Posted on 12/03/2011 3:06:02 PM PST by ProgressingAmerica
The notion that "social justice" is about freedom is thoroughly laughable. Just look at it's roots, and spend a little time reading about the social gospel, which preceded social justice in America. Even more laughable, is how progressives have re-written history in order to make all of this possible. Today, progressives look back and sneer at those days when the EXTREME CHRISTIANS (I know, how shocking!) actually attempted and succeeded at getting at a constitutional amendment which "legislated morality". I put the phrase "legislate morality" in quotes, because this is one of the most common sneers the progressives use. And of course, it's those hypocritical conservative Christians who are the culprits. Today, we shouldn't dare repeat that mistake and attempt to legislate morality.
Well, when progressives entirely dominate academia, colleges, and the history therein, that's what happens. They'll blame you for what it is that they did. And why not? Do you know where to look for answers? And even if you wanted to look, would you know where to start? While blaming it on Christians isn't a lie, it certainly isn't the whole truth. These people were fairly honest about their goals. They intentionally set their sight on liberty, at least, those who were involved in the upper levels of the movement. Just like progressives do today. Example 1 Example 2 The average OWS person on the streets today actually does hate wall street and wants to do something about it, just like the average person during those days would've only been interested in doing something about the problem of alcohol. They're probably not looking for tyranny, but they've been whipped up into a frenzy. And as you probably know, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
Josiah Strong, who was one of the founding members of the "Social Gospel" movement, wrote this in the magazine 'Homiletic review', which claimed to be all about religion, theology, and philosophy - directly under the banner of "Studies in Social Christianity": (Page 44, "Prophetic Courage")
By common consent the civilized world, backed by moral conviction and scientific knowledge, has abandoned these worn-out experiments, and is settling down upon the basis of common sense, announced by that greatest of leaders, Lyman Beecher: "Temperance in the use of all harmless things, total abstinence from all hurtful things." That alcohol, outside of its well-defined, legitimate uses, is the most destructive foe of human life and welfare, need no longer be argued. He who would question that statement would need the stupidity of ignorance or the triple hardihood of hopeless conservatism. In all countries we find that public opinion is steadily converging upon this perfectly clear, rational judgment—total abstinence for the individual, prohibition for the State. Religion, science, political economy, education, business, are coming into a closer, more consistent solidarity upon that simple basis. The most encouraging indication is that this union of the great interests of humanity against the common enemy is founded in the awakening sense of democracy, and in the new and broader scope of its interpretation. "Personal liberty" is at last an uncrowned, dethroned king, with no one to do him reverence. The social consciousness is so far developed, and is becoming so autocratic, that institutions and governments must give heed to its mandates and shape their life accordingly. We are no longer frightened by that ancient bogy - " paternalism in government." We affirm boldly, it is the business of government to be just that—paternal. As the father of a household must administer its affairs for the equal good of all, and for the equal protection of all, so the government must devote itself to every interest of the people. So Prohibitionists are pushing for an amendment to the national constitution, forbidding the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors.
What a triumph for progressivism! However, most prohibitionists didn't openly talk this way. For them, they truely wanted to solve a problem in a way that they were being told was the right way. This is totalitarianism, take note of how many things I emphasized, there's a lot in this. First, note his attack on hopeless conservatism. So much for blaming it all on those EXTREMIST CHRISTIANS and their awful conservative views, just trying to "legislate morality". Note the two words I underlined: "autocratic" and "administer". Philip Dru, Administrator? Anybody? That book is such a potent blueprint for progressivism. It's all there, and it's not even that long of a book. And you can get it for free online. Either in print or in audio. Both versions are 100% free. Please read it.
But Josiah Strong was not the only one. In his book "Why Prohibition!", progressive labor leader and reverend Charles Stelzle wrote the following: (Page 71)
The doctrine of "personal liberty" as applied to the use of liquor has been over-worked by the liquor men. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as an absolute individual right to do any particular thing, or to eat or drink any particular thing, or to enjoy the association of one's own family, or even to live, if that thing is in conflict with "the law of public necessity."
Of course, below this paragraph Stelzle makes some fairly good observations(and I hope people will click the link and look) regarding any number of things, but any one of these observations or all of them combined is no excuse to further the problem. He makes an abusive, bastardized case for 'the common good'. If state power and the abuse of it is such a problem, then taking the next step to create yet another layer of federal bureaucracy is clearly not the solution. Say what you want about the ills of alcohol, tyranny is a bigger problem. Besides mother nature, isn't tyranny the number one killer of humans throughout history? So don't let any progressive wannabe administrator prattle on about prohibition and Christianity, they're standing in the quicksand of their own history.
It was the Progressive Movement that got Prohibition passed.
Keep an eye out for which candidates keep progressive evangelical friends around.
Put me on the list...
Bump
Oh I get it, another pothead trying to pass himself off as a ‘conservative’.
Liberaltarians; free sex with anything that moves and drugs.
And you are a statist passing himself off as a conservative.
You are willing to support the Left in everything because somebody might have a buzz.
I want to bring the whole edifice down.
If you want to smack the “potheads” at the state or local level, go for it.
There never was authority in the Constitution for the feds to do any of it until Prohibition.
Without an Amending exception, it ALL goes through the Wickard v Filburn (1942) Commerce decision, which concerned WHEAT, not drugs. That came later.
So which is it - everything is Interstate Commerce (including forcing you to buy Obamacare) or only what the founders meant by it?
I think you lose either way.
For a “pothead”, I see the issues clearer that you do.
lol.
How do you feel about age of consent laws?
You probably think 11 year olds have every right to be diddled by an adult, right? That is how pervs always state it, the childs right. ha. perverts.
State matter and nothing to do with commerce.
Can’t you focus on the issue at hand - Federalism?
Overturn Wickard v Filburn
Repeal the 17th Amendment
You forgot to bash Antonin Scalia for not believing the states have a right secede, Paulbot.
Yes, the statists are out in force.
The reason conservatism can’t win is because there are no conservatives.
As for Paul, he’s an ass on foreign policy. Wrong again.
Newsflash: Conservatism is also about morality. This is why the vast majority of Conservatives oppose the legalization of drugs, enforcing age of consent laws, etc.
This is not a Liberaltarian site. Keep that in mind.
What do you think about homosexuals in the military?
(Thinking about a thread about Ron Paul I just posted on.)
Exactly.
That’s why you can’t do anything with liberals.
The War on Drugs and every other federal regulation goes through the same constitutional clause.
You can’t separate them except by Amendment and you know you can’t get that done.
Neither Left nor Right has enough support to rule on its own.
So you are catch-22ed, stuck with the big government we got plus or minus a bit at the margins.
Supporting the Left while leaning to the Right and just throwing names and nonsequiturs at argument because you are clueless.
Learn it. Live it. Love it. As Rush says.
But I’m open to suggestions if you ever find one.
Quite frankly, I’m just as tired of liberaltarian psuedo-intellectualism as I am Progressivik pseudo-intellectualism.
No, I don’t believe in the imaginary wall between church and state. Guess what, I don’t believe in the legalization of drugs and prostitution. You know what ? I don’t believe in “gay rights”, gays sering openly in the military, or gay marriage. If that makes me a “statist” in the eyes of the liberaltarians, so be it. These are my beliefs. They are unchanging and uncompromising. Just like I’m not bowing down to the finger wagging of the Authoritarian Left, I’m not bowing down to the bong wagging of the liberaltarians.
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.
