It just hit me like a two-by-four in the face that God, who is omnipotent, could have made us puppets, but he gave us free will in our religious beliefs, and government shouldn't limit that free will.
Chet Edwards (D)
Contrary to Mr. Edward’s statement and his beliefs – he can believe whatever he wishes – both of these points: a) God gave us free will in our religious beliefs and b) government should not limit our free will, are false.
The entire Old Testament is the history of God revealing Himself to man and instruction in what constitutes correct belief in Him. Many beliefs are designated as offensive to God, such as worship of other gods and actions contrary to His commandments. Over and over the people to whom God chose to reveal Himself are punished for not believing correctly. Being a merciful God, prophets were sent to warn the people that their actions would bear consequences because correct religious belief is mandatory to God. Even more offensive to the heart of man comes the statement by Jesus:
I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
This statement is not a break from the original revelation of God to man, but rather a fulfillment of promises made by God and a provision of salvation for Gentiles in His holy plan for man. Praise You, merciful Father.
Apart from anarchy, which is the absence of government, the agreement to the limitation of our free will is what creates government. Not wanting to begin in pre-history, but in direct development of our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution, Magna Carta limited the free will of kings and noblemen while securing rights of man for commoners. The Declaration of Independence was written to inform the current government that we were dissatisfied with the actions of that government and of our intent to secure a new and better government suited to our purposes.
The American rule of law was formed to defend our natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness i.e. personal wealth and property. Under this rule of law, we agree to check our own free will which is to take what belongs to another – life, liberty, personal wealth and property - in order that our own rights to those possessions are defended. Under the Constitution, Americans agree to accept these rules and methods of addressing grievances. The first 10 amendments to that constitution – The Bill of Rights – secured individual rights before government. Meaning that we already possess these rights, but under the Constitution, these pre-ordained rights would be recognized and defended, not bestowed and controlled by government.
These two points are important philosophical foundations that reveal the true character of Chet Edwards and his understanding of the purpose of government. In order to pursue “a more perfect union” – for I hope that our elected officials are intent upon that ideal – it is mandatory that we elect representatives that respect our Constitution, the rights it agrees to preserve and defend, and the rules under which we have agreed government to operate. In perverting that ideal, Mr. Edwards reveals that he has departed from that agreement. It is for that reason he is not an appropriate representative for the people of the 17th District.
Note: The first essay in this Philosophical Treatise