A Line Too Broad: The Great Divide In Liberalism
by W. Mayfield
was told when I first entered a 12 step program that addictive behavior
could quite easily be summed up as "repeating the same actions, with the
same methods, being detrimental to us and others." As a Christian I only
have to look at Romans 7:14-21 to realize this is simply the nature of the
In past times, societies have tried numerous approaches for mollifying this nature issue with excess and reason. All through history of mankind we have debased ourselves, attempted to digress our humanity to the point we are just as much animal as human, and in fact should, as biological beings, have the freedom to be just animals. Science will, and has continued, to place truth of behaviors in the jungle of 'animalistic normality' and only separate the two as to the political and social science of Human Beings.
As always, we have some basic issues with the present liberal congress and President. Trying to divide the animalistic nature of man into ‘same’ anything is not scientific or realistic. For example; one can’t claim a social preference as to race and gender but claim it is the same as (add any polar opposite). You can’t say, as a point in reference, that same sex marriage produces the same results as heterosexual (male-female) physically, emotionally, or socially. The point becomes mute that two males or two females, as animalistic as they can be, are in the natural selection of Darwinism to which liberals and scientist point. Case in point; two male dogs cannot produce one child amongst them, nor two females either.
One cannot claim they are scientific as Darwinist and then purport same sex as producing the same results of natural selection. Either you are true Darwinist or not. The hard science communities constantly push ‘natural selection’ down the throat of theocratic religions while the soft science community of the social evolution tries to deny it. Can somebody get the story straight? (Here again are polar opposites.)
Furthermore, neither can there be a claim two males psychologically add diversity to the upbringing of a child, nor two females. One of the great feminist debates was they are just as credible in diversity in the market place as these attributes are in the home environment. But, you can’t have it both ways, or else the world was right in a male orientated society of top workforce management. You cannot neuter these kinds of issues. The rules must remain constant. (This would be more irrational polar opposite liberal equations when applied.)
It is possible to artificially alter these facts, to manipulate the end results, but as history shows us, this won’t successfully happen. The results of trying to change the definition of human identity never worked socially. Greece tried this. We hear the liberal value system try to convince us the philosophical basis of Greece is the only foundation of true, pure thought. Anything short of this is myth. If one goes to the forums of liberal arts schools you will be told Socratic Thought is the only reasoning that society can use to solve the issues of our dependence to natural selection as they view it.
I do not believe, for example, Socratic Thought preserved the human race. As a matter of fact, every empire that has floundered in this propensity of arrogance has fallen or suffered greatly. But, you will hear of the glorious things Socratic Thought has done. It led to the fall of Greece, Rome, led Hitler to WW II, and only great price has been able to overcome the damage done in each case by mans fatalistic application of this process. If one is truly scientific, why has all the Socratic political systems recorded the greatest financial failures the world could record. I’ll tell you why; Socratic Thought and its followers are consistent in only one arena, the greed that makes us seek to have our cake, eat it, and have all we want when we want it.
I took a great look at the present financial crisis that is upon us. The thinkers of these schemes are actually following educational models of Socratic principles and applying them to perfection. Amazing that these schemes sounded reasonable for everyone, yet, suffering is upon us with these greatest minds and business models when applied. It is not just a political issue, it is a human failure issue. Remember, liberals have always been the first to squawk and blame this and that. I suggest you look at the political platform of the originators of these issues, see how much money was funneled directly and indirectly into the liberal party during the election in the hope of America going bankrupt instead of the institutions. After all, liberalism has always tried to buy its way out instead of really applying ideals that can resolve the human crisis. This is the fallacy of polar opposite reasoning and mentality.
To be truly Socratic, one only needs to reason backwards from the desired result to reach a beginning point for your point of view. Understand, Rhetoric requires a manipulation of how you reach your conclusion. A good friend of mine and I were having a discussion once and the end result became this; all rivers don’t take the same exact path to reach the ocean but this doesn’t mean the rivers are the destination, and as all rivers do, they reach the ocean just the same. If I want to reach the Pacific Ocean while in America I can’t reach it using a river in India. Till Socratic Thought comes to the same conclusions at all points, it is just muse. Mental masturbation for the sake of intellectualism and the emotion of greatness trying to create its own correctness.
