INCOMPATIBLE VIEWS ON GOVERNMENT — PART 3B

The post continues where INCOMPATIBLE VIEWS ON GOVERNMENT — PART 3A off. Please refer to INCOMPATIBLE VIEWS ON GOVERNMENT — PART 1 for links to the other posts.

In the last post we looked at the comments of a particular Democrat Liberal, Tony. He was not especially happy with my review of his comments. Why? Well, others don’t see us as we perceive ourselves. The hard, simple fact is that we do not have such a capacity. Only God knows .

1 Corinthians 13:11-12 New King James Version (NKJV)

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

What is more astounding is that God knows us, and He still loves us.

A Democrat Liberal’s Reply

Is right to complain about my review? Perhaps, but Conservatives have similar issue with what Democrat Liberals think of us. Sometimes Democrat Liberals package their reviews — comparisons between Liberals and Conservatives — as academic/psychological studies that purport to be “scientific”.

Here is an extract from Studies: Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From Venus (theatlantic.com).

Conservatives, argues researcher Philip Tetlock of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, are less tolerant of compromise; see the world in “us” versus “them” terms; are more willing to use force to gain an advantage; are “more prone to rely on simple (good vs. bad) evaluative rules in interpreting policy issues;”  are “motivated to punish violators of social norms (e.g., deviations from traditional norms of sexuality or responsible behavior) and to deter free riders.” (from here)

In fairness, theatlantic.com article doesn’t actually attack Conservatives, and it does make some effort at balance. However, the pictures at the front of the article depict former Speaker of the House John Boehner as the counterpart to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. This is silly. Boehner lost his job as Speaker because he was not even Conservative enough for the GOP, which isn’t exactly a Conservative organization. Nevertheless, theatlantic.com article equates the Republican Party with Conservatism.

Are their more rabid reviews? Of course. What Are the Most and Least Religious States in the USA? (psychologytoday.com ) displays open hostility. This article uses statistics to demonstrate that religion is bad. Here is the first conclusion.

    * The most religious states are most likely to be full of Trump supporters. Not so much for the least religious states. Go figure. I thought religion was supposed to make you more loving and moral? Clearly not. (from here)

It could be funny, but the author is serious, and he has a Ph.D. He has piled it high and deep.

Why bring up such nonsense? Well, consider what the Democratic Party’s candidate had to say about Conservatives.

Since they have destroyed the Liberal label, what do Democrat Liberals call themselves these days? During their debates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders argued over who is the most progressive (US election: Hillary Clinton insists she is a progressive (bbc.com)). In fact, H. Clinton’s website proudly proclaims as much here, Democrats just adopted the most progressive platform in party history. 5 things you should know (hillaryclinton.com).

What was the top item in the Democratic Party’s platform?

1. An unprecedented commitment to equal rights for LGBT Americans

The new party platform is the first in history to include transgender Americans. It’s also the most progressive platform ever for LGBT rights—endorsing federal protections against discrimination for the first time and pledging to address the crisis of violence against transgender Americans.

LGBT kids continue to be bullied at school, restaurants can refuse to serve transgender people, and same-sex couples are at risk of being evicted from their homes. That is unacceptable and must change.

The remaining items also emphasized the desire for more government problems of every possible description.

The donkey is the Democratic Party’s logo. Is this truly America’s symbol of tolerance?

So let’s not try to review the platform of the Democratic Party. Let’s just consider the top item. What is the problem with the LGBTQ plank? Well, lots of people object to being forced to take part in the irrational fantasies of sick, deranged, and even sadistic people. Imagine a parent taking their small child to a so-called “doctor” and having a sex-change operation done on the kid. How could that happen? Some mamas and daddies have problems. What if mama says her little five-year old Johnny thinks he is really a she and wants to be called Jill? Do you want to be forced to give verbal approval of such insanity just because it might hurt that mama’s feelings?

