle of liberalism would forever forbid wheelchair-bound persons from competing with the fully-abled? Answer: There is no such principle.
And note that the forced integration of the wheelchair-bound with the fully-abled would be the destruction of basketball, and its replacement with something radically different.
Liberals are committed to nondiscrimination, and they mean business. Normal people assume that nobody would be so foolish as to carry it to extremes, and most contemporary liberals are careful not to push their program too fast — lest the frog realize he's being boiled — but I defy the reader to identify a liberal leader articulating any principled (as opposed to ad hoc) limit on nondiscrimination. Liberalism really is Nondiscrimination Uber Alles.
And please note: Unlimited nondiscrimination is unlimited destruction. Under the banner of nondiscrimination, liberals are literally destroying America. Not in the sense of turning her into a howling wilderness devoid of human beings, but instead changing her so radically that continuity with the America of the past is on the verge of being decisively ruptured. Liberals are radically changing America's morality, her religion, her laws, customs and pastimes, even her ethnic makeup. And if everything significant has changed, has not the old come to an end?
One can easily find examples of unjust discrimination. But liberalism does not say that unjust discrimination must be abolished. It says all discrimination must end. Liberalism demands indiscriminate nondiscrimination.
No, conservatives, let us decisively reject the basic principle of the Left. Some discrimination is necessary.
For "discrimination" does not mean "being cruel." It means "understanding, acknowledging and acting on differences that matter." We must discriminate between male and female, between child and adult, between criminal and law-abiding, between citizen and foreigner, between productive and lazy, between knowledge and ignorance, between the noble and the base, between the beautiful and the ugly, between the true and the false, because in every one of these dichotomies, the two things differ in important ways. Failing to discriminate is failing to understand reality and to do what is right.
And let us speak with a persuasive and righteous indignation that will impress the undecided. The survival of our nation is at stake.
Chasm,
Your first quotation is repeated here; “Is this; “Everything the government does is by definition Constitutional…” I would contend that the case cited is a blatant curtailment of Roscoe Filburn’s right to do as he wished with his property. Until you come up with something better; this satisfies your query asking for settled law that curtails big [R]ights and small [r]ights. Feel free here to cruise the legal oceans yourself.
Then here is your quotation that follows; “does [congress/SCOTUS] have the power to decide that Farmer Filburn can't grow all the wheat he wanted.” What I ‘want’ versus what I ‘need’. This reveals quite a bit about you.
Remember; words mean things. We must be precise. You cannot substitute ‘wanted’ for ‘needed’. The point is that Congress by legislation, and SCOTUS by agreement decided that Roscoe Filburn wasn’t allowed to grow all the wheat he ‘NEEDED’. This wasn’t a case of enjoining a farmer engaged in the illegal process of growing product for profit. This was a case of Congress and SCOTUS enjoining a farmer from growing a crop he REQUIRED. He wasn’t growing wheat for sale; he was growing a crop for the sustenance of his homestead. Really; this is not rocket science; try to keep up. Can the Imperial Federal Government stop someone from providing for his own needs and ‘force’ him to purchase a product he ‘requires’ from elsewhere? This should be a ‘no brainer’.!
This case is, in my humble opinion, wholly unconstitutional! This is clearly a case of the Executive Branch declaring the requirement to set a price for a commodity, Congress agreeing, and SCOTUS aiding and abetting by negating Roscoe Filburn’s right to pursue Life Liberty and Happiness on his own terms. He was deprived of his RIGHT to do as he saw fit with his own property and talent for his own benefit. All because the three branches of the Imperial Federal Government felt they knew better. This is a blatant, unhidden attempt to severely curtail the God given rights of Roscoe Filburn. He cannot grow 1.4 acres of wheat for his own consumption because ‘government’ says so; REALLY?
You then state; “But the fact that you or I agree that a law is wrong or "overstepping" doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.” Speaks volumes. First; I didn’t agree. Each time the Imperial Federal Government oversteps its original 30 enumerated constitutional powers it is, in my opinion, acting unconstitutionally. Of course, I wouldn’t dare to speak for you in this regard; you’ll have to make up your own mind.
You State; “Every time a Congress, at either State or Federal level create a law (or indeed, any time some government agency issues rules under powers granted them), they do so with the express belief that they have the power under the Constitution to do so. That's why all law is constitutional.” This is not true. They issue an edict, and dare a court to strike them down. Constitutionality is NEVER a consideration with the executive or legislative branches! It’s not their job man! Their job is to test the absolute limits of their authority. They’ll decree anything, and see if the courts can ‘jerk’ them back. That’s how they roll! Where have you been?
