The Political Division of the Nation between Liberals and Conservatives is Ruining Liberty But There is a Proposed Path to Resolution
Introduction: Masses on Both Sides Do Not Understand True Liberty
Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and many other political activists are caught in a major social battle today. One party wants to extend "marriage" rights to those of the same sex. Another party wants to limit legal marriage to "traditional" views that are sometimes called Judeo-Christian values but inconsistently so because any person with any reading ability can at the very least recognize the Jews had polygynous relationships in their society.
Nonetheless, the battle at the polls wages on and year after year it seems like the community is pitted further and further against one another. Neighbors grow more and more afraid of one another and turn to the political sector in order to try and make their view the required view of the day.
Now, if you are a overly sensitive reader, or if you can't stomach a challenge then you had better just stop reading right now. This article is not your typical cotton candy, sugary, soft, and lighthearted post. It is rather a serious challenge for Americans in general and theistic ones in particular to grow a spine and learn a little about what it means to believe in true liberty that works for all, not just for a select few. So if you are a constructionist or reconstructionist ideologue who seeks to use the sword to impose your religious views on everyone else because you're too weak, lazy, or unable for whatever reason to get others to live a certain way without the power of the sword making it be that way you will likely not like me too much if you read this article.
Or if you are the weak liberal minded ideologue who wants it your way but in that you also want to make your way everyone elses' way because you are too weak, lazy, or unable for whatever reason to convince people through the art of moral persuasion and thus you too want to use the sword to make others see and live as you do through the power of the sword then you too are not going to like me either if you read further.
It is both of those groups who I see and believe to be at the root of the problem in modern day civil spheres as both groups really do not believe in liberty but rather believe in tyrannicalness rule by a few over all. It is these who oppose liberty both ways who in reality undermine not only our great American way but also even distort God's way.
A Proposed Solution: Inalienable Rights Means Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for All, Not Just those in Ruling Power
We have a problem in this land and herein is a solution. The problem is many people refuse to give people of peace their liberty to exercise that liberty in peace. The solution is for people of all all good moral will to rise up and defend a person's life and liberty even if they defend someone who lives, acts, and differs with the way they personally live out their liberty!
But to all of those, from any and every political party, to no party at all, who seek to restrain peaceful liberty that is a sign of a deeper problem than many are at first willing to admit. People of our land, people who profess that there is at least a God or provident ruler, or natural laws of nature that governs life have failed to recognize two truths that are fundamental to a prosperous society and peaceful society. The failure of those two truths is so because of a failure of character in two underlying areas.
Twin Truths: Liberty and Justice to All
The two truths are: (1)liberty and (2) justice for all. A person could indeed add to that life but since we are focused here on those living and seeking to act in certain ways we will focus just on the liberty of an existing life since a person who neither exists or is dead does not have any liberty, at least not when speaking in an earthly civil sense (for those who rightly affirm heaven and hell that is another sphere outside the purpose of this discussion). One party often wants to make laws that prohibit another person's liberty. But that contrasts the spirit of our great founding fathers. Even if a person's liberty might destroy himself or herself it is a principle our original forefathers died for. Read that last phrase again, they died for it. They died for it. They died for it. They died for it. Do you get it: they were willing to die for it and many actually DIED for it! Few today would. And then even of the rest many are not even willing to stand up for everyone's right to liberty through their voice and political action! Such wimps abound, yet its worse than that, they are not just cowards but they are selfish wimps who despise not just the American way but even God's way! Men and women both have embraced political tyranny over and above principled freedom and the fight for true liberty.
Some might need some oxygen to be revived as I have committed the ultimate taboo as I have mentioned God and politics in the same vein. But it is obviously true that even God gives mankind enough liberty to destroy himself. Granted today we probably do not have enough men and woman courageous enough to die for much our land was born from the seed for all people to have enough liberty to do as they please so long as it promoted peace and not violence. Sure there were some errors that existed from the time of the founding but the spirit, the directional orientation, the goal, the heartbeat that eventually weeded out some of those early errors was set forth in the original liberty ideology that moved our founding fathers to create this beloved land! Among those ideas was the essential ideas that so long as the act was not led or caused by force it was classified as liberty, even if the liberty was seen to be wrong headed on a personal basis my some, yea even if by the majority!
The people understood God or the ways of the universe better than some modern theologians or modern scientists. Consider for a moment the ways of God. He in the Garden of Eden could have cut down the tree of good and evil. He had the power to do it. He had the knowledge of how to do that. But God chose not to. God could have ousted the devil from the garden so as to keep the "family" safe, a common argument used by those who will not grant to others the right to personal and individual liberty. But did he? No, God chose to leave them, the first family of Adam and Eve, with their liberty, even the liberty to be wrong and destructive to themselves.
Do we see it that way today? I'm afraid too many people today are too selfish to give another person liberty if that person's liberty is not what they believe or even know to be right. It is rather a sickening disease of selfishness at the root of the fights among people who live in the same community but choose instead to try and enforce through the power of the sword by political rule their ideology of what is right when the acts they oppose are free and consensual acts of liberty. Too often they fail to see what good Thomas Jefferson saw and understood, "a government strong enough to give you everything is a government strong enough to take everything away from you." If my mere political power one group can rise to power and thus deny another group liberty there is never any true hope of a land where liberty and freedom can ring loud and clear forever! What is defined as just one day can be defined as unjust another day.
Now, speaking of justice and as far as justice for all, the idea of such comes forth only correctly once someone correctly defines liberty in light of the inalienable rights. Those rights people are born with are what Paul in the Bible called the law written on the hearts of those who did not have the law code given to them (Rom. 2:14-15). Dr. Thomas Aquinas spoke of this natural law this way: "natural law is something appointed by reason, just as a proposition is a work of reason" (Summa Theologica, part I, Qst. 94, p. 221 in Britannica: Great Books of the Western World). Additionally and rightfully Dr. Aquinas said, "therefore since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law . . . it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends" (Part I, Qst. 91, Article 3, p. 209).
Justice is the extension or the application to reward or punish according to how one has lived or not lived out the law. Thus it is the fair treatment of all for what they deserve, which can either be what they deserve for the good they have done or for the bad they have done. If a man works for a wage it is just to pay him according to that standard agreed upon. If he quits or does not perform the agreed upon work it is just not to pay the full amount or for their to be remedy to resolve the injustice.
But justice is defined by a law of some sort somewhere (either by the eternal law, natural law, or man made law). And thus because various parties and people continue to fight over how people can exercise their liberty the rule of what is defined as just or unjust continues to change.
Liberty Is A Natural, God-Given, Inalienable Right
Ultimately I find in the Declaration of Independence that reveals our convictions for how we define true liberty, at least in a civil document that governs the whole land and peoples in it. Liberty comes from God as an inalienable right. Christ spoke of liberty himself. He came to "proclaim liberty to the captives" (Luke 4:8). Liberty is a major and fundamental element to both life in Christ and out from under the bondage and slavery of sin, but too for the American way of life to be free and out from the bondage and rule of oligarchy type systems that seeks to infringe upon the citizens liberty to act as they so please so long as it is done peacefully and without threat of violence or aggression or harm to another person or their property. And the first amendment of the constitution defines how liberty, true liberty, is to be exercised, i.e. through peaceful means where peaceable assembly is allowed.
