I heard a good way to distinguish a liberal and a conservative today on the radio.
A conservative is one who believes in the Constitution and believes that the Bill of Rights limits government from intruding upon individual liberty. The Bill of Rights is descriptive.
The liberal, on the other hand, believes that although the Constitution limits government's intrusion upon individuals, it does not explain what the role of government should be. The "should" is the key. "Should" is a judgment of value, a moral imperative. And the judgment is prescriptive.
Should there be an "ought" or a "should"? And by what measure do we assess the prescription? If someone legislates that we all are to work 3/4ths of the year to provide for government's "necessities", then is this what the "should" should be? Or has government over-reached its bounds? Is the private sector to be responsible for the "moral"? If so, then how is this postulated? By non-profits? Are Americans still "rightful owners" of private property, or does government intrude upon that "right"?
Morals are taught in kindergarten. There, children learn to share, not take another's toy and to respect others. Government should not be teaching 'kindergarten", but unfortunately, parents and teachers are not teaching what they "should" and it ends up being a matter for government to "take care of" in addressing criminal behavior. Then, we all pay for what others have not taken care of.
Society will not be able to function if parents and teachers are not able to help undergird and undertake "training" children to understand that it is not right to take another's toy, or that it is inappropriate to talk while the teacher is talking. Respect is a necessary value for one to learn in kindergarten.
Conservatives believe in individual liberties, but these liberties are not absolute, when it comes to required behavior. Society demands attention to other's rights, as well as one's own. The required behavior are written in the laws that define our society. But, conservatives limit the other's rights, when it intrudes upon their own. This is responsible behavior and it demands responsible and respectful behavior from others.
The liberal must love when others intrude upon their rights, because it means that they are "needed" and that they have a "function" in society. The liberal needs to be needed. He is the eternal co-dependent. The liberal views the conservative as selfish and narcisstic, as he believes that the "moral imperative" is an "absolute". And the liberal's moral absolute intrudes upon the conservative's liberty bias.
The conservative is not necessarily driven by "evil" in protecting his values of liberty and conscience. The conservative just values his own independence too much to allow government to "tell" him in a prescriptive way "who, what, when and how".
(Perhaps, I have over-stated the liberal's position, as I consider myself a conservative. But, it seems to me an injustice and a moral failure to "demand responsibility from one side and allow irresponsibility on the other. That is my take, at least.)
Posts
Pslam 76
3 hours ago
17 comments:
The liberal, on the other hand, believes that although the Constitution limits government's intrusion upon individuals, it does not explain what the role of government should be. The "should" is the key. "Should" is a judgment of value, a moral imperative. And the judgment is prescriptive.
If this is true, than explain why the Founding Fathers said the Constitution was based on transcendent laws, meaning humans cannot contradict the Divine Law(the Ten Commandments)?
This idea of Divine Law was already established, but the framers reiterated it by referring to their most quoted source; Montesquieu.
Our Founding Truth,
I, by no means, am an expert on our founding. But, what I do know is that the scientific community, who are power-brokers for truth today, do not believe in an transcendent realm, necessarily. They adhere to evolutionary theory, for the most part.
The 'power brokers' in the past were religiously biased. These were scientists who were Christians, because the Church held the power politically and they believe that the "order" of the universe was created by the Creator. Many scientists were ostericized and condemned as heretics, as well as ex-communicated, because they challenged the Church's understanding of philosophy via Aristotle. (Gravity was a natural cause, not "God". And the earth was not the center of the universe, which challenged the Church's understanding of the earth's special place in the universe.)
Today, the power lies in the economic realm. Business runs policy. And money makes for the power that used to be the place for the Church.
And may I add that scientists become the means to the end of business interests.
Conservatives believe in the Second Amendment; Liberals favor the Fourth.
Thank you for your comment, James.
Is your point about protection? The second ammendment would affirm the individual's right to protect his property and person, whereas the fourth ammendment provides protection under government.
What do you think about these two ammendments?
You're talking about the Catholic Church, I'm referring to the Reformation, and Founding Fathers, who used Reformation thought to form our nation.
To the extant that scientists are anti-christ, I agree with you, however, it is a fact the Church, catholics included, is the power broker in this country, for the Church has determined who is President, the last three elections.
Christians favor all the Amendments, as fellow Christians Patrick Henry, and George Mason did, not the perversion of them by government.
Founding Truth,
As you well know, the "canonization of scripture" transpired when the Church was 'catholic". The resulting split happened as a result of theological and political differences. The Church has continued to splinter according to these differences.
The Reformation happened as a challenge to authority and absue of power. The Church ceased to be the authority and God became the ultimate authority. This was the underpinning of the supernatural understanding of Scripture, as the inspired "world of god". And this belief has continued to become disconnected from the "real world", as time has transpired and spritual experience becomes the gauge of religious power, consecration, etc.
The Reformers believed that the "ordered institutions" were a means of grace (as the "holy spirit" empowered them), whereas the Catholic believed that these institutions were the means of grace (as the natural order). One was rooted in theological apology (polemics) and the other was based in philosophical apology (apologetics). Both sought to "give an account" for "God" and the Church and social institutions.
Some have resolved the dilemma of the "two cultures" (science and religions) by acknowledging two realms of knowledge, but I think this boils down to intellectual schizophrenia. And it makes for a realm of "supernatural knowledge" or "special revelation".
Some believe that unless faith is irrational, then one doesn't have "true faith". The Founders did not want the country to be based on groundles or irrational belief, although they allowed religious freedom. The Establishment Clause was written in this regard.
The canonization of God's Word started when the pen hit the parchment. Christianity does not start by defining God, etc. The authority of Scripture determines all, and it starts immediately, as Jude 3 says.
