My friends - No one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when, or whether ever, I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. With the assistance of that Divine Being, who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail. Trusting in Him, who can go with me, and remain with you and be ever where for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell. - President Elect Lincoln's Farewell Address at Springfield, Illinois, February 11, 1861

Gratitude, grief, humility, faith, trust, interdependence, love. It is all there. A sublime and inspiring bit of prose, from the President Elect of the United States. The sort of mastery of words and humility before a Higher power that guided our nation through civil war, inspiring us then and now to carry on, and do what needs to be done, regardless of the test, trial, or tribulation..

The Liberty Letters are written by NewsMax.com pundit Steve Farrell, and are a project of the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism. Please help support both of thee worthy projects by getting your copy of Steve's highly praised inspirational novel, "Dark Rose." Click here to read the reviews.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

A registrar in England is refusing to perform gay weddings because they violate her conscience and deeply held religious convictions. She is taking her local council to court over the matter. The secular approach is a very invasive one which insists that simply being “offended” is grounds for all kinds of lawsuits. And while we at Liberty Letters find the secular legal outlook that protects the favored minority of the moment from being "offended" by another man's views, a dangerous assault on freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion. Yet, we wonder why it is that these freedom loving individuals won't extend the same protections against "being offended" to Christians around the world? Can't they see that this movement they've attached themselves to is not about freedom, but statist control? Not about protecting private moral decisions, but vigorously assaulting that moral order, the Judeo-Christian ethic, that stands in the way of political revolution?

Read the story in the UK's Daily Mail.

The Liberty Letters are written by NewsMax pundit Steve Farrell and friends; and are a project of The Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism.

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

I do not know if all Americans have faith in their religion - for who can read to the bottom of hearts? - but I am sure that they believe it necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion does not belong only to one class of citizens or to one party, but to the entire nation; one finds it in all ranks. - Alexis de Tocqueville, as quoted in "American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation,"  Jon Meacham

The Liberty Letters are a project of The Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

"We have explored the Temple of Royalty and found that the idol we have bowed down to has eyes which see not, ears that hear not our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone. We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and with a propitious eye beholds His subjects assuming that freedom and thought and dignity of self-direction which He bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting of the sun, may His Kingdom come." - Samuel Adams, Address to the Third Continental Congress

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Southwestern Oklahoma State University recently prohibited its employees from using the word "Christmas" in emails and voicemails - meaning no employee is allowed to wish anyone a "Merry Christmas" - and the school's Director of Human Resources actually visited various campus departments and ordered that the words "Christ" and "Christmas" be covered up in decorations.

The IT department was ordered to change the introduction page of the university's data base to remove a statement that said: "Have a very Happy Holiday . Merry Christmas . Happy New Year."

If you'd like to politely protest this latest expression of the Secular Inquisition, you may call the university's president John Hays at (580) 774-3766 or email him at president@swosu.edu and request that he reverse the ban on "Christmas." (Note: you will probably be told erroneously that there is nothing to the story; leave your message anyway.)

Liberty Counsel: Southwestern Oklahoma State University Bans The Word "Christmas"

Liberty Letters response to President Hays

Dear President Hays:

I know, at least I'm almost sure, that of all places where freedom of religion, speech, and the press ought to be protected under the first amendment charge that "Congress (and I would hope every other law-making or rule making body is included under the spirit of this clause) shall make NO LAW … prohibiting the free exercise thereof" that you would see the wisdom in not proscribing the free religious speech of your employees.

I urge you to reconsider your black listing of permissible speech - anything secular apparently - but nothing religious, you know, nothing that really defines who a person is and how he feels about life, his neighbor, and the holiday in question - and which instead leaves but a void to be filled and thus a prejudice in favor of, every other philosophy on life … some of them not so good.

Bah Humbug to your policy! And instead, Merry Christmas to you and your fellow collegians!

Liberty Letters source: Our friends at the Idaho Values Alliance. Used with permission.

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

The forces of rabid, fundamentalist secular liberalism reach even into tiny communities that you might be inclined to think are still safe harbors from political correctness.

Monument, Colorado is such a place. Class valedictorian Erica Corder had the effrontery to mention Jesus Christ in her graduation speech, following the example set by presidents from George Washington to George Bush, all of whom have mentioned Christ and Christianity in public speeches.

However, she was ordered to issue an apology for her "immature" comments and told that if she did not, she would not receive her graduation diploma.

Afraid that her college career could be placed in jeopardy, Miss Corder was blackmailed into issuing an apology for her remarks.

And so the thought police have now extended their reach into the high school level, and the new McCarthyites are now more than willing to punish those who deviate from secular orthodoxy by terminating their academic careers. You may be excused for thinking this has the ring of fascism.

Liberty Counsel is now representing her in a freedom of speech lawsuit against the school, and Miss Corder is pursuing the suit not just for herself but for "students in the future. I want to make sure they aren't afraid of saying what they believe, and I want the school district to know what they did was wrong."

The school is digging in its heels, and will "vigorously defend" its Inquisition-like punishment of Miss Corder and her exercise of freedom of speech and religion.

The lawsuit was filed after the family spent a year trying to persuade the district to clarify its policy with regard to graduation speeches.

