Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, January 05, 2007
David Limbaugh :: Townhall.com Columnist
It's the worldview, stupid
by David Limbaugh
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The American left exhibits ambivalence toward Christians and Christianity. On the one hand it routinely demonizes them and their values, and on the other, identifies with them. This sometimes looks like an insulting charade.

Liberals often mock the perceived backwardness of Christianity, yet their prominent politicians jump at the chance to appear at megachurches to rub elbows with their robust congregations.

They conspicuously wear their Bibles for photo-ops and cite Scripture in campaign speeches, yet deride Christian conservatives and condemn Republican politicians for allowing their Christian beliefs to inform their policies.

Their pastors write books upbraiding Republicans and conservatives for claiming the mantle of Christianity, then proceed to claim it themselves, asserting that liberalism, not conservatism, represents true Christianity.

Some Democrats indignantly deny that liberalism is at war with Christianity or that fundamental liberal principles contradict the Judeo-Christian worldview, insisting that many Democrats are Christians.

I agree that many Democrats are Christians, but that doesn't change the fact that the Democrats' guiding ideology (liberalism) fervently promotes secular values, even at the behest of government, whose endorsement of "religion" it unpersuasively purports to oppose. Nor does it negate the political left's commitment to reducing Christianity's influence, not just in government, as it claims, but in our culture and on our moral principles.

The left's aversion to Christianity can be seen in several current books urging Christians to keep their noses out of politics or arguing that Christianity has been a destructive force in history and that diminishing its influence will benefit society.

New stories abound chronicling efforts of atheists and secularists to denigrate Christianity and its values. These aren't just appeals to Christians to be more tolerant of nonbelievers. They are manifestations of the profound intolerance of secularists toward Christians.

Many liberals deny any antipathy toward Christianity, hiding behind the convenient pretext of vindicating First Amendment principles. But their selective opposition to the government's "establishment" of the Christian religion and their hypocritical support for the government's endorsement of secularism betrays their true mindset.

They also deny that conservatism reflects Christian values and maintain that liberalism is truer to the teachings of Jesus Christ, especially in its alleged heart for the poor -- a point about which liberals, in my opinion, are most misguided, confusing the role of the individual with that of the government.

While I don't doubt that many liberals sincerely believe liberalism is "more Christian" than conservatism, they can't explain away the left's abiding discomfort with Christianity. That's because liberalism -- no matter how you sugar coat it -- is fundamentally incompatible with the Christian worldview.

Without preparing a flow sheet to compare the respective compatibility of liberal and conservative beliefs and policies -- such as abortion -- with Christianity, I refer instead to first principles.

I believe the main animating difference between conservatism and liberalism is that the former believes in the Biblically revealed sinful condition of mankind. Our Constitution's framers established a system of government around their belief that man-operated government had to be limited and held in check in order for freedom to flourish. Liberalism generally embraces a secular humanist (or enlightenment) faith in the general goodness, perhaps even perfectibility of man.

Conservatives accept that government exists as a necessary evil, to prevent anarchy, establish order and maximize but not absolutize freedom. Human beings within this context will be freer to minimize, but never completely solve society's problems.

By contrast, liberals place their secular faith in government to wholly eradicate societal problems (John Edwards will eliminate poverty in 30 years, following LBJ's 40-year, multi-trillion dollar failure to do just that).

The writings of the father of modern conservative thought, Russell Kirk, affirm these essential differences between liberals and conservatives. In his work, Kirk sets forth certain conservative "articles of belief." At the core of these, is an adherence to a Biblical worldview.

Conservatives believe in "an enduring moral order" and that "revelation, reason, and an assurance beyond the senses tell us that the Author of our being exists, and that He is omniscient; and man and the state are creations of God's beneficence. This Christian orthodoxy is the kernel of [Edmond] Burke's philosophy."

Also, "conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. … The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the Twentieth Century into a terrestrial hell."

If you won't take my word for it, listen to Kirk: The differences between conservatism and liberalism flow from their competing worldviews.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read David Limbaugh's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Leftist Secular Democrat Christians
Are they self-hating Christians?

Hmm...
"I believe the main animating difference between conservatism and liberalism is that the former believes in the Biblically revealed sinful condition of mankind."

"Conservatives accept that government exists as a necessary evil, to prevent anarchy, establish order and maximize but not absolutize freedom."

