Re-Defining the Morality Buzzwords for Liberals’ Sake
The Democrats (or rather the Secular liberals) want to re-train the language in order to as David Limbaugh recounts and analyses it, re-claim morality, at least in the Biblical sense.
“Conservatives don’t claim that same-sex marriage and abortion are the only moral issues. And I wish liberals would quit superciliously asserting that only they care about the environment, war and peace, poverty, and health care.” Conservatives don’t take to a morality that conditionally excludes abortion and marriage protection as issues and it’s disingenuous to say that “Civil rights” is a tenet of Liberalism, let alone that Conservatives aren’t humane enough to possess considerations of the environment, poverty, conflict, and the human condition.
One cannot claim God as a source of inspiration and then exclude many of His tenets from your own doctrine unless you are either a dishonest creep or a follower of another god.
Regardless of what good our Father demands we do, it’s the good that He demanded that we do, ourselves, as individuals with free will. Conservatives (Christians and otherwise) examine the social issues and economic issues with an eye towards effectiveness over the ideal. We don’t dismiss healthcare and poverty as concerns. We “believe their approach to poverty is actually more compassionate because it is more effective. And it is largely liberals who reduced market forces in health care, which led to much of the escalation in cost. And liberal darling Bill Clinton, after feverishly campaigning to solve the forty million uninsured problem, didn’t put a dent in it.” It’s a matter of role, purpose, and success over the sanctity of how it gets done. The ideal surrounds the result, never the process, except in the case of secular Liberals.
“Frank [Turek] said, essentially, that Democrats can’t understand why they lost on moral issues when they are the champions of the downtrodden and social justice. ‘Democrats don’t understand what the New Testament declares is the main purpose of government. According to Romans 13:4, governments are instituted by God to punish wrongdoers — to protect their citizens from evil. … Democrats have it exactly backwards. They are more apt to want to ‘understand’ the terrorists, while they lobby the government to do what the church should be doing — helping the poor.'”
So does that mean that God is a Libertarian?
Actually, it means of course that God made everything so that it had a purpose. When something is present or functioning outside its purpose then it isn’t really functioning at all. When that’s not the case then typically something is being misused to the detriment of something. Libertarians would agree with Romans 13:4.
That brings up one idea to my mind? Does government cross the line between “Separation of Church and State?” Regardless of belief in God or even the existence of God, and despite ultimate source, the mandate of the Church has always been to help man. The church is here on Earth to help people and as Christians our charge is to render mercy and aid and even hope. We’re supposed to help. Frankly the church is good at it. Whether or not there are converts in every case (there aren’t) the church has been helping feed and clothe the sick and such for over 2000 years. Despite the millennia of practice being humane the current drive by secularists is that Christians are unqualified. Churches are the most qualified. We are here, or they are here to do His works and His will and that involves action and positive effects.
Therefore if the State is running programs like Welfare and such is it not violating the Separation of Church and State when it does so? It is co-opting the purpose of another aspect or pillar of society. The problem is that Government humanitarian aid is less effective than any other kind. The State is only 228 years old so far and it has not adopted the role of steward of the human condition for even half that long. The secular institution of the State doesn’t affect help upon people well enough. The Church’s only function, aside from any holistic purposes, is to render aid.
The President’s Faith-Based Initiative to fund Churches for the purposes of helping people and not converting them is not a violation of the Separation of Church and State but a fulfillment of it. The State is subsidizing an institution for the purposes of helping people thus the people are helped effectively and the Church’s purpose is obeyed.
The State is not spending money on an ineffective method towards meeting an ideal condition; the State does not waste the citizens’ money and the people are helped.
Ultimately Liberal morality, if it ever becomes re-defined as that, is the government working towards an idealistic end but failing; Conservative notions see the good but wants it to get done! What good is being a champion that fails? I’d rather see it happen without the fanfare. That is a horrible idea: morality should not be trying to achieve the good; morality should about the protection of life without worshiping the quest, the journey, the method, or the work that achieve the protection itself. Morality isn’t about means; it’s about ends.
from the future year 2016
2016-06-28: This whole thing could have been written better. I’m not entirely certain I’m wrong but there are caveats to it as well.
Caveats I should have written far earlier than 2016. More later.
I’m not sure when I first read Conflict of Visions, but I think it should be invoked more strongly.