What if you worked with someone who did what Bruce Jenner (AKA Caitlyn Jenner) had done to himself? If you believe Jenner is just a mentally ill individual who has allowed himself to be neutered and shot up with hormones, you may honestly resent being forced to approve of his self-imposed genital mutilation. You may think it absurd to address Bruce as “Caitlyn” and speak of him as a “she”.  However, in the Democrat Liberal’s world view, your honesty just makes you a bigot.

In the America that use to be there was bigotry, and that bigotry has not and will not go away. Because we are all imperfect, all of us will always believe things we should not believe. What is the best we can do about this problem? Well, we can protect each others rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note, however, that having your feelings protected is not on the list. If the people you work with hurt your feelings and you work for a private employer, complain to the boss. If that doesn’t work, try looking for another job or consider the possibility you are wrong and you need to change. If you work for the government — well, if you want your own freedom of conscience respected, you may wish to respect the rights of your fellow employees to exercise the dictates of their consciences instead of yours.

LGBTQ Special Rights

Does it sound like I exaggerated? Here is how an article in The Daily Caller starts.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued an internal memorandum earlier this month announcing that it will investigate taxpayer-funded teachers and administrators who use biologically accurate pronouns for transgender students instead of the pronouns transgender students prefer.

Candice Jackson, the Trump administration’s acting secretary for civil rights within the Department of Education since April, issued the internal memo on June 6.

The memo explains “the effects of developments on the enforcement of Title IX” concerning transgender students.

Specifically, the memo declares, the federal government may investigate taxpayer-funded schools for “refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred name or pronouns when the school uses preferred names for gender-conforming students or when the refusal is motivated by animus toward people who do not conform to sex stereotypes.” (continued here)

Here are some other news articles on the same memo.

Here is how the Obama administration helped to confuse the issue.

U.S. Departments of Education and Justice Release Joint Guidance to Help Schools Ensure the Civil Rights of Transgender Students (ed.gov)

 

Other References

 

44 thoughts on “INCOMPATIBLE VIEWS ON GOVERNMENT — PART 3B

  1. Tom wrote:

    “Our God-given rights come from the Bible, especially the Ten Commandment.

    Unless I have missed the “commandment” that “commands” right to my physical life, liberty, happiness and property, then I think that you are once again conflating God given “responsibilities” with God given “rights”. They are not the same thing.

    If “we” meet our God given responsibilities to love, then we don’t steal from others and we don’t murder others. The difference is important. Murder is both a moral and a legal “injunction” that very much depends upon how one both morally and legally defines the killing, not the right. One may kill in defense of self or in defense of others and, although a God granted life is physically destroyed, it is not a legal murder and quite arguably not a moral murder either. If the killed person’s physical right to life were truly “inalienable” then my taking that person’s life from him/her I self defense would neither be moral nor legal. Whether a taking is an illegal theft is similar in that it very much depends upon how one morally and legally defines the moral and legal bundle of property responsibilities to ones use and exclusion of use by others. With regard to the material world, the commandments say “thou shall or shall not DO”. They not say “thou shall inalienably HAVE”.

    Like

    1. @Tony

      You are stuck on the word “inalienable”. Frankly, I don’t think it is that complicated. Is it more important to understand the concept or to get the semantics perfect?

      Love is an important concept. God cared enough to create us. All we are flows from Him, not something we created, like our government.

      1. Who is our master? Is it God or our government?

      2. God commanded us to love Him and each other.
      a. When did God put our government in charge of making us obey His command to love Him and each other?
      b. In practice, redistributing the wealth is just a method politicians use to buy votes. Do you really think God would be so stupid as to put our government in charge of making us obey His command to love Him and each other? Letting a politician buy your votes is loving your neighbor?
      c. What has forcing people to pay taxes and giving their money to someone else have to do with love?
      d. Have you ever seen a taxpayer thrilled to pay taxes because it shows our much he loves his neighbor? Was he in the loony bin?

      3. Unless we have a right to own property, how can we steal from each other? When nothing belongs to anyone, why do we need to “steal” to take possession of something?