Let’s review our previous discussion regarding abortion. Federal funding of abortion is included in the Senate version of the current health care bill. The progressives are, even now, working to pass this legislation through the senate reconciliation process so they can avoid the 60 votes required by senate rules of cloture. How does this, in any way, take into consideration, my right to believe that I must respect all life from conception to natural death? That I must pay future federal income taxes to fund a procedure that I not only find distasteful, but I equate to murder, is to be considered constitutional? Is it EVER constitutional to ‘force’ others, at the point of a gun, and that is what the Imperial Federal Government is, force; to give YOU what YOU believe at the expense of what OTHERS believe? Because an agency of the Imperial Federal Government has the ‘express’ belief they have the power to do so negates my belief in an absolute [R]ight to Life. Is that how it’s supposed to work?
Careful; you’re standing across that line that separates you from the debatable liberal and kool-aid drinking progressive: And you’re standing there with one foot already in the air, my friend. Liberals at least, pay lip service to the Constitution. Progressive will drag those who they cannot stifle by other means across that line without compunction. Whatever happened to your previous statement of your belief in the constitution?
Yes or no; are you going to tell me that it is my legal responsibility, upon ‘congressional’ approval, to pay my hard earned money (i.e. to forward taxes) to fund abortions, when every fiber of my being tells me it is a crime against humanity to do so? Are you?
The point here, my dear, is that the Imperial Federal Government has been requiring, in one form or another, citizens to do things abhorrent to their particular belief systems based upon ‘democracy’ for generations. Democracy is three wolves and a single sheep voting on what’s for dinner. That’s anarchy; mob rule. America is not a democracy; last time I checked it was still a Republic.
Ideally debate isn’t about ideology, it’s about policy. It’s also about the proper role of government in that policy. At this point in time I must once again agree with Phillip Jackson. You’ve demonstrated little knowledge about constitutionality, but much regarding about how you ‘feel’. Unfortunately; feelings will not help you achieve the ability to pull the institutional levers of power. You’ll need to be slightly more dispassionate than that. A suggestion; ground your conclusions in fact, not emotion. Base your argument in reference, not feeling. I’ll be extremely interested in viewing the body of your next post.
Chasm writes:
"First, I must address this 5 paragraph attack on me – me personally – by Dr Jackson."
But he wrote this a few posts before: "You see, MM, Phillip lies to you when he instructs you in the ways of the wingnut."
Le's see what else he believes about people who disagree with him: "Fist, it is a historical fact that it's been conservatives that have waged so hard for voter suppression, and liberals on the side of minority and populist voting rights."
But of course, he says, "I don't think I've overly disparaged Conservatives as a group in this post…" I guess he's allowed a couple of gratuitous shots per post before it becomes overly disparaging.
Checking a few other threads on IC reveals that he insists on telling conservatives what they believe. He has his mind made up, he knows all about conservative beliefs.
And offering correction to him is greeted with derision and sacrasm. Phil then gives a taste of his own medicine and stops his feet like a child.
Telling indeed.
Thank you, Patrick Mulligan!
I neglected that link you posted earlier until I ran across it again, the one from the NCPA. I read it, I bookmarked it, and I'm going to call it my "IC Wingnut Decoder Ring."
And, oh the memories. Reading that takes me back to 10th grade history and Philosophy 101. Locke, Hume, Jeffersonian Democracy… Classic stuff, no doubt.
Translating my posts from Chasm to "Liberal Classicism," I want to note that almost all of my arguments (except Sodomy Laws) occurred in the realm of what Mr Goodman (not a Historian, nor a Lawyer, I'll note, but an economist) terms "procedural rights." My examples were argued from within the 'system,' and therefore, I was arguing from the exact opposite pov as you guys do.
Now, rather than re-debate all this stuff, what really interested me upon reading the document, is the world conjured by this philosophy – and why you guys are so small bore about tackling your problem.
I mean, why are you dicking
around the edges, whinging about Roe and Filburn when you could be acting boldly to restore the Constitutional Republic you dream of?
Why not propose, a la Jefferson, a Constitutional Amendment that all State and Federal laws sunset every 30 years, and/or that Constitutional Conventions be required every 60?
