"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 4/17/04 5:25 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
news:BCA7013F.D40EA%
Jesus was a liberal.

Then why do liberals hate him? Why don't liberals espouse the
principals
that Jesus taught?

Sheesh, every time they try to give to the poor, you accuse them of
redistributing wealth.


Where did Jesus go around with a band of Roman soldiers, robbing people
at
swordpoint so that he could give money to the poor? For that is what
so-called liberals do today.

I really don't understand this all this raving. Do you really believe that
people go around robbing other people at swordpoint?


If John and Peter get together and take money from Paul at gunpoint, we call
it armed robbery. If two thousand voters get together and decide to take
money from another thousand, we call it taxation.

Do you really believe that the collection of taxes is not backed up with the
threat of armed force? Try not paying your taxes. Ignore all letters and
demands for payment and refuse to move out of your home when it is auctioned
off to pay the taxes. Sooner or later gentlemen with guns will be on your
doorstep. If you continue to resist, they will kill you.

If there is a difference between a mugger and the government in this regard
it is that the mugger generally does not keep coming back and he does not
demand your absolute loyalty like the government does.

Traditionally liberals recognized that governments were a necessary evil
required to maintain order, provide for the common defense, and protect
property. The liberal idea is that government exists for the benefit of the
governed, not the government. In the days of monarchy and the divine right
of kings, this was a pretty radical idea. The goal of liberalism was to
provide a limited government with severely restricted powers. The governed
would enjoy most of the benefits of government without tyranny. The people
would be allowed to arm themselves in order to overthrow a tyrannical
government. The government was forbidden to interfere in the press and in
religious affairs in order to ensure that a voice other than that of the
government was heard. All well and good.

But what do we have now? Liberals using the government to silence dissent.
Liberals using government power for enforced redistribution of wealth.
Liberals using government power to seize private property. Liberals using
government power to interfere with the practice of religion. Liberals using
government power to intrude on family life. Liberals using government power
to disarm the public. Liberals using government power to promote pork barrel
projects. Liberals using government power to prevent competing newspapers
from providing an alternate voice. Liberals have become the tyranny that
they feared and sought to prevent.

A liberal education no longer means that you have been taught to think. Now
it means you have been brainwashed. The great liberal classics are no longer
even studied in schools. They are disparaged as the work of dead white
males. Mortimer Adler was perhaps the last proponent of a liberal education,
and he was basically a tombist and sell-out to the new Toryism.

Because that is what liberalism has become. There really are no
'conservatives' in government. George W. Bush is a liberal; his views differ
from those of other liberals only in degree and emphasis, not in kind. The
same goes for everybody else in government. Modern liberals have far more in
common with Tories than they do with liberalism. Having seized power, they
have become corrupted by it, entrenching themselves with a vigor that would
do credit to a Caesar.

It is not a new phenomenon. Paul described modern liberals fairly
succinctly:

1 THIS know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,
blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent,
fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn
away.

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly
women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(2 Timothy 3:1-7)

Paul was far from alone in his view of what liberalism would become. George
Orwell, a liberal, shared the same misgivings. "1984" and "Animal Farm" are
not indictments of conservatism, they are warnings of what Orwell saw the
direction liberalism was taking. Aldous Huxley saw a similar vision of
ultimate liberal betrayal of liberal values, where government and society
were controlled by media conglomerates and personalities specially bred for
rule. All the liberal classics would be banned and society would be
controlled using sex and drugs. Frankly, Huxley's prescience in predicting
what would become of liberalism is both frightening and spot on.