Which side of the political spectrum deserves the meritorious designation of Liberal?
Consider the words of a true Liberal on the effect of ever-expanding government on the cause of Liberty:
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.” Letter From Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 27 May 1788
Then consider this ‘progressive’ synopsis of the issue:
- Liberal precepts are essentially Individual rights and freedoms, It is self-evident that these are diminished as government grows.
- Socialist-Left Precepts are of expansive government in conflict with the Liberal precepts based in Liberty.
- Therefore, one cannot be an advocate of expansive government and be a true Liberal.
Despite this straightforward logic, the ever deceptive Socialist-Left would like to have it both ways. They incessantly demand the ever-expanding government to the detriment of Liberty, and yet they have the insolence to assume the pretense of being Liberal. This term is deeply rooted in the concepts of freedom, it really belongs to the Pro-Liberty, Conservative side of the political spectrum. The point of this discussion is to set the record straight on this issue, despite Leftist lies on the subject.
Those of the Socialist-Left belong on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum.
Those who favor Individual rights and freedoms belong on the Pro-liberty, right side of the political spectrum.
While It is conceivable that Leftists may try to rationalize that Liberty can thrive with an overarching government, common sense clearly indicates this is an impossibility. Perhaps they know deep down that this is a severe deception on their part. Or it could be that they haven’t given the contradiction too much thought, lest it disturbs their superficial worldview that is bereft of logical underpinnings. After all, everyone would like to have a positive view of themselves. Who wouldn’t want to think of themselves as “Liberators” or protectors of freedom?
The problem for the Socialist-Left is that they are neither protectors of freedom or liberators, they are quite the opposite. The blunt fact is that their base ideology of collectivism has been the cause of horrid oppression, as well as, mass murder in the past century – and is still going strong. That they severely contradict themselves each and every time they use the Liberal label for their freedom destroying agenda should be obvious to everyone, but many (even on the Pro-Liberty Right) still unwittingly praise them when they use that label.
The unchanging meaning of the words Liberty and Liberal.
If it seems that words such as Liberty, Liberation, Libertarian, Liberalis as well as Liberal all convey similar conceptions it is because they all stem from the same root word Liber. This word that signifies the idea of freedom that traces it’s roots to the word in Greek eleutheros meaning: free, i.e. not a slave or not under restraint free. That they all have a common and unchanging meaning should be obvious.
Proving the case that true Liberals belong on the political right with two recent examples.
It seems fairly clear to me what’s happening here. Leadership would probably like the ACLU to remain a pro-First Amendment organization, but they would also like to remain in good standing with their progressive allies. Unfortunately, young progressives are increasingly hostile to free speech, which they view as synonymous with racist hate speech. Speech that impugns marginalized persons is not speech at all, in their view, but violence. This is why a student Black Lives Matter group shut down an ACLU event at the College of William & Mary last year, chanting “liberalism is white supremacy” and “the revolution will not uphold the Constitution.” Campus activism is illiberal, and liberal free speech norms conflict with the broad protection of emotional comfort that the young, modern left demands.
The ACLU’s capitulation to the anti-speech left should serve as a wake-up call for true liberals.
[Our emphasis] This revelation is pretty extraordinary considering that Liberty is part of the organization’s very name. That is but one data point in the revelation of the Left turning against Liberty and the proper place for true Liberals being on the political right.
Then there is the example of the Dartmouth study that showed that who self-identify as Republican were more likely to be tolerant of others:
Democrats were consistently more likely to indicate conflicting politics negatively affect potential relationships. While 82 percent of respondents who identified Democrats say they would be less likely to date someone with opposing political beliefs, only 47 percent of Independents and 42 percent of Republicans said the same. Similarly, 55 percent of Democratic respondents said opposite political views would make them less likely to befriend another student, compared to 21 percent of Independents and 12 percent of Republicans.
In other words, it was those of the right who displayed a very Liberal attitude towards others.
Thus we have demonstrated that advocates of ever-expanding government are adverse to Liberty and the Liberal precepts of Individual rights and freedoms. This means that those two goals are in opposition such that those on the Socialist-Left cannot be Liberal.
We have also shown that despite many protestations to the contrary, the word Liberal, as well as others of the same root structure, have not changed in meaning. Thus those who are true Liberals belong on the right side of the political spectrum that supports these important concepts. Finally, we furthered the case with two recent examples of how the Socialist-Left has turned it’s back on Liberty [and being Liberal] and is now very intolerant of other points of view.
Thus we have made the case that True Liberals belong on the Pro-liberty, Conservative-Right side of the political spectrum.
Video: What is a Classical Liberal?
A short video making the point that the Left is no longer Liberal, having traded individualism for collectivism.