I gave you a link to your real enemy – the US Title Code – why not use that to show me all the Title Sections that are unconstitutional and that you would propose to eliminate?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/browse.html
Title 7 – Agriculture – Gone. Title 16 – Conservation – Erased. Title 20 – Education – Nuked. Titles 21, 23 24 and especially 26 – Taxes – Banished Forever. And so on and on.
That is how you shrink government – not cutting taxes and waiting until it collapses – you take entire sections out of the law. You want to restore personal freedom and return to our 18th Century ideals? Hack that Code to pieces.
I'm sure you'll be able to see the skyscrapers fall from your house.
Chasm,
I’ve a different idea. How about bipartisan support for HR 450; otherwise known as The Enumerated Powers Act. “To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.”
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-450
This bill requires each Act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. It also declares that failure to comply with this requirement shall give rise to a point of order in either chamber of Congress.
The bill already has 60 co-sponsors; alas no democrats though. Must be something about that pesky Constitution that rubs them all the wrong way, huh?
That's a great idea – going forward. But what to do about Farmer Filburn? His troubles would be moot if we just repealed the entirety of Title 7.
Locke, Hume, Jeffersonian Democracy… Classic stuff, no doubt.
Well, clearly those silly old dudes couldn't ascend to the level of intellectual sophistication of a random, unpublished, uncredentialed, anonymous guy trolling the comments section of a political blog, but cut them some slack – nobody's perfect.
want to note that almost all of my arguments (except Sodomy Laws) occurred in the realm of what Mr Goodman (not a Historian, nor a Lawyer, I'll note, but an economist) terms "procedural rights." My examples were argued from within the 'system,' and therefore, I was arguing from the exact opposite pov as you guys do.
That was pointed out to you several times, but you were still unable to understand the fundamental difference in approach and philosophy between the social democratic and classical liberal concepts of rights, which was why I provided the link for you. I'm glad you finally got it on the 10th try, even if it took a lowly simpleton like a doctor of economics and professional public policy analyst with 9 published books to finally articulate it in a way you could (almost) comprehend.
Title 7 – Agriculture – Gone. Title 16 – Conservation – Erased. Title 20 – Education – Nuked. Titles 21, 23 24 and especially 26 – Taxes – Banished Forever. And so on and on.
That is how you shrink government – not cutting taxes and waiting until it collapses – you take entire sections out of the law. You want to restore personal freedom and return to our 18th Century ideals? Hack that Code to pieces.
I'm sure you'll be able to see the skyscrapers fall from your house.
You're off too a pretty good start there. Of course, the power to lay and collect taxes is vested in congress by the constitution, so repealing all taxes as unconstitutional would be kind of, well, stupid (which is probably why you thought of it. Actually knowing what the constitution says and applying reason and logic to extrapolate it to particular situations and laws is a fairly good way to tell what is or is not "constitutional" – even for such unwashed rubes as economists, philosophers, and political scientists). I'd be surprised if the skyscrapers that ascended before the income tax was first imposed, before the department of education, environmental protection agency, central intelligence agency, social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, the department of labor, the federal reserve, the tennessee valley authority, the national recovery administration, the small business administration, the national parks department, the federal trade commission, the department of housing and urban development, the department of transportation, the department of homeland security, the transportation security administration, the internal revenue service, the corporation for public broadcasting or the occupational safety and health administration, were even a twinkle in an eager congressman's eye, would tumble under the extreme conditions of actually (oh horror!) REMOVING, willy nilly, entire sections of the venerated US title code or federal register. I suspect those towers are more likely to fall when the reality of 150 trillion dollars in long-term public obligations and commitments in a country with a 14 trillion dollar per year GDP finally catches up with a government who can't peddle its worthless paper anymore. But hey, at least that'll show those simple minded, old-fashioned corn-servative knuckle draggers.
That's a great idea – going forward. But what to do about Farmer Filburn? His troubles would be moot if we just repealed the entirety of Title 7.
You mean let farmers grow crops without the government there to take any action at all!??!?! Not even subsidies or production quotas?!?! MADNESS!!!! Next thing you know you're saying the federal government shouldn't have a role in educating children, or providing access to healthcare services, or paying for AIDS research! Is there no end!?
Chasm's right – there's some real KOOKS around this place. Imagine if James Madison or Thomas Jefferson could hear this nonsense!
