The Revolution #2: Human Nature and Republicanism

Human nature has been an overlooked reality for the past generations as government has sought to legislate the nation into Darwinian perfection. Supposedly, human nature was to “evolve” with each new law. However, look where we are now: attempting to legislate hate (thought) crime. An intelligent person only has to read the book of Job, written 5 thousand years before Christ, to conclude that in both reasoning and the poetic arts man has not progressed much—regardless of his technologies.

There is much to learn from Job concerning human nature. Man will always testify to his innocence and friends are always capable of piling on when the chips are down, for even a good man. There it is folks, the Darwinian theory of human nature: we secretly love it when bad things happen to good people. This is the unvarnished truth about human nature; we are jealous, selfish, antagonistic, little hedonists who hypocritically deny it all.

Considering such a truth, it is amazing that we have created any sense of civil society at all. Given our sinful human nature we certainly deserve the rule of an autocratic despot, if not certain death. History records man’s ability to balance ever so precariously personal freedom with civil society. Western civilization, aided by Christianity has developed the best form of this balance. Tiananmen Square and The Branch Davidians should be a constant reminder that Gandhi’s method of peaceful protest only worked because of the British adherence to Christian principles. Slavery in Britain met its end because of Christianity. Christianity recognizes the truth of human nature with Christ’s crucifixion the ultimate and only reconciliation between man and God. In many ways, our government’s usurpation of Christianity has allowed generations to disallow the truth of human nature.

An example of this usurpation is revealed when citizens pray to government to supply their needs, rather than to God. Previous generations would be appalled. This is all aided by the Democratic Party’s relentless quest to eradicate any reference to God in government buildings and pursuing the path of eradication even in public places. However, a more insidious method of usurpation of Christian values comes through an attempt to deny 2nd amendment rights which is derived from that basest of human needs, the right of self-defense. The government in this instance enforces with law Christ’s teaching of turning the other cheek. Ask any student, at any government school, what happens when a bully attacks them and they dare defend themselves. You will learn they will each be punished equally under zero tolerance rules. Even worse, the victim is urged to try to understand the problems associated with his attacker.

This twisted deviation of Christ’s teaching is reflected in Democratic Party policies. In foreign policy we are told if this nation only treated our enemies “nicer” they would not be so mean to us. The implied message being that this nation is responsible for creating its own enemies. In domestic policy, we are forced to give tax money to the government as offerings for the poor, the children, or the victims of (insert cause here) because Christ taught the same. Democratic Party policy is a sort of Christian/Nihilism that while denying the existence of God and His Law, they then enforce with penalty various teachings of Christ. In both instances individual rights and human nature are ignored because the responsibilities of an individual before God are denied. The Democrats absolve the foreign evildoer without penance, while God does not respect their enforced piety upon others at home.

Human nature dictates that we all want something for nothing, would enforce on others what we would never accept for ourselves, and quite frankly would cut off our nose to spite our face. While the Democratic Party plays to the worst of human nature, republican thought addresses the qualities of human nature and the need to rise above it, which is why so many evangelicals are members of the Republican Party. However, republicanism resides in the heart of any individual who while believing in self-determination, is also able to rise above personal interests in regards to civil society.

Therefore, it is imperative that the Republican Party be a big tent for all those of like mind. And nothing is more indicative of this than the variety of Presidential candidates: pro-life, pro-choice, Mormon, nominal Christian, fervent evangelical, along with a myriad of immigration and security ideas. The Republican Party has been blessed by the number of men willing to accept the brutal gauntlet of the election process and the sobering responsibility of the presidency. As Republicans we vote in the primaries for the ascendancy of our candidate of choice. However, as republicans we are also called to vote for the party candidate for the better good of the republic even if not the man of our personal choice. It is our belief in self-determination coupled with that ability to rise above personal interest that unites us as Republicans and makes our ideas the best course for the country.

The Constitution Is Not A Suicide Pact

Thomas Lifson - American Thinker - has an interesting article concerning Australia's brave stand on immigration. I then found an interesting post at Dinocrat.com.

This post caused the jackalope to ponder once again the misunderstandings comprising the culture war here in America caused mainly by fear and loathing for Judaism and Christianity. It is believed by many that these two religions are the enemy of freedom and liberty when rightfully these two religions are the foundation of freedom and liberty. The only enmity organized religion has is with hedonism, but even that according to proper teaching, is tempered with love. It is true that believers can range between the legalism of the noisy gong and the ditziness of a clanging cymbal but Christianity without love is meaningless.

However, the jackalope wonders why it is not the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that bond Americans together and are the beliefs to be defended against immigrants that would change our country into the country they left. And so I wrote:

I also enjoyed Mr. Lifson's piece on Australia's immigration approach. However, your post makes me ponder why belief in the Constitution and The Bill of Rights is not what binds together the American way of life. I realize the post was a flip rhetorical against living under Sharia Law, but I detect an animus toward Judaism and Christianity that resents anyone from believing anything that would snap a perpendicular moral chalk line between man and God. But freedom of religion is only one part of our Constitution and it is time to get back to the foundations of what was established September 17, 1787.

The Bill of Rights were not written to promote aimless hedonism, but rather to identify those rights pre-ordained in every man, instead of bestowed to men by a government. The purpose was to provide a check on government, but in every aspect government has crossed the established boundary and put a check on our freedoms. Organized religion in America is a red herring when it comes to loss of liberty. For that, check your local government.

My point is: If people don't believe that "all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...” then I would say to immigrants, don't come here just as the Australians are declaring.

To Americans such as yourself, I say, don't get so hung up on the concept of Creator - even though belief in God is what provides me with a foundational system that explains aptly this crazy world we live in and I would pray that you too would come to this knowledge - but rather zealously protect your preordained rights of man: Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness, i.e. the creation of wealth and protection of private property. Most of the social bickering in this country would disappear if we concentrated on supporting the ideas of the documents that bind us together instead of trying to make them say something different from what is actually written. Like I tell those that want to change the by-laws of the Boy Scouts: "If you want to send your boys off on campouts with homosexual men, go start your own damn club!" This is not an indictment against homosexual men, but a respect for the written by-laws.

A Philosophical Treatise: Why Chet Edwards Should Not Be Re-elected

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.
John 14:6

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