Is the Cause of Liberty a Christian Organization?
October 16, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 4 Comments
Today I received the following comment and question from a new subscriber: “As a Christian American I believe in separation of church and state. I am interested in knowing if you are pursuing the cause of liberty for all in this country or if this is a Christian organization. Some of the manner in which it is written leads me to believe that it is…I have read several times your Declaration of Dependence with which I have significant difficulty for I come away with the subtle sense that you are in pursuit of a Christian United States. Is that true?”
This was my response:
The quick answer is no, we are not in pursuit of a Christian United States. We are, however, in pursuit of a nation that depends on and obeys the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” — just like the Founders.
Now here’s the long answer:
Jesus Christ is not even referenced in the Declaration of Dependence, so I don’t know how one would find Christianity in that document. Out of 113 articles currently posted on our site, only 10 of them reference Jesus Christ, and most of those are in a very general sense (such as one random quote from the Bible within the context of a long article about something entirely different than Christ). One of them is about a book that seeks a reconciliation between Islam and Christianity. The most recent article, entitled “Was Jesus Christ a Liberal Socialist,” is less about Christ and more about political philosophy and the proper role of government. It was written to answer a question from one of our subscribers, not to promote Jesus Christ as the son of God and the Savior of the world.
Any religious overtones on the site are intended in a very general sense to promote a universally accepted conception of God and the importance of adhering to Natural Law. Consider the following quotes from some of our nation’s Founders:
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” -James Madison
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” -Benjamin Franklin
“Religion and virtue are are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society.” -John Adams
“Statesmen…may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies. You cannot, therefore, be more pleasantly or usefully employed than in the way of your profession, pulling down the strong-holds of Satan. This is not cant, but the real sentiment of my heart.” -John Adams
“We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained.” -George Washington
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” -George Washington
“Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” -George Washington
Many more quotes could be provided but the point is that the Founders had a very clear understanding that believing in and obeying God is a prerequisite to a free nation. It’s an indispensable aspect of republican government. Regardless of one’s conception of God, without a belief in a “just God who presides over the destiny of nations” no nation can maintain its freedom.
Whether a person is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, or any other religion under the sun, we can all agree that there is a God, a Creator, who is intimately aware of our lives and who cares about our happiness. Furthermore, I believe that all religions would agree that happiness is found by adhering to natural laws, as created by God. This is what we reference as “virtue.”
The Real Concern
Having said all of this, I don’t think I’ve addressed your real concern. The obvious concern, which is what Jefferson referred to in the letter that that statement is taken from, is a government that endorses or supports or has a formal relationship with one particular religion over another to the detriment of liberty.
The First Amendment is a better source of constitutional authority regarding this concern than is Jefferson’s letter, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
By our very nature as a private institution, The Cause of Liberty does nothing to encroach upon the liberties of others, even if we were a Christian organization (which we are not). In other words, the issue isn’t about simply promoting one religion over another; it’s about using the force of government to promote — or demote — religion. If we were a government-sponsored organization then people would have need to fear if we were blatantly Christian.
The government relies upon force to carry out its goals, policies, and laws. Private institutions, such as The Cause of Liberty, rely upon persuasion and voluntary association. All of this is to say that even if we were a Christian organization there is no need for concern, since we will do nothing to encroach upon the concept of “separation of church and state.” The separation of church and state is implicit in our private institutional status. Furthermore, we do not believe that the government should promote Christianity, although we do believe that good forms of government are based in universal natural laws.
We’re not a church, and we’re not the state. We’re an educational institution that seeks to identify and promote the universal principles that secure and maintain as much freedom for as many individuals in the world. Black or white, Christian or Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist, male or female, we promote freedom, equality, and justice for all.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Fear, Expediency, and the Economy
September 25, 2008 by Mike Wilson · Leave a Comment
So leave everything you know and carry only what you fear.
Daily we face the onslaught from the media. A murder here, a rape there. Illegal immigrants taking your jobs here; globalism outsourcing your job to over there. It is called news. Fundamentally, however, it is fear-mongering — and if succumbed to, it is fatal to our soul.
Both political parties attempt to play on fear, portraying the opposition candidate in the most negative light possible to the point where this campaign has become more immature than a kindergarten shout-down (”My dad can beat up your dad!”). In order to achieve support for means that we know are questionable, those in office instill fear of the unknown or the different. Fundamentalism Muslims are referred to as “Islamo-fascists” (a convenient compounding of any word to denigrate the former term).
Our current economic situation is a result of fear…fear of work, fear of hard times, fear of the housing
market plunging more deeply. This fear will cause us to operate from a position of expediency. Expediency resulting from fear pushes us towards means that seem to be fixes to the fearful problem, but are really methods that will, like termites, slowly eat away at our structural foundation.