No, I guess there is no end. Remember, Jefferson fought against Madison's government control over banking… if we re-animated him he'd die of shock immediately upon entering a law library.
If that's the future you want, I really think your best bet is a 'Sunset' Amendment, that ends all laws and even requires and re-writing of the Constitution every X years. Go for it.
Sorry, cognitive dissonance set in after a moment and I was all, wait, what did I just write? I meant he opposed Hamilton's Bank of the US. Jefferson agreed with Madison. Duh. I correct my error.
Bill says, “Go away for three days and look what happens!” I’ve been away for over four days! If I missed the context of your posts, let me know.
Some thoughts:
Chasm asked me and MM if free will was a God-given right. In order to answer that, we will need the answer to the age-old question, does free will really exist? If it doesn’t, then there can be no right to it. If it does exist, we need to know what its nature is, i.e., does it mean I can do anything I want any time I want; or does it mean I am free to do the right thing; or something else altogether?
If free will does exist and is a right, then we could ask some interesting questions like, if marriages arranged by parents for political and/or economic reasons were really valid.
Bill:
If behavior cannot be legislated, what can? Doesn’t every law involve what can or cannot be done?
Sedonaman,
Every law does indeed involve what may and may not be done. They also carry a penalty for 'breaking' that law. But how successful are those laws a 'legislating' behavior? We have laws governing sex with minors, and prisons full of pedophiles. We have laws regarding the transport and sales of narcotics, and prisons full of drug users and pushers too. So, while we do have these laws they don't seem to be really effective at legislating behavior now, do they?
Bill:
Re: Every law does indeed involve what may and may not be done. They also carry a penalty for 'breaking' that law. But how successful are those laws a 'legislating' behavior?
But enforcing the law is a wholly different thing from making law. The ideal is perfect compliance, and we might fall short of that, but it’s our ideal. If some lesser level of compliance were permitted, then, depending on the actual law, an even lower level of compliance, perhaps zero, would result. If X were made an illegal behavior, at what point would you consider the banning of it to be “legislated” – a 3dB reduction? A 6 dB reduction, or some other? I live in AZ where the authorities have instituted photo enforcement of speed laws, and there has been a noticeable reduction in traffic speed. Not all comply, but has behavior been legislated in this case?
A side point: The Declaration of Independence is an important document in our nation's history, and does help to illuminate some of the thinking of some of the architects of the Constitution.
However, it's not actually part of the law. I'm not aware of a single law in the United States that cites the Declaration of Independence for authority.
I've tried to point out silliness of Dr. Jackson's question in several different ways now. Let's try yet another. He asks:
First, let's note that, whatever religion came up with the concept of marriage… that religion surely ain't around now. The concept probably arose independently multiple times, and has had quite a few different definitions (from chattel slavery on up). Religions have had no problem redefining marriage in any number of ways – up to and including the modern sects that will solemnize same-sex marriages today.
If there were a moral right of creation that existed in the first religious group that invented the concept of marriage, it would have expired when that religion did. (It's worth noting that the Constitution doesn't recognize such moral rights of creation anyway; copyrights, patents, and so forth are only justified "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".) And as we've seen by Dr. Jackson's conspicuous silence on the issue, there's no legal or Constitutional right that 'religion' can appeal to here.
States have taken plenty of material things that preceded their existence and made what use of them they felt proper. (Colonization, to take one example.) Concepts get borrowed and modified as well. Language, even more so – as I've pointed out before. (The meaning of the terms "consideration", "causation", "reliance", and so forth mean something very different in the law vs. ordinary English, for example.)
To repeat myself yet again, the term 'marriage' in law already means something different from what it means to 'religions', as I've pointed out with numerous examples. The state already has redefined 'marriage'. If you want a divorce here in the U.S., you go to court, not the ecclesiastical courts.
So there's no moral or legal reason the state can't continue to redefine marriage. What's left?
I've already conceded that there's a good practical reason for the state to stop doing marriages entirely and switch exclusively to civil unions: it would avoid giving the vapors to the Dr. Jacksons of the world. The state's not obligated in any legal or moral sense to care about their feelings… but politically it would defuse a whole lot of tension. Sounds like an excellent compromise to me.
Sedonaman brings up a very good point, and it goes to the heart of my argument:
You see, to me, the story of Adam and Eve is not the story of Creation, but the story of Primary Litigation, or an example of the very first law.