In one of their first animated video shorts, the Rubin Report discusses the vitally important topic of just who is a Classical Liberal.
OUR FIRST ANIMATED VIDEO! What is a Classical Liberal?
Liberalism has been confused with Leftism or progressivism, which is actually has nothing to do with classical Liberalism. Sadly the Left is no longer Liberal at all for it has traded individualism for collectivism.
The Rubin Report
Published on Jul 10, 2018
$.02: When is it OK to quit church?
Chris Sonsken of South Hills Church and founder Church BOOM penned a piece on Fox News that caught my attention on Twitter. It was a good column. Read the article here. The article addressed a Pew Research finding as to why people change churches. There finding as shown by Sonsken are:
- Sermon quality
- Welcoming environment/people
- Style of worship
Sonsken does a great job in arguing that there are biblically sound reasons for leaving a church and finding a new one.
1. It’s OK to leave if God calls us to leave.
2. It’s OK to leave for family and marriage.
3. It’s OK to leave a church if you have moved too far away to conveniently drive to your church.
4. It’s OK to leave if you cannot follow the church’s leadership.
5. It’s OK to leave if heresy is being preached.
Sonsken even mentions that unethical practices like abuse are reasons to leave, though not the norm for the majority of church swapping.
The reasons Sonsken gave are no cause for disagreement, and I’m sure his book Quit Church probably better articulates them.
Where I want to add my two sense on the matter is that I disagree with his assessment sermon quality is not a biblical reason for changing churches. The supposition that sermon quality is inherently a result of the person treating church like an object of consumption, as Sonsken suggests is not true. I believe sermon quality is an umbrella term for several reasons for not liking a Sunday message.
Too often people leave a church because of disagreement, not getting their way, or because the sermons are no longer deep enough. Often when we dig into the reason the sermons are not deep enough, it ultimately goes back to the person being offended or not having their faulty theologies endorsed from the pulpit. The same pastor who was previously deep enough becomes shallow once there is an offense. It’s incredibly difficult to hear from God in a sermon when we are offended by the person delivering the sermon.
This is true in many cases. A sin that is personal gets preached on and the offended party leaves. I don’t deny this to be the case. But I believe we should look deeper into the current trends of worship and focus on the mission of the church.
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Matthew 28:18-21 ESV
The church is to preach the gospel, but people accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior is only part of the mission. The Church is tasked with making disciples. The church is meant to teach. Not every follower is at the same level in their spiritual maturity or theological depth. Some churches, larger churches in particular dumb down the bible. In public education, this would be seen as lowering the bar. In church this practice could hold back believers in their growth. Small groups are a way to supplement this, and every church should employ bible study as a means to grow discipleship.
Many churches now are focused on metrics. This can lead to theologically watered down sermons and worship. Why risk offending that person who may leave with a sermon? But if a church is more focused on using a Sunday message to give a motivational speech using an out of context passage, what does it matter if they are doctrinally sound (in their written beliefs)?
There are a lot of heretical churches in America. We have issues like gay marriage to separate the sheep from the goats. But what about the sheep that suck? If a church has the right doctrine but is more focused on metrics than the power of the Holy Spirit, their head is in the wrong place. So it is biblically sound to change churches so that your head to remains in the right place.
That is not treating church like a consumer product. That is treating church like one’s means to grow spiritually, better recognizing the mission of the Great Commission.
That is my $.02 on the matter. I hope I added some meaningful word to this topic.
This post was originally publishd on Startup Christ. Startup Christ is a website for business and theology articles and columns.
Video: So, You Think You’re Tolerant?
Leftists like to fancy themselves as being tolerant and Liberal, but they fall way short in both qualities.
Leftists will tell you that they are the most tolerant people who have ever lived, they will also scream at you for being a racist, xenophobic troglodyte if you happen to mention that you’re a conservative. They are supposedly ‘Liberal’, being in favour of Liberty while demanding it’s polar opposite – socialism.
Yes, if there is one constant in the universe, its that Leftists cannot be honest about who they truly are. This is what we love about our wonderful opponents on the nation’s socialist Left, for they are nothing like another group that went by the same nomenclature who also screamed at people in the streets with the motto: Common Good Before Individual Good. [Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz]
But let’s not talk about the epithets they project on their enemies, let’s talk about how they get along with everyone who just happens to agree with everything they say. A new PragerU video featuring Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report looked at who is really tolerant. He is a true Liberal that discovered that it is actually the Pro-Liberty Right that is more tolerant, go figure.
Jul 9, 2018
Are you tolerant? You probably think so. But who is tolerant in America today? Is it those on the left, or those on the right? In this video, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report analyzes this question and shares his experience.