Tag Archives: rights

•

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.

•

Had No Rights

He had no rights
No right to a soft bed, and a well-laid table.
No right to a home of His own, a place where His own pleasure might be sought.
No right to choose pleasant, congenial companions,  those who could understand Him and sympathize with Him.
No right to shrink away from filth and sin, to pull His garments closer around Him and turn aside to walk in cleaner paths.
No right to be understood and appreciated; no, not by those upon whom He had poured out a double portion of His love.
No right even never to be forsaken by His Father, the One who meant more than all to Him.

His only right was silently to endure shame, spitting, blows; to take His place as a sinner at the dock; to bear my sins in anguish on the cross.

He had no rights. And I?
A right to the “comforts” of life? No, but a right to the love of God for my pillow.
A right to physical safety? No, but a right to the security of being in His will.
A right to love and sympathy from those around me? No, but a right to the friendship of the One who understands me better than I do myself.
A right to be a leader among men? No, but the right to be led by the One to whom I have given my all, led as is a little child, with its hand in the hand of its father.
A right to a home, and dear ones? No, not necessarily, but a right to dwell in the heart of God.
A right to myself? No, but oh, I have a right to Christ.

All that He takes I will give. All that He gives I will take.
He, my only right! He, the one right before which all other rights fade into nothingness.
I have full right to Him.
Oh, may He have full right to me!