The reason I raise this question and look at these issues is this; Christianity seeks the good of all men even if we wisely know not all men are good. Wishing them to be good or trying to make them good when they aren’t is wishful thinking and definitely is a fantasy man can’t make happen. As a historian I can’t deny the facts, delete the uncomfortable ones, or change the results through rhetorical methods and claim to be an honest person. We are inundated with more opportunity to get it right because we have a historical awareness greater than any generation. To deny historical facts is to deny the importance of history itself. Dr. James Kennedy tried to keep this factual focus in place and even in the Christian ranks we have tried to reason away the uncomfortable lessons from history and may be on the verge of being more ‘out there’ than liberals.
This can easily cloud our viewpoints, our activities, and slant us away from what is really good. Politically, economically, and socially we are challenged to use our noodle more than we want to. We are challenged to accept what is most uncomfortable and realize history teaches us the ebb and flow of all things and will guarantee change has its perfect work like patience (correction no matter the cost). Sadly, most correction includes all in the same way rain falls on the just and unjust alike.
Political Observation of Rising Liberalism
President Franklin D. Roosevelt would have faced a tremendous calamity after WW II like he faced before the war; massive loss of jobs. The close proximity of the crash left a sour taste in many Americans and there was a new rising fear. The New Deal created the same old problems; debt! His financial czar and guru admitted 7 years later it was a massive failure. Most were survivors of those terrible days and had memories of how really terrible economic tragedy could be. Hoover was blamed for the disaster following WW II but he no more could have been responsible than FDR was in there being WW II. In relativity by population and dollar value, we are very close to the same position, or will be in just months to come.
Listening to the ever rising clamber of politicians, fearing their political position, money was borrowed from banking institutions and dumped into programs of labor for jobs in America (WPA, for example). In his short political career, this would make Hoover (unlike FDR’s failure in economic recovery that depended on war monies), by popularity, one of the worst presidents who ever served America. Like our present congressional powers, the money was released with great abandon. Unlike our present congressional powers, he looked to the future and built dams for hydro power and solidified the never go away welfare system.
His predecessor would benefit from his unpopularity as the person who "really" saved the people. The problem then was simply that it took longer, due to slow communications, and limited abilities to move those monies quickly left more opportunity for those closest to the seat of power to delete the funds and abuse the power afforded them. This created a quite different problem that came to rest upon Eisenhower. He was responsible to pay it back. And he too, like the Bush administration with terrorism, made the moral choice to irradiate the communistic threat headed towards us and Europe and pass the buck to the next generation also. With communication and finance moving 6 thousand times faster, the accountability will ascend on us much quicker than any generation prior to now. How the mighty have fallen!
It wasn’t the buyout of the economy that saved us, then. It was Truman who attempted to correct the many flaws of the method and recreated equity of all peoples regarding benefits. His mistake was to pass the responsibility further down the road to Eisenhower who would follow suit. But, Americans ‘felt’ safe despite the impending debt about to trump America and a younger generation who didn’t have a clue.
Like with FDR, war saved us and the people who profited from it didn’t want Nixon or Johnson to stop easing their pain. The cost was much higher in lives lost and in credibility. People who could have relieved the debt of America just padded their pockets till we got to Reagan.
Our economy didn’t flourish till President Reagan demanded balancing the budget and dropping debt. He even tried to trim the government! And how the political forces cried and kicked back! But notice, the balanced budget came and our world debt began to shrink. At this point one would think in one of our most prosperous times we would have learned the greatest lesson; responsibility is now, not later. Patriotism raised by Reagan was exactly that; we could be responsible! We must be the guarantor of the next generation, not its demise!
A liberal president has promised to decrease government and its frivolous waste. It was supposed to be the FIRST plan he would give to allow money and accountability to assist our work of correcting a bad situation. Seem to me it didn’t cross his mind once he was President. Why; because liberals are about social issues they deem most comforting and not the business of government.
Liberals promised no pork. The President promised it 27 times just before the election. We tried to believe him, we really did. Instead the promise of no pork became double the money borrowed over a mouse, or arts, while cutting into the money to fix housing and create viable jobs. Pork, like the mouse issue will go to universities in Pelosi’s district using teachers and students, not new workers. So much for pork jobs! Brother, do you have a dime?
So let’s return to my prior explanation of liberalism. They seek to spend time and money on making people feel good now and never consider how they will feel or how they have been affected when they reap the results of liberal works set in motion in haste. So long as we can eat, drink, play, and be merry now, no matter the cost later. Sounds like they are like Wall Street to me!
Did they think that maybe the same greed mechanism in the financial world that brought about our situation is the motivator of their own social and political soul? Same results really. Nothing new under the sun, no, nothing.