In the years of the Roaring 20’s, economists (mainly following the theories of Irving Fisher) were convinced that slowly increasing the money supply would allow for continued expansion of the economy without increasing prices too much or causing any damage to the financial and industrial structures. However, an economist in Austria (Ludwig von Mises) was writing a contrary view, contending that increasing the money supply, thus lowering interest rates and making borrowing cheaper and more attractive than savings, might just pull the rug out from under the glass table on which the economy sat. He felt that “if monetary policy pushed ‘market’ interest rates below the ‘natural’ rate, the central bank could create an unstable business cycle that could lead to financial disaster” (’natural’ rate of interest defined to be “the rate that equalizes the supply and demand for saving based on the social rate of time preference”) [Skousen--The Big Three in Economics].
Mises predictions were ignored and the Federal Reserve in the U.S. continued to increase the money supply and lowered interest rates below the natural rate such that structural imbalances were introduced into the economy, contributing to the Great Depression.
Fast-forward to the 1990’s, a time of great economic growth and increases to the money supply as demonstrated by the decreasing interest rates imposed by the Federal Reserve over the last 18 years. What are we facing again? An economy that isn’t saving because the cost of borrowing was cheaper than it should have been is loading the investment market with mortgage-backed that are described as “radioactive toxic waste.” Fear of the economy slowing down during the 90’s and the early 2000’s gave impetus to regulators to adjust the money supply to such a degree that it is likely to have dropped the market rate of interest below the natural rate of interest, leading to the instabilities we’ve seen over the last few months, coming to a head these last ten days.
We know that in order to prosper we need to save. However, we buy into the information spoon-fed to us by a media that is inherently a business and operates on a 24-hour news cycle, thus it is not only subject to fear-mongering, but media is also an objective participant in the generation of economic fear. Politicians also aren’t hesitant to promote fear since our fear gives them greater power as we feel a deeper need for security and every politician will tell us that “changing horses midstream” is a dubious and dangerous proposition.
I started this post with a line from Bruce Springsteen’s ironic warning entitled Magic. We need to listen to the warning voice by holding onto “everything [we] know and [letting go of] what [we] fear”. We must recognize that fear, as described in the following lyrics, is a dangerous thing and if allowed, will turn our heart black and take our God-filled soul and “fill it with devils and dust.”
Now every woman and every man
They want to take a righteous stand
Find the love that God wills
And the faith that He commands
Well I’ve got God on my side
And I’m just trying to survive.
What if what you do to survive
Kills the things you love?
Fear’s a dangerous thing.
It can turn your heart black, you can trust;
It’ll take your God filled soul, fill it with devils and dust.
Decisions based on fear using expediency instead of principles will most often destroy those fundamental principles. Let us be aware of what is seen and unseen and make decisions based on principles and re-establish liberty.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
What Trampolines Can Tell Us About Ideal Society
September 23, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 1 Comment
I was jumping on the trampoline today with my three kids — eight year-old Alex, three year-old Liberty (Libby), and eleven month-old Avery — and, like I am prone to do, reflecting on ideal society.
Alex, skilled and energetic, wants to jump as high as he can and perform tricks. Libby, unaware of her surroundings, jumps wildly, often upending Avery. Avery has a good time, yet she’s at risk from her older, heavier, more capable siblings. Much of the time was spent cautioning Alex and Libby to be careful with Avery. In fact, the experience revolved around catering to Avery, the youngest, weakest, and least capable in our family.
One adult and three kids on a trampoline — a microchosm of society, or at least what it should be. The following are the lessons I identified:
1. Cater to the weakest.
Just as we cared for baby Avery on the trampoline, in the ideal society, individuals voluntarily serve and uplift the weak, the poor, the aged, the disabled. Competition and cooperation go hand-in-hand; competition increases quality while cooperation ensures peace and stability. Competition should never create ill feeling; cooperation should never create dependency. The goal of this ideal isn’t to take the strongest down to the level of the weakest; rather it is to uplift the weak to increased capacity, thus raising all of society without creating wide discrepancies in social status and/or wealth distribution.
2. Create outlets for all skill levels and interests.
While the ideal caters to the weakest, it also allows for full expression of every individual, including the most talented and capable. The disease of socialism is that it tends toward mediocrity, tearing down the able in the name of “helping” the weak. In the ideal, catering to the weak is never done at the expense of the strong. In the case of our trampoline experience, we took turns so that each child could do what they wanted and grow on their terms. Alex took a turn alone, doing flips and aerials. Libby did her crazy thing. Then, I held Avery in my arms and we all jumped together. No desires were sacrificed, Avery was protected and made to enjoy the experience at a higher level than she could alone.