Those who do not understand what liberty is or those who don't want others to have liberty because they want to control others through the coercive power of the sword, they are the ones who are both anti-God and anti-American for both God and the founders believe liberty is of paramount importance for the citizens of the heavenly kingdom as well as for those in earthly kingdoms.
Yet millions, no rather billions of dollars, are spent in order to make a law so that one party or person or tradition's ideology will be the just standard of the day. They win barely by 51% in places and then begin to work with vigor to make their law the way to define what is just for all. But in this process they often use the power of the sword to enforce what they construct or have sought to reconstruct based upon their ideas as right or wrong. This then enrages and makes the other portion of humanity angry and thus they now go spend millions, no billions of dollars, to fight the other people. They then muster enough strength to gain 51% of the vote and power in a region, probably because the other people are wore out and financially drained from their previous political fights and donations, and then in their reaction they reverse the laws but then go a step further. Because they have been hurt and injured they now take it out on those other people and try and restrict their personal liberty of not believing like they do. They then seek to make laws that outlaw the liberty not to believe, speak, and act in a contrary way.
Marriage or the Right to Form Peaceable Unions Is a Key Test to Determine One's View on Liberty
This battle has taken on a role in the fight over how to handle a marriage or union in this land. The various parties line up to fight you tooth and nail over how to legally define it and how to defend it. Even more specific has become the issue of homosexuals and even now the polygynous. Yet at the root level it is still the same issues, ones of liberty and justice and courage and unselfishness. Those who are truly courageous and unselfish will defend the liberty and rights of all and those who are cowards and selfish will demand their way to be the only just way any one can live and to those who differ they are to be punished with the sword even if the life they live is a peaceful life.
The issue at stake it liberty for all or tyranny by a few over all. Our founders bled and died to have the rights to worship and live in peace from a tyrant, the King of England and his cronies, yet many today have adopted the King's ideology just within a democratic-republic model. Through their selfishness and cowardly ways they use the sword and government to enforce the ideology they personally affirm even if it means they must violate another person's liberty to act differently. They are not courageous enough to live in a society where others may live in peace though differently than they because if they allow that it might disrupt their own lifestyle. Thus they become so selfish to preserve their own way they cannot fathom nor allow any other way. And the vicious cycle of the cowardly and selfish spirit feeds all kinds of injustices through the government spheres. Too afraid to let others have liberty as that calls into question their own lifestyle, and too selfish to give up any ground they trudge ahead destroying the liberty of many for the sake of their own personal position at the expense of others.
Very often the fight is termed in the context of the liberals and conservatives. I find those terms are better left to the financial market issues than in regard to personal liberty issues. A person who wants to conserve or restrain liberty is just as wretched philosophically speaking as is the liberal who believes he has the freedom to ruin over another person's liberty by his or her own expression of it.
In regard to homosexual unions, or even polygamous unions, or those who desire no formal union at all but join together under some other name, the liberal versus conservative war shows that the ideology is backwards from the beginning because it examines the matter from an economic model instead of through a inalienable rights perspective.
The Conservatives and Liberals Both Fail to Recognize and honor Liberty
"Conservatives" want to prohibit a union they declare or think to be non-traditional, some even want to make it criminal again where the person is jailed and physically removed from society if it is homosexual or not in conformity to their proposed standard. So they pour money into candidates to support or lean towards this idea.
But then the homosexuals on the other side often under the liberal banner react just as badly in the opposite direction. Those who support their rights to liberty often go too far. They, often known as the liberals, work and then get in power and they out of anger or resentment try and not just give their own group liberty but they also want to persecute those who just don't agree to them and who refrain from those practices or those who do. Thus they make laws that say one can't discriminate or teach against the lifestyle. Thus they are then guilty of the very same they hated in the prior group. They get angry because their liberty was restricted but when they get in power they do the same thing by restricting the others' freedom not to see it as they do. It reminds me of what Apostle Paul said, "for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice such things" (Rom. 2:2). When a conservative gains control they often run over the liberty of others. Then when a liberal gets in control they too run over the liberty of others. Both groups when living, thinking, and ruling in that line of thought live in hypocrisy because the ideology for our country as so stated in the original documents proclaim life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, not just for one tradition, religious persuasion or sect, or political party ideology. Those that fail to see this who come to power in political sectors are a severe threat to the liberty of everyone, even themselves!
In such cases both are guilty and they both do more harm than good by their ridiculous assault and efforts that erode the bedrock of this nation, the right to liberty!
How Did Our Founders Ever Build a Cohesive Nation? They Defended Liberty Above All Other Personal Passions and Philosophies
How could the founders of our union ever have come together long enough to get enough unity to create a country? God knows it was indeed a miracle of major proportions. I'm glad they did it because I'm not sure we would either have enough today who are man enough to die to gain it much less intellectual enough to sustain it if we did have enough to die to even give it a chance. But maybe intelligentsia is not really the issue. Instead it is likely more about character. The founders were men and women of CHARACTER and COURAGE. They were unselfish and courageous. They were not only willing to DIE for liberty and justice for all but they were willing to set in place the seeds of law that would indeed require people to live on in that courage. How is that? They died in courage but were also unselfish and willing to be courageous enough to live in a land where if people came together in peaceable ways even if it was not how they saw it they wanted to give those people the liberty to live that way! They were mature enough to give liberty even to defend the liberty of another even when not agreeing with the way the person lived and used their liberty. Just like God gave Satan liberty in the Garden of Eden and our first parents liberty in the Garden so our founders understood this bedrock principle. They sought to secure liberty for all while also requiring everyone to give liberty for all.
Today too many are willing to circumvent the liberty of all through the rule of law while trying to impose their own rule of law over all when there is no real threat or danger to anyone physically or materially if the liberty regulated against were to be allowed. This is exactly backwards and ultimately a Satanic ploy to not only divide America but to also undermine God's means to the end of reaching the lost while they grow and live peacefully together in the same society.
So, you reading this, are you courageous and unselfish like our founders were? Are you willing to let others have liberty, even if that liberty is wrong as you see it, a liberty like even God gave to Adam and Eve which was indeed destructive to themselves?
The founders understood this key and bedrock principle. Our first amendment to the Constitution reveals the very essence of the minds of our founders. They set in place a rule and law that recognized the natural rights people are with, which is the right to liberty and they saw legitimate liberty as one that was recognized as such if it came through a free, voluntary and peaceful assembly. To allow others the rights to liberty requires for us to be unselfish and courageous in giving it even when we don't like it.
