Liberalism, Thy Name Is Anarchy

Almost without fail, every time the Tea Party or the desire of many on the right side of the political spectrum for smaller government is expressed  those entities are accused of believing that there should be no government, thereby equating them with anarchists. That is not true – and I think that the recent murder/suicide committed by Jovan Belcher is a lesson in why.

It occurred to me as I was reading all the reasons being put forth for Belcher’s act of murder – it is due to the “gun culture”, a culture of machismo, gansta rap, poor anger management, drugs, mental illness and so on, that all of these defenses ignore one simple fact – rational or not, something internal to Belcher overrode his moral code to allow him to pull that trigger.

When I thought about that mental trigger in a grander sociological and societal context, I wondered if 50 years of hippie culture and American liberalism has led us to this point.

If you think about who has been at the nexus of the removal of behavioural standards, insanity defences in criminal trials, the codification of deviant behaviour, the demand for religion not to have a role in government, the creation of the “I don’t want to get involved” and “who are we to judge” cultures, the anti-religious trend toward secular humanism and the disrespect for the Constitution, it hasn’t been the right. It has been those pioneers of positive rights (defining what government must do for you, as opposed to negative rights – what the government is forbidden from doing), the American left.

It seems that the contradictory behaviour of wanting to regulate everything while allowing anything means that the liberals are the true anarchists.

Understanding why religion and the Constitution are important and why they are necessary in maintaining a civil society is really simple. It is really as basic as a speed limit on a highway – if the road sign says the speed limit is 70 and you decide to do 90, what is stopping you? You don;t have a governor on your car that would stop you, there is no software running so that the state can slow you down, in reality there is nothing to stop you – and once you break that limit, where is the new limit? 80, 90, 100, 120?

The answer is that there is no limit until some authority stops you.

What stops you from doing 50 in a 20 mph school zone?

The fear of a speeding ticket? The awareness that kids are present? The danger of driving that fast where there will likely be congestion and obstacles?

Probably all three – but the point is that YOU have to make that decision, you have to be self-governed. You have to know both the legal and moral dimensions of the situation because there is nobody sitting in the passenger seat controlling your behaviour.

That is what religion, primarily Judeo-Christian religion, and the Constitution were designed to do – to provide that internal and external self-governance; however, now that tragically misnamed “liberals” have decided that doing whatever “feels good” , setting behavioural standards based on the flavour of the month, choosing a legalistic code over a morality based on a spiritual basis and protecting those behaviours with laws that prevent objection, they have hamstrung the authority of the Constitution. In doing so they have assured that there is nothing to stop Leviathan from crushing all of us and grinding our bones, along with their bones as well.

Belcher is a prime example of this contradictory behaviour. The media and so called “experts” immediately seize on every cause but the real root cause. They think that because they make something illegal, it prevents it.

They seek to explain away evil and the fact that this man made a decision to kill his girlfriend and himself. Regardless of the weapon he chose, he made that decision. Perhaps Belcher was mentally ill – or even brain damaged- but there still had to be people close to him who knew that. I wonder if any of those people now think that they should have gotten involved…

When we ignore the absolute necessity of a moral dimension to governance – that is when we see failures like this. From a legal perspective, we cannot codify every aspect of human behavior, Lord knows that were are trying. Morality allows men to internally govern themselves according to limits prescribed by a spiritual authority – a man with a solid moral code needs no legislation.

We have repeated this John Adams quote ad nauseaum, but it is significant:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

The fact that, as the left often laments, America is “impossible to govern” even as they work to replace God with a secular humanism and morality with legality is no coincidence.

About these ads

19 thoughts on “Liberalism, Thy Name Is Anarchy

  1. Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House,

    “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”

  2. 2 issues: regarding misnomer “American progressives/liberals” actions & beliefs:

    1st: They want so many laws, that know one can possibly not run afoul of a law, then they use the unintentional violation of an impossibly unknown law to control people, do as we “ask” and we will show you mercy.