(1) If that is the *main* difference, and that is what conservatives believe, then why not use government as a tool to correct the sinful condition of mankind? Of course, that is sort of what Limbaugh appears to suggest in the second excerpt. But good luck preventing anarchy with a limited government if all of mankind is sinful. I suppose its a question of line-drawing, in which case Limbaugh should gt off his high-horse.

(2) Considering that no conservatives have really ascended to power and held fast to conservative principles (not even Reagan, though he was better than one who shall remain nameless), much as is the case with liberals, why don't we all agree that ideologues should go stuff themselves and leave the governing to serious people concerned with results?

Laser-guided accuracy David!

DL fingered the precise point at which our Constitutional government rises far above virtually all previous attempts at any form of Democracy or Republic. Quoting Limbaugh:
-------------
I believe the main animating difference between conservatism and liberalism is that the former believes in the Biblically revealed sinful condition of mankind. Our Constitution's framers established a system of government around their belief that man-operated government had to be limited and held in check in order for freedom to flourish. Liberalism generally embraces a secular humanist (or enlightenment) faith in the general goodness, perhaps even perfectibility of man.
--------------

In the Federalist Papers (#6, 9 & 10) Madison and Hamilton repeatedly reflected on the need to limit government in order to keep the evil aspect of human nature in check while men governed. Nowhere did they make this more explicit than in Federalist #51:

---------------
"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
-----------------

In his introduction as editor to the book "Restoring the Constitution: Is Judicial Activism Destroying the Constitution," H. Wayne House wrote of this:

-------------------------
The Founders of our nation saw themselves as writing a covenant between the government and the people that would last over long periods of time. They wrote the document with an expansive view of world history and philosophy, recognizing that events and technology change but human nature and relationships remain the same. Human nature is fallen and because of this there must be checks and balances on that nature which ultimately causes him to rule over his fellows. The Framers’ attempt to forestall such action emerges in the limited government they formed, which possesses vertical and horizontal checks and balances, as well as specific, delimiting, and enumerated powers for the national government, and finally a separation of powers with the legislative being the first among the branches of government.

This is in stark contrast to the enlightenment theme of the perfectibility of humanity, against which Madison wrote, stating that if men were angels we would not need government. On the other hand, because of a strong belief in man as the image of God (the majority at the Convention were Calvinistic Christians, Madison himself having trained for the ministry under Witherspoon, who substantially influenced him), they saw each person as having dignity and inalienable rights from their Creator. Even Jefferson concurred with such thinking, Deist or no, since in America both Deism and Christianity shared many of the same views on nature and law. The rights reserved to the people (later enunciated in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) are in view of the rights which they have by nature. The government is to secure, not create those rights, for whatever the government creates, the government may alienate.
-----------------------

In the many comments followingTownhall's editorials are abundant evidence of how divided we are today over this issue. The atheists, anti-religionists, and religo-phobes among us fear that we who put faith in the Bible's accurate portrayal of fallen human nature, and of God's revealed solution to that problem have designs of somehow imposing a theocratic government - in spite of the fact that nowhere in the Bible are there any commands for Christians or Jews to do so. In fact, in the NT (e.g. Rom.13) we are taught to be obedient to ruling authorities, so long as they are not violating God's standards of justice. (This is not a form of government, but empowerment to resist any unjust government.) Most Christians and Jews I know today believe that our Constitution provides the very best possible framework for such a government. It divides-up the power, so no tyrant can easily exalt his/her will above God's. It protects each individual's right to worship God, study the Bible, speak freely in its defense, and judge candidates for office according to his/her own convictions of that candidate's wisdom, character and faith. And it provides a corrective mechanism for improvement. All reflecting the historic nature of the Church (taken of the span of its history).

Some insist that Christianity has had either a insignificant, or harmful effect on our blessed Constitution. I stand with Prager, Limbaugh, and those of you who agree that things would be far worse, not just for us but for humankind, if not for the Grace of God revealed in the Bible, as it illumined the minds of our great forefathers.

May He continue to forgive and bless us...

Columbo

Meh
The author wrote:

"... By contrast, liberals place their secular faith in government to wholly eradicate societal problems (John Edwards will eliminate poverty in 30 years, following LBJ's 40-year, multi-trillion dollar failure to do just that)..."