      4. Unless we have a right to liberty, how can we enslave another? Where people don’t understand they have a God-given right to liberty, does the government waste any time enslaving them?

      5. Unless we each have a right to life, how can we murder another? Have you ever noticed the number of people some governments have killed? When the government says we have the right to life, is that really something worth taking seriously?

      6. Because God wants us to understand He is serious about His prohibitions against infringing upon the rights of others (stealing, enslavement, and murder are examples), God has given government the authority to sanction our disobedience (This is just about the only thing government has the capacity to do well.). In that sense, it would seem that our rights are not inalienable.However, inalienability is not the issue. The problem is that when we deliberately choose to violate the rights of another we create a conflict human beings to do not have the capacity to resolve. Government can only stop a lawbreaker by using force to restrain the offender. Nevertheless, because we still retain our rights, lawful government use due process in deference to those rights. When those guys wrote the Declaration of Independence, don’t you think they knew that?

      Like

      1. Words are important. Without a clear concensus on the meaning of each word, then we cannot communicate ideas. You are not communicating with me but with your favorite straw man when you cast me as a colectivist socialist or a communist. You seem to read a meaning that you want to read and not the common meaning words. “Inalienable” is just one word where you are making up your own language. The Founders knew the meaning of the word when they used it polemically in the Declaration, and because they knew the meaning, they also knew not to use it in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

        Let’s look at another example of a word that you are using in a way that appears to purposefully distort common understanding. dictionary.com defines “economics” as:

        “the science that deals with the production, DISTRIBUTION (emphasis mine), and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.”

        Capitalism is a market based economic system that distributes the wealth of the production from that system in certain ways. How we define property laws within that system has a dramatic effect on distribution of wealth. If you are in favor of a market based capitalist system, then you are, by the definition of that economic system, in favor of the constant distribution of the wealth of capitalistic production of goods and services. Because wealth is not static in a market economy, it is constantly also being “redistributed”. (“Alienability” is also a necessity of capitalism because, without it, these scarce resources cannot be redistributed to their highest and best use).

        I am very much in favor of regulated, market based capitalism. Because a perfect God has not directly decided to come down and define our property rights and responsibilities, imperfect human government seems the likely standin for now if we want this capitalistic economic market system to distribute scarce resources towards their highest and best efficient use and also in a way that is the most fair and equitable so that many consumers have the resources to buy the most variety of goods that the many sellers can compete to sell. This is why a broad middle class is so important and beneficial to a vibrant capitalist economic system.

        The laws and rules that govern production, distribution and define property within capitalism can either concentrate wealth in a manner that will utimarely be self destructive to our capitalistic system, or those laws can spread the wealth of production of goods and services in a way that is self perpetuatingly vibrant to this economic system.

        As to this discussion, we are not disagreeing on the economic “redistribution” of property. We both agree on having a government regulated capitalistic redistribution system. For the purposes of this discussion, the only actual thing we are disagreeing on economically is that God, rather than mere humans, somehow “inalienably” writes our complex property laws that detail the bundle of rights and responsibilities to the use and the exclusion of use of the innumerable varations of tangible and intangible, real and personal property that is a necessary feature of market economies.

        We also disagree on whether God has clearly defined for us other such material rights such as our physical right to life, physical liberty and physical happiness. It does not inexorably follow that your being nonsensically wrong on this important philosophical point of our having “God given rights” will lead to a collectivist totalitarian state anymore than my believing that we have a “God given responsibility” to love each other will bring down the better features of market capitalism. It would be nice, however, if we could stick to the issue at hand (God given rights) using common words with common definitions to prove or disprove each other’s actual points rather than going down so many other rabbit holes. You’re the host here, however, and this is just a request.

        Like

        1. @Tony

          Words are important.

          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.

          When the Thirteen Colonies published their declaration, what was self-evident about the unalienable Rights of men. When Cain slew Able, was it not self-evident there was no one who would hold him accountable?