Liberalism has a real blind spot that Christians should be able to easily define and respond to. It is shortsighted and very moment opportunistic to their basic cause. They are able to purport being different, for we are to believe they have no ulterior motives, let alone causes. When they are caught, they try to speak down the opponent, not resolve the issue. If overly pressured, they will claim the ‘goose and gander’ argument.
The church as a whole has practiced in the last 20 years much of the same liberalistic approach. Lots of money you give will show God you are obedient. As a reward (unlike the argument for buying pardon for sins in the dark ages) God will just financially overwhelm your life with blessing. To the liberal political force, and the one in education, they claim ‘goose and gander’ in our face concerning their stand on homosexuality and abortion as being no more rhetorical as our preaching and practices.
Since 1948, from the "Symposium for Human Understanding," liberalism has tried to have the power to cry "you are the same as us." Oh, how they relish their position at our hands now. What the world sees is a monetary Christianity that is self seeking and self defacing. If that be true, we are mostly not Christ’s.
Another place where we drop the ball into liberalism’s lap is our inability to really touch the needs of the world around us. Our committees are like the ones in congress, our approach of self good and standing more important than the good we believe in, and like politics we measure the numbers of our constituents (popularity) as evidence of ‘right.’ So we are now viewed no different in the liberalistic forces around us as we view them. Our preaching seems to be aimed at personal preference and not community good.
Most of the problems we have with our voice on abortion come about, it seems, from our fear of possible dangers entering into the church in the form of undesirable persons who are ‘questionable.’ I have a friend who was in prison and when released has lived a very strong witness for Christ. After 15 years of walking a good walk, and having started a church for persons who had been in his position (or about to be), he has been denied access to ministerial alliances, shunned from speaking in local congregations, and the congregation has been ridiculed by conservative churches as being an army of unsavory characters who surely could never have met Christ on their own Damascus road. When the liberal sees this lack of humanity and common sense, they actually feel like they are more like God than those in the average church. Of course, true church groups that oppose them are just as bad as the undesirable Christians most churches shun (goose and gander). [*1]
And what of the forces of aberrant lifestyles wanting and believing they should stand in the pulpit? How did we ever get into such a position? In our present day church we gave the impression of being no different in action as their lifestyle. All we ask for is money for more power while they ask their preference of sexuality, pot smoking, etc. that is their power in choice to be preached from the pulpit. I am simply saying to the church right now …… how did we think we wouldn’t be sending these signals? Same thing I would say to the liberals and their thinking czars, how would you expect us to believe your position is different than ours?
When congress got upset about corporate jets we suddenly find out senators and representatives take executive flights with special aircraft from the Air Force to Paris, France and other erotic places on holidays with their families claiming government business and exploratory missions. It is believed to be about a BILLION American dollars a year. No commercial flights on holidays for them if they can claim a mission for America’s good. Sounds like lots of preachers and Christians I know.
If you are a Christian of real character the appearance of liberalism would seem very unacceptable. Not only is it about the appearance but the audacity. It’s not just about the right words but the right choices. It is not about your vote only, but your actions in the community that can empower your vote. It is not in your dressing just right but being right no matter how you dress. You can’t ask liberalism to change unless you are the evidence of change through and through in all you do. Now might be a good time for us to try it!
One last thought! If you make different choices individually, corporately, and in community the liberals will take note. They will treat you as though you are not in the mainstream. You might not be so popular. One thing that will happen is people who want to leave the liberal ideals behind that has failed them will find you, and ultimately, find God. As to your vote, it will have a power you might not see but God will find to be like Nathaniel under the tree, with no guile that does no harm.
Only those who choose to not be liberalized as the church is liberalized, as the politicians are liberalized, can we once again enjoy power in our voice in America and the world.
We will increase America’s debt in three to four months faster and more than the previous two years. At this rate we will probably by year’s end increase it over the last four years debt spending.
Within four years it is possible that a pastor who won’t marry same sex couples will lose the right to perform marriages.
States will not receive their share of money from future stimulus if they don’t adopt same sex unions.
Pelosi, when confronted about condoms and birth control being added to the bill how that applies to economic recovery, she the government would be saving lots of money with less births and a smaller number of people. So do you think women and families who opt for abortions might get rebates in the future for saving the government lots of money?
Will churches lose their exempt status and have to pay taxes. (I was thinking that if it did happen maybe those religious entities who have built up millions might spend it to stimulate the economy and help the needy instead of throwing it at the government.)
[*1] The Cross and the Switchblade would not be received with the relish as it was when written, you can be rest assured!!!!
Click here to email this page to a friend.
<Back to News