>>

Conservatives... in large part, but especially those of the "Religious Right" and "Christian Coalition"... want to wholly eradicate societal problems as well. They just believe the answer is, generally, sectarian rather than secular AND they believe societal problems ALL stem from a LACK of CHRISTIAN morals. Thus, their answer is to MAKE this into a Christian Nation.

The difference between
a "theocracy" and the earnest desire to see each man and woman become the best he or she can be is INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. Christians believe that their weapons should be persuasion and information, and providing consequences for those actions that represent using free will to harm and dominate others for one's own selfish gain .... NOT the Marching Mommy weapon of screaming NO NO! at people and slapping legal products out of the hands of consenting adults. That is, Christians may be tiresome nags who point out that if you don't get down from that tree, you'll fall and break your arm; but Meddling Mommies have you dragged out of the tree and then cut that tree down "for the sake of The Children" usually. That is, nobody should ever be allowed to do anything that can't safely be done by an unsupervised toddler. Christians believe that we should be strengthened for the fight on an individual basis, because Satan attacks us one by one and turns us against each other on an individual basis. The Mommies see us as groups and believe that Only They have the discernment -- and they don't have to perfect themselves because they already have Perfect Understanding -- to command those Groups to do what's best for them, according to what has worked in their own perfect lives.

The major premise of the Meddling Mommies of the Liberal Church of What's Happening Now is that they and they alone are ALREADY PERFECT, and therefore qualified to force the rest of us poor gibbering ninnies to hew to their particular requirements -- while at the same time telling us over and over that we are incapable of ever doing anything for ourselves, especially that we are incapable of improving unless they lead us by the hand.

Christians do not want to lead you by the hand. Christians want to point out the road and give you a map and pray that you'll head toward Glory on your own. But except for the most desperate Christians (who may be likened to the Helicopter Mommy who refuses to let her child grow up), they don't want to chain you to their side and drag you by force.

It has always struck me as extremely odd that the Liberal can simultaneously scream YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME at any Christian who tries to explain that her lifestyle is leading her to disaster, and screaming at that same Christian I AM THE BOSS OF YOU as she forces the Christian to act against her own interests under the delusion that she herself is perfectly informed that nothing bad is going to happen if we just do whatever we want to do whenever we want to do it. The exact thinking, you know, that got us kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Not to mention got all of us in trouble when our sister assured us that pushing the neighbour child off the boat dock wouldn't lead to any bad consequences, and that of course if we jumped off the garage roof with an umbrella we'd float gently to earth unharmed.

The reason the Liberals hate Christians is the same one that makes teenagers scream I HATE YOU at their parents when the parents tell them they can't go to the Hamptons for three days with people who have no morals or self control. It's the response that inevitably responds when the respondee has run out of arguments.

The bottom line I suppose is that the Liberals realize that the only way they're going to herd society in the direction they in their perfect wisdom know is best, they have to use physical force; the Christian conservatives understand that the only right way is to deal with people as individuals and convince each individual to strive for perfection as he or she moves on through life. The Christians who flood the phone lines with offers to adopt an abandoned baby vs. the Liberals who form huge bureaucracies to study the "problem" of people abandoning babies and affirm their 'right' to dispose of said babies as they please, in effect throwing the baby out with the bath water because they can't tell the difference between the baby and the bath water.

Liberals throw money at groups because it's easy. Conservative Christians help individuals one by one because it's the only way that works.

CMoore opines:
..."AND they believe societal problems ALL stem from a LACK of CHRISTIAN morals. Thus, their answer is to MAKE this into a Christian Nation."

That may be the goal of some in the "Religious Right" or "Christian Coalition", but they are hardly a majority of those who believe in the "morality" tenets of Christianity.

I am not a "traditional" Christian, but I do choose to believe that whatever higher power that may exist would prefer his creation live by a set of rules and conscience that recognizes "good" & "evil" DO exist. And that "right" thinking should be in the pursuit of goodness, governments notwithstanding.

One only has to look at our criminal codes to see that much of what we try to protect is "good" over evil".

Better yet, when we "listen" to that little voice in our heads when contemplating an action, we generally "know" if such action is "good" or not.

I believe most "conservatives", Christian or not, simply want our government to act & behave according to the intent of our founding fathers who recognized the inevitability of imperfect man to muck it up if man began believing in self as a "higher power"... or stopped believing in the instinctive voice to recognize "good" and "evil."

AudiR10
"Meddling Mommies of the Liberal Church of What's Happening Now..."