The Epistles were copied and sent to the true churches, as soon as they started. Furthermore, the end-time subject matter of the book of Revelation, and the prohibition of adding to the words of the book in Revelation 22:18, argue strongly that the canon was closed at the time of its writing (c. A.D. 95).
The Councils only clarified what was already established.
God was not the authority in the Reformation; Scripture was.
The State Constitutions established Christianity, and those principles are those of the Bill of Rights. Nothing changed, this is why the Constitutional Delegates did not go home and change their State Constitutions.
Only until recently has the Liberal Order depart from Biblical Natural Law.
Founding Truth,
Jude 3 cannot be used to support Scripture, as it is Scripture itself. Your argument is based on a view of the text, which is one that some in the church has "approved". But, your view is one among many views, not the only one.
When you say that the end of revelation happened in 95 A.D., are you saying that everything from slavery to a woman's right to vote is anti-biblical? Do you think that modern science is misguided when it says that the earth is a sphere and the bible says that the earth has "four corners"?
As to the authority of scripture in the Reformation, the scriptures were not written in the common language of the people until the Reformation, as the Church authorities were the ones who were the ones to distribute "god's word".
As to the States ratifying Christianity, the documents I have read seem to refer to an "Almighty", "God", or "Supreme Power", etc. The names used in the State Constitutions are not directly "Christian", as Jesus Christ is never used.
The Founders did not want to establish a religion that defined the country, as the Churh had imposed a certain brand of religion upon its citizens in other countries. This was what some sought to "dis-establish". The Establishment Clause was to grant that protection. It was what has been called the separation of Church and State.
When a text has no contradictions and tells the future accurately, it can be used to support its reliability.
Any respect of persons is anti-biblical, as the text says. Four corners? Honestly, that liberal twist has been around for years. The hebrew word "kanaph" means extremity. The Jews back then, and today, understand Kanaph refers to "the four corners of the earth" as on a map. Isaiah 40:22 clearly says the earth is a sphere.
The church(catholic) authorities that murdered my ancestors, were not Christians.
Jesus is never used?
ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
" I, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
The other State Constitutions all mention, Jesus, Lord, Protestant, etc.
My blog gives the correct information regarding the other "myth" of separation of church and state.
Founding Truth,
Perhaps, I should be honest and say that I do not believe that Scripture is inspired the way that evangelicals believe. The scriptures are literature. They are stories about experiences of human beings, whether historical or myth. It doesn't really matter.
These stories are human experience, so we can identify with them. So, we would not be able to agree about certain aspects of what you consider to be "absolute truth" that predicts the future, etc.
I would refer you to American Creation blog. You might enjoy that blog, as it is all about issues concerning our founding.
Thank you for your comments. You seem very passionate and convinced of your views.
Just be open to the possibility that we "see" what we want to see. We project our experiences, and our understandings, as this is the 'frame in which we read, as we cannot understand otherwise, unless we are consciously seeking to take the text as it was written within its historical, as well as philosophical contexts of understanding. It is not a modern book, but an ancient one. Its views are ancient views, they are not eternal, but, they are universal experiences of human beings.
If that's the case, you have a pre-supposition to a piece of literature, which is a no no.
You should have an objective, open mind when examining anything. About a thousand times, God claims to be the author of the Bible. That cannot be discounted without serious inquiry.
We all have presuppositions based on what we think is "most reasonable".
Your presupposition is that Scripture is Truth so everything written is to be trusted, as written, as it is eternanlly "relevant", which is not having an open mind toward the possibility that scripture is written by men, not God.
How do you understand God "inspiring men"? Did he create men, as "mediums" of the Holy Spirit? Did he create men with natural experiences, in the world that they wrote down, as they understood it in their time and in their perception?
Is there ever an allowance for error in scripture, in your opinion? Because if your presupposition is that scripture is infallible, then you have already laid the foundation upon which you will build the artiface of your "theology".
Orhodox Christians hold to the tenets of the creeds, which is a presupposition of faith in tradition. So, whatever you put your faith in is a presupposition.
This is why postmodernists 'understands" that scripture is not propositions about God, but experience of God. These place their faith in experience.
Still, others place their faith in reason, and these are agnostics, or atheists. The agnostics, if "committed to a faith community' are honest in understanding that God is beyond understanding (as the Jews understood), but are acting faithfully in committing to a fellowship.
The atheist does not want to chance anything apart from his own understanding.
So, whether one places their faith in scripture, tradition, experience, or reason. One is acting with certain presuppositions about their faith.
It is only the agnostic that is truly acting in faith, as he admits he just doesn't know, which is not a propositional understanding based on presuppositions.
The agnostic must live his life based on his value commitments, as he does not believe that one can ascertain things about God. God, if he exists, is a mystery.
FF,
I meant to say that the postmodernist understands that we cannot be truly "objective". That is a myth.
"Objectivity" is really reasonableness, as men will always be biased, even in science, as science has hypothesis that scientists must test. The results are interpreted. The interpretation is always open to new or fuller understanding.
I don't have any pre-suppositions about anything, especially the bible. I was an unbeliever, as everyone else has to be.
When I discovered the Bible tells the truth accurately, then realized I was a sinner, could not claim to be righteous in front of Holy God, and realized how could I get my sins taken care of, of which I understood my works could never abrogate all my sins, and where Jesus paid the price for my sins. All I needed to do was believe and live it.
It didn't cost anything, and now my sins are taken care of, and I know it because my life has changed.
So, are you a fundamentalist, Reformed, or an evangelical?
Since Jesus was a fundamentalist, His Word being the fundamentals of His Faith, I'm with Him.
Post a Comment