When God created Adam and Even in the Garden, His only real gift, we are taught, is Free Will. It is the very first (and maybe only) Right that God gave us. Then God gave A&E the first Law: "Do not eat from the Fruit of the Tree."
This did not take away their primary right to free will, but simply gave them a condition for Eden citizenship, a law, a regulation, which encroached on their Right to free will. You may try and say that this option – they were given the 'right' to 'choose life' or 'choose banishment,' but at that point, being completely unencumbered in their will or life, A&E had no concept of what 'knowledge' meant, really. All they knew was that God had given them the Right to free will, and then given them a law – something that throws that right into contrast.
Then, as we all know, Adam and Eve exercised their Rights, and broke the law. "Fallen" is not a statement of rights, it's the consequence of asserting a right, and paying the consequence for breaking the law.
That is what Genesis means to a liberal – a parable about the first law, and the first time government punished a man for violating it.
Of course, the rest of the OT consists of God just inventing more and more laws (shellfish, anyone?), telling His People where they could live, how many years they had to pound sand, who they they had to kill to get out if the desert He let them too, etc, etc,
All in violation of the one gift he truly gave us.
Until we get to Bill's part of the story, whereupon the Church decided it had the power of government over enough people that it started codifying the rules and regulations of marriage (among other things). Where previously, a boy and a girl might just stand in a room with some friends and relatives, or outside under the moon and stars and declare "we're married," now the Church stated insisting that Bill and his wife-to-be spend hours listening to a man who has never been married himself, and is indeed sworn to celibacy, lecture them about the rights and responsibility of marriage.
It is, as they say, a free country, so Bill has every right to engage in that process so that he can feel right with his God, but it is worth pointing out that had he been a citizen of much of Europe (especially East) for much of it's history and Ireland for most all its' history, that would not have been an option
Even I, an atheist by education and temperament,
would have been forced, at some times under penalty of torture, to adhere to this law. Free Will, indeed.
The Declaration of Independence — its rationale and reasoning — provides the justification for the creation of a new government apart from England. As such, all laws that are passed by this new government are based on the principles and Rights embodied in that document.
By contrast, the Constitution lays out the duties, responsibilities, and limitations of the national government upon which all laws are supposed to be made in the United States. It is a document that defines our rights as American citizens, but significantly, does not create these rights in the first place. Those rights came from another place, one identified through the words of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …”
This God-based moral foundation provided by the Declaration of Independence eventually led to the creation of the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers credited God with bestowing certain inalienable rights in all man, and these rights in turn justified rebellion against established authority.
There’s no need to “cite” the DOI when making a law under the US Constitution, because the simple fact is that without the DOI there is no Constitution, or American government, or laws flowing from such.
Hopefully, this isn’t going to spark another lame round of pseudointellectual prattle where the position is offered that since the Constitution is the controlling legal authority behind the passing of laws in the United States, the DOI which justified the government that created the Constitution in accordance with the principles embodied in the DOI is somehow a meaningless document — particularly when the discussion has been over “Rights”, not “laws”.
No one has ever contended that the DOI creates laws. What has been stated is that the DOI provides the basis for our “Rights” which the Constitution and the laws from it are supposed to recognize and protect. These Rights are not privileges granted by the State (which can also be taken away by the State), nor are they emotion-based feelings, or conjecture based on feelings, or found in case law, or based on the mistaken notion that if you have a physical ability to do something you have a “right” to do it, or confused with the beliefs of a particular religion, or determined by public opinion polls, etc.
A discussion of “Rights” under the US system of government cannot be separated from the DOI and all it stands for. This is why some things are recognized and understood as fundamental “Rights”, while other things that do not encompass basic “Rights” are merely legal permissibilities or privileges that can be granted, curtailed, or prohibited all together.
You’ve just witnessed a perfect example of “Might makes Right” in Raymond’s comment of February 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
1. Marriage is a religious creation. It involves the uniting of a man and woman.
2. The US government — a secular institution which forbids state religions —utilized the term to provide its secular citizens (one man and one woman — polygamy was specifically outlawed by the state) to enjoy an equivalent status to one man and one woman who want to be united without a religious ceremony. This way atheists like Raymond can be “married” in the United States.
3. For those who want to legally unite but don’t fit the one-man-one-woman marriage template, the state has the ability to create civil unions, business partnerships (where sex is not of interest to either party), etc. For civil unions that mimic marriage, all the same, exact, identical protections can be provided. The only thing is that it isn’t called a “marriage”, because marriage is between a man and a woman.