I love it! Thanks for the oh, so accurate description and for putting a smile on my face this morning!

- Primus54

conservative worldview
Is that the only entity capable of making you do ANYTHING is government. Period.

Wail and moan about corporations and the rich all you want but in the end government has a monopoly on the use of force to achieve its goals.

This coupled with the *inherent* failings of men, and you begin to see the larger problem with trusting (men in)government with control of healthcare, retirement, food, schooling, etc.

Governments at ther best have been enormous deadweights on otherwise robust economies. At their worst they have killed more people than all the wars of the 20th century.

Why do Liberals hate Christianity?
because they do not want a moral check on their behavior. They want the options without the criticism. Christianity requires willful obedience to G*d. Meaning that the Scriptures become a source of morality, values, and doctrine. The standard of biblical conduct is the tree they want to cut down. They don't want a nation of Christians, they want a nation of Progressive Socialists who are willing to be slaves to the State. Their slaves.

Audi and CMoore
Audi, You nailed it. Exactly right!

CMoore. You attribute characteristics to Conservatives that Limbaugh did not ascribe. He spelled it out very clearly. Conservatives do NOT (as you say,)"want to wholly eradicate societal problems as well."

That can never be done. Not in this world, not in this lifetime, not by these people, or any other people.

As Limbaugh so aptly put, "Conservatives accept that government exists as a necessary evil, to prevent anarchy, establish order and maximize but not absolutize freedom. Human beings within this context will be freer to minimize, but never completely solve society's problems."

Societal problems do not stem from "a lack of Christian Morals." Man is innately, and inherently broken. A government that tries to operate outside of that premise, that "worldview" will always believe that one more law and one more program will "fix" the problem.

Conservatives understand that its up to the individual, not the law. In the end, we are each responsible for our own behavior.

If God were a scorekeeper.....
....He would not give any "points" for curing societal ills through government. The mandate is to care for one's neighbor, not give more money to the government in hopes that a fundamentally non-religious institution will do the right thing. It's not a matter of Christians or Jews or Muslims. It's that the government is incapable of making moral decisions because it is fundamentally amoral.

To those who worry about "those evil Christians" trying to "make" this country into a Christian country, let me ask....Where have you seen any Christian individual or group trying to cram belief down your throat? And where have you seen Christian principles applied in a way that is contrary to the common good?

And please don't respond with that old crap about "a woman's right to choose." Murder is not an option.

Hopefully, some of you may flag this post as "offensive." And you may then see what you're really made of.

We're Better Than Them
Yes. We are better than them. I thank God that we conservatives are good people, especially better people and better Christians than those liberal Democrat sinners.

Intrepid
Well said.

AudiR 10: Right on (and write on)
I don't mean to get overly personal, Audi, but I've taken great delight in your posts ever since I got here. The "Marching Mommy" analogy is my absolute favorite, more accurate than the "Nanny State" because it highlights the efforts of the meddlesome Left, with its Speech Codes and its Groupthink, to mingle militancy with nurturance. The best kind of nurturance is to teach a child how to think, how to consider others, how to know himself and how to make his OWN DECISIONS -- but the "Marching Mommies" are only interested in training their precious "children" to follow in lock-step. Teaching the young to think for themselves is too dangerous. Far better to convince the young to identify themselves with a Group and embrace a Victim Ideology which disregards individual responsibility and the consequences of actions/choices. Far better to persuade them that every problem they have is Somebody Else's Fault, and then aim them like a weapon at the Somebody Else we choose.

Yet not all the Marching Mommies are on the Left, nor are they all secular in outlook. Some who would call themselves Right Wing are just as in favor of the Nanny State, particularly when THEY can play Nanny and make important decisions for everybody else. Case in point: a harridan from Gwinnett County who has decided to make it her Life's Work to remove Rowling's Harry Potter series from the county's libraries. Judge after judge after judge has ruled against her, even the highest authority in the state, but she won't let her vendetta go, or acknowledge that while she has a perfect right to keep HER children from reading books she disapproves of (until they get old enough to seek them out on their own, of course) but no right whatsoever to usurp the responsibilities of other parents in the county. This lady has waaaaaay too much time on her hands.

