Tag Archives: liberty

Quotes from Acton Institute Power Blog.

Many of these quotes put me in mind of leftists who cannot abide "Conscience Clauses" regarding forcing Christians to participate in the celebration of gay unions.

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only be reason and convection, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.

—James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance

While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.

—George Washington, Letter to Benedict Arnold

Every man must give an account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in that way that he can best reconcile to his conscience . . . . It would be sinful for a man to surrender that to man which is to be kept sacred for God.

—John Leland, The Rights of Conscience Inalienable


And on a dumber note, a leftist tries to post a few "gotcha questions" for conservatives.

1. As opponents of “big government,” why do you fervently support an unending stream of government-sponsored wars, vast government military spending, the power of local police to shoot and kill unarmed citizens, government interference with abortion rights and family planning, government restrictions on marriage, and the linkage of church and state?

Answers (in order)

A) unending stream of government-sponsored wars,

We don't.  We support the unending obligation of the federal government to protect our people, land, liberty.  Those who support "unjust wars" should be questioned as to why they consider themselves "conservative."

B) vast government military spending

We don't.  Members of Congress excepted, most conservatives I know want to see government waste of all types curbed, including military spending.  If money was used wisely, less would be spent.

C) the power of local police to shoot and kill unarmed citizens

Hat tip to Ferguson and the rest of the "unarmed" thugs.

This question makes it sound as if local police are wandering around shooting random citizens (lie.)

I believe that (like every other human being) local police officers than the right to defend themselves if they believe their lives or the lives of others are in danger.  Outside of that, police who are involved in shootings should be investigated and taken to court, should a grand jury (or other official group) think it appropriate.  Oh wait.  That happened and the leftists still are not happy.

D)government interference with abortion rights and family planning

By "abortion rights" you mean the right to kill an innocent unborn.

Do you see the hypocrisy?

a police officer defending themselves against a thug trying to wrestle their weapon away = bad.  Murdering an unborn child before they have a chance to take their first breath = good.

The second lie becomes visible in recent politics.

Conservatives do NOT wish to interfere with adults practicing family planning.

Conservatives DO wish to interfere with the government forcing businesses to act against their deeply held religious beliefs.

E) government restrictions on marriage

Since the government began requiring citizens to get the state's permission to marry, there have been restrictions, whether that be incestual relationships, polygamous relationships, etc.

It's interesting to note that in many  of the states where the courts (government entities) have overthrown the only definition of marriage that we've ever had, it has been the citizens who have voted for constitutional amendments defining "marriage"

So, in reality, we have the majority of citizens voting for the traditional definition of marriage, and the state, petitioned by the minority, telling us "we can't do that."

F) the linkage of church and state?\

the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Let's see.  Has Congress tried to establish a state religion?  No?

And actually, the "free exercise thereof" is being violated - BY THE LEFTISTS!

To even ask that section is another example of the rank hypocrisy of the left.

That's only the first question and my head hurts from the "Alinskyism"




(In preparation for the upcoming election cycle - with an eye toward "where faith and politics intersect."

when I discuss the "contraception mandate" or the "gay agenda", I specifically use the term "leftist" instead of "liberal."

I've heard the question asked again and again, "why can't we reach a compromise?"

I believe the answer lies in the "rise of the wings" - classic liberalism and classic conservatism had much in common. When the "wings" - right wing and left wing - move further and further apart, compromise becomes more difficult.

Classic conservatism and classic liberalism had, more or less, the same goals. Left wing politics and right wing politics do not.

One problem is that modern politics don't use Biblical meanings. Christianity stresses personal responsibility, while the following thoughts on political conservatism stress societal responsibility. Liberal politics stress individual rights, but not responsibility.

A couple of basic definitions:

Conservative: A traditional conservative will support any social institution (public or private) that promotes and maintains social order and public good. A traditional conservative will emphasize the social/societal (both social responsibility and social benefit) over the isolated individual. (link)

Liberal: When the term “liberalism” (from the Latin word liberalis, meaning “pertaining to a free man”) first emerged in the early 1800s, it was founded on an unwavering belief in individual rights, the rule of law, limited government, private property, and laissez faire economics. These would remain the defining characteristics of liberalism throughout the liberal epoch, generally identified as the period from 1815-1914.

I'm looking for a simple comparison between "conservative" and "right wing" - which will be useful. But for time being, here is a short comparison between "liberal" and "leftist:"

Similarly, a liberal believes in and defends our Western heritage, while desiring to make it more egalitarian. A leftist is instinctively hostile to the Western heritage, regarding it as fundamentally unequal and therefore bad, and only redeemable through radical change. link

we are seeing it more and more, most publicly in both the "gay marriage" debate (you WILL celebrate the gay, or be sued) and the Hobby Lobby decision (Leftists are getting ever more open about wanting to eradicate religious liberty.)

