Principles of Society

The liberal left has attacked the premise that the Constitution of the U.S. does not allow for the acknowledgement of any religion within the operational confines of this country’s government. Of course this notion is completely false, and the liberal left knows this to be true. So, the question then is what is the unspoken agenda that the liberal left harbors to its collective chest. The conservative opposition to this idea can only be speculated upon and leave the defense to the liberal left. What they do not verbalize within their obnoxious rhetoric is that they do not want the religious Christians and Christian politicians to enter in governmental debates. In other words what they contend silently is that they are the only philosophical apparatus to formulate government laws and policies. The pathology of the notion that government laws and policies should be deliberated without involving religion is preposterous.

Society in general, and especially a free U.S. society, operates on principles that philosophers, economists and, heaven forbid, politicians confer and deliberate with each other to establish laws and policies. Then government power upholds and initiates these laws and policies for citizens to conform to and modify their behavior accordingly, with consequences installed. The end result of all this quagmire is the intention that a free society will morph into a better social atmosphere for all humans to enjoy their lives.

What I just wrote has been hashed out before and is obviously not new to any intelligent reader. What I think is new is that our founding fathers did not intend for religion to be eliminated from the governmental sphere. Citizens, within the confines and principles of human relationships, practice religion, whether they know it or not, since the time man became aware of himself and his surroundings. Our founding fathers saw this social religious principle and found that it could be applied in a different way from all the other societies which used it in human history. These other societies always have established religion as a part of government, and of course excluded all others. The liberal left is doing the very same thing, only excluding Christian social philosophy.

This argument then is the reason for this blog edition.

The mere fact that humans are aware of themselves and others makes all humans religious. Humans cannot eliminate religion from their existence; it is innate. There are some that would argue that since they are atheists they have no religion. Bunk. Atheism is a religion. Notice the word “belief.”

• Hindus believe in reincarnation.
  
• Muslims believe in Allah.
  
• Jews believe in man’s creator, the one God.
  
• Christians believe in God, who illuminated Himself throughout human history in three personalities, Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), humanly understood as in one God.
  
• Atheists believe no God.
  

For those that have a Christian background, but not limited to them only, have asked the question what is man’s purpose on earth. Before man’s spiritual fall, humans were to live their life that God gave them. The purpose of one’s life then was to proclaim, through behavior, the character of God within man towards other humans, which had the same goal.

For God’s character to be proclaimed within the behavior of man towards other humans, negotiations ought to be conducted between men to develop a compromise. That compromise then proclaimed the character of God. Adam and Eve destroyed completely, in all humans, the capacity to behave God-like. The first result of the fall was for Cain to murder Able, so much for human negotiations and compromises ending in the culmination of the character of God. The rest of human history is man’s wrestling with other humans dictating human behavior using the power of government. Now the liberal left insists Judeo-Christian religion is to be eliminated from this process. For them to say that it will improve society?

Freedom and Oppression

The word “freedom” conjures the soul of images of social grandeur. It also is used to paint both political and religious abstract pictures. The liberal left uses the word to describe a Utopian social dream, while the conservative right conjures a social reality.

From the political arena freedom denotes the absentee of oppression, while in religious terms it also denotes the lack of oppression. When talking and discussing the attributes of freedom one also cannot keep from discussing oppression. In simple terms the antonym of “oppression” can be construed with freedom. Strictly speaking the antonym of freedom is confinement and imprisonment. So, when discussing what freedom really means it must be applied correctly within the confines of the subject matter.

Both the liberal left and the conservative right use the word freedom within their own confines of demarcation, and both wants the use of the word to describe what either desires from the other. The liberal left wants freedom from the oppression of the conservative, really they mean the religious, right. Yet the conservative right wants freedom of the confines of taxation, for example, that the liberal left would like to impose on the so-called “rich.”

Here, I would like to dwell on the correct meaning of the word freedom. From the Christian perspective (correctly) God declared the “truth will set you free.” So, to get at the meaning of freedom one ought to know the “truth.” As this blog centers on, correct ideas vs. incorrect ideas, the idea of “truth” is paramount to knowing freedom.

What is the meaning of “truth,” or what is truth? This question was asked of God when he was standing in front of Pilate. In summation of the New Testament Jesus, alone, is the embodiment of truth. He, alone, represents what truth is in its purity. So, when the statement is said that the truth will set you free, knowing what truth is will set one free of falsehood. In other words God means truth, and “man” means falsehood. Relying on the truth of God is setting oneself free from the falsehood of man.

From this perspective, then, when assessing which political attraction those applying the real meaning of the word freedom the conservative right is closer to being correct. The liberal left is using “man” as the giver of freedom by politically abolishing what the conservative right wants to imposes on society. If those that know the truth, that man’s heart is evil, then imposing “reality checks” on the liberal left is closer to the correct usage of the word “freedom” than what the liberal left does by imposing “dream world theory” upon society and calling it “freedom.”

Finally, and in clarification, the meaning of the word “freedom” is the application of self-government by “knowing” the truth of oneself. “Knowing the truth,” that the individual human is evil, will apply self-government to be free from the liberal left’s imposition of falsehood. Furthermore, knowing the truth that everyone is not completely knowledgeable of the correct meaning of the word freedom, government impositions through democratically creations by the conservative right is more correctly applying the word freedom than the liberal left falsehood by desiring the utilizing of power of government to impose oppression and then calling it freedom.

Post script:

As Lord Acton correctly applies, “Liberty (freedom) is not the power of doing what we like, but the right (the gift of God, not of man) of being able to do what we ought.” – Lord Acton, parenthesis mine. It isn't freedom that is of want expression by unknowledgeable left liberals, more correctly it is the application of self-government by knowledgeable religious conservatives that obtains freedom.