Liberalism: The way to Anything Goes
“Liberals” (the quotes show they aren’t) don’t seem to care if their prescriptions for progress involve misery, suffering, chaos or death, even if they call for
- the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution,
- facing criminal charges for acting in accordance with constitutionally granted rights,
- the slaughter of babies before they are born,
- encouraging public school children to turn against their parents,
- excluding people with traditional views from society,
- excluding people with orthodox beliefs from society,
- permitting agents who are not elected by the public and do not represent them, to tell everyone what they may do, say, even think,
- hating white skin.
I’ve indicated just a few things tracking the loss of “freedom and justice for all” in America when following the “liberal” way of progress. That route is how any authentic liberal spirit toward progress gets bypassed, as the aim of a better tomorrow gets blurred in the struggle for maintaining sanity. On what planet is this the evidence of a liberal spirit?
It should be clear, from childhood onward, that ignoring the moral force behind our human relations is apt to lead to serious problems and trouble for self and others. It is a failing especially dangerous in a democracy, where the “rule of law” is meant to override “the rule of men,” in agreement with the moral principle. But in our day the weakness of morality in many occupants of high office, which explains much misconduct, is painfully obvious.
When the “rule of law” is applied by amoral men and women in power, it in one way or another becomes a virtual rule of “might makes right.” This utter indifference to morality generates misery, not wellbeing for the people affected. Whether through force, scheming, cheating, or lying, it is in effect a rule of tyranny against those ruled, regardless of the system of government in which it occurs. The history of morally deficient leadership encountered throughout the world for centuries proves that everyone loses in the end, usually at a terrible cost.
“The descent to hell is easy,” wrote Virgil 2,000 years ago, referring to the danger to his society of entering that gate, which in today’s lingo is opting for the “slippery slope” while ignoring what is most sensible. To date that warning remains unheeded. Shakespeare commented on the danger of hell breaking loose among us when allowed: “Hell is empty and all the devils are here.” (The Tempest.)
No high I.Q. or special ability of observation is needed to know that the path to a life best lived was provided by the Creator. This is evident in the consistency between scriptural insight and reality. That path has been obstructed by men who hate His Way because it interferes with their way. Allegedly intelligent men and women claiming liberality have long been pitting their minds against the One who gave them their brains, in their quest to outsmart the One who put the universe in motion.
Self-certified “authorities” have a long history of meddling with reality. Some of them during the 17th and 18th century Enlightenment rejected divine guidance because it preempted their alleged superior wisdom and infallibility of science. These illuminators of humanity were certain that reason and science would steer society successfully without God. In effect that was a bet against all odds––including Murphy’s Law and the troublesome effects of anger, pride, lust, envy, covetousness, gluttony and sloth (the Seven Deadly Sins)––that through their superior intelligence the world would become a better place.
But the evidence today tells us they lost the bet. In view of the reality––the misery and bloodshed of millions since the onset of the Age of Reason––one must wonder why today’s disciples of the earlier fiddlers with Reason––the “progressives” and “liberals” of today––continue to trudge the path of a cause they have lost, namely progress and freedom without divine guidance.
We’re still waiting for the better tomorrow promised by post-Enlightenment politics and allied science. Could what is holding up the delivery be the loss of essential moral muscle along the way to modern times, a journey weakening the will to heed the directives of conscience? Could it be what Leo Tolstoy put in one short sentence: “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself”?
Post a Comment