And so it begins.


Yes...the "in peace" is necessary, to protect from accusations that freedom to practice a religion in peace leaves the idea open for abuse and violence. ANY idea is open for abuse; that's a fact of life in a fallen world.  That does not mean the idea is bad...it means people are bad.

That said, if a person chooses to practice their religion in the way that they believe most honors God and if that way is not proven to be inherently harmful to others,  they should be allowed to practice in peace.

we have a student in our class (I'll call her Maria - NOT her real name) who is a Jehovah's Witness.   Today is Maria's birthday.  And yet...even though Maria tells us that "we don't celebrate birthdays", our lead teacher had us bake a cake in cooking class and the students sang happy birthday (led by another staff).   As a Christian, I have a real issue with a public school employee directly choosing to introduce into a specific student's school day an action that is in direct contradiction to a parent's  religious conviction.

* there are times when the entire class participates in a "thing" that is contrary to a religious conviction - this is the opposite of what I am talking about.  At Christmas time we went to Meijer Garden to see Christmas trees.  Maria stayed home rather than participate in an event for the entire class.  Today, Maria was the reason for the celebration.  I have had people of other religions in classes before and they are pretty understanding of the class as a whole - students have eaten birthday cake and Christmas candy, yet not taken part in the "party scene".

A run down on situations I have run into:

  • Valentine's - some do, some don't.  A student who has parents who teach them that giving valentine's is glorifying humans rather than God should not be pressured to give valentine's
  • Going out for pizza - last year I had a Muslim student; just try taking a class out for pizza and finding a place that can assure us that pork has never touched either the pizza or the equipment it was prepared with.
  • Christmas - we have a young man who REALLY wants to be in choir.  He loves to sing, but the main feature of the school choir is a Christmas concert.
  • sex ed - we have an "opt-out" clause that allows a parent to review the curriculum and opt their student out of sex ed that teaches that which the parent does not want taught.
  • Harry Potter (and like that).  There were two second grade students at a school that I worked at several years ago whose parents wanted them to leave the classroom when Harry Potter was being read.  The teacher not only refused to design an alternate lesson plan (which could have been as simple as having them go with another class to P.E.), she also made it clear to the class what was happening, opening up the boys for ridicule.

If a school cannot make a case that NOT celebrating a birthday, NOT eating pork is harmful, NOT singing in the Christmas concert is harmful, NOT reading Harry Potter is harmful...then leave the students alone.

We knew this was coming, but it is still frightening.

The Speech Code of the Month "Award" goes to Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.

Richard Stockton's anti-harassment policy not only infringes on protected speech - it explicitly infringes on the free exchange of ideas in the classroom setting.

Here is the policy: "All forms of unlawful discrimination based upon race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, marital status, familial status, affectional or sexual orientation, atypical herededitary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, liability for service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or disability are prohibited and will not be tolerated."

The policy also prohibits "Displaying or distributing material in the academic setting that contains language or images that are derogatory or demeaning, based on any of the foregoing classifications." The policy also notes:“harassment or the creation of a hostile work environment can occur even if there was no intent on the part of an individual to harass or demean another” (emphasis added).

FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) notes: Since “derogatory” and “demeaning” are not defined, students are left to guess at what a fellow student or professor might find “derogatory” or “demeaning.” This is made worse by the fact that the policy does not require intent on the part of the “harasser,” and explicitly applies to classroom speech. In other words, students who express an opinion in the classroom that someone else interprets as derogatory or demeaning may be punished. One can imagine many legitimate classroom discussions in which this might happen, such as: a student in an American politics class who opposes affirmative action or gay marriage; a student in a women’s studies class who suggests that men are responsible for society’s ills; or a student in a religion class who expresses the opinion that religion is fantasy or escapism. The result of a policy like this is a terrible chilling effect on student speech in the classroom, stifling the free exchange of ideas that is so crucial to a liberal arts education.

This policy "applies to conduct which occurs in the workplace/educational environment and also extends to conduct which occurs at any location that can be reasonably regarded as an extension of the college, such as any field location, any off-site camput-related social function, or any facility where Richard Stockton College of New Jersey business is being conducted or discussed."

Extend this out a couple of years...a young person at a football game who turns down a date (on campus) because the person asking is gay (or straight), or for religious reasons could reasonably have a complaint filed against them...