Lucifer, The First Liberal

The Wanderer ^ | March 6, 2002 | Dr. Arthur M. Hippler

[Forgiven_Sinner]

The author draws an accurate and provocative comparison between liberalism and Satan. I look forward to responses from the libertarians among us, who I think would support individual authority as the highest.

A quick primer on Satan's various names: Originally, he was call Halael, or "Light Bringer" in Hebrew. This is rendered as "Lucifer" in Latin. After Satan's rebellion against God, he was renamed "Satan" or "adversary". "Devil" means "liar".

[genefromjersey]

Calling Satan a liberal sounds like slander to me : slander of Satan, that is...

[DannyTN]

"Here is the liberal principle in its first expression: Man alone should decide good and evil apart from God. "

That pretty much sums up their position.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[Pete]

For the liberal, morality is created by the free choice of society.

The problem modern liberals face is that some choices lead to negative consequences. This fact flies in the face of their claim that all choices are morally equivalent.

They react in two ways in an effort to prop up their view.

First, they turn to government. The role of government for a liberal is to remove the negative consequences of bad choices. This is attempted with enormous sums of money and grand social engineering schemes. Unfortunately, the results have been disasterous for society.

The second thing they do is argue that people are biological machines and not free moral agents. This removes personally responsibility and justifies social engineering theory. In other words, a person is just a machine. If you find the right tool, you can fix any problem. Ultimately, you are left with a population that is dehumanized, demoralized and hopeless.

The war on poverty is a perfect example of the failure of this world view.

[Polycarp]

WANDERER Ping

[f.Christian]

b ... t ... t ... t ---

[Polycarp]

Thanks. LOL ;-)

[Theyknow]

You are all over the top. To claim that liberals are Satan is absurd. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with the country? There should be such a thing as dissent and it is absolutely essential to democracy. Political opinions and views are just that, they aren’t religion. By saying that liberals are Satan is to say Conservatives are God, do any of you recognize the danger of that equation? THINK. The decline of political discourse to this level is appalling. On both sides, so don’t argue that just because they do it is appropriate on this side, it is vile and pathetic for anyone to attack on this level.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Emile]

To libertarians, individual authority is the highest. But, unlike liberals, who define right and wrong by how things feel to them and to others at any given time (completely subjective), the libertarian (objectivist) believes that one can use his human reason to ascertain what is objectively right and wrong, using factual truths found all around us in nature. Thus, the objectivist doesn't need religion to tell him what's right or wrong, but rather strives for the full development of his mature human brain, with which he can then infallibly inform himself what is right and wrong, without anyone's help, be it religious or secular.

[RAT Patrol]

"Devil" means "liar". Since liberals are liars too, maybe we should just start calling them devils.

[RAT Patrol]

What makes it wrong and appalling? Isn't it just another "opinion?" Why is your version of discourse better than Forgiven_sinner's version? Aren't you trying to impose your views on this thread?

Why not have a sense of humor about it?

[45Auto]

I wouldn't conclude that all liberals are Satanic; but I would also conclude that Satan was the first liberal.

[joesnuffy]

Humanism....the rally cry (hustle) of satan calling out man to join him in his self deceptive quest
He has always been the accuser and the rebel and a liar from the beginning...the father of all lies..
Liberalism is the call to rebel against God...to replace God with man as his own god...each man to be his own little god...(with satan as his guide of course)
Neat Piece...thanks

[DWPittelli]

You might want to keep in mind that the word "liberal" in the 19th Century resembled about equally what we would now call libertarian and what we would now call conservative.

In essence, "conservatism" then was support for a government that actively favored the rich and powerful, liberalism was support for a neutral government, and socialism was support for a government that actively favored the poor. So a 19th century attack on liberalism -- such as that of this Pope Leo 13th -- would have to be considered quite reactionary by virtually everyone today.

The usurpation in the U.S., by FDR and others around 1930, of the name "liberal" for what is really socialism, was made more tenable given that there basically aren't any longer any people who are conservative in the 19th century sense (actively favoring the rich and powerful). (True conservatism does exist in some countries: for example, I understand that in Pakistan only the poor and middle classes pay taxes; the rich landholding aristocracy pays little or none). Since the socialists slid over to using the term "liberal," and these liberal-socialists controlled the government, media and academy and could thus enforce their use of the language, 19th-century liberals had to take on the name of conservatism or libertarianism.

[okiesap]

Until Jesus comes to rewrite the Constitution, the current version should settle questions regarding individual authority. Bible reading should be encouraged, not forced. Religious activism leads to Inquisitions and witch-burnings.

Interesting that the devil was known as the "Light Bringer." Even more interesting is the literal-to-the-hour interpretation of the first pages of Genesis. And even more interesting is the use of
King James' Olde English when Bible verses are quoted. What tedium! No wonder more kids aren't reading it.

Reaping what we're sowing, by Biblical standards, the U.S. is doomed anyway.