Posted on 07/13/2008 8:27:41 AM PDT by DeOppressoLiber1776
One idea that I have tried to understand but cannot possibly fathom is the failed concept of American liberalism. While deceivingly free and independent, this traitorous definition of "equality" champions abolishment in place of opportunity, and resides on the sole principle that each should put in according to his ability, yet that each should receive according to his need. In an ideal, Utopian-like society without original sin, this idea could become reality. But in a world (like the one we live in) where this kind of society is blatantly unachievable, American liberalism shows its inability to keep in touch with reality by refusing to recognize that humanity is with critical flaw. Upon complete review of the broader definition of what it means to be a progressive liberal in America, it is my firm belief that liberalism and the many branches of this seditious breed are based on the sole corrupted belief that humanity is infallible. Despite many progressives claiming that they believe in God, all of those who wish to define themselves as liberals thus contradict the most important teaching of a religion they claim to practice. This teaching is also the very FIRST message that the Bible teaches, and is widely regarded as the most important lesson in the entire Old Testament: HUMANS ARE NATURALLY IMPERFECT. Even if the American liberal refuses to believe in the Bible, God or religion (and believe me, most do), the dismissal of obvious facts that this important religion teaches can not be excused simply because the faith that liberals have rejected preaches a message that is inconvenient for their agenda.
The refusal of fallibility and error in humanity is found not only in the rejection of the religion that many liberals claim to practice, but also in the history of humanity and the nation they claim to love and be a part of. Irregardless of the liberal's rejection of faith based principles, its rejection of common human and national history throughout our remarkably short lifespan is a further interesting study, because in a perfect example of leftist redundancy, the classic American liberal seems to champion education when it refuses to understand one of the most important lessons history has offered humanity.
Throughout every issue that the classic American liberal has expressed its view on, it is clearly evident that they fail to grasp the most basic history of mankind's existence and the most important lesson of the largest religion in the Western World; and it is thus no surprise that almost every social issue that the American liberal has touched has been distanced from natural order, morality, and national identity. Be it in proclamation of advancing "civil rights" or preserving American "equality", it can be safely said that American liberalism is the only political identity, aside from the various socialist and communist parties of the United States, that promotes abolishment in replacement of the pursuit of happiness. For the confused or forlorn, let us take the first factor that the American liberal destroys: natural order.
Natural order is defined as the basic progression of life. It is the sole motivation that drives generations to pass on basic moral principles to their young, and more importantly it ensures the survival of entire species of creatures, which, unfortunately for the modern American liberal, includes humanity. Humanity, like the beasts they were created to command, are, through natural devolution, much like the animals they "oversee", and thus, like animals, must ensure the survival of their species. Unfortunately for the American liberal, which, for example, champions that homosexual marriage is natural or is important to advance equal rights, destroying natural order to advance equal rights and civil liberties has no place in a world that has already had basic definitions of moral principles destroyed and shifted to fit progressive and socialist agendas. The basic defense for this shift is that it guarantees that homosexual couples be granted equal rights as their heterosexual counterparts; yet the counterargument to this shift is where, then, does the American liberal draw the line on natural order and civil liberties? Homosexual love does NOT create life, and the human sphincter is not specifically designed for sodomy. Thus, when homosexual marriage does not advance natural order, why do liberals feel necessary to advance it on the basis of human equality? If anything, it is a definite confirmation that in the world of the American liberal, an unjust, immoral minority can disrupt natural order in the name of civil liberties. I expect that Billy will soon be able to marry his mother? Why do we deny him "basic human rights"? What about Sally, who wishes to marry her pet pig? And what of Bob, who wishes to have a public display of sodomy in the middle of his city, yet is not allowed it? Are you thus denying him civil liberties as well? When you too allow Bob to have a public display of anal sex right in the middle of your city, will you thus allow Sally to commit bestiality on her husband pig in Grand Central Station? Marriage has been defined between man and woman for the last 5,000 years for a reason, and the American liberal's disruption of natural order is a clear symptom of my theory in their belief of human infallibility.