Yet because those two character flaws seem to prevail in our culture, cowardliness and selfishness, it seems to be the underlying reason as to why people keep fighting back and forth to restrict another person's liberty and then to call that new law justice in application. Thus, justice keeps changing because we refuse to give up ourselves in order to grant another peaceful liberty. Too many, and might I add one is too many when we speak of the natural God given rights of liberty, today are too selfish and too cowardly to let others live in liberty that differs from what they are personally comfortable with. Since they way another lives does not suit their own passions they seek to get that other lifestyle ruled as illegal to stop that which they are uncomfortable with.
An Example of a "Conservative" Who Is Ignorant of what Liberty Means and Why it is Good for All
For example, on Fox News when John Stossel interviewed others on the issue of polygyny the "conservative" commentator Gretchen Carlson shows her anti-liberty philosophy. She argues against polygyny because to her it is a "slippery slope" to redefine marriage. She is rightfully confronted by Mark Henkel who exposed the ideology she holds as an unsound one that actually was formed by those in power to license and control others. The marriage licensure process is about control and restricting a person's liberty to assemble in peaceful unions as they see fit. Furthermore, the conservative, Ms. Carlson, does not want to allow others to have liberty because, God forbid, she would have to "explain to her kids about that type of lifestyle." (http://www.votepolygamy.com/2011/04/mar ... ews-video/).
Great reason to destroy liberty huh! Let's not give people liberty because it might make us as parents actually responsible to educate our own children about other types of lifestyles. Now there are some great ideas for you. To keep your children dumb let's run over the liberty of others just so we don't have to talk to our children about something we personally do not agree with. Thanks be to God our founders did not believe this way when seeking to break free from the King of England. I can hear it now: "Now now now, let us not talk about the right to be free and the idea of a free country ruled by the people because in doing so that might mean as parents we have to explain that type of philosophy to our kids. Let us not educate them in any other way but our current way." Ever heard of the death of progress? Well with that type of ignorance would halt any new exploration of any new subject in every field if lived out consistently.
Polls show us that the nation is divided on what to think the way marriage has been defined. In one recent poll "44.7 percent of the respondents said state decisions regarding same-sex duos should stand, while 37.7 percent said DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act that defines a marriage as one man to one woman] should be overturned. About one in six were uncertain." That is only about a 7% difference yet both groups fight each other back and forth and in doing so continue to divide the nation and community as they often seek to enact laws that ultimately destroy the liberty of both in that process!
Both God and Our Country's Founders Endorse Liberty as the Means to a Civil and Peaceful Nation
Is there a better way? Yes, and that is for us to grow up and to return to the genius ideas that helped to set our country in place to begin with. Despite some of the flaws those founders had they knew more about liberty than most of us will ever understand. Why? Remember they were willing to die for it and many actually DIED for it, something that few really get or grasp. But for those who did and were willing to do so they without almost certainty took the long hard look at what the cost of liberty meant and then went to war for it and then afterward fought to put in place a government that would allow for internal liberty so that the people inside did not have to fight each other with force so long as the liberty was exercised peacefully.
The founders were in that regard brilliant. We would do well to do the same today. How does that look in action? The solution is to give liberty to all, even if we think that liberty is destructive so long as that liberty and act is carried forth through a peaceful means. Even Satan did not have the power to force or make Adam and Eve sin. God did though give even Satan enough liberty to work through the laws of peaceful assembly where persuasion could take place. This is the theory of God in action in the very beginning and it is worth our time and attention. In it contains the roots of not only our country but also the solution to how we can get past this war among neighbors, a war that I might add has caused us to miss other issues that demand our attention, issues like the national debt, foreign policy, energy, etc. So much time, rhetoric, resources, and energy have been poured into this chasm that it has left us with two eyes, two hands, and one ear devoted to it leaving us with only one ear left for other problems. And by the time the ear turns to other issues those people are so battered and bruised they care not much for one another and the process of collaboration to resolve these other issues due to their animosity they now hold towards each other from this battle over personal rights to peaceably assemble as they personally see fit. I say again, it is a ploy of Satan to undo us!
A Test Case for Liberty: Where Would You Stand?
Let us for a moment look at a situation that recently took place in New Mexico. Will this theory above about liberty for all work in practice? And if so how would it look? Also what do the morons who hate liberty and desire ideological tyrannic rule that suppresses liberty do in such circumstances? How can they too be identified?
In New Mexico a lesbian couple wanted to join together in a marriage. They hired a photographer to do the wedding photos. But then the owners of the photography company would not take the pictures because they were personally opposed to the lesbian couples actions. The lesbian couple sued and a judge gave the lesbian couple money for the violation of the company who supposedly discriminated against the lesbian couple.
Now, how should we, if we truly believe in liberty, handle this?
First, even if we disagree with the lesbians for their actions, which I personally do on the grounds of biblical moral law, if they have joined together peacefully should I in turn go and try and make their peaceful union criminal? Should what I oppose on biblical moral grounds be imposed on those who choose to live in that way peacefully? What would I do if I were the owners of the store? Should I have the freedom not to do the photo shoot? Or should my liberty be controlled and governed by the liberty of the lesbians?
The Two Common Factions that Constantly Fight with One Another
Two factions arise from this type of scenario. One faction rises to the scene and says, "they should not be free to live together and have a ceremony to join together. We need laws to make that criminal. Throw them in jail if they do that." Often this is the conservatives in name.
This faction however is stupidly hypocritical. In one sentence they say that we cannot allow people to do this as it destroys them and the fabric of our country. But then in another sentence they let and even endorse the idea of allowing a family to raise and teach their children that Buddha is the way to life and eternal peace while they themselves believe such views are damnable and eternally destructive. So why give the Buddhists the right and freedom to peacefully assemble and destroy themselves and yet not the lesbians? In the example above if the couple who owned that company has ever done pictures for a non-Christian idolatrous group then they are guilty of hypocrisy.
At least the people who are reconstructionists are honest about their anti-American ways. They at least will tell us up front that yes they indeed want to impose the Mosaic Law code on all for a way of life everywhere. Though I think that is the wrong approach at least the reconstructionist theologian and ideologue is honest about where they want to take the entire country. Those, however, who will allow the non-Christian group to live and assemble peacefully through a religion that they say is eternally damnable yet turn around and oppose the liberty of a couple to assemble together under the guise that they want to "conserve" the family and keep it from harm are just plain hypocrites who are blind and even dishonest!
But, the lesbians and the pro-lesbian/homosexual faction will arise, often under the term liberal, and think I, or the owners of the photography store have to fully side with them. Thus they want to use the judge and laws of the land to punish the company owners. "Throw those owners in jail" they cry, or at least make them pay money for their unjust and discriminatory actions. That too is hypocritical as they would not be, and rarely if ever are, consistent in their own application of that ideology.
Their way, the liberal way, is also a threat to liberty just as much as is the conservative way, which too is a threat against freedom and liberty. Just as much as we ought to support the Buddhists who worship a pagan god and who will die and go to an eternal hell, even their children who they teach and raise, we ought to support the homosexuals to the degree that they exercise their freedoms through peaceful assembly. We ought to use our liberties and freedoms to try and persuade them of a better way just as we would want them to give us our freedom and liberty not to practice that lifestyle or to taker photos of it if we are not free in regard to our conscience.