This lady and her ilk (primarily on the Left, but occasionally on the Right as well) make two crucial and seemingly contradictory mistakes: 1) they want to make vital decisions for everyone else, and 2) they want the government to make decisions for them, to let themselves off the hook and protect them from the potentially bad consequences of their own choices. They want the world shaped in their own image, a perfect reflection of what they have determined is right and good -- hence the term "Political Correctness." If only one perspective is "Correct" from the get-go, then bye-bye debate; bye-bye the free exchange of ideas; indoctrination suddenly makes sense, becoming a good in itself if we only want to show others the "Correct" way.

And so the Marching Mommies go on, making America worse with every new crusade.

But I will go on reading Harry Potter and J.R.R. Tolkien and the Brothers Grimm and all those other "dangerous books," and putting up Christmas trees, and speaking the word "God" aloud, and keeping a gun handy for purposes of self-defense. Marching Mommies be d---ed.


Dave
shhh. "They'll" hear you.

Audi - Excellent!
You really hit the nail on the head!!! Perfect write-up!

Christians and the left
I have a number of liberal friends that go completely whacko when they start talking about "dangerous right wing Christians." I recall that one started talking about legislation to get them under control. This was not an uneducated man speaking. The only problem with his argument was that he could not name one of these dangerous right wing Christians.

I have attended fundamentalist Christian chuches and gatherings These people focus on individual conduct. Because they oppose abortion they are seen as anti-woman. Because they oppose homosexuality they are seen as homophobes. These are their religious beliefs and they do not make them dangerous. They also teach their congregations to live the 10 commandments. I guess that's what makes them dangerous.

They expressly support free will.

Gene Touchet
"teaching the young to think...is too dangerous."

Touchet, you do realize that that is a trait she ascribes to LIBERALS,"Marching Mommies," Not conservatives? You got that part, right?

brujo blanco
Libs have never been taught to think for themselves, so of course they can't be trusted with FREE WILL! They might run off and become Conservatives!

Conservative Values more closely
Mirror the values taught by Christ. Liberals mistake the Government role in caring for the poor. Like someone said, Christ encouraged each of us to give to the poor of our own free will. I do not appreciate the government overtaxing me and giving my money to the "poor" homosexuals who just cannot seem to figure out what God made our bodies for.
I get tired of seeing my tax dollars being spent to support abortion for the "poor" teens that simply refuse to take the pill or use condoms. I get really tired of liberals preaching to me about how bad our President is for vetoing a bill that would fund experimenting on embryos. (read "little babies" heartbeat audible 17 days after conception)
A hard-core liberal cannot keep a straight face and claim to be a Christian. If they can they are either an abject liar, a total fool, or both.

Brujo Blanco
How can Christians “expressly support free will” while opposing homosexuality? Unless you believe that homosexuals are born that way, their behavior is expressly free willed. I’m not being a smart Alec like I was yesterday (sorry), but you are contradicting yourself.

Verbivore: You are joining in this error with your comment. The same could be said for conservatives; that if they were taught to think for themselves and not let their religion think for them they would have no problem with individuals exercising their free will through homosexuality.

Elimination of state AS church
The Bible says: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." It doesn't say: Give sufficiently to Caesar so Caesar can do God's work.
Giving charity to those in need benefits both the giver and receiver. Collecting ever higher taxes so that government can help the needy benefits no one: giving becomes obligation and receiving becomes entitlement. The giver resents the receiver and the receiver has no motivation to make positive changes in their life.
By erecting a social safety net, government makes things worse, not better, as more people are tempted to walk the high wire. The safety net allows people the freedom to do stupid things at another's expense. Freedom requires personal responsibility, yet liberals are intent on subsidizing bad behavion.

choices
Not sure what you are saying, Mike. Free Will, as Christians use it, is actually a theological term. My previous comments were ironical-- spinning off of something someone said about Pamela's remarks. Sort of like, "Well, Gee, we can't let people think for themselves, they might.....make choices that are bad for them..."

As for Homosexuality, people will continue to make that CHOICE. That is not my call. What I (and conservatives) are against, is legislation legitimizing and mainstreaming that behavior. Prelutsky made a good point in his article this morning when he said: "I have yet to hear a homosexual explain to my satisfaction why his group should be the single exception to the one man-one woman arrangement that’s worked just fine for several millennia."


the real difference btwn libs and cons
The real difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives generally like hard and fast boundaries, whereas liberals are more comfortable with softer more maleable boundaries.