Morality and human decency is also a besieged trait that has come under attack from the modern American left. Tied into natural order, morality are basic principles set forth by unwritten standards of civilization to ensure proper decency. One of the many advantages of America is that morality is not strictly enforced or written, but moreover we practice certain standards to ensure that our civilization lasts and is efficient in providing for the common welfare of the American people and more importantly our offspring. However, the American left, backed by the lovable American progressive, works hard to dismantle these unwritten rules, once again in the name of "equality". One lovely example of this is the left's protection of a group that essentially exists to literally molest the decency of a civilized society, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, a renowned pedophile group that promotes "voluntary" love between men and young minors. In 1997, two NAMBLA members, Salvatore Sicari and Charlie Jaynes, abducted 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley. The two then accessed the Boston Public Library where they printed out dozens of official NAMBLA informational packets, then proceeded to take 10-year-old Curley to an alley where they gagged him with a gasoline-soaked rag and proceeded to take turns molesting the boy's dead body. While the two members are now serving life sentences, the family of the boy took legal action against NAMBLA on the grounds that NAMBLA promoted an environment in which sexual predators, like their members Sicari and Jaynes, could access material to assist them in abusing (and in this case, murdering) minors and young boys. In a clear breach of morality and basis of human society, NAMBLA was protected by none other than the overtly and radically progressive ACLU, or American Civil Liberties Union, which has, since 1920, promoted indecency and immorality in our Republic. With the ACLU's bulldog tactics, the case was ultimately dropped, and the left continues to prove my theory of human infallibility by promoting their immorality in every day American life. NAMBLA further continues to produce dozens of pieces of literature that helps sexual predators abuse and destroy basic morality, all in the name of equal rights.
National identity is the final destruction that the American liberal uses to confirm my theory of self-infallibility. While not as important to the basis of human life as morality and natural order, national identity is important to every basic American whom enjoys opportunity and the freedom that is guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States. For the American liberal, however, a basic misunderstanding that freedom is free (along with "perfection of humanity") has lead this traitorous group to question those who provide the very freedom they exercise. In a classic example of biting the hand that feeds, the American liberal has, since the beginning of their inception, worked feverishly to destroy the reputation and the obligation to duty of the servicemen and the servicewomen of the United States Armed Forces. All of this is clearly exemplified by refusal to our American servicemembers to finish the job they were sent to do in Iraq and Afghanistan, by cutting funds to the American military, by restricting combat in the name of "rules of warfare" (and occasionally in the name of civil liberties) and by accusing American soldiers of brutally killing innocent civilians. Unable to understand that human imperfection has caused radical Muslims to hate America and all that we stand for, the liberal belief in human infallibility continues to shine by promoting "peace" with a people that peace can never be reached with.
Yet despite all of the American liberal's obvious shortcomings, it does give hope to those who know of human fallibility, those who continue to practice and believe in morality, natural order, and those who wish to preserve our national identity. For with the American liberal, the American public has a perfect example of how low humans can ultimately fall.
Liberalism will fail. It never works but unfortuneately, they are going to take us down with them.
Therefore freedom to self-actualize means permissive relativistic morality, which allows experimentation with alternate lifestyles no matter how disgusting or unhealthy they are.
C.S.Lewis may have your answer:
A tyrant who is a ‘do-gooder’ has the self-approval of his conscience and therefore never tires of his tyranny.
That is as good an understanding why progressive never seem to loose heart and keep at it as any.
By contrast, Lewis says of brutal tyrants that they must occasionally tire and want to take a rest from it all.
Liberals want the kind of government that will work... if run by the right people. Conservatives want the kind of government that won't do too much damage when run by the wrong people.
It’s very interesting to me that there is a much overlooked lesson in the New Testament about why communism or communal living is contrary to the realities of sinful and fallen human nature. The early Christians tried to form such a “communal” society. Thus, in Acts 2:45 we read the following: “The faithful all lived together and owned everything in common; they sold their goods and possessions and shared out the proceeds among themselves according to what each one needed.” Then, later, in 5:1 ff., we learn the reality of human nature: “There was another man, however, called Ananias. He and his wife, Sapphira, agreed to sell a property; but with his wife’s connivance he kept back part of the proceeds and only brought the rest to the apostles.” It’s also noteworthy that the Pilgrim settlers of New England had also vowed to have such a community but it failed for the very same reason. And John Winthrop decreed that only PRIVATE property would have the legal sanction of the Commonwealth. (Biblical quotes from Jerusalem Bible)
and libs think THEY are always the “right people”, this time,
or even more generally, that these “right people” actually exist,
and conservatives, due to respect for biblical truths, know that no such people exist.
The early Christians in Acts were communal, and we ARE supposed to be communal within our groups, in order to support each other and to keep in mind that it all belongs to God anyway.
Libs, on the other hand, don’t seem to understand that there is a difference between voluntary communalism,
and empowering the government to use the monopoly on the use of deadly force to FORCE everyone into their commune.
“We voted on it, so that means we agreed to do it”
Yes, but I think the unmistakeable lesson of the passage is that such utopian and naive idealism is contrary to the realities of human nature - regardless of what group or social unit to which it’s applied. This is also clearly a historical truth from the ancient Greeks to the Bolsheviks. All ideologies or belief systems which have purported to create a “heaven on earth” have failed miserably. So has the secular Enlightenment belief in the perfectability of man and human nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.