The problem then is one of both the liberals and conservatives. The liberals show their hypocrisy because they do not want laws to tell them what religious assembly they must attend or what they must believe. Yet they want to make others through the law code to agree with them and for those who don't to be punished if they do not serve them or assemble with them. The conservatives however show their hypocrisy because they do not want laws to restrict them either in what religion they personally choose. Yet they want to restrict others who assemble in ways that differ from them while allowing for non-Christian religions to exist with their support.
Liberty must run both ways and it is because of people's personal cowardly and selfish ways that I see both groups fighting with one another. One group wars with the other group as they both try and restrict another's liberty when there is a better way, a way that our founders established for us so we could live at least in civil peace while we work out other issues along the way through peaceful civil discourse, debate, and through religious affiliation.
The solution is to grant liberty to any and all peaceful assemblies even if the way they exercise that liberty is contrary to how we think is best for them. If I were the owners of the photography store I would have personally chosen to take the pictures. But I would defend their right to freely choose not to so long as they said this up front, not after a contract had been signed. If they agreed to take pictures for them or if they claim to serve the community then step up and serve the community at large. For me I would have done it with a goal to befriend the people and to hopefully one day be able to share the gospel with them. The efforts of the lesbians however in that case to sue was just as bad though as by their actions they wanted to restrict the liberties of the owners who chose not to assemble for the purpose of business with a group they did not agree with. The homosexuals and all people ought to, if living with courage and an unselfish spirit, allow the owners to choose if they will or will not do business with them in regard to the pictures. This is not an issue of life or death or health. There is no physical harm done to the lesbian couple if they can't get pictures from this company.
Of course, there is the issue of hypocrisy by the owners if they will take pictures of the people in the Buddhist temple praying to a pagan God even though they are Christians. If they will take pictures of that by request then they ought to take pictures of the lesbian couple by request. But, if they indeed have a hang up by conscience in that regard, then if there is other means to obtain services elsewhere then that owner of the store should be free not to be made to assemble for business with the people they disagree with.
Yet in this scenario we have the ground for many political factions. One political party wants to come to the defense of the store owners and in reaction they want to make and enforce laws that keep the lesbians from being able to peacefully assemble. That is not the answer if we want to preserve liberty. The answer is to make laws to protect the rights of the store owners from having to assemble with someone or some group if they do not want to because of their peaceful desire not to affiliate with such a group.
On the other side though is the party that wants to defend the homosexuals freedom to peacefully assemble. But instead of working to just give them that due and just freedom they seek to attack those who differ and try and use the government's power to coerce through the sword to make the store owners agree and under the law of having to assemble with those they disagree with. Yet they would not like it or support a law that said all homosexuals must attend a Baptist Church next week, or any specific church. Why? Because they inherently know that people ought to have liberty but because they have been injured they run too far in reaction in their efforts to gain their liberty.
Thus, both political factions, which often represent the big two parties of our current landscape, war with one another and continue to deprive one another of their liberties, which is the far greatest crime in the civil sphere than the personal offense to me or to anyone when examining a moral or immoral action.
A Better Way and Hope for a New Day
The solution, therefore, is to return to the spirit and position God had in the Garden of Eden. If God, the holiest of all, is willing to give even Satan the liberty to assemble with his creation then should we not be willing to give the same liberty to all that he gave? If Adam and Eve were at liberty to peacefully assemble with Satan then should we not give others that same freedom and liberty to peacefully associate in such ways and with people who we may regard as evil? If God did not ban Satan from the garden, if he did not cut down the tree of knowledge of good good and evil does that not show us that he is more concerned about people growing through their free acts than he is about people being restricted under the banner of "let's protect the family"? Surely if there ever was a time to "protect the family" it would have been in the Garden of Eden as the whole family of creation in Adam stood there (see Romans 5:12).
To those who read this who also support polygyny, but yet fail to see the broader civil issue of liberty at stake for all, bear in mind the following decision by one California judge, Marvin Baxter, who said:
"
First, if we use the ideology that established our land then we would indeed not rule out a peaceful union of anyone but we would certainly rule out incestuous unions because that violates the rights of another person who cannot consent to the union and would be injured, i.e. the rights of the child. The child who is subjected to physical jeopardy because of an incestuous union violates the principles of the peaceful or nonthreatening aspect of the means to an assembly. A child can forever be irreparably suffer harm. To link homosexual unions or polygamous unions to the issue of incestuous unions is terrible reasoning as the two are not on the same level.
But that is the type of reasoning being used by those who do not grasp the issue and doctrine of liberty. Those who think in liberal and conservative constructs are dangerous because the way they reason is antithetical to the concept of liberty itself. A person who understand liberty asks two questions fundamentally: (1) Is the act or acts of those involved consensual, i.e. freely chosen out of their own volition (liberty; non-coercive; without force), and (2) are the acts done going to physically harm someone or their property? Those questions, asked in that order, is the way our founding fathers established our land and government. If the acts or acts did not run contrary to those two key principles then the right position was to defend the position even if not a position one would personally choose for himself or herself. But not today as many want to use the government not as a tool to secure people's liberty but as a tool to deny and destroy the other person's liberty. Shame on such people as they reject both the American way as well as God's way.
But, moving along and secondly, the judge was right in his reasoning in a sense. He was wrong about incest but right about other types of consensual unions. If we grant liberty to any homosexual group what prohibits other people from exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and liberty? God give us the day when we will indeed not base the right of whether someone has liberty based upon the opinion of the majority. Had this been the case America would never have been. The majority of the governments of the world were not established nor set upon a democratic-republic model where people were free.
Summary: Liberty is for the Unselfish and Courageous, Not Just for Those We Agree with But For All Who Can Exercise it in a Peaceful Way
Liberty is not something that either the minority or majority can grant or take away, at least not in a just way as if real liberty exists for all then it is always an injustice to try and remove it or take it away through the power of the sword under the guise of justice. If we truly do believe that all are created equal, and that all are endowed with certain inalienable rights such as life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then if we truly and honestly do believe that, and if we are courageous people who are unselfish, then we by that must defend the rights of any and all who choose to peacefully assemble even if they assemble in such a way that we do not like or even agree with. Anything less is hypocritical, cowardly, selfish, and at its root at least anti-American if not at the most even anti-God. As with Paul we ought to say to others and have them say back to us: "Why should mu liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?" (1 Cor. 10:29b).
If we are to ever get over this internecine warfare among those who claim to be American then we need to indeed be American and in that even God-like Americans who are like our founders in ideology, i.e. those who are mature enough not only to demand personal liberty but to also mature enough to give it to even those with whom we differ with! I challenge you to be that type of theistic American. Be like God and give even Satan and his comrades the right to assemble in peace as they so see fit. Defend their rights and let their rights stand just as we want our rights to be defended and to stand.