The difference between me and a shameless demogogue like David Limbaugh is that I don't think that one of these worldviews is right and good, and the other wrong and bad.

I believe that every country needs a healthy left and a healthy right. (Which is only possible with a genuine right to freedom of speech.) This leads to a society in which boundaries can be brought down or softened or shifted when appropriate, and it ensures that boundaries that need to remain solid and imovable, remain solid and immovable.

Overall, this leads to a society that is stable, yet flexible. In other words, it leads to a balanced society.

Liberals and conservatives will always argue with each other. And this is as it should be. We are like the left and right sides of the brain battling for control, cut off one half of the brain and we become complete basket cases.

Or we are like the marriage between male and female, while there may be maddening and incomprehensible differences between us, each is necessary to compensate for the other's weaknesses.

People like the Limbaughs and the Pragers and the Roves are bad for the country because they are actively encouraging one side of the equation to eradicate or destroy the other side.

Please folks, don't fall for their demagogy. It's bad for you, and bad for the country.

Phylo out.

God vs State
I pray it never happens, but the minute the majority of our country stops believing in God and starts believing that man and the state are the true powers we will truly be done as a nation.

The liberal dream of a "secular" nation will result in our country's collapse. Mankind will not follow the rules of society simple because it is "the law".

"Morality is the necessary spring of popular government...Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without Christianity." - George Washington

“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering. But if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.” - Daniel Webster,

Verbivore
Ok, I understand now. I thought you were being serious when you wrote that Libs have never been taught to think for themselves. I will read Prelutsky’s article too. It sounds interesting.

Confronting liberalism…

Many thanks to Columbo for your words.

Liberalism is the result of forgetting the why of the founding principles and exchanging those things derived from a Christian consensus to something else derived from autonomous human reason. The revealed truth of God appealed to by our Founders is no longer our authority. Man will always deify himself apart from revealed truth.

The inconsistencies you see are part of the processes of transformation. Western culture with a foundation in Biblical Christianity provides the base for liberalism; it requires a free society under the rule of law to flourish.

A radical change can occur by revolution or by gradual increments. Liberalism is on our way to Marxism. It has no basis for law or morality. Our free society will give way to authoritarianism. This is always the result of the vain philosophies of men, if unrestrained by revealed truth.

Mr. Limbaugh fails to give the free church its proper role in maintaining freedom. Liberalism will fail because it offers an empty salvation in the state. The first need of men is redemption. The Son of Man did not come to establish state government, but to accomplish redemption for all those who repent and believe the gospel.

Let’s continue to push back the frontiers of liberalism.

I agree!
Phylo, You've actually expressed it pretty well. Society needs both libs and conservatives. And conservatives need to soften those rough edges of the libs. That unrelenting "mallaebleness." That moral relativness and the doing away with absolutes."

I promise not to get into a discussion of absolutes. I agree with everything you said except for the part about Limbaugh, Prager, Rove, etc.


Monty wrote:
"(1) If that is the *main* difference, and that is what conservatives believe, then why not use government as a tool to correct the sinful condition of mankind?"

Did you really think about that before writing it?

First, gov't is not a god. It has absolutely no power to "correct the sinful condition of mankind". At the very best, it can limit the outward manifestations of the inward man.

Second, that "use" of government would require that government be purged of the very fallibility that it proposes to correct in society, right? Some liberals, aka Hillary Clinton, actually appear to believe in their own moral superiority to do precisely this... to solve people's problems for them because they are to incompetent to take responsibility for themselves. However the truth is that the centralization of power increases temptation and accentuates man's depraved cravings. Elitist liberals like Hillary or Edwards forgive their own "minor" sins because they believe their ultimate goals are morally superior, ie. the elimination of poverty. But, it is those very "minor" sins that have the cummulative effect of corrupting gov't and/or society.

The Founders and incidentally modern conservative/libertarians saw/see limited gov't as a means to minimize the evil men could do. Further, self-governing people tend to be held in check by the rights of their neighbors. One of the principle problems with liberalism is that it teaches a perverted view of what constitutes a right. They believe that rights are derived from government and can be created, ie. a "right" to health care. The truth is that only God creates "rights". Gov't either protects them or confiscates them... usually selling them back selectively to the advantage of politicians.