4. The analysis should end at #3, but with Raymond and others who have ulterior motives, if the state has the legal power to do X, then it automatically has the moral power to do X. Thus, the state can simply redefine marriage if it wants because, well, it can.
Think about this logic. Marriage began as (and still is considered to be by religious people — and even some non-religious people) a religious creation and activity.
The secular state provides a secular way to be married that preserves the one-man-one-woman marriage concept, but doesn’t require a religious authority to participate.
The religious community, recognizing that the US is a secular state, does not object.
Therefore, the state decides that it now owns the concept of marriage, and can re-define it to mean whatever it wants — even though the state already has legal authority in its own right to form identically equivalent (in terms of legal rights) civil unions, and there is no need to re-define marriage.
Might Makes Right. That’s all Raymond’s logic boils down to, vapors aside.
"This God-based moral foundation provided by the Declaration of Independence eventually led to the creation of the U.S. Constitution."
Except, of course, for that little thing called the American Revolution, without which as I pointed out above, the DOI would be in storage at he British Museum.
But let's zero in on the use of those words: endowed by our Creator. At Creation we had all rights and all life. Adam and
Steve, sorry, Eve, were given unlimited life and an unlimited Garden to do whatever they pleased. Until, as I just explained, the first law was proclaimed.If the Founder's had been Muslim, would you be arguing that we should be taking our 'Creator's Rights' from the Koran? What if they'd been Scientologists?
That's the slippery slope you must acknowledge once you start arguing for a particular religious moral overlay to the laws of America.
Phillip, at 2:54 – a very concise description of what went down from the POV of Churches. Perhaps they should have applied for a Patent, or objected to the State's co-option of their 'invention' much sooner – before the idea entered public domain.
Chasm:
I still haven't changed my position on the worthlessness of carrying on a conversation with a fool who really has no idea what he’s talking about.
Raymond, on the other hand, does understand the basic issues. He just chooses to meander with irrelevancies and distractions to avoid having an actual debate on the matter. Nothing new here, but pointing out Raymond’s dissembling is instructive, while indulging a fool is just wasted effort.
That is what Genesis means to a liberal – a parable about the first law, and the first time government punished a man for violating it.
Since the story takes place with only two people on an otherwise empty planet, that's an interesting take. Even more interesting is what liberals seem to have gleaned from this interpretation of the story: A God that takes away your rights is immoral – that's the government's job!
Patrick — you've pointed to one of a legion of convoluted thoughts that illustrate why debate with a fundamentally unserious — as well as woefully ignorant — person is pointless.
Chasm:
Re:
That can’t be true because liberals keep telling us that truth is relative. Since truth is relative, it follows that man becomes the arbiter of right and wrong, therefore, there could not have been a law to be broken [a.k.a., if it feels good, do it]. Then what is the meaning of Genesis? It doesn’t matter, because liberals have no use for religion.
Phil:
Re:
Could this perhaps be why many of the founding fathers recognized that slavery was wrong long before the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments?
Sedona:
Bingo!
As I wrote as long time ago –
The moral seeds of slavery’s own destruction were sewn at the very creation of the U.S. Constitution when southern landowners acknowledged the limited humanity of their slaves through the Three-Fifths compromise. The same human being who had no Constitutional rights was counted as three-fifths of a person for taxation and representation purposes. It took almost a hundred years for those seeds to blossom, but that intervening time was used to clarify the moral bankruptcy of slavery [which was incompatable with the Rights enunciated by the DOI] and prepare the country for eventual change. If the Civil War had not been fought, enough new states would have joined the Union to legally abolish this abominable practice. With each passing year the rationalizations for allowing slavery were slowly being pealed away to expose the moral ground below it, until nothing but naked, venal self-interest remained to justify the practice of owning another human being.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/
Sedonaman,
I understand your point. My point is this. Once a law fails to register a 100% 'acceptable' behavior modification, we institute another law? Do we either enhance the penalty, or increase the fine, etc. Do we ever get to the 'proper' point? Or do we constantly create laws of increasing complexity and volume until one cannot be certain if any behavior is not punishable somehow?