Liberty Letters' Source: Idaho Values Alliance. Used with permission.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

… the advent of Jesus Christ upon earth was required to teach that all the members of the human race are by nature equal and alike. - Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy In America," 1835.

Liberty Letters Comment: Alexis de Tocqueville, who with a philosopher's and sometimes a prophet's pen understood so much about America and her destiny … understood this above all other realities: that the American miracle in liberty was the by-product of the best in Christianity … of men inspired to live, govern, learn, and prosper under the sway of the Higher Laws and perfect moral code of Jesus the Christ. And as to the equality of men before the judgment bar of God, did not Christ teach such things when he held up as examples to the Jews - the Good Samaritan, the Women at the Well, a Roman Centurion, and others outside of the House of Israel; as well as the poorest of widows, the repentant adulteress, and the boy born blind? And was this not his message when he rebuked those in Israel for failing to realize that "where much is given, much is required," nor to understand that their father was not Abraham (for they did not the works of Abraham), but the devil?  Indeed, it was Christ who taught us, and still teaches us to judge a person, or a group, by his fruits, not his genealogical line, nor the color of his skin, nor his sex. Alexis de Tocqueville knew this. Every early American school child knew this. But do we today?

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

NewsMax.com's David Limbaugh writes today:

Newsweek's Anna Quindlen recently wrote that a presidential victory for Rudy Giuliani "wouldn't be a good thing for this country, but his candidacy may wind up being a good thing for his party," which Quindlen obviously believes has been hijacked by the Christian right.

Giuliani's strong poll numbers, said Quindlen, perhaps "indicate that the end is nigh for the stranglehold the Leviticus Lobby has had on the GOP." It's no longer surprising that those screaming most loudly against Christianity and its influence on public policy in America often employ the same tactics and represent the same dangers they falsely attribute to Christians. Christians have far more to fear from the secular thought police than the other way around.

Whether it's writer Christopher Hitchens or CNN's Christiane Amanpour sloppily conflating Christian "fundamentalists" or observant Jews with Islamic jihadists; secular leftists calling the Christian right the American Taliban; or militant secularists like HBO's Bill Maher salivating over reports that Mother Teresa had a crisis of faith, the theme is the same. Christian activists are a societal nuisance.

The secularists' criticism goes beyond decrying the Christian right's alleged hostility to church-state separation. They claim strong religious belief leads to oppression, tyranny, and violence.

They even suggest the mere defense of absolute truth is dangerous. Alan Hurwitz of North Star Writers Group, wrote, "One thing I do know — the pursuit of 'truth,' as in mine over yours, creates conflict and isolation among individuals, groups, and societies. I am secular enough to think those are bad things. Religious zealots, 'knowers of truth . . . often have a scary gleam in their eyes . . . The challenge of dealing with rigid manifestations of religious 'truth' is one of management leadership — how to create societies that allow diverse groups to believe and act on their truth, without hurting each other." Note this is not some Christian talking about creating societies and exerting control.

The secularists demanding the removal of specks from Christians' eyes are oblivious to the planks in their own. Their paranoid predispositions about Christians lead them to the very type of oppressive behavior they wrongly ascribe to Christians. If anyone is guilty of wanting to foreclose debate and impose their values on others, it is these hyperventilating secularists.

They are the ones who have decreed there's a consensus on global warming and attempted to stigmatize dissenters as paid mouthpieces for "evil" energy companies. With their absence of self-reflection it must never occur to them that in their professed monopoly on "science," they squarely violate the fundamentals of the scientific method by forbidding debate and insulating their theories from scientific scrutiny.

They malign intelligent design proponents for daring to subject their dogma — and distortions — to the rigorous re-examination scientific methodology requires.

They seek to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance, though one poll reveals that only 14 percent of Americans agree with them.

They brand as bigots opponents of the societal sanctioning of homosexual marriage. Some even pronounce certain scriptural passages on homosexuality "hate speech" that leads to violence, as if to disapprove of any behavior is to hate it or its practitioners and leads to violence against them.

Likewise, many pro-abortionists speciously argue that pro-life advocacy leads to violence against women — never mind the violence against the unborn. The secular left condemns traditionalists for "legislating morality" and invading our bedrooms. Their quasi-religious fervor apparently blinds them to their efforts to wield governmental power to impose their own values, whether on homosexual marriage, abortion, wealth redistribution, or socialized medicine.

Alas, none of this should surprise Christians, who surely understand we are reaping the ravaging effects of a secularist, atheistic worldview that has finally become dominant in our postmodern culture and has claimed absolute truth as its casualty.

Liberty Letters agrees; read the full article.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Missing the Mark With Religion, Part 7

As a child growing up in New York, I was attracted to the opposite sex. When I saw a pretty little girl flash a smile, my heart fluttered, my cheeks blushed, I shuffled my feet and shyly looked the other way.

I always liked girls. No one had to tell me that I should. I just did.

When I became a teen, little changed. I still adored them, though when I thought of females, I began to think of marriage. Holy matrimony seemed like a prerequisite to happiness and completeness. Don't ask me why. It was instinct. I knew I was born to be married; and fortunately, no man, woman or institution stepped in to pervert nature's instincts.

