Posted on 09/16/2003 7:54:34 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
Like most people who watch the nightly news, I've been following the story of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, and his struggle with higher authorities to keep a Ten Commandments monument on display at the Supreme Court building in that state. At first I was going to write an article specifically concerned with this story, but it wasn't long before I concluded that the so called "separation or church and state" issue was not what I really wanted to discuss... at least not entirely. I'm sure there are a thousand people out there writing op-eds about Judge Moore's tribulations, so I'll leave that particular case to them. I will, however, say this: our federal Constitution relates that the U.S. Congress is prohibited from making laws that concern an establishment of religion or that prevent people from practicing the religion of their choice.
That seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? I mean, I didn't have to read the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" twice to understand that they mean exactly what they say. I take them literally, but apparently liberals interpret this aspect of the First Amendment in a somewhat different way. They obviously believe those words to mean that the people of a particular state should not be allowed to exhibit any religious text or symbol on public property, even though that property may have nothing to do with Congress. It also doesn't seem to matter to them that the simple act of displaying something like the Ten Commandments does not equate to actually establishing a religion.
This should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the convoluted logic of those who call themselves liberals, though. After all, these are the same people who believe that the abortion issue is ONLY about a woman's right to choose what she can do with her own body, hence their use of the term 'pro choice'. It apparently never occurs to the liberal mind that the other human body involved might be something to consider as well, or that the obvious question to be asked is, when does a fetus become a human life worthy of the same protections as every other individual? Not to burrow too deeply into this particular subject, but in my opinion, the people who wish to commit abortion should be required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that even a one-day-old fetus is not a human life before they kill it, since it is inarguable that at some as yet undetermined point in our development, all of us become human beings, and simply taking a wild guess at when that moment in time may be isn't consistent with the concept of justice.
Then again, expecting liberals to embrace true justice is rather like expecting chickens to start laying square eggs. They're just not built that way. You see, to believe in justice requires that one believe in the unforfeitable rights of the individual. With those rights comes personal responsibility, and justice is concerned with holding individuals responsible for their actions. Liberals are not prone to individualism, and the concept of personal accountability almost seems repugnant to them... unless it's a Republican being held to account. They are, in many ways, more likened to pack animals than human beings, because they tend to think in terms of groups, not individuals. That is why it's difficult not to regard them in that very manner, as a group. They seem to view everyone else that way, so that's the way they should be viewed, in my opinion.
Think about it, have you ever noticed that whenever liberals concoct a plan to ostensibly promote fairness and equality, it usually begins with them identifying everyone involved by their race, sex, religion, political affiliation or whatever aspect is the most divisive at the time? You're never just a person to them, you're a stereotype to be labeled and manipulated. You are rewarded with freebies at the expense of other people when you agree with them, and punished with character assassination when you don't. Your individuality is a threat to their world view, and they cannot afford to let the well of collectivism be poisoned by droplets of non-conformity.
Keep in mind, though, that liberals are not necessarily stupid; far from it. Some of them are very smart indeed, a few having matured into outspoken and truly brilliant advocates of liberty. Take David Horowitz, for example; this is a man who was as radical a Leftist as any of his generation. He was a Communist who was raised by Communists to be a Communist, yet at some point in his life he came to realize the folly inherent in that system of beliefs. No one I know well would seriously assert that he is an idiot, and neither are many other people I've come to accept in my life who are liberals to this day. No, the deficit of the liberal lies not in his mind, but in his personality. Generally speaking, liberals are, to use the vernacular, control freaks. They are so sure their ideas are the right ones that they feel compelled to force everyone else to accept them. They genuinely want to SAVE you from yourself. They are every bit the crusaders that televangelists are, only instead of Christianity, their religion is Communism, and to them, hell is the rejection by the masses of their dogma.
Liberals want you to accept what they say at face value and respect what they do without carefully considering the destructive practices they adopt or the divisive rhetoric they utter. They expect you to understand that, because they feel their motives are virtuous; you would have to be a cretin not to want to follow them blindly down whichever road they choose to lead you. They believe in parental figures controlling everyone else's lives, which is why they're so popular with people who think of themselves as victims in life. Victims need protectors, and who better to protect you than your parents? The liberal masses seem to want to be told what to do and how to live, and this is where the Leftist mommy and daddy figures come in. Whatever is wrong in your life can be made right, but not by you, by the pseudo-intellectuals who make up the liberal elite; and believe me, they are more than happy to oblige their followers on that score. You will be granted every sort of entitlement and be taken care of from cradle to grave just as long as you let them control everything.
The leaders of the Leftist movement "feel your pain" and will gladly relieve you of the burden of being responsible for yourself. Of course, they also want to relieve you of your guns and any other weapons you may have which could potentially be used against them. They may seem portentous or condescending, but they're not really. They're just right, so don't go thinking you know better than they do about the way things should be. They will feel perfectly justified in saying and doing the most hateful things to you if you dare to stand up to them, because to these ideologues, you are like a belligerent child. You need to be corrected, and correct you they will if given half the chance. After all, it's for your own good.
A very good analysis.
" expecting liberals to embrace true justice is rather like expecting chickens to start laying square eggs"
LOL!
Very interesting, especially when you consider that these are the same people who are anxious to make criminals of conscientious parents who dare to discipline their children in a manner that they (the liberals) consider too harsh.
I thought the Nazi Hate Site was over HERE.
It's all about control. When they don't have it tactics range from appeasement to anarchy.
When in a small majority, or minority they will offer, or plead for appeasement(Bi-partisanship), when in a large minority, or if appeasement fails, anarchy is the tool of choice.
Remember clinton/gore's threats of "scorched earth"?
Was it just coincidence that both were out of country on 9-11?
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.