          When the Thirteen Colonies published their declaration, how could the Rights of the colonists be unalienable? When King George sent army to America that was larger than their largest city, was it not self-evident he had the power to take those rights away? How then, if they were King George’s to take away, could the rights of the colonists be God-given? Yet the colonists insisted that our Creator cares about such matters, and that it is His power that is absolute.

          Where is the evidence that makes these things self-evident? Does not the ends justify the means? Consider your words.

          I am very much in favor of regulated, market based capitalism. Because a perfect God has not directly decided to come down and define our property rights and responsibilities, imperfect human government seems the likely standin for now if we want this capitalistic economic market system to distribute scarce resources towards their highest and best efficient use and also in a way that is the most fair and equitable so that many consumers have the resources to buy the most variety of goods that the many sellers can compete to sell. This is why a broad middle class is so important and beneficial to a vibrant capitalist economic system.

          If God has not told us what is right, then it is for the strong to decide. Might makes right, or should I say a seemingly loving, altruistic sounding might makes right.

          Still, many persist in the belief that God has revealed to us — made self-evident to us — the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.
          1. We see the glory and majesty of the Creator in His Creations. We see His craftsmanship, His concern for the tiniest details. The more we know of His works the more we know of His concern for us. Without His Will we would not — could not — exist.
          2. We know the difference between good and evil because His moral law is written upon each of our hearts. When we do good or evil, we know. No one has to tell us. Perhaps it does take effort and the power of good examples to construct an admirably good conscience, but when we destroy our conscience — deaden it and finally kill it — each step of the way our guilty heart cries. There is no rest for the wicked.
          3. God has also revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. The Bible records and explains this revelation, and the Bible has much to say in great detail about our rights and responsibilities.

          So, yes, a perfect God has come down and told us our rights and responsibilities. Given that, why would we persist in believing otherwise? There are basically two ways to achieve that something we refer to as salvation. There is Jesus, and there are all the other ways we can devise. Jesus requires our trust, that we let Him perfect us. All the other ways put us in charge. All the other ways are much more satisfying to our egos. All the other ways seem far more safe.

          When those men signed the Declaration of Independence, I suppose that too was big ego trip. Doesn’t John Hancock’s signature scream: “Look at me! I am defying the most power king in the world.” Yet the betting was on the King George III. So it was not very likely that many of those men signed a document that they did not believe spoke the Truth.

          Our Constitution is remarkable. Its signers did not assign their work to God. Still, they gratefully attributed the success of the Constitution to divine providence.

          What was it that these men had in common? Normally, men seek high office largely out of ambition. These men had all taken a huge risk. For the sake of principle instead of reward, these men had taken a stand and supported the Declaration of Independence. Thus, because they had stood for something noble, that generation left us a lasting legacy, the belief that it is self-evident that God gives us our Rights.

          Zechariah 13:7-9 New King James Version (NKJV)
          The Shepherd Savior

          7 “Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd,
          Against the Man who is My Companion,”
          Says the Lord of hosts.
          “Strike the Shepherd,
          And the sheep will be scattered;
          Then I will turn My hand against the little ones.
          8 And it shall come to pass in all the land,”
          Says the Lord,
          “That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die,
          But one–third shall be left in it:
          9 I will bring the one–third through the fire,
          Will refine them as silver is refined,
          And test them as gold is tested.
          They will call on My name,
          And I will answer them.
          I will say, ‘This is My people’;
          And each one will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’”

          Like

    2. It is funny Tom that you would mention the fable of the ant and the grasshopper because I too have been thinking of that same fable in relation to this discussion. As the fable suggests, let’s assume that the ant and the grasshopper are both sentient beings who have each their own ant and grasshopper natures as well as the same universal moral code of love that we have. Here are some questions that you might ask yourself in relation to that fable:

      1. Was the ant hoarding food only for himself or for the sake of an entire colony? In other words, did the ant have a God given “right” to the food, or a God given “responsibility” not to be a selfish burden on his community, but instead to be a unselfishly positive benefit? Didn’t the ant’s moral virtue in the fable come, not from the material food itself and his supposed right to it, but rather from the ant’s willingness to provide for his community? And, assuming that your answer is “yes”, then which was the more holy of goods – the material goods themselves or the spiritual goods that the ant obtained by acting with unselfish virtue?