Dr. K.R. Allen
Introduction: Masses on Both Sides Do Not Understand True Liberty
Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and many other political activists are caught in a major social battle today. One party wants to extend "marriage" rights to those of the same sex. Another party wants to limit legal marriage to "traditional" views that are sometimes called Judeo-Christian values but inconsistently so because any person with any reading ability can at the very least recognize the Jews had polygynous relationships in their society.
Nonetheless, the battle at the polls wages on and year after year it seems like the community is pitted further and further against one another. Neighbors grow more and more afraid of one another and turn to the political sector in order to try and make their view the required view of the day.
Now, if you are a overly sensitive reader, or if you can't stomach a challenge then you had better just stop reading right now. This article is not your typical cotton candy, sugary, soft, and lighthearted post. It is rather a serious challenge for Americans in general and theistic ones in particular to grow a spine and learn a little about what it means to believe in true liberty that works for all, not just for a select few. So if you are a constructionist or reconstructionist ideologue who seeks to use the sword to impose your religious views on everyone else because you're too weak, lazy, or unable for whatever reason to get others to live a certain way without the power of the sword making it be that way you will likely not like me too much if you read this article.
Or if you are the weak liberal minded ideologue who wants it your way but in that you also want to make your way everyone elses' way because you are too weak, lazy, or unable for whatever reason to convince people through the art of moral persuasion and thus you too want to use the sword to make others see and live as you do through the power of the sword then you too are not going to like me either if you read further.
It is both of those groups who I see and believe to be at the root of the problem in modern day civil spheres as both groups really do not believe in liberty but rather believe in tyrannicalness rule by a few over all. It is these who oppose liberty both ways who in reality undermine not only our great American way but also even distort God's way.
A Proposed Solution: Inalienable Rights Means Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for All, Not Just those in Ruling Power
We have a problem in this land and herein is a solution. The problem is many people refuse to give people of peace their liberty to exercise that liberty in peace. The solution is for people of all all good moral will to rise up and defend a person's life and liberty even if they defend someone who lives, acts, and differs with the way they personally live out their liberty!
But to all of those, from any and every political party, to no party at all, who seek to restrain peaceful liberty that is a sign of a deeper problem than many are at first willing to admit. People of our land, people who profess that there is at least a God or provident ruler, or natural laws of nature that governs life have failed to recognize two truths that are fundamental to a prosperous society and peaceful society. The failure of those two truths is so because of a failure of character in two underlying areas.
Twin Truths: Liberty and Justice to All
The two truths are: (1)liberty and (2) justice for all. A person could indeed add to that life but since we are focused here on those living and seeking to act in certain ways we will focus just on the liberty of an existing life since a person who neither exists or is dead does not have any liberty, at least not when speaking in an earthly civil sense (for those who rightly affirm heaven and hell that is another sphere outside the purpose of this discussion). One party often wants to make laws that prohibit another person's liberty. But that contrasts the spirit of our great founding fathers. Even if a person's liberty might destroy himself or herself it is a principle our original forefathers died for. Read that last phrase again, they died for it. They died for it. They died for it. They died for it. Do you get it: they were willing to die for it and many actually DIED for it! Few today would. And then even of the rest many are not even willing to stand up for everyone's right to liberty through their voice and political action! Such wimps abound, yet its worse than that, they are not just cowards but they are selfish wimps who despise not just the American way but even God's way! Men and women both have embraced political tyranny over and above principled freedom and the fight for true liberty.
Some might need some oxygen to be revived as I have committed the ultimate taboo as I have mentioned God and politics in the same vein. But it is obviously true that even God gives mankind enough liberty to destroy himself. Granted today we probably do not have enough men and woman courageous enough to die for much our land was born from the seed for all people to have enough liberty to do as they please so long as it promoted peace and not violence. Sure there were some errors that existed from the time of the founding but the spirit, the directional orientation, the goal, the heartbeat that eventually weeded out some of those early errors was set forth in the original liberty ideology that moved our founding fathers to create this beloved land! Among those ideas was the essential ideas that so long as the act was not led or caused by force it was classified as liberty, even if the liberty was seen to be wrong headed on a personal basis my some, yea even if by the majority!
The people understood God or the ways of the universe better than some modern theologians or modern scientists. Consider for a moment the ways of God. He in the Garden of Eden could have cut down the tree of good and evil. He had the power to do it. He had the knowledge of how to do that. But God chose not to. God could have ousted the devil from the garden so as to keep the "family" safe, a common argument used by those who will not grant to others the right to personal and individual liberty. But did he? No, God chose to leave them, the first family of Adam and Eve, with their liberty, even the liberty to be wrong and destructive to themselves.
Do we see it that way today? I'm afraid too many people today are too selfish to give another person liberty if that person's liberty is not what they believe or even know to be right. It is rather a sickening disease of selfishness at the root of the fights among people who live in the same community but choose instead to try and enforce through the power of the sword by political rule their ideology of what is right when the acts they oppose are free and consensual acts of liberty. Too often they fail to see what good Thomas Jefferson saw and understood, "a government strong enough to give you everything is a government strong enough to take everything away from you." If my mere political power one group can rise to power and thus deny another group liberty there is never any true hope of a land where liberty and freedom can ring loud and clear forever! What is defined as just one day can be defined as unjust another day.
Now, speaking of justice and as far as justice for all, the idea of such comes forth only correctly once someone correctly defines liberty in light of the inalienable rights. Those rights people are born with are what Paul in the Bible called the law written on the hearts of those who did not have the law code given to them (Rom. 2:14-15). Dr. Thomas Aquinas spoke of this natural law this way: "natural law is something appointed by reason, just as a proposition is a work of reason" (Summa Theologica, part I, Qst. 94, p. 221 in Britannica: Great Books of the Western World). Additionally and rightfully Dr. Aquinas said, "therefore since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law . . . it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends" (Part I, Qst. 91, Article 3, p. 209).
Justice is the extension or the application to reward or punish according to how one has lived or not lived out the law. Thus it is the fair treatment of all for what they deserve, which can either be what they deserve for the good they have done or for the bad they have done. If a man works for a wage it is just to pay him according to that standard agreed upon. If he quits or does not perform the agreed upon work it is just not to pay the full amount or for their to be remedy to resolve the injustice.
But justice is defined by a law of some sort somewhere (either by the eternal law, natural law, or man made law). And thus because various parties and people continue to fight over how people can exercise their liberty the rule of what is defined as just or unjust continues to change.
Liberty Is A Natural, God-Given, Inalienable Right
Ultimately I find in the Declaration of Independence that reveals our convictions for how we define true liberty, at least in a civil document that governs the whole land and peoples in it. Liberty comes from God as an inalienable right. Christ spoke of liberty himself. He came to "proclaim liberty to the captives" (Luke 4:8). Liberty is a major and fundamental element to both life in Christ and out from under the bondage and slavery of sin, but too for the American way of life to be free and out from the bondage and rule of oligarchy type systems that seeks to infringe upon the citizens liberty to act as they so please so long as it is done peacefully and without threat of violence or aggression or harm to another person or their property. And the first amendment of the constitution defines how liberty, true liberty, is to be exercised, i.e. through peaceful means where peaceable assembly is allowed.