Public schools, you see, and even television, still defended traditional values and helped reinforce what nature had implanted.

Ben Franklin, a man from a value-laden era, and a man who was not the philanderer anti-American historical revisionists make him out to be (he firmly believed in the law of chastity, for instance), (1) expressed long ago what I by nature felt as a teen. In an attempt to persuade a young friend to reject the idea of a mistress and embrace the institution of marriage, Franklin wrote:

Marriage is the proper remedy. It is the most natural state of man, and therefore the state in which you are most likely to find solid happiness. Your reasons against entering into it at present appear to me not well founded. The circumstantial advantages you have in view by postponing it are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the thing itself, the being married and settled. It is the man and woman united that make the complete human being. Separate, she wants his force of body and strength of reason; he, her softness, sensibility, and acute discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the world. A single man has not nearly the value he would have in that state of union. He is an incomplete animal. He resembles the odd half of a pair of scissors. If you get a prudent, healthy wife, your industry in your profession, with her good economy, will be a fortune sufficient. (2)

One Flesh He might have added, for it fit, "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (3) and God's command to our first parents, "[to become] one flesh." (4)

Franklin and the revelations are right. There really is something about this marriage thing, an extraordinary opportunity ordained by God and Nature to become something we cannot be alone (and not become with a person of the same sex).

Two people, man and woman, mutually bound by love and sacred covenants, become one flesh in the natural unity of sexual intercourse; they become one flesh through children, who literally possess their combined genetic code; they become one heart and mind through the common endeavor of raising these children through thick and thin; and hopefully, through their common devotion to God, His laws, and their duty to serve their fellow man and, firstly, each other, they become one forevermore.

But this is not all. They also become one, as Franklin noted, because of natural differences between man and woman, which interlock and complement each other in a wonderful symphony achieved through a lifetime of give and take, sacrifice and patience, struggle and mutual reform.

It is an ingenious and inspired plan devised to stretch man, refine him, and teach him to love others more than he loves himself, a plan which, besides being religiously sanctioned, has met with the approval and sanction of every great civilization.

Family and National Stability

And here's why: All societies have learned that the family is basic and fundamental to national stability and happiness. When families fall apart, so do nations.

French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville knew that a collective animosity or negligence toward the family was the sort of destabilizing force that fomented revolutions, while strong families prop up and prosper free government, as was the case in early 19th century America. In his classic work, "Democracy in America," he observed:

But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace. There his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm; and as he finds that an orderly life is the surest path to happiness, he accustoms himself easily to moderate his opinion as well as his tastes. While the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs. (5)

America rose, Europe fell. No wonder. Unfortunately, the cultural differences between Europe and the United States are now dimming. Generally, we still have stronger families than they, and thus more stability, strength and freedom; but, simultaneously, the anti-family values that brought the terror and instability of the French Revolution have gained a considerable and militant foothold here in the United States, and may, if left unchecked, beckon our downfall.

Marx's Loathing of Family

It was the ideology of communism founder Karl Marx that led the charge against marriage and the family that unsettles us today. In language fuming with hatred, loaded to the hilt in reckless, sweeping generalizations and on fire with revolution, Marx decried Western Civilization's belief in the "hallowed co-relation" of husband to wife and parent to child as a "bourgeois claptrap [artifice]" which is "disgusting." To him and his cohorts, capitalist children are thought of by their parents as nothing more than "articles of commerce and instruments of labor," whereas wives and daughters are thought of by their capitalist husbands and fathers as nothing more than "common prostitutes"; and bourgeois marriage is thought of by men in general as nothing more than "a system of wives in common," (6) for, according to Marx's dark view of the Capitalist Christian culture, every Capitalist, like every Christian, cheats on his wife and abuses his children.

Such a world!

But he didn't stop there, no. Since the family stinks, then why not a free-sex society where anything goes? It sounds all too familiar. Marx has, in many respects, won the day. He teaches in our schools, writes the scripts in Hollywood and sends down edicts from the bench.

Yet, Marx's modern beneficiaries, the various ‘victim's' lobbies of the anti-family movement, ought to consider the possibility that they have been exploited alright, by political opportunists who employ "a technique that is as old as the human race, a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave" (7) – that is, exploited, and ultimately duped into slavery, by a moral, even a religious appeal from the very folks who say they abhor such things in public life!

Nevertheless, not all things are as they seem to be. Sometimes a chunk of free cheese obscures a deadly trap. Or to put it another way, in this case, behind the smoke screen of supposed rights for things thousands of years of culture, religion and law have rejected as harmful, it seems plain that a red eye emerges, wickedly, haughtily peering down on marriage and the family intent on overthrowing the existing moral and political order.

Joining hands with the same are myriads of individuals and institutions pressing forward, unwisely, unwittingly, perceiving a benefit in being thus encouraged, and thus exploited, many of them ironically doing so in the name of preserving religious freedom. Those who do, miss the mark about religion in public life, and in truth, hold hands with Marx, the Devil, and every tyrant who ever hoped to enslave the children of men.

And so we have come full circle. And yet, whether it remains politically correct or not, marriage between a man and woman, and children raised by mother and father are still divine institutions; and as such, the nation that makes war on them will rue the day as surely as the sun rises tomorrow; while the nation that rises up and defends them will save itself.