Liberals don't see the right to live as an absolute. They don't see property rights as legitimate much less absolute. In fact, they disagree on the inviolability of almost all of the "rights" the Founders counted as inalienable. Even the left wing screeches about privacy violations are more due to who is deciding who to spy rather than whether gov't has the right to do it. (Do you really think we would have heard a peep from leftist Dems if President Clinton had done what Bush did?)

Limbaugh is absolutely right that the differences in conclusions come from the fact that the two sides start from different worldview points.

Icedog said...
"I pray it never happens, but the minute the majority of our country stops believing in God and starts believing that man and the state are the true powers we will truly be done as a nation."

It has already happened. The issue is whether it can be reversed.

Which model of caring for the elderly do most Christians ascribe to today? The one where children are responsible or the one where the state is?

Which model of education do the vast majority of today's Christians believe in? The one Jefferson favored when he suggested it must remain in the hands of the people and churches or else gov't would subdue the people or the massive gov't control mechanism in existence today. The power to educate is the power to indoctrinate.

The founders believed that property rights were inalienable and God given... even if you didn't think a rich person were generous enough toward the poor. Is that the attitude of most believers in God today?

Belief in God is by mere mental assent isn't enough. You have to believe enough to promote and live by actions consistent with His revealed truths. The modern statism of American is not consistent with that truth... and that is why we are decaying as a society and nation.

Government and God don't mix
Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

Christianity is the toughest thing in the world. That is why "Christians" are not OF this world although they are IN the world.

Free Will, oddly enough, "costs" us the most. It costs us our souls when we put ourselves above God through pride.

I believe that Christians, once again, are being driven underground (catacomb syle)in order to practice our beliefs. It is not the Christians who are trying to steal freedom from anyone. It is secularism that twists and turns the truth and so if Christians say abortion is wrong--homosexuality is wrong-pride is wrong--secularism rears up and says, "Aha! That is UN-Christian! Judge not lest ye be judged!" However. We have been given commandments by our God which allow us to USE judgement. We use judgement every second of every day. Just deciding what we want for breakfast causes us to use judgment. Secularism plays on words. Tries to make us "feel" bad when, instinctively, our consciences KNOW that we are not trying to be bad when we attempt to "influence" our world by means of the government. If Christianity is a way of life--how can we separate our beliefs from our life? Christians will continue to be in every walk of life. That is the only reason our nation has not eradicated itself thus far. Because Christians pray. Secularists prey.

Monty also wrote...
"(2) Considering that no conservatives have really ascended to power and held fast to conservative principles (not even Reagan, though he was better than one who shall remain nameless), much as is the case with liberals, why don't we all agree that ideologues should go stuff themselves and leave the governing to serious people concerned with results?"

Because we can't agree on what the results should be. Conservatives believe that the result should be a society under a small gov't with the limited purposes of protecting rights and defending the nation. Liberals believe that the results should be an "equitable" society where a massive gov't uses its power to ensure what they consider "fair" outcomes.

Conservatives (more accurately small "l" libertarians) believe in freedom with individual responsibility for the outcomes... even if those outcomes seem harsh, they are a means of disciplining society to order and harmony. Liberals believe in unlimited freedom with gov't rescuing people and effectively subsidizing destructive behaviors.

This is before we even get to a discussion of the means to achieve the goals. Reagan did as much as he could with the limitation of a Dem Congress... but the monster created by liberals over the past 70-90 years very effectively squelches true libertarianism. If Jefferson, Madison, or any of our other founding idealists were alive today, there is no way the liberal institutions of education, media, and politics would let them get anywhere close to the reigns of power or influence.

truetolife
I think you may be right about Christians being driven "underground." But it's likely years in the making. Sometimes I think that would be the best thing for the church. I mean, not that we want that, or seek that, but such a thing will sharpen and hone our faith like nothing else.

As long as we "refuse" to separate our beliefs from our life, we are a "threat." Secularists cannot control a people who will not bow and will not submit. To them, There can be no god but humanism.

Gov't and God MUST mix
Not by the institution of a national religion but by adherence to a godly standard of "truth". Truth exists. It isn't purely material as modernism said. It is relative as post-modernism says. It exists as a consistent standard over morality, spirituality, and all things material.

When politicians deny the existence of an absolute standard, they effectively deify themselves. Religion and in particular an internally consistent religion like Christianity is requisite if hope to have a just state. That standard of truth MUST inform and control the ideals of leaders.

Should have wrote...
"It is NOT relative as post-modernism says..." rather than "is".