Those who do not understand what liberty is or those who don't want others to have liberty because they want to control others through the coercive power of the sword, they are the ones who are both anti-God and anti-American for both God and the founders believe liberty is of paramount importance for the citizens of the heavenly kingdom as well as for those in earthly kingdoms.
Yet millions, no rather billions of dollars, are spent in order to make a law so that one party or person or tradition's ideology will be the just standard of the day. They win barely by 51% in places and then begin to work with vigor to make their law the way to define what is just for all. But in this process they often use the power of the sword to enforce what they construct or have sought to reconstruct based upon their ideas as right or wrong. This then enrages and makes the other portion of humanity angry and thus they now go spend millions, no billions of dollars, to fight the other people. They then muster enough strength to gain 51% of the vote and power in a region, probably because the other people are wore out and financially drained from their previous political fights and donations, and then in their reaction they reverse the laws but then go a step further. Because they have been hurt and injured they now take it out on those other people and try and restrict their personal liberty of not believing like they do. They then seek to make laws that outlaw the liberty not to believe, speak, and act in a contrary way.
Marriage or the Right to Form Peaceable Unions Is a Key Test to Determine One's View on Liberty
This battle has taken on a role in the fight over how to handle a marriage or union in this land. The various parties line up to fight you tooth and nail over how to legally define it and how to defend it. Even more specific has become the issue of homosexuals and even now the polygynous. Yet at the root level it is still the same issues, ones of liberty and justice and courage and unselfishness. Those who are truly courageous and unselfish will defend the liberty and rights of all and those who are cowards and selfish will demand their way to be the only just way any one can live and to those who differ they are to be punished with the sword even if the life they live is a peaceful life.
The issue at stake it liberty for all or tyranny by a few over all. Our founders bled and died to have the rights to worship and live in peace from a tyrant, the King of England and his cronies, yet many today have adopted the King's ideology just within a democratic-republic model. Through their selfishness and cowardly ways they use the sword and government to enforce the ideology they personally affirm even if it means they must violate another person's liberty to act differently. They are not courageous enough to live in a society where others may live in peace though differently than they because if they allow that it might disrupt their own lifestyle. Thus they become so selfish to preserve their own way they cannot fathom nor allow any other way. And the vicious cycle of the cowardly and selfish spirit feeds all kinds of injustices through the government spheres. Too afraid to let others have liberty as that calls into question their own lifestyle, and too selfish to give up any ground they trudge ahead destroying the liberty of many for the sake of their own personal position at the expense of others.
Very often the fight is termed in the context of the liberals and conservatives. I find those terms are better left to the financial market issues than in regard to personal liberty issues. A person who wants to conserve or restrain liberty is just as wretched philosophically speaking as is the liberal who believes he has the freedom to ruin over another person's liberty by his or her own expression of it.
In regard to homosexual unions, or even polygamous unions, or those who desire no formal union at all but join together under some other name, the liberal versus conservative war shows that the ideology is backwards from the beginning because it examines the matter from an economic model instead of through a inalienable rights perspective.
The Conservatives and Liberals Both Fail to Recognize and honor Liberty
"Conservatives" want to prohibit a union they declare or think to be non-traditional, some even want to make it criminal again where the person is jailed and physically removed from society if it is homosexual or not in conformity to their proposed standard. So they pour money into candidates to support or lean towards this idea.
But then the homosexuals on the other side often under the liberal banner react just as badly in the opposite direction. Those who support their rights to liberty often go too far. They, often known as the liberals, work and then get in power and they out of anger or resentment try and not just give their own group liberty but they also want to persecute those who just don't agree to them and who refrain from those practices or those who do. Thus they make laws that say one can't discriminate or teach against the lifestyle. Thus they are then guilty of the very same they hated in the prior group. They get angry because their liberty was restricted but when they get in power they do the same thing by restricting the others' freedom not to see it as they do. It reminds me of what Apostle Paul said, "for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice such things" (Rom. 2:2). When a conservative gains control they often run over the liberty of others. Then when a liberal gets in control they too run over the liberty of others. Both groups when living, thinking, and ruling in that line of thought live in hypocrisy because the ideology for our country as so stated in the original documents proclaim life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, not just for one tradition, religious persuasion or sect, or political party ideology. Those that fail to see this who come to power in political sectors are a severe threat to the liberty of everyone, even themselves!
In such cases both are guilty and they both do more harm than good by their ridiculous assault and efforts that erode the bedrock of this nation, the right to liberty!
How Did Our Founders Ever Build a Cohesive Nation? They Defended Liberty Above All Other Personal Passions and Philosophies
How could the founders of our union ever have come together long enough to get enough unity to create a country? God knows it was indeed a miracle of major proportions. I'm glad they did it because I'm not sure we would either have enough today who are man enough to die to gain it much less intellectual enough to sustain it if we did have enough to die to even give it a chance. But maybe intelligentsia is not really the issue. Instead it is likely more about character. The founders were men and women of CHARACTER and COURAGE. They were unselfish and courageous. They were not only willing to DIE for liberty and justice for all but they were willing to set in place the seeds of law that would indeed require people to live on in that courage. How is that? They died in courage but were also unselfish and willing to be courageous enough to live in a land where if people came together in peaceable ways even if it was not how they saw it they wanted to give those people the liberty to live that way! They were mature enough to give liberty even to defend the liberty of another even when not agreeing with the way the person lived and used their liberty. Just like God gave Satan liberty in the Garden of Eden and our first parents liberty in the Garden so our founders understood this bedrock principle. They sought to secure liberty for all while also requiring everyone to give liberty for all.
Today too many are willing to circumvent the liberty of all through the rule of law while trying to impose their own rule of law over all when there is no real threat or danger to anyone physically or materially if the liberty regulated against were to be allowed. This is exactly backwards and ultimately a Satanic ploy to not only divide America but to also undermine God's means to the end of reaching the lost while they grow and live peacefully together in the same society.
So, you reading this, are you courageous and unselfish like our founders were? Are you willing to let others have liberty, even if that liberty is wrong as you see it, a liberty like even God gave to Adam and Eve which was indeed destructive to themselves?
The founders understood this key and bedrock principle. Our first amendment to the Constitution reveals the very essence of the minds of our founders. They set in place a rule and law that recognized the natural rights people are with, which is the right to liberty and they saw legitimate liberty as one that was recognized as such if it came through a free, voluntary and peaceful assembly. To allow others the rights to liberty requires for us to be unselfish and courageous in giving it even when we don't like it.
Yet because those two character flaws seem to prevail in our culture, cowardliness and selfishness, it seems to be the underlying reason as to why people keep fighting back and forth to restrict another person's liberty and then to call that new law justice in application. Thus, justice keeps changing because we refuse to give up ourselves in order to grant another peaceful liberty. Too many, and might I add one is too many when we speak of the natural God given rights of liberty, today are too selfish and too cowardly to let others live in liberty that differs from what they are personally comfortable with. Since they way another lives does not suit their own passions they seek to get that other lifestyle ruled as illegal to stop that which they are uncomfortable with.
An Example of a "Conservative" Who Is Ignorant of what Liberty Means and Why it is Good for All
For example, on Fox News when John Stossel interviewed others on the issue of polygyny the "conservative" commentator Gretchen Carlson shows her anti-liberty philosophy. She argues against polygyny because to her it is a "slippery slope" to redefine marriage. She is rightfully confronted by Mark Henkel who exposed the ideology she holds as an unsound one that actually was formed by those in power to license and control others. The marriage licensure process is about control and restricting a person's liberty to assemble in peaceful unions as they see fit. Furthermore, the conservative, Ms. Carlson, does not want to allow others to have liberty because, God forbid, she would have to "explain to her kids about that type of lifestyle." (http://www.votepolygamy.com/2011/04/mar ... ews-video/).
Great reason to destroy liberty huh! Let's not give people liberty because it might make us as parents actually responsible to educate our own children about other types of lifestyles. Now there are some great ideas for you. To keep your children dumb let's run over the liberty of others just so we don't have to talk to our children about something we personally do not agree with. Thanks be to God our founders did not believe this way when seeking to break free from the King of England. I can hear it now: "Now now now, let us not talk about the right to be free and the idea of a free country ruled by the people because in doing so that might mean as parents we have to explain that type of philosophy to our kids. Let us not educate them in any other way but our current way." Ever heard of the death of progress? Well with that type of ignorance would halt any new exploration of any new subject in every field if lived out consistently.
Polls show us that the nation is divided on what to think the way marriage has been defined. In one recent poll "44.7 percent of the respondents said state decisions regarding same-sex duos should stand, while 37.7 percent said DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act that defines a marriage as one man to one woman] should be overturned. About one in six were uncertain." That is only about a 7% difference yet both groups fight each other back and forth and in doing so continue to divide the nation and community as they often seek to enact laws that ultimately destroy the liberty of both in that process!
Both God and Our Country's Founders Endorse Liberty as the Means to a Civil and Peaceful Nation
Is there a better way? Yes, and that is for us to grow up and to return to the genius ideas that helped to set our country in place to begin with. Despite some of the flaws those founders had they knew more about liberty than most of us will ever understand. Why? Remember they were willing to die for it and many actually DIED for it, something that few really get or grasp. But for those who did and were willing to do so they without almost certainty took the long hard look at what the cost of liberty meant and then went to war for it and then afterward fought to put in place a government that would allow for internal liberty so that the people inside did not have to fight each other with force so long as the liberty was exercised peacefully.
The founders were in that regard brilliant. We would do well to do the same today. How does that look in action? The solution is to give liberty to all, even if we think that liberty is destructive so long as that liberty and act is carried forth through a peaceful means. Even Satan did not have the power to force or make Adam and Eve sin. God did though give even Satan enough liberty to work through the laws of peaceful assembly where persuasion could take place. This is the theory of God in action in the very beginning and it is worth our time and attention. In it contains the roots of not only our country but also the solution to how we can get past this war among neighbors, a war that I might add has caused us to miss other issues that demand our attention, issues like the national debt, foreign policy, energy, etc. So much time, rhetoric, resources, and energy have been poured into this chasm that it has left us with two eyes, two hands, and one ear devoted to it leaving us with only one ear left for other problems. And by the time the ear turns to other issues those people are so battered and bruised they care not much for one another and the process of collaboration to resolve these other issues due to their animosity they now hold towards each other from this battle over personal rights to peaceably assemble as they personally see fit. I say again, it is a ploy of Satan to undo us!
A Test Case for Liberty: Where Would You Stand?
Let us for a moment look at a situation that recently took place in New Mexico. Will this theory above about liberty for all work in practice? And if so how would it look? Also what do the morons who hate liberty and desire ideological tyrannic rule that suppresses liberty do in such circumstances? How can they too be identified?
In New Mexico a lesbian couple wanted to join together in a marriage. They hired a photographer to do the wedding photos. But then the owners of the photography company would not take the pictures because they were personally opposed to the lesbian couples actions. The lesbian couple sued and a judge gave the lesbian couple money for the violation of the company who supposedly discriminated against the lesbian couple.
Now, how should we, if we truly believe in liberty, handle this?
First, even if we disagree with the lesbians for their actions, which I personally do on the grounds of biblical moral law, if they have joined together peacefully should I in turn go and try and make their peaceful union criminal? Should what I oppose on biblical moral grounds be imposed on those who choose to live in that way peacefully? What would I do if I were the owners of the store? Should I have the freedom not to do the photo shoot? Or should my liberty be controlled and governed by the liberty of the lesbians?
The Two Common Factions that Constantly Fight with One Another
Two factions arise from this type of scenario. One faction rises to the scene and says, "they should not be free to live together and have a ceremony to join together. We need laws to make that criminal. Throw them in jail if they do that." Often this is the conservatives in name.
This faction however is stupidly hypocritical. In one sentence they say that we cannot allow people to do this as it destroys them and the fabric of our country. But then in another sentence they let and even endorse the idea of allowing a family to raise and teach their children that Buddha is the way to life and eternal peace while they themselves believe such views are damnable and eternally destructive. So why give the Buddhists the right and freedom to peacefully assemble and destroy themselves and yet not the lesbians? In the example above if the couple who owned that company has ever done pictures for a non-Christian idolatrous group then they are guilty of hypocrisy.
At least the people who are reconstructionists are honest about their anti-American ways. They at least will tell us up front that yes they indeed want to impose the Mosaic Law code on all for a way of life everywhere. Though I think that is the wrong approach at least the reconstructionist theologian and ideologue is honest about where they want to take the entire country. Those, however, who will allow the non-Christian group to live and assemble peacefully through a religion that they say is eternally damnable yet turn around and oppose the liberty of a couple to assemble together under the guise that they want to "conserve" the family and keep it from harm are just plain hypocrites who are blind and even dishonest!
But, the lesbians and the pro-lesbian/homosexual faction will arise, often under the term liberal, and think I, or the owners of the photography store have to fully side with them. Thus they want to use the judge and laws of the land to punish the company owners. "Throw those owners in jail" they cry, or at least make them pay money for their unjust and discriminatory actions. That too is hypocritical as they would not be, and rarely if ever are, consistent in their own application of that ideology.
Their way, the liberal way, is also a threat to liberty just as much as is the conservative way, which too is a threat against freedom and liberty. Just as much as we ought to support the Buddhists who worship a pagan god and who will die and go to an eternal hell, even their children who they teach and raise, we ought to support the homosexuals to the degree that they exercise their freedoms through peaceful assembly. We ought to use our liberties and freedoms to try and persuade them of a better way just as we would want them to give us our freedom and liberty not to practice that lifestyle or to taker photos of it if we are not free in regard to our conscience.