The only question is, to which will we cleave?

Steve Farrell is a pundit with NewsMax.com, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, editor of the Liberty Letters, author of the inspirational classic "Dark Rose," and founder and president of the Latter-day Foundation for Moral Liberalism: preserving and promoting the Judeo-Christian ethic, the U.S. Constitution, and lessee-faire in the 21st Century.

Footnotes

1. Franklin was in his 80s, beset with several incapacitating physical maladies – gout, boils and huge (some have said softball size) gall bladder stones (during the time he was supposedly philandering!) – and was thought of by the ladies in France, and the French in general, as "harmless," "sober," "a Quaker," a man of "simplicity and innocence," one of the "paragons of the age," "beloved Papa," and was proclaimed in the title of a portrait of Franklin commissioned in France as a "Man of Character." It was true, at this age, that women enjoyed his company, and he theirs. Especially appealing to him was that French women were educated.

But the accusations against him as a philanderer were made by political enemies, denied by Franklin and those who knew him best (teaching on the principle of chastity, he counseled his son ‘to avoid the very appearance of evil,' as a result of these political charges), and were, besides slander and libel, at his advanced age and particularly in his medical condition, nonsense as well. The one charge that might honestly be held against him was that he fathered a child in his youth, which today's revisionist ‘historians' mention in such unkind ways as "he fathered a bastard child," but they rarely, if ever, tell the full story, that Franklin was quick to rectify his mistake and took good care of his obligations to mother and child the rest of his life, even finding honorable and profitable employment for the boy as he grew older.

This helps us understand why Franklin counseled so strongly against the same weakness in others. He learned the hard way, and wished to prevent others from sharing in the same fate. In light of all this, here's a point to ponder: To the Christian who repents, God remembers the sin no more, but ‘historians,' particularly those who wish to destroy America's heritage, unveil just how un-Christian, how ill-motivated, they truly are by drudging up old mud, again and again – indeed, conjuring up new mud while they're at it.

2. Franklin, Benjamin, Letter, June 25, 1745.

3. Holy Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:1.

4. Ibid., Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:8, Genesis 2:24, 1 Corinthians 6:15-20, Ephesians 5:31.

5. de Tocqueville, Alexis. "Democracy in America," Book 1, Chapter 17.

6. Marx, Karl. "Communist Manifesto," for all the quotes from Marx in these two paragraphs.

7. David O. McKay, former president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, warned: "We … warn our people in America of the constantly increasing threat against our inspired Constitution. … The proponents thereof are seeking to undermine our own form of government and to set up instead one of the forms of dictatorships [which] is now flourishing in other lands. These revolutionists are using a technique that is as old as the human race, a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them." (See: Cannon, Donald Q. ed., "Latter-day Prophets and the United States Constitution," Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1991, pgs. 120 - 121.)

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Liberty and license are not synonymous. Parents know better.

Too many of them have had the unfortunate dilemma of dealing with the "I am free to do as I please" child who routinely, or upon occasion, exercises that egocentric proclamation to reckless extremes. These parents stand as witnesses that a widely accepted notion that "freedom and moral responsibility are not connected" is at best a delusion instilled by mis-education, not experience, and is at worst a diabolical lie.

The pain they feel, the shipwrecked lives they labor to pick up and reassemble, the incessant pleadings to stubborn, short-sighted children, and the endless nights spent sobbing upon their knees, all testify to them that unrestrained freedom is not freedom at all, but quite often a terrible, miserable slavery.

Every act has a consequence. Experience, that cruel schoolmaster, teaches us that. But it's not as if the idea is lacking in proponents.

The voice of Christianity warns, "Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (1)

The voice of the sciences seconds, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." (2)

And even the man-on-the-street echoes, "What goes around comes around."

Experience, God, the scientist and the streetwise understand this common-sense law. Call it the Law of the Harvest, the Law of Physics, the Law of the Street, or the Boomerang Effect; it is dreadfully real that actions for good or evil will bring results which either enlarge or limit one's freedom.

Sexual "freedom," when thought through, provides a clear-cut confirmation of this truth. For instance, the modern doctors of humanism, socialism and new age-ism proclaim to our youth that premarital sex is a healthy, happy and satisfying activity.

No doubt, it seems satisfying for the few moments it lasts.

But the choice to be sexually active as a teen-ager is not the liberating, ‘isn't-that-sweet' lifestyle that the social engineers and social scientists say that it is.

Early premarital sex reaps natural consequences: loss of virginity, damaged or lost church affiliation, guilt, limitations on spousal selection (men exploit sexually active women but are reticent to marry them), social disease, pregnancy, adoption, abortion (with the even greater moral dilemma of considering killing one's own), early marriage or single motherhood, increased risk for poverty, divorce (with its unpleasant, often unrelenting custody and parenting battles), abuse, and possible enslavement to government welfare programs.

This is especially so for the female. The male experiences some of the same, but worse yet, he often runs from responsibility and into the arms of yet another victim, and the cycle begins anew.

For a young lady abandoned to motherhood, even when she just happens to be that tough, resilient female who takes her lumps, transforms her life, bravely bears her child and wisely goes to college to improve her lot, the question must be asked of her, "Are you now free?"