Chasm,
The church 'codified' these rules a long time ago. And as far as the; "hours spent listening to a man who has never been married himself, and is indeed sworn to celibacy…" is sophistry. Catholic priests are 'married' to the Church; and we certainly didn't go there for advice regarding sexual positions or technique. Rather, the conferences covered relationship areas such as mutual respect, honesty, mutual support of both career choices and personal choices, and several other topics directly connected to the development of a life-long relationship with each other. Topics like children, and their role in family. Parents;, and their role as models for their children. All topics that I'm certain any couple would benefit from if they had the opportunity. As I said earlier, marriage is a journey. Not a ceremony.
Bill, snark aside, I wasn't imputing the advice given, nor mocking you for taking it (although I did have a bit of obnoxious fun. Sorry if this insulted you or confused the issue). I was drawing a parallel between the 'government' of the Church when it codified its' marriage rules, and our government when we codified ours. That the Church's definition came first is not in doubt, but that we should just assume that the two structures, when placed upon one another should perfectly coincide in every respect, most definitely is.
Sedonaman, "That can’t be true because liberals keep telling us that truth is relative. "
No, conservatives keep telling you that liberals think truth is relative. A liberal will tell you no such thing. You may infer that because we don't believe that homosexuality is intrinsically evil, we don't share your 'truth,' but that's not the same thing as believing "all truth is relative."
I obviously have nothing to say to Phillip. I just wanted to be sure to mention his name so I can be insulted and belittled again. Being called 'ignorant' by such a clueless pompass-ass with not a shred of actual legal knowledge, always makes my day. ;)
Chasm,
No harm, no foul. Didn't mean to if I came off as irritated. I wasn't. I spent almost a decade in the USMC. I've been insulted by professionals.
But I certainly believe that other couples would, and do, benefit from the conferences my church required. Maybe there should be a 'learner's permit' for all marriage; church or civil?
Bill:
Re:
No. It is not necessary.
My first job [in 1959] as a teenager was box boy in a supermarket where part of my job was to collect carts in the parking lot. I was amazed to find a sign on the baby seat that said something like, “Removing this cart from premises is violation of California Statute “Umptiklatch” [some paragraph reference with a lot of numbers letters, and periods]. I wondered why there had to be a special law against theft of grocery carts. I asked a clerk why such a law was needed; he told me that a cart cost about $400 [in 2010 dollars], and there was a man who “borrowed” carts to haul his groceries home, and one day they caught him after noticing there were a lot of carts missing. His back yard was adjacent to a deep gully, and at the bottom they found dozens and dozens of grocery carts he was too lazy to return. I still reflected on it and concluded that some shyster liberal attorney got him off by claiming there is an implied permission to “borrow” the cart in the absence of a specific law against it. In addition to that, today, finding them at the bottom of a gully by his property would probably be considered an illegal search that was based on their noticing carts were missing [insufficient cause].
The main reason for this nonsense is the false god of liberalism, which replaces a person’s actions as a measure of his morality with his support for the “correct” political causes or membership in a favored group. In addition to that and above all, we must now be tolerant of everything and everyone, even the most vile behavior and evil people because we must not be “judgmental”.
The solution is simple: we must do two things: (1) define the good not as tolerance but as behavior in accordance with the moral law; and (2) affirm the legitimacy – and thus the moral authority – of our particular nation and its historically dominant culture.
Chasm:
Re:
Excuse me, but I’ve heard them say it myself.
Sedonaman,
Here in Arkansas there is a laundromat that has little 'electronic' locks on the rear wheels of their cart/hampers. If you go much beyond the parking lot you end up out of range of a radio transmitter and the rear wheels lock.
The real point in my legislating behavior comment was; laws most often seem to affect law abiding citizens while failing to stem criminal behavior.
Let's choose gun laws for no other reason than it's easily highlighted. registration requirements don't affect criminals, but being absent minded and forgettring to renew will turn a citizen into a criminal. Declared 'Gun Free Zones' just create 'target rich' environments for criminals while guarenteeing citizens have no protection. Trigger lock storage laws literally assure a criminal will get the drop on you in a home invasion situation. None of these types of laws are considered to be extraordinary, but they all place a law abiding citizen at the mercy of a criminal.
Bill:
Yes. I have encountered stores that took measures such as installing posts outside their doors and are so close together, you cannot get a cart between them. You have to leave them and go get your car.
Agreed. There will always be those who break laws for various reasons, even for the sole sake of being defiant.
Which is further evidence that you have no rights until you’ve committed a crime.