    2nd: ” the left often laments, America is “impossible to govern” ”

    What the left actually means is: “IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTROL”

  3. Ever notice that when govt. sticks its hand in the pot, things go downhill? By the implementation of social programs that they’ve instituted to “help” our society, they have accomplished the complete opposite of what they set out to do. Or did they?

    • Bravo Kells,
      NOW, you are thinking !
      The actual results ARE the intended and planned for results.

      Look at actions and results, NOT words. Decades of the same results, doubling down, after doubling down, after doubling down …
      All the while the propagandized “ills to be corrected” merely worsen and ARE NEVER corrected…

      • Hello, Texas! I’m the one who voted for Ron Paul!

        On another thread, G. spoke on a conservative whose advice was to follow the money. Ron Paul took it a step further: Follow who is “creating” the money….

  4. Where to start?

    Ok- let’s see… the basic premise is flawed- on two major counts.
    First: It presumes that “liberals” are not christians or jews- which is overwhelmingly patently false. The majority of liberals are “religious”- and can just as easily quote scripture to back their beliefs as conservatives
    Second: You seperate authority from relgion- when in fact, religion is based on authority. The god is THE authority figure. And further, I would argue that is more the conservatives who see it this way, often focusing more on the self described vengeful god of the old testament where as liberals are more inclined to go with the morality tales of the son of god- jesus.

    And really- the demand for religion not to have a role in government? As penned by no less then Thomas jefferson himself?

    But of course- it is YOUR version of morality, based on YOUR version of religion that you find to be important…

    • Texas posted an article on the book, The Jefferson Lies, which I ordered. One thing that Jefferson states is that you can tell a man’s merit from his correspondence. This fella that wrote the book has studied over 19k correspondences of Jefferson, and apparently, they prove that he was a God-fearing man.

      • Kells,

        You just did more to make me want to stop posting here or anywhere than ANYONE has EVER done before. You joined forces with Greg to give me grief over this same book when I tried to share it with you guys the week it came out. But now, because Texas posts about it, you suddenly see merit in it???

        I suppose I was correct: I DO cause more harm than I do good. But, now worries, I have my company to save. I’ll just go play for a living…that is, until Obama shuts me down (and he will).

        • Joe,
          Kells is just Stiffnecked when it comes to the “truth from Joe”.

          Much like a when you try to teach a family member something and they just “cant” understand. Then someone “explains” the same thing and everything goes easily.

          I’ll volunteer to be y’alls translator. :-)

        • I don’t remember you posting on the book, nor do I recall joining forces with G. to pooh-pooh it. I should like the links to that. (Hopefully, if I was out of line, I will be able to defend myself.) Speaking of defending yourself, that’s one of my favourite shows; Defending Your Life.

          B., you could never NOT post here because I’m your daily dose of vitamin D. Oh, and I won’t tell everyone that Augger admiitted that you had to be taken to the ER when I was absent for a week. I knew my lack of presence would be painful, but I didn’t realise to what extent.

  5. OK, let’s see:

    No, it presumes neither – people can easily be called one or the other and still not obey the dictates of the religion and Pew found that Democrats lead the way toward being “unaffiliated” with any religion:

    With their rising numbers, the religiously unaffiliated are an increasingly important segment of the electorate. In the 2008 presidential election, they voted as heavily for Barack Obama as white evangelical Protestants did for John McCain. More than six-in-ten religiously unaffiliated registered voters are Democrats (39%) or lean toward the Democratic Party (24%). They are about twice as likely to describe themselves as political liberals than as conservatives, and solid majorities support legal abortion (72%) and same-sex marriage (73%). In the last five years, the unaffiliated have risen from 17% to 24% of all registered voters who are Democrats or lean Democratic.

    Religion is based on an individual belief that provides the authority. Secular humanism and statolatry require that authority come from external sources. There have been several strong arguments made that liberalism is, in fact, a religion.

