Who gave us partial birth abortion?

For those following the Kagan interviews for Supreme Court.  Here is an interesting piece on her role in crafting language for Partial birth abortion that went against the American College Obstetrics and Gynecologies original recommendations.  Read about it here.

Christian groups and the future of the campus

Yesterday an interesting Supreme court ruling occurred.  You can read about it here.  In the ruling, the court determined that public schools can deny funding to groups who aren't open to anyone with any ideology or persuasion as members or office bearers.  Sounds great right?  Maybe and maybe not.  Essentially what the court just did is to say that the religion of America is secular pluralism and that any group wanting to have money from the government must hold to a secular pluralist perspective, or forfeit the right to have funding.  Seems to me this could go a long way to kill the faith based initiatives of the white house.

While the court did not grant the schools the right to keep exclusive groups off campus, they did deny them the use of funding common to many groups, like photocopies, free rentals, etc...The good is that this will force Christian groups to put their own money where their belief are; the bad, it is a blatant violation of the constitutions separation of church and state, for the government has just enshrined a particular worldview and hence a state church has been born.

For the official Supreme Court ruling, go here.

Is American Education going the way of Nazi Germany?

I have been reflecting on my elementary education recently, particularly my vastly inadequate understanding of American History and why our public school system failed to teach me the truth.  For example, I was taught that the Founders of the United States of America were not Christians but deists.  As I look back, no proof was ever given for such statements, but then again neither were the original documents ever opened to me for examination.  I never read the Constitution, although I did get the first amendment.  I never read the Articles of Confederation, or any of the primary source documents related to the revolution.  I was not shown the state constitutions which made explicit reference to God the Father and Faith in Jesus Christ as conditions for serving in the government.  Yes, these conditions were considered legal even after the ratification of the Constitution for the states reserved unto themselves all the rights not expressly stated in the Constitution.  I was told the Civil War was fought over slavery when in fact it was fought over state's rights.  Why were so many things left out?  Was it purposeful or accidental?  

Thomas Paine and Government Debt

I just finished reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense.  IN it he lays out the case for freedom and limited government at the time of the American Revolution.  Here is a quote that we would all be wise to remember:

Can we but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an independant constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be cheap.  But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity witht he utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their backs, from which they derive no advantage.  Such a thought is unworthy of a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a peddling politician.

National Healthcare - a different view

Many of us are eagerly following the healthcare reform play out on Capitol Hill.  Here is one piece articulating opposition based not on economic argument but on the oath of office to uphold the constitution.  I found it interesting, for Brad Green argues that in supporting the nationalization of healthcare, proponents are
"calling for their elected federal officials to violate the law of the land, and to violate their oath of office, by clearly and unabashedly taking one more step in the destruction of the very Constitution they have sworn to uphold."

The very statement charges that support of the measure is an encouragement to sin and violate Jesus teaching on honesty and truth. Whether or not you agree with his logic, or argument, I encourage you to read the piece. It is a distinctly different approach than I have seen on either side of the issue to date.

Brad Green teaches theology at Union University in Jackson. He is a co-founder of Augustine School in Jackson

Read the original article