irthnvesl wrote:valley wrote:irthnvesl wrote:I thought our liberty and freedom was established by being 'in Christ' - not by the policies of our government.
Two seperate issues.
People around the world, reguardless of the political system which they must endure or enjoy, have freedom and liberty that can only be found in Christ, freedom from sin and the liberty of a new life.
The concept of liberty that I wrote about, are the classical liberal freedoms (or liberties) that we have in the United States, but are not necessarily enjoyed by our brothers and sisters in repressive countries. These liberties, which do endeed flow from God, where fought for by patriots past and present, and enumerated within the social contract between the people and our government.
Valley,
They do indeed flow from God. As I read Paul, God has ordained the government to give order to society which would include preserving and protecting our liberties. But I don't think that their abrogation of this responsibility affects our freedom at all. Were it possible for Obama or anyone else to ban Christianity, would you stop worshipping? I don't think you would. I know I wouldn't.
Jesus was concerned with freedom from sin. He advocated treating the Roman oppressors with kindness. Not that I take our liberties for granted. In fact, I served four years in the infantry feeling that, as one who experiences the benefits of freedom, it was my obligation to this nation.
I voted for McCain. Not because I believe that he, as opposed to Obama, will uphold our freedom but because Obama supports the murder of children. I am curious though, which freedoms to you believe are at stake under Obama that were not at stake under McCain?
While this is a slippery slope argument, it is one that is grounded in reality. A government that is large enough to give you everything Obama has promised, is a government that is large enough to take away everything we have.
During a recent Constitutional Day debate on the recent Heller decision, I stood firmly for the right of individuals to keep weapons for protection. I started my presentation by talking about the liberties which makes this country great. But 2nd amendment rights are under attack constantly.
The moderator, who actually should have been the opposing side, argued that the people have a right to keep firearms so in community storage for the purpose of homeland security. I can see how she arrived at this reading, but historically speaking she was incorrect.
I made reference to a 1865/66 Congressional report that commented on the violence against former slaves in South Carolina. The report says that their Constitutional rights as citizens of the US were being violated by white mobs that were trying to remove their arms (guns).
She countered that they had a right because they needed to defend themselves from white aggression. The problem was, when I pointed out the violence in New Orleons following Katrina, she completely supported the gun ban, despite the violence against innocent people within the city.
Herein is the problem. According to this liberal professor, you have a right to a firearm, but it should be in a common locker. So if you need, you cannot have access to it. While technically they do not seek to remove the right, they wish to remove its force.
The same can be said of the freedom to freely exercise one's religion. Most, if not all, of the people on this board and I would disagree on the subject of same sex marriage. However, some to the left of me would dare argue that to speak out against same sex couples, or anyone that those of this religious community would deem sinners, would be hate speech and should not be protected under the Constitution. God forbid! One has the right to practice their faith as they see fit without interference with government (so long as that faith is not causing physical harm to others).
Its the baby steps that I worry with, which is why I voted for McCain. He was not my candidate of choice, but I felt as if he would at least help slow down the march toward the progressive agenda.