    Thomas Jefferson never excluded religion as a part of governance, quite the contrary, I assume that you speak of the oft cited Letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he stated that the government would not impose a religion – that there would not be a state sanctioned religion – but that does not preclude religion from being part of government and as I stated, until you liberal asshats took over 50 years ago,it was.

    You might want to read where I wrote this:

    Secularists like our friend dougindeep and anti-religion zealots like Kos, love to wail about what is NOT SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN in the US Constitution while building an entire argument for secularism on something that is NOT SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN in the US Constitution, namely Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists.

    And this:

    For the past few years as I have argued that the absence of a specifically mandated religiosity in the Constitution of the United States is simply an example of the religious influence and tolerance that exists there, I have continued to consider the significance of religion and spirituality (actually the role of God) as it relates to the three enumerated concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    I have stated before that I believe that we are mandated to have a secular government – with emphasis that the term “secular” holds the meaning that institution of government is limited to and pertains only to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual or sacred, that government is temporal and has no right to transgress into the domain of religion. I am often misunderstood as stating that governance should not include religion – that is not the case. I do not propose that “secular” means that religion should be excluded from the act of governance, only that the institution of government shall never dictate to religion.

    There is a difference – governance is the act, government is the mechanism. One is intellectual, the other institutional – big difference.

    I believe that I share this vision with the Founders and that the enshrinement of that vision is the specific reason for the Establishment Clause, the First Amendment to the Constitution, that states:

    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.

    It is clear to me that the Founding Fathers saw that God was the ultimate authority and guide and that government was to be utilized solely in the province of men, made clear by these words from 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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    • Utah, Nicely articulated !

      Truth & Logic & Reasoning & Understanding is lost on the Marxists tho.

      We will keep praying for them tho.

  6. Utah said, “Morality allows men to internally govern themselves according to limits prescribed by a spiritual authority – a man with a solid moral code needs no legislation.” Unfortunately, spiritual authority has been branded by the intellectuals as superstition (unless it is the faith of a minority, in which case, it is revered.). On the one hand, faith is something that ought to be questioned deeply rather than followed blindly, and that is how we develop a solid moral code, although, it is not hard to find Leftist intellectuals would just lump all religious types together as morons. Yet, there is something that perhaps needs more attention; as Utah says, “There have been several strong arguments made that liberalism is, in fact, a religion.” I think this partly explains why liberals get so defensive over politics. It makes me wonder if they are more blinded by their faith in big government, or by their distrust of the gun-toting, God-fearing conservatives, the ones responsible for destroying the environment, oppression and war. If their ability to hyperventilate is any indication, their convictions are quite strong, especially for being built on such flimsy foundations. Where did they get these beliefs? Utah says, “I wondered if 50 years of hippie culture and American liberalism has led us to this point.” To that, I say, Hippie Culture? We’ve come a long way since then. Try a generation raised on ‘Rage Against the Machine.’ How do you get through to the subculture with “f*** you I won’t do what you tell me” drilled into their skulls?

    I hope that made some sense. I have been working with oil-based paints, and listening to quite a bit of post-grunge-metal, for the last week … It’s a living.

    • Justin,

      Just remember: without God, there is no such thing as morality — only a moral code designed by flawed men. And if it is designed by men, it can and will be changed by men to suit their needs. And if it can be changed by men, then it is not a matter of moral law.

      God is the necessary fallacy for He alone can establish universal morality.

  7. Not going to lie, I have a vague belief in God, but I wouldn’t really know the difference between actual God and my imagination at work. I can’t stand going to church, but I like yoga. I guess that puts me in a special category, unless you happen to believe that Jesus traveled to India and practiced yoga.

    • Well, technically speaking, for the purpose at hand, all you need is a common belief in a Creator. If society becomes split over “whose god,” then morality is lost.

      This is essentially the Natural Law argument. Locke derived it from the book of Romans, but Cicero found it just by observing nature and applying logic (the same way Job says man can do in the book of Job). God does not hide himself from us, we merely refuse to acknowledge Him.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s