      2. Some of us are blessed with more talent and a better upbringing than others. You and I, for example, were gifted by God with industrious parents who gave us all the DNA we need to do well in life. Should their very natures be a factor in how we judge the ant and the grasshopper because, after all, they both were simply living up to the natures that God ordained for them?

      3. Let us assume that, through thier industriousness the ants had more than enough to share. As the winter cold and famine closed in around the grasshopper, would the ant have a God given moral responsibility to help the grasshopper and save the grasshopper’s God given life? Granted, in doing so the ant would be enabling the grasshopper’s vices. On the other hand, although a dead grasshopper may be getting his just deserts, a dead grasshopper also learns nothing redemptive. In any event, which do you think is actually God given – the ant’s personal material right to the food or the ant’s moral responsibility to share his material abundance with a dying sinner?

      4. Finally, assuming that the ant has a God given moral responsibility to love and share his abundance with the dying grasshopper, does that “responsibility” then creat a God given “right” for the grasshopper to be entitled to the food? This is exactly why we should not too easily presume “God given rights” out of “God given responsibilities”. The relationship between rights and responsibilities is not linear and direct. The path is fraught with moral complexity. And because our moral duties should pragmatically be reflected in our human created legal rights and responsibilities, isn’t it dangerous to assume that such human laws always have a sacred blessing? Who gets to decide?

      Ultimately, I think one has to ask oneself what is the spiritual flow of virtue and where do material goods come into that flow. The flow of virtue toward the creation of spiritual goods is first motivated by unselfish love. Material goods and our physical lives are never the end in and of themselves, but only part of a means toward something greater. The end product is the spiritual treasures one stores in Heaven when one is directed toward God’s will, and God’s will is love.

      Like

      1. Love is spiritual. So are our rights. Here is the crux of the misunderstanding we are dealing with.

        Was the ant hoarding food only for himself or for the sake of an entire colony? In other words, did the ant have a God given “right” to the food, or a God given “responsibility” not to be a selfish burden on his community, but instead to be a unselfishly positive benefit?

        This statement contains a flawed premise. You are equating a God-given rights with selfishness and God-given responsibilities with love. Yet we have both. We have God-given rights so that we can make choices. Without rights we cannot be responsible. We cannot demonstrate we love meaningfully.

        Consider how you posed the problem.

        Finally, assuming that the ant has a God given moral responsibility to love and share his abundance with the dying grasshopper, does that “responsibility” then creat a God given “right” for the grasshopper to be entitled to the food? This is exactly why we should not too easily presume “God given rights” out of “God given responsibilities”. The relationship between rights and responsibilities is not linear and direct. The path is fraught with moral complexity. And because our moral duties should pragmatically be reflected in our human created legal rights and responsibilities, isn’t it dangerous to assume that such human laws always have a sacred blessing? Who gets to decide?

        The Book of James is very practical, plain spoken, and mercifully short. If you have not read it you should Consider this passage.

        James 2:8-17 New King James Version (NKJV)

        8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

        14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

        We each get to choose, and He will judge us according to our personal choices.

        If we love our neighbors, we will not harm them. If we have faith in the love of God, we will help our neighbor.

        Like

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Because The Bible Wasn't Written In English

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Fr. Pietraszko's Corner

Discovering Truth and Love

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

The Wesleyan Tribe

A lifelong United Methodist Speaking Into The Chaos Of Today

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Healthy Mind Ministry

A Ministry Devoted To Mental Wellness Through Jesus Christ

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Why be stagnant?

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

Communio

"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. Wisdom to help us find the path to true love, peace, and joy in our lives, and our world.

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: