I just noticed that I had the numbering off on this section of an old post. I fixed it and reposted because I think it is good to review the presumptions liberals go by when it comes to "values".
The list again:
Liberals are guided by some presumptions about these values issues that just are not correct. Let’s look at some of them one by one.
Presumption number one: Separation of Church and State mandates that Christian (or any religious) values be barred from law making and governing.
There are about a million wrong presumptions underneath this one position alone. I’m just going to touch the tip of the ice burg as to why they are wrong. Liberals are under the impression that the Separation of Church and State is to protect the government from the Church. Actually, the policy of Separation, which is not in the constitution, was intended to protect the Church from the government. Remember the Church of England and the Pilgrims and all that? America was founded on the idea of living in a place where the government doesn’t mess with your religious institutions.
James Madison, the chief framer of the Constitution, said: We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, but upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.
Each major precept of the Constitution was taken almost directly if not right out the Bible.
Though the Christian religion had the most to do with the founding of the country the framers put in the idea of freedom of religion to allow for all forms of religion to live in this country.
The pledge of allegiance says "… one nation under God…" but it doesn’t say that you have to believe in this God but as an American you should acknowledge the idea of God and the fact that our founders based the rights and laws of this nation on their belief in God. That is our heritage be you Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian or atheist. It is like agreeing with the "Olympic Spirit" and appreciating the heritage and history of the Olympics but you don’t have to believe in Zeus or Hercules. If I lived in Japan, for example, I wouldn’t believe in the old religions of Japanese history but I would respect the laws these religions may have produced in the government and I would respect the heritage and history of the country. If, indeed, Japan didn’t force me to be a part of any religion, I would live as a Christian there but I wouldn’t feel the need to expunge from Japanese cultural traditions any remnant of those other religions.
In deed, the apostles of Christ said that pagan meat offered to idols was all right to eat if you knew the truth. The apostles never advocated going out to subvert governments and to disrespect other heritages.
But, now in the USA we have nonbelievers wanting even more than their right to not believe. They want to erase any semblance of God in our heritage. It’s their heritage too but instead of honoring those whom they received so much and may even come from they want to rewrite the past and they spit on the documents, traditions, heritage and principles of those who founded the nation and made it great.
So, why do they hate the heritage of the very nation they live in? My attempt at an answer: Because the one true and living God is worshiped here and He knocks on the door of their hearts and it makes them uncomfortable.
Let’s look at Israel. Not every Jew is a believing Jew but you don’t hear about some native Israeli subculture screaming about the Star of David and the public displays of the Torah (not yet anyway). The misinterpretation of the Separation of Church and State and also the mistaken belief that it’s in the Constitution has created an entire movement whose whole agenda and strategy is based on misinformation, fear and hatred.
In short, Christianity has a lot to do with our government and that is as it always has been and should be. Every country has its heritage by which it is guided by. There is nothing wrong with that. We are not a Christian nation but we are a nation founded on and guided by principles borrowed from Christianity.
Presumption number two: Republicans are for the rich and they hate the poor.
Once again, we could write all week on how this is not true, at all! The liberals base this simple conclusion on the tendency for Republicans to grant tax breaks to the higher tax brackets. Focusing on that is a good way to create class warfare that helps you politically as the liberal candidate but it is not going to speak to the truth.
Here is a parable:
"Understanding Tax Cuts"
by: David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20" Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the
other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.
"We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for
even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
Unless you are among the rich, you are probably benefitting from someone richer than you. If you have a job, you are being paid by someone with more money than you. Your life is dependent on your employers to continue to make money and employ you. What helps business, big or small, helps us all.
When liberals lose the battle over why these tax breaks are bad they blame Republicans for job loss. The idea is that corporations move jobs over seas to save money because they are greedy. I know that many bring up outsourcing of jobs but the truth is that though this is a problem, it is an exaggerated problem. Robert J. Samuelson of Newsweek wrote in the September 6 issue that "The stories about software jobs and call-centers moving to India aren’t make-believe. But the numbers are small." He cites the Brookings Institution that says only about four percent of mass layoffs in the past two years can be attributed to "import competition" and "relocation overseas." Even if these estimates are too low, they suggest that the impact of job loss abroad is exaggerated, says Charles Schultze of the Brookings Institution as cited by Newsweek.
Liberals would rather give handouts keeping the poor dependent on them (which gives them more power, hummmm, much like communist strategy) than to actually see these people be motivated to work and make their own future. Republicans tend to want to give people the tools to make for themselves. I ask, what is better?
Presumption number three: A woman’s right to choose (to have an abortion) is a civil right that is good and just.
It is a civil right granted by the Supreme Court marginally and is contested even by the original people who first wanted abortion rights. It is not really a civil right granted by the Constitution or even by common sense. It is murder – much worse, murder often based on convenience. Even if you are not religious one must have some sense of respect for human life no matter what stage it is in. Civilization depends upon this basic respect. The unborn are the most vulnerable among us and their only right prior to Roe V. Wade was that the law saw fit that mothers would not be given the right to kill them.
Presumption number four: Democrats have a corner on civil rights.
This is not historically correct nor presently true. Martin Luther King and his followers had more in common with Evangelical Christians than they do with the liberals of today.
Presumption number five: Republicans are white racists.
The Reagan, Bush Sr. and W. Bush administrations have done more for black people than any other, even Clinton’s. Just look at Bush’s past cabinet members. The racist card is a blatant lie that liberals use when they are desperate.
Presumption number six: Gay marriage should be a civil right.
This is a huge issue. This and abortion are more important than the war and the economy put together. I could make the case that the state of our country in all other issues rests in how we decide these two moral issues alone. Every nation that has become a-moral or immoral in history has soon after fallen into ruins. That is a huge historical statistic and even if you are not religious it should be evident that there must be some social reasons for this.
Marriage is and always has been in every religion and civilization a union between a man and a woman. Marriage is not just about love but a variety of things. Marriage today is abused by many people, yes, but it is still the basic building block of civilization. You redefine this brick and it may crumble causing the whole castle to fall.
Marriage needs the two opposites. It is the yin and the yang, the male and the female that makes a family. Balance is good. Balance is key. Marriage is a stabilizing institution within society – one of the last ones we have.
Gay and lesbian couples already have civil unions but we undercut all history and civilization if we have the audacity to call it marriage. I’m not sure they should even have civil unions but that is another issue all together. (Liberals reading this won’t be able to concentrate any further as in their glee they now believe the have a bit of homophobia on me after that last sentence.)
Yes, married people have certain incentives granted by the government that the unmarried do not have but the government wants to motivate people to enter into unions that have the best chance of creating children and also that these children will be in healthy balanced families. The incentives are for the possible children more than anyone else. Yes, I know, gay couples can adopt but the amount of adoptive children is far less than the ones who are born into families every year. Also, children adopted by homosexual couples are not going to get the benefits of having both a father and a mother– remember that balance thing?
But all I hear is how gay couples aren’t offered the same incentives as married people and there is this massive "boo-whoo" vocalized by the entire movement. It seems sort of disingenuous to me. If it was really about these incentives than why don’t they recruit all the anti-social ugly straight people who feel they too will never get married to join them. I don’t think most really care about the few incentives that are offered married people. To the gay and lesbian movement, it is more about prestige and justifying further their own lifestyle. One thing that has separated homosexuals and heterosexuals is marriage. Before, this separation was welcome by homosexuals as they did not want to be part of the mainstream but now it is about becoming part of the mainstream. It is about forcing their a-moral world view on everyone else. Marriage granted to them is just one more step in the process.
One can not equate homosexual rights with the same sort of civil rights sought by races. This is not a race issue. It is a lifestyle issue. Marriage is a lifestyle choice that has been chosen by heterosexual couples since the beginning of time. The insane liberalism that has invaded our country wants to subvert this institution. For so many years gay people didn’t care about marriage because they wanted their lifestyles to be in direct opposition to the rest of society. Today they want to be considered the last frontier of the civil rights movement so they will use any card they can find that when played will cause them to be seen as discriminated against. Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t for a second have any of this in mind.
We need a constitutional amendment because the founders of the constitution never even dreamt that one day marriage would have to be defined! Gay marriage truly is an oxymoron.
I do not hate gay people. I know it is going to be the temptation of those who oppose my stance on this issue to dismiss my arguments by saying that I must hate gay people, that I’m (here comes the buzz word) "homophobic." I don’t even know what they mean by "homophobic". I don’t fear gay people. I have a very good friend who is gay and I do not fear him. I believe that homosexuality is a sin but regardless of whether it is a sin or not, homosexual relationships could never be marriage by definition of the word.
This issue is about redefining a word that has existed since the earliest times. There are very good social reasons why this definition should remain and it has nothing to do with hating or stopping homosexuals from living their chosen lives.
I have much more to say on this issue and about other homosexual topics but not right now.
Moving on...
Presumption number seven: Republicans will make health care unavailable to most people.
There is much to say about this but let me just say this: People in Canada boast about their free health care but when they have something serious they make an appointment in Rochester Minnesota and are willing to pay whatever it costs to get down here. Waiting lines and sub-par health care don’t cut it when you realize you have cancer.
Presumption number eight: Making friends with France is a moral obligation.
So the liberals want to talk about reaching out to the rest of the world. Ok, let’s talk about reaching out. Who reaches out more than us?
The rest of the world owes a lot to us. We feed, clothe and protect most of the world. We have the most foreign aid programs and the most charities. We are the freest greatest country in the world and we just liberated millions of people. Who are the French? What have they done for freedom besides subvert it?
Side note: I recently heard that hundreds of thousands of Christians in India were on a praying campaign for our election. They did not presumptiously tell us how to vote like the snobby readers of "The Guardian" newspaper in the UK but rather prayed that we would vote wisely in whatever way that may be. I think they are pleasantly happy with the results. The world is not all against Bush.
Presumption number nine: It is always wrong to force your personal beliefs on someone else.
This is not really a presumption but more of a disingenuous load of crap that people use when they run out of arguments. We all find ourselves in situations where we feel the need to force an issue or mandate that other people do something or another. Senator John Kerry tried to avoid the issue of abortion by saying he would never force his personal beliefs on others but on all other issues he has beliefs and on all other issues he meant to force them and several of them have moral ramifications. It is virtually impossible to take a position of leadership and not force some of your personal beliefs (religious or otherwise) on others.
An example is parenting. Parents have to force their beliefs about right and wrong on their children until the children are old enough to decide on their own. If parents didn’t do this their children would run wild and what’s worse is they could get injured. Obviously, not everything a parent believes about parenting may be correct but they certainly have to guide their kids who can’t make the decisions.
When we are talking about situations other than parenting it may be a little different but the idea remains that a civilized society needs a governing force that will control the behavior of the citizens for their well being. Those in government are not intellectually or even spiritually free agents but are subject to what ever world view they have been taught or have adopted.
The judges in our legal system use their personal beliefs all the time to guide their decision making. Everyone has a world view and that world view affects everything we do and say whether we know it or not.
So, the next time someone is arguing with you and they are stating a belief that they hold that is in direct opposition to your belief don’t take the cowards way out by telling them that they can’t use their belief in a real world practical way because what you are really saying is that their beliefs are wrong and they can’t use it but yours are right and you can use yours. The real argument should be about whose world view is closer to reality. If you are too afraid to argue your world view than you have no business arguing politics either.
In the world of ideas, liberals seem to lose more often than they win. This past election was an outward sign of that. That is also why they resort to activist judges to force something through when they can’t seem to convince enough people to vote for it.
Do we really want a judicial system like this? In Canada they have absolutely no control over their Supreme Courts and it subverts the will of the majority of Canadians constantly.
In short, personal beliefs are important and it is good to consider what candidates believe in. I have heard it said and I repeat it often- "Politics is the practical hand of religion and philosophy." | 
