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.