Think of this concept in a public school setting. Inevitably, in a class of 25 or more students, the “slow” learners get left behind, while the “fast” learners quickly become bored. Both the weak and the strong suffer.
Imagine a setting where each individual is allowed to learn and progress on their own terms, at their own speed. Then, having grown, they help others to do the same.
3. Protect rights.
Just as my youngest daughter needed to be protected from physical danger posed by her siblings, the ideal society has a strong institution that protects the rights of every individual. Keeping individuals safe from harm from others is not the same as giving every individual the same material goods.
4. The ideal is for all of this to happen at the level of family and community.
Politicians and bureaucrats in Washington have no intimate knowledge of, nor a relationship with, the members of our communities. While families and community members voluntarily serve each other, the federal government relies solely upon force to institute “goodwill.” Top-down, removed-from-the-source charity always tends toward bureaucracy, wastes money and misemploys resources, and depends upon force as its animating factor.
Ideal charity is animated by voluntary love, is based on intimate relationships, makes the most productive use of resources as possible, and creates independence from dependence, and interdependence from independence.
Conclusion
So who cares? There’s no startling revelation here. What matters is what we do with this knowledge, not what we sit and ponder on. Be a bridge-builder: Identify where society is, where it should be, then quietly and powerfully insert yourself in the middle. Find people that need to be served and serve them. Help the unemployed develop skills and find employment. Help addicts find freedom. Care for your aged parents in your own home instead of sending them to a retirement center. Be active in your community. Be true to your spouse and loving to your children. Teach your children the importance of service, especially through your example. Remove the need for federal government force by replacing it with family and community-centered voluntary charity.
The next time you’re disgusted with federal government waste, deception, and/or force, turn that disgust into positive action by building your family and community. The stronger our families and communities, the less involved and smaller the government can be. And spend some time jumping on a trampoline — there’s no telling what you’ll learn.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
i Government
August 27, 2008 by Hyrum Lefler · 1 Comment
“Where, oh where, has my liberty gone?” we cry. Too often the answer is, “The ‘government’ stole it!”
One challenge we face as liberty-loving Americans is to bring politics and economics back into the first person. We speak of the “the government” and the “the economy” as if they were independent, conscious entities. The “government” is people, interacting with each other and operating according to forms and policies established by we the people and our duly elected representatives. Likewise, the “economy” is people (We the People!) interacting and acting according to economic forms and norms in the interest of bringing value to themselves and those they love.
Where has our liberty gone? It has gone into the oblivion of the third person — that third person being “i Government.” This is apparently a monster in D.C. that is ruining our lives.
The truth is that Liberty is not a product or even a state of being; it is a process and a lifestyle. It has always found its life and growth in history when people have lived it. It is not birthed or proliferated authentically through legislation or through civil disobedience in the streets.
This article could also be called “i Economy” based on the way we talk about the financial state of affairs in the nation. Has anyone ever seen “the economy?” Well, actually the answer is yes! You see him/her every day in the mirror, and you see economy in every relationship you have.
It is very easy for a nation looking for excuses to raise certain fearful illusions even to godlike status — with powerful abilities and magical powers for bestowing ease and power to its favorites. Unfortunately, this imagined god is also vengeful and will sometimes strike innocent people with undeserved punishments of poverty (against their will, of course). This imagined monster is blamed for stealing people’s liberty.
How To Make the Economy “First Person”
Families have become appendages in economy. They have become flies on the elephant, giving up their place as the central economic source of resources and growth in our economy. With the rise of the Industrial Revolution, and the massive economic shifts that the U.S. underwent in the first half of the 20th Century, came the rise of the consumer-finance industry. You may have heard of the original Sears and Robuck Magazines that came out in the 1920’s, offering American “consumers” (yet another identity that has risen) an array of products on credit. They swept the nation and are a symptom of the rising obsession with material products. A new economy rose; one that has been fueled, burned to charcoal, then burned again and again — on the fires of consumer whims.
A people obsessed with enjoying the fruits before performing the labor will sell even their liberty — indeed they will have to when their resources are depleted. The number one way for American families to bring “the economy” into the first person is for them to take back the direct responsibility and control of their economy. How do they do this? They must adopt economic forms that are conducive to liberty. This is where Georgics come in.
Citizens must learn and apply the timeless lesson that we reap what we sow, and apply it in their financial lives in the following ways:
- Never borrow to consume.
- Spend less than you earn.
- Plant the “seeds” of your capital by invest your savings into people and projects that will bring you the “harvest” of a financial return.
