Oh FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.
I cannot believe some of the responses on this thread. I posted that article on Free Republic when Cain wrote it - it was at Christmas time on North Star writers (a Christian publication) and I thought it was beautiful. No it was not a “perfect analogy” because there is no such thing as a perfect analogy.
Here is the whole piece:
He was not born into a royal family, but He left a royal impression on the world.
For 30 years, He learned the ways of the world without becoming of the world. He then changed the world for the better.
He led without a mandate. He taught without a script. His common sense parables filled people with promise and compassion, His words forever inspiring.
Power.
He never condemned what others believed – just sin, evil and corruption.
He helped the poor without one government program. He healed the sick without a government health care system. He feed the hungry without food stamps. And everywhere He went, it turned into a rally, attracting large crowds, and giving them hope, encouragement and inspiration.
For three years He was unemployed, and never collected an unemployment check. Nevertheless, he completed all the work He needed to get done. He didn’t travel by private jet. He walked and sailed, and sometimes traveled on a donkey.
But they made Him walk when He was arrested and taken to jail, and no, He was not read any Miranda Rights. He was arrested for just being who He was and doing nothing wrong. And when they tried Him in court, He never said a mumbling word.
He didn’t have a lawyer, nor did He care about who judged Him.
His judge was a higher power.
The liberal court found Him guilty of false offences and sentenced Him to death, all because He changed the hearts and minds of men with an army of 12.
His death reset the clock of time.
Never before and not since has there ever been such a perfect conservative.
For over 2,000 years the world has tried hard to erase the memory of the perfect conservative, and His principles of compassion, caring and common sense.
His followers are now millions and millions the world over, as those who resent Him have intensified their attacks on who He was and what His followers believe.
The attacks are disguised as political correctness, or a misunderstanding of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Separation of Church and State does not mean Separation of Church from State. The State cannot impose Church on the people, but the people can display and say as much Church in the public square as they desire.
Our Founders recognized that distinction, which helped to inspire the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the founding of this nation – The United States of America!
We must be the Defending Fathers and the defenders of the perfect conservative.
That’s why I proudly wish one and all a very Merry Christmas!
http://www.northstarwriters.com/2010/12/19/the-perfect-conservative/
Thank you for posting this. Even when I read this the other day, I completely agree with Cain. His reasoning is sound by pointing out to the CURRENT LIBERALS that personal responsibility, charity, and a moral ethic does not ever come from a government. Well said!
Such criticisms as may come from the Left on Cain's remarks are expected. They may remind us of the historical ignorance the Left displayed when George W. Bush gave his honest answer to a debate question about his favorite political philosopher.
Thomas Jefferson, that former President the Left loves to quote when they try to exclude references to "God" from the public square, wrote extensively about the superiority of the philosophy of Jesus, but we never hear about that from the Left.
The same Jefferson who penned our Declaration of Independence wrote that Jesus "preached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence," that "a system of morals is presented to us [by Jesus], which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man."
He wrote, "His moral doctrines...were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers...and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants, and common aids" which, Jefferson said, "will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others."
Comparing the Hebrew code which, according to Jefferson, "laid hold of actions only," "He [Jesus] pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head."
That Jefferson cut out the statements which could be directly attributable to Jesus, pasted them into a little book which he kept by his bed and read from them daily, attests to the fact that his political philosphy may have been influenced by what he considered to be the superiority of the "philosophy" of Jesus.
It is unlikely that any person alive today, including the current President, has read the writings of as many of the great philosophers as Jefferson. His talents and abilities were legend. His devotion to liberty and to the ideas essential to liberty were based on simple principles, some of which, undoubtedly, came from his understanding of the basic law underlying all valid human law: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." As Jefferson stated it, "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
Jefferson seemed to understand that the philosophy encapsulated in those ideas has the power to make people in a society more benevolent, more loving, more caring, and more willing to take care of each other voluntarily.
America's Founders believed that if I wish to help my neighbor ("neighbor" being a term for any individual), I have the right to give of my own earnings or property, and/or request voluntary donations by my other neighbors and ask them for their assistance. If they refuse, I do not have the legal right to enter their property and coercively to "take" from them to help others. The Founders reasoned, then, that to do so would make me criminally liable under the law.
Under their Constitution, there was no provision which allowed my representatives in government, at my request, either individually or as part of a lobbying group, to pass laws to do that which would be illegal and punishable by law, were I to do it myself.
No matter how admirable or worthy the cause or the rhetoric, voluntary charity is one thing: advocating the political use of coercive government power to pick the pockets of our neighbors without calling it robbery is another (Tennessee Congressman Davy Crockett made a speech on the floor of the Congress called "Not Yours to Give" which summarized the constitutional validity of the latter idea.