The problem then is one of both the liberals and conservatives. The liberals show their hypocrisy because they do not want laws to tell them what religious assembly they must attend or what they must believe. Yet they want to make others through the law code to agree with them and for those who don't to be punished if they do not serve them or assemble with them. The conservatives however show their hypocrisy because they do not want laws to restrict them either in what religion they personally choose. Yet they want to restrict others who assemble in ways that differ from them while allowing for non-Christian religions to exist with their support.
Liberty must run both ways and it is because of people's personal cowardly and selfish ways that I see both groups fighting with one another. One group wars with the other group as they both try and restrict another's liberty when there is a better way, a way that our founders established for us so we could live at least in civil peace while we work out other issues along the way through peaceful civil discourse, debate, and through religious affiliation.
The solution is to grant liberty to any and all peaceful assemblies even if the way they exercise that liberty is contrary to how we think is best for them. If I were the owners of the photography store I would have personally chosen to take the pictures. But I would defend their right to freely choose not to so long as they said this up front, not after a contract had been signed. If they agreed to take pictures for them or if they claim to serve the community then step up and serve the community at large. For me I would have done it with a goal to befriend the people and to hopefully one day be able to share the gospel with them. The efforts of the lesbians however in that case to sue was just as bad though as by their actions they wanted to restrict the liberties of the owners who chose not to assemble for the purpose of business with a group they did not agree with. The homosexuals and all people ought to, if living with courage and an unselfish spirit, allow the owners to choose if they will or will not do business with them in regard to the pictures. This is not an issue of life or death or health. There is no physical harm done to the lesbian couple if they can't get pictures from this company.
Of course, there is the issue of hypocrisy by the owners if they will take pictures of the people in the Buddhist temple praying to a pagan God even though they are Christians. If they will take pictures of that by request then they ought to take pictures of the lesbian couple by request. But, if they indeed have a hang up by conscience in that regard, then if there is other means to obtain services elsewhere then that owner of the store should be free not to be made to assemble for business with the people they disagree with.
Yet in this scenario we have the ground for many political factions. One political party wants to come to the defense of the store owners and in reaction they want to make and enforce laws that keep the lesbians from being able to peacefully assemble. That is not the answer if we want to preserve liberty. The answer is to make laws to protect the rights of the store owners from having to assemble with someone or some group if they do not want to because of their peaceful desire not to affiliate with such a group.
On the other side though is the party that wants to defend the homosexuals freedom to peacefully assemble. But instead of working to just give them that due and just freedom they seek to attack those who differ and try and use the government's power to coerce through the sword to make the store owners agree and under the law of having to assemble with those they disagree with. Yet they would not like it or support a law that said all homosexuals must attend a Baptist Church next week, or any specific church. Why? Because they inherently know that people ought to have liberty but because they have been injured they run too far in reaction in their efforts to gain their liberty.
Thus, both political factions, which often represent the big two parties of our current landscape, war with one another and continue to deprive one another of their liberties, which is the far greatest crime in the civil sphere than the personal offense to me or to anyone when examining a moral or immoral action.
A Better Way and Hope for a New Day
The solution, therefore, is to return to the spirit and position God had in the Garden of Eden. If God, the holiest of all, is willing to give even Satan the liberty to assemble with his creation then should we not be willing to give the same liberty to all that he gave? If Adam and Eve were at liberty to peacefully assemble with Satan then should we not give others that same freedom and liberty to peacefully associate in such ways and with people who we may regard as evil? If God did not ban Satan from the garden, if he did not cut down the tree of knowledge of good good and evil does that not show us that he is more concerned about people growing through their free acts than he is about people being restricted under the banner of "let's protect the family"? Surely if there ever was a time to "protect the family" it would have been in the Garden of Eden as the whole family of creation in Adam stood there (see Romans 5:12).
To those who read this who also support polygyny, but yet fail to see the broader civil issue of liberty at stake for all, bear in mind the following decision by one California judge, Marvin Baxter, who said:
"
First, if we use the ideology that established our land then we would indeed not rule out a peaceful union of anyone but we would certainly rule out incestuous unions because that violates the rights of another person who cannot consent to the union and would be injured, i.e. the rights of the child. The child who is subjected to physical jeopardy because of an incestuous union violates the principles of the peaceful or nonthreatening aspect of the means to an assembly. A child can forever be irreparably suffer harm. To link homosexual unions or polygamous unions to the issue of incestuous unions is terrible reasoning as the two are not on the same level.
But that is the type of reasoning being used by those who do not grasp the issue and doctrine of liberty. Those who think in liberal and conservative constructs are dangerous because the way they reason is antithetical to the concept of liberty itself. A person who understand liberty asks two questions fundamentally: (1) Is the act or acts of those involved consensual, i.e. freely chosen out of their own volition (liberty; non-coercive; without force), and (2) are the acts done going to physically harm someone or their property? Those questions, asked in that order, is the way our founding fathers established our land and government. If the acts or acts did not run contrary to those two key principles then the right position was to defend the position even if not a position one would personally choose for himself or herself. But not today as many want to use the government not as a tool to secure people's liberty but as a tool to deny and destroy the other person's liberty. Shame on such people as they reject both the American way as well as God's way.
But, moving along and secondly, the judge was right in his reasoning in a sense. He was wrong about incest but right about other types of consensual unions. If we grant liberty to any homosexual group what prohibits other people from exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and liberty? God give us the day when we will indeed not base the right of whether someone has liberty based upon the opinion of the majority. Had this been the case America would never have been. The majority of the governments of the world were not established nor set upon a democratic-republic model where people were free.
Summary: Liberty is for the Unselfish and Courageous, Not Just for Those We Agree with But For All Who Can Exercise it in a Peaceful Way
Liberty is not something that either the minority or majority can grant or take away, at least not in a just way as if real liberty exists for all then it is always an injustice to try and remove it or take it away through the power of the sword under the guise of justice. If we truly do believe that all are created equal, and that all are endowed with certain inalienable rights such as life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then if we truly and honestly do believe that, and if we are courageous people who are unselfish, then we by that must defend the rights of any and all who choose to peacefully assemble even if they assemble in such a way that we do not like or even agree with. Anything less is hypocritical, cowardly, selfish, and at its root at least anti-American if not at the most even anti-God. As with Paul we ought to say to others and have them say back to us: "Why should mu liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?" (1 Cor. 10:29b).
If we are to ever get over this internecine warfare among those who claim to be American then we need to indeed be American and in that even God-like Americans who are like our founders in ideology, i.e. those who are mature enough not only to demand personal liberty but to also mature enough to give it to even those with whom we differ with! I challenge you to be that type of theistic American. Be like God and give even Satan and his comrades the right to assemble in peace as they so see fit. Defend their rights and let their rights stand just as we want our rights to be defended and to stand.
Dr. K.R. Allen