Her answer most likely will be a resounding "No!" For when the school day is over, and the social and dating ritual begins, she is, rightly so, home with the baby, loving, feeding, cuddling, lullabying and diaper changing. She may be working a job.

Her social life is nonexistent; her chance of finding a worthy young man diminished; her study time, if she hasn't the luxury of affording a babysitter (few do), checkered and challenged; her life terribly lonely and stress-filled.

There are exceptions, but relatively few.

Unrestrained freedom bears a heavy cost.

Others suffer too. Parents (in a variety of ways), younger brothers and sisters by way of a poor role model, friends who naively believe that single parenthood ‘looks like fun,' and unrelated citizens who are forcibly taxed to pay for an assortment of social repair programs.

Beyond this, the precedent of extending a "safety-net" catches on and every other mistake-ridden person on the block joins in with the plea: "If the government can take care of him or her, than why not me?"

But there is at least one more cost. It is the cost of those whose exercise in "liberty" leads them to become bitter rather than better.

There is a little-known but documented story of an obscure boy, and his family, who converted to Christianity. Of that conversion, the changed young man wrote a precious and powerful testimony to the world concerning his newfound faith. It had transformed him and his parents, bringing great joy and purpose in life.

Then something devastating happened. He went to college! Isn't that all too often the case? It was there that he, like so many others, decided it was time to spread his wings and assert his newfound freedom. He could have done so in a positive manner, but he did not. His choice was to have a sexual affair with a married woman.

At that point, rather than express regret and redress the mistake, he exulted in his liberty. He decided his previous religious liberation was a form of physical and emotional bondage. He began to pursue a course to denounce the religion of his parents, his former faith of Judaism, and every other religious faith. He set his hand against God, denounced Him as a hoax, and, as an addendum, promised to abolish all "eternal truths," to erase "freedom, justice … religion … [and] morality," and to eradicate those twin trouble makers (the family and private property) from off the face of the earth. (3) Men, he said, and only a few select men at that, were the only true gods, henceforth and forever. Truth and morality would now be relative.

He put this all down on paper. He founded a revolution based on these principles. This revolution, first spawned by the self-justification of the ‘liberty' he had found by violating the law of chastity with a married woman, was the starting point of the most horrific adventure in mass murder, slavery and poverty in the history of the world.

Perhaps you've guessed it by now, though ‘historians' and ‘educators' have hidden the lesson. The boy's name was Karl Marx. The philosophy he founded was Communism. You see, freedom without moral responsibility, never really is an exercise in liberty at all.

MensNewsDaily contributor Steve Farrell is a pundit with Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, the editor of The Liberty Letters, and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel "Dark Rose." Help support Liberty Letters by getting your copy today

Footnotes

1. Holy Bible, Galatians 6:7.

2. Newton, Sir Issac. This is Newton's third law of motion.

3. Marx, Karl. "Communist Manifesto"

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Not far removed from Marx's elitist man-as-God theory (meaning, more particularly, Marx or the ruling class or the state as God), of all the popular takes on religion in law in America that miss the mark, none is more pervasive, none strike closer to the root, than the worship of the Humanist God of Democracy – the Almighty Self.

The fall into the trap of extreme individualism, or self-worship, is ever one of the dangers of social democracy. And as God, religion and traditional morality are pushed to the fringes by socialist revolutionaries and ‘reformers' of every stripe, this new God becomes democracy's natural by-product, indeed, its most distinguishable feature.

One need not be a prophet to perceive that we live in a time when "everyone has [turned] to his own way" to the worship of his own individualistic idols. (1)

We know those idols. They are wealth as ‘the beginning and the end,' higher education, political power, physical pleasure, endless entertainment, incessant idleness, and feral freedom – or that freedom that rejects all laws, religious principles and social customs that rebuke or check self-interest, pride and boundless pleasure.

Collectively, we know these idols as the God of Self, and the central conveyor of its catechism as public education (2), for generally what is taught there advocates just such a god. It is in America's schools and universities that we find ‘feel good' curriculums that focus on promotion rather than performance, condoms rather than chastity, abortion rather than accountability, student choice rather than parental consent.

There we find health professionals who contend that masturbation, premarital sex and homosexuality provide a "normal, healthy" release valve for the constant pressures of peers, parents and puberty.

There we find school psychologists and administrators whose job it is to ensure that those youth engaged in any of the above are never burdened with guilt; and likewise, there we find those who labor to de-fund any club, fire any teacher, ban any book, and scorn as ‘homophobic' any person who contends sex is for husband and wife only, because it might occasion guilt in the transgressor (Heaven forbid!), and intolerance and violence in everyone else.

There we find textbooks that brainwash children into believing that laws which permit the less favored, the careless and the idle to rob the property of the more favored (via government transfers) are ‘just,' because every human being has the right, so they say, to be protected from error and to be shielded from the refiners fire.

There we find children and young adults being taught about a strange kind of equality, one that takes (as but one example) the tried and true equal right for each to express their moral and political views in public, one tyrannical step beyond common sense, to the demand that every man, woman and child's beliefs be treated as equally valid. To put it more bluntly, if such aired beliefs are deemed politically correct, to be preferred and protected, then if not, too bad!

And there we find students encouraged, like the good communists the National Education Association and the ACLU would have them be, to rat on their parents if these parents at any time seem overly restrictive or less than capable of providing for their varied and unlimited wants.

All of this and more our children are taught in nearly all of our state schools and colleges as the natural heritage of democracy, a democracy our forefathers supposedly gave them.

But a democracy – the Founders gave them not. It was a republic. For while a republic reverences self-government within the bounds of fixed and settled laws, applying those laws equally to all; a democracy encourages every man to be a law unto himself, thus pitting every man against the law, every man against his fellow man, every man against his family, and every man against God himself. Every man becoming, by and by, above the law, and a partner to anarchy and anarchy alone.

That is not to say that in the short run, the worship of this ‘God of Democracy' doesn't make a man admirably rugged, self-sufficient, productive and wisely suspicious of centralized control in government – if he and his fellow citizens are well educated and morally grounded from the start – for it may. But what of future generations? What happens when a people are so fiercely independent, so focused on their own rights, their own property, their own prosperity, that they forget God, forget family, forget all the old loyalties, neighborly duties and government limitations? Who then, what then, will guide them and check them in their boundless, silly and selfish pursuit of self?

In 1832, the insightful Alexis de Tocqueville prophetically warned:

[If I were] to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the [Unites States]. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest – his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not – he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of float happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances – what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.

The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till [this] nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. (3)

Did not de Tocqueville hit the nail on the head? Is this not, ironically, where a self-centered interpretation of liberty is taking our nation – on to statism and the weakening of self-will? It is disturbing, then, to be told, not just by socialists on the left, but by many free-market economists and libertarians on the right, that self-interest is the highest, nay, the only moral principle; that Christianity – with all its talk about love of neighbor, and its annoying insistence that a few ‘thou shalt nots' actually belong in the law – impedes our happiness, our liberty, and our prosperity! How can they in good faith teach such a thing? After all, what shall we call a system that democratically defends self-interest in one breath, and makes war on religious principle, moral persuasion and a few good fixed laws in government, in the next breath, other than the rule of the jungle by consent?

And is it not true that traitors, tyrants, murderers, rapists, thieves, liars, sycophants, protectionists, and covetous welfare recipient (idlers) all are in pursuit of self-interest as well?

So what is the solution?

Alexis de Tocqueville knew it. The freer a nation, he taught, the more individualism needs to be "combat[ed] by the principle of interest rightly understood," or what was commonly known by our Founders as "enlightened self-interest."

This principle "held as a truth," the Christian dogma, "that man serves himself in serving his fellow creatures, and that his private interest is to do good." Or as Montaigne said long ago: "Were I not to follow the straight road for its straightness, I should follow it for having found by experience that in the end it is commonly the happiest and most useful track." (4)

In such a society, self-interest is realized through virtuous living, and self-interest is kept in check by a common standard of morality and law inspired by the One God of Heaven – a general standard, by which all laws should be judged – a standard by which every human being may know that his liberty goes this far and no further – a standard that reminds us that no man lives in a vacuum, that every choice has a consequence, and that each choice should be tempered with a responsible consideration of the needs and rights of others.

Christ taught that they who seek their lives shall lose it, while they who lose their lives in His service shall find it. (5) True liberty, therefore, can be found only among a people who, by in large, exercise their agency in such a way that ‘number one' is someone other than themselves. Christianity's charge that love of God is best evidenced by love of neighbor (6) is a good practical starting point.
NewsMax pundit Steve Farrell is associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, the editor of The Liberty Letters (visit libertyletters.mensnewsdaily.com), and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel "Dark Rose."

Footnotes

1. The Holy Bible, Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 56:11; Jeremiah 25:6-7; Deuteronomy 5:7-10

2. Inspired by "Humanist Manifesto" author John Dewey, who is considered "the father of progressive education," the model set up as the beau ideal for modern educators by certification boards and the universities that must comply with those boards.

If we expect to understand just what is going wrong with American education, we must begin by understanding what the International Socialist Review said of progressivism in its Summer 1957 republish of a 1939 paper, "The Rise and Fall of Progressivism." Progressivism, they noted, is an attempt "to apply Marxism-Leninism creatively to the problems of American politics."

One must remember, in this regard, that the Leninistic approach to Communism is no less violent and complete in its final goal of tyranny, but that its so-called claim to fame is that it is more futuristic, more third way, more willing to use whatever ploy, whatever short-term measure possible to achieve ultimate victory over the free world than did a Stalin, for instance. It is, supposedly, less reactive and more proactive in doing whatever it takes, by whatever means necessary, in a given situation. It will even boast of being all for democracy, as Marx did, in that it employs numerous "feedback mechanisms" on the local and national level.

Though the feedback may reform (perestroika) the current approach in some way, it must ultimately strengthen it, and there's the catch. However, at times it will go even further and permit dissent, even for extended periods if deemed necessary – or periods of openness (glasnost) – in part to bring secret dissenters comfortably out in the open, and then comes the purge.

Thus, what we foolishly perceive as movement in the direction of freedom, or equal rights, is something far, far different to an ‘in the know' progressive. He has something else in mind.

3. Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America," Vol. 2, pp. 332-333 4. Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America," Vol. 2, p. 129

5. The Holy Bible, Mark 8:35; Matthew 16:25; Luke 9:24; Luke 17:33; Matthew 10:39

6. The Holy Bible, Mark 22:38-40, Mark 12:30-31

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Debates about same-sex marriage and gay adoptions always include the argument that a child has the right to both a father and a mother. If that is true, why is a child usually deprived of that right when heterosexual couples divorce? It would seem that maintaining the father's love and authority would be crucial when a child's life is turned upside down by divorce. Yet, family courts routinely deprive children of one of their parents, usually the father, restricting his time with his child to about six days a month.

The courts pompously assert they are invoking "the best interest of the child," but how can it be in the best interest of children to make them forfeit one parent?

We hear many pious comments about the need for fathers to be involved in the upbringing of their children. This need should be even more important in times of emotional stress (such as divorce) than the need for fathers to play ball with their kids in an intact family.

Some states are considering legislation that establishes a presumption of shared parenting whereby divorced parents divide equally both time and authority over the children. This enables children to maintain strong ties to both parents.

When primary or sole custody is given to the mother, the father becomes merely a visitor in the child's life (that's why it's called "visitation"), whose only value is to mail a paycheck and be an occasional babysitter. The father loses his parental authority and fades out of his own child's life.

An argument is sometimes made that shuttling back and forth between two homes may be upsetting or a nuisance, but there is no more shuttling with equal custody (where parents, for example, get alternating weeks) than with the typical mother-custody/father-visitation schedule (where the father gets two weekends a month plus some Wednesday evenings). Do the math; both plans have about the same number of shuttles between homes.

An argument is also made that giving custody primarily to the mother promotes stability, but the need for stability is really a reason for shared custody. The stability of parental relationships is a great deal more important than contact with material things.

Americans have always assumed that parents share decision-making authority because only parents can determine what is in the best interest of their own children. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville reaffirmed this principle and rejected the argument that a judge could supersede a fit parent's judgment about his child's "best interest."

Nevertheless, in what Stephen Baskerville calls a "silent revolution," millions of divorced parents have had their fundamental right to decide what is in the best interest of their own children taken away and given instead to a vast array of government officials and so-called "experts" such as judges, lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, child protective services, child support enforcement agents, mediators, counselors, parenting classes, and feminist groups.

This shift began in the 1970s after the spread of unilateral divorce was followed by the creation of a giant federal child-support-enforcement bureaucracy. The notion that this mix of government officials and government-appointed advisers can dictate what is the best interest of the child rather than a child's own parents is how the liberals and feminists are fulfilling their goal that "it takes a village (i.e., the government) to raise a child."

An example of the bias against fathers can be seen in the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2007 (S. 1626) recently introduced by Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Evan Bayh (D-IN). The bill mentions "child support" 65 times, but not once does it mention parenting time, custody, visitation, or access denial.

Dr. Baskerville's new book called Taken into Custody to be published in August by Cumberland House, provides a copiously documented description of society's injustices to children who have been deprived of their fathers and of fathers who have been deprived of their children. This book is a tremendous and much-needed report on how family courts and government policies are harming children.

It is a breakthrough for shared parenting that a non-custodial father, Robert Pedersen, was recently named Runner-Up in the nationwide Best Life Magazine's "Hero Dad" Contest

. Pedersen is only allowed 6 to 8 days a month with his two children from a previous marriage.

Pedersen has devised a novel way to demonstrate the importance of fathers to children of divorced parents. He is leading an "Equal Parenting Bike Ride" starting in Lansing, Michigan, on August 11 and culminating with a rally in Washington, DC on August 18.

Used with the permission of Liberty Letters' friend "Eagle Forum."

Praised as a "modern classic;" support Liberty Letters by purchasing your copy of Steve Farrell's inspirational novel, "Dark Rose." 

 Print This Post | Other posts by Phyllis Schlafly

Liberty Counsel filed a federal lawsuit this morning against Orange County, Florida for stopping Shirley Snyder from handing out flyers and gospel tracts in a public park. The flyers were invitations to an Easter service at her local church. County park officials insisted that she apply for permission to distribute flyers and tracts in the park. The county's rules violate Snyder's right to free expression. Of all places, speech in public parks is highly protected - whether oral or written - both by history and by the courts.

Read our News Release for more details about Orange County's unbelievable anti-Christian actions.

Your freedom is under serious attack when the government stops you from inviting people to church! We must be able to turn back every attempt to silence the gospel of Jesus Christ. We must act now and keep America safe for Christians. It will be too late to take action when the government chains the doors of the churches shut.

Join with us as we keep the doors open for the gospel to be preached across America. Your commitment to prayer and support of Liberty Counsel will make a difference.

Mail your contribution to PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854, call 1-800-671-1776 or go to www.LC.org and click on the "Donate" button.

"Hate Crimes" Battle Is Not Over

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has abruptly withdrawn a controversial defense authorization bill, which also stopped the "hate crimes" measure that was an amendment to the defense bill.

However, Reid’s spokesperson said Reid is willing to attach the bill to other legislation if the stalemate over the defense authorization bill continues. We cannot let up the pressure on Congress because the battle is far from over. We have been fighting against the passage of similar "hate crimes" bills for many years and will continue as long as necessary.

CONTACT Your Senators at www.senate.gov/ and tell them to oppose hate crimes laws and also to oppose any effort to sneak a "hate crimes" amendment to another bill.

You can read our memo about the dangers of "hate crimes" laws. The document is in pdf format and can be accessed at http://www.lc.org/attachments/hatecrimesmemo2005.pdf

. Please make copies and distribute the memo so that others can be informed.

It's Time to Take Back America

God is the foundation of good government and national prosperity. Look around you and you will see that America is spiraling downward because so many leaders are ignoring God. Something must be done. This book by Mat Staver will motivate you and equip you with the information you need understand the problem and become part of the solution. Call 800-671-1776 and make a donation to Liberty Counsel of $12 or more and we will send you this inspirational 92-page book. You can also order in our online store.

Make a tax-deductible online donation to Liberty Counsel

Mathew D. Staver - Founder and Chairman
Anita L. Staver - President
Liberty Counsel - 1-800-671-1776
PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854

—
PO Box 11108 - Lynchburg, VA 24506
—
Suite 1100 - 1015 Fifteenth St NW - Washington, DC 20005

Used with the permission of Liberty Letters' friend, Liberty Counsel

Help support Liberty Letters by purchasing a copy of Steve Farrell's highly praised inspirational novel, Dark Rose, which Jon Dougherty of World Net Daily praised as "an enchanting story of faith and family that is as enlightening as it is encouraging."

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Things are not always as they seem. Marxism's war on religion presents evidence-a-plenty that this notion is true.

From both the left, in the name of Social Democracy, and from the right, in the name of Secular Government, Marx's Atheistic teammates have pushed, shoved and pressed upon religion in public life until a bipartisan squeeze has effectively crushed what was once publicly pervasive into the less than popular enclave of that which is now publicly suppressed.

Christianity, today, though tarred and feathered, spit upon and lied about, has not given up however, and thanks be to God has begun to grow up, wake up, and in many instances live up to its duty to fight back.

Good news.

But not necessarily good enough – for while many Christians have come to table fully arrayed in the armor of God, with faith and reason, love and patience, perseverance and persistence, moral courage and good works, doing what ever it takes, and then some, to slow, check, and at times, reverse our nation's amoral freefall into possible oblivion; there are other Christians, some of them Christian ministers, sad to say, that are among our worst enemies, whether by intent or not.

They are the sort who, when the going gets tough, look not to themselves or to God, or to both, but to the state to bail them out, or lift them up, or even in fairly good times to move them forward (in their careers), as if God and His congregation, and their own two strong hands aren't good enough to take them where they need to go, to do what they need to do, without a state subsidy, or a dole, or a handout, or a cushy cushion.

That's a problem. For there are also many in the state, or a great number who are vying for power within the state, who are more than willing to oblige whatever beggar comes along in rags or in robes, if it means more votes, more recognition, and for the very few dedicated ideologues among them, an advancement of the ubiquitous revolution of Marx & Lenin.

Enter Compassionate Conservatism, a ‘safe' middle ground approach, call it an ‘inclusive' approach if you will (for it has a little bit of something for everyone), that mixes the best of Communism (come again? – ‘its charitable nature,' they say) with the best of Capitalism (‘its efficiency'); and discards the worst of both (Communism's sluggish bureaucracy; Capitalism's heartlessness; – we lessee-fairists are all ‘dog eat dog Scrooges' you know!), with it seems, this hidden goal, in the short run to exploit yet another group for a few million votes, and in the long run to undermine Christianity.

Mind you, few will see it that way, or plan it that way, some going so far as to actually believe they are doing Christianity a good turn, and serving God in the process. It matters not. Results are results. If you plant nothing but a stinking dead fish in the soil, you're not going to produce golden ears of corn. Socialism is socialism is socialism, even when the smiling socialists sell wings, halos, hymnals, and harps, and read "Christianity Today" in their leisure.

The ‘New' Strategy

The new strategy is essentially an old one (as most new strategies are), excavated and resurrected by the Monks of the Third Way (Compassionate Conservatism's 1990's forerunner). It goes something like this:

‘If you can't beat them, join them.' Better yet, tweak that; throw in for good measure, ‘If you can't beat them, cajole them, bribe them, promise them, pray with them, sing Hallelujah with them, and finally say unto them whatever they want to hear so long as they vote for you, and join hands with you in a prayer for sweet, compassionate Uncle Leviathan.

It's just socialism with a progressive, twist mind you. Nothing to fear.

And it's bound to work. In fact, it IS working.

The Sales Pitch

To purchase the national soul – even with something so delicious as a free lunch – requires considerable skill, and an A-1 sales pitch. Compassionate Conservatism has one. Here it is: ‘We like you. We trust you. You're the backbone of our country, the first line of our defense, the traditional source of welfare to our poor. And, you know, we say this from our heart of hearts, you did it better than the federal government ever did back in the old days, through volunteerism, through a faith-based approach, through genuine love. You know this is true. So do we.

‘Times have changed, however. Not as many people contribute to private charities as in the past. It's a shame. We know you're struggl