Making the Government First Person
The cliché answers are varied: “get involved,” “vote,” “write your Congressman,” watch the news,” and “speak out for what you believe.” The truth must be admitted: you are the government! I offer a challenge:
Name one person in this entire nation that has more direct responsibility for this nation’s happiness, future, policies, laws, and every other reality, than YOU.
Maybe you would say the President has more responsibility than you. Is that really true, when he is only our representative? If I grant a friend authority to do something for me, it is assumed that in that responsibility I hold the ultimate authority even though I have delegated some task or thing that I could not do myself. We cannot all be President of the United States at the same time, but we are all citizens. If we should not point the finger at anyone but ourselves for the state of the nation, then it is certainly childish to point the finger at our President for the state of our personal financial statements.
I recently listened to a program featured on National Public Radio where a woman called in on the subject of the housing foreclosure spike we are seeing currently. She made the point that she did not hear the media admitting the follies of the people who had signed their names for risky variable interest rate loans. The NPR host was polite at first, but ended up cutting the woman off saying, “Even irresponsible people suffer sometimes, Mam.”
That statement tripped me up for a few minutes. Clearly the host felt it effective to dismiss the truth of the caller’s words with mockery — hinting that this woman was some kind of conservative believer that there is no suffering, only consequences. The fact that the media will not address, let alone admit, the irresponsible financial actions of millions of Americans is another symptom of the upside down nature of our society; a society where courage fails and appeasement reigns. By lifting their audience above reproach, for popularity reasons, the media contributes to their slavery.
The term “i Government” is an interesting mixture of humor and irony. We have formed this identity to shift responsibility from ourselves, and yet the term also makes one ponder the concept of personal governance. Unfortunately, the former interpretation of the phrase is a more accurate description of our contemporary perceptions of the source of responsibility and liberty.
Have you ever considered that it is Americans that have (through their Representatives) laid taxes on other Americans to finance desired benefits? As Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Americans are selling their liberties in exchange for other Americans’ goods and at the expense of their fellow Americans!
Is YOUR palm open facing up, asking for an ear of corn… or facing down, grappling a metaphorical hoe, as you till the ground to plant seeds of production? Are “YOU the Government” taxing or producing?
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Libertarianism: The Threat and the Opportunity
August 16, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 11 Comments
How To Influence the Definition and Direction of Contemporary Libertarianism
Those who focus their energy on combating socialism are fighting a war that, by and large, has already been won. Collectivism, though at its apex and seemingly more powerful than ever, is on the decline; individualism is on the rise. With its rise, individualism, commonly known as libertarianism, poses threats to American culture and governance. It also provides significant, positive opportunities that have not been available for more than a century.
It is imperative that we identify the dangers of mainstream libertarian thought and provide alternatives in order to capitalize on the opportunity to create a balanced, sustainable, free, and just society. As is so common throughout history, we may swing the pendulum from collectivism to libertarianism to find that they are both equally dangerous and unsustainable. The danger posed by libertarianism — or the opportunity — is predicated upon how it will be defined and practically applied.
The Decline of Collectivism
Collectivist institutions are splitting at the seams and crumbling due to financial infeasibility, dramatically changing age demographics, and the cultural mediocrity that they instill. Foreign wars, which necessitate higher taxes and thus enable the centralization of power, are becoming less and less popular, both for financial and moral reasons. All forms of collectivism are showing themselves to be unsustainable as a matter of empirical fact, rather than subjective value judgment. The popularity of Ron Paul, and a general decline of trust in the government and other modern institutions, especially among the youth, also evidence the decline of collectivism.
The Fragmented Nature of Libertarianism
While there are universal tendencies shared by modern libertarians, libertarianism as a political movement and ideal has not yet gained the coherence necessary to appropriately use it as a specific, functional label. The tagline of the Libertarian Party is “Smaller government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom,” which is about as universal as the movement gets. However, Lew Rockwell — one of the most popular and widely read libertarian websites, boasts the tagline “Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market,” which is clearly more ideological, more concentrated, and therefore more divisive. While Ayn Rand preached the “virtue of selfishness,” Leo Tolstoy advocated self-transcendence and Christian service. And in contrast to Rand and Tolstoy, whose messages center on personal morals and values, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and others generally avoid such concerns and focus primarily on the economic aspect of freedom.
Attempting to define libertarianism appears to be an irony and even a contradiction, since at its core libertarianism viscerally rejects any label or identification that would even hint at forced or inauthentic uniformity. As a response to collectivism — or sameness — libertarianism celebrates diversity and independent thought. However, since it appears to be the default heir to the decaying throne of American politics and culture, defining it is one of the most vital steps to Read more
-
Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to The Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and receive two free gifts. Your personal information will never be shared.
Subscribe To The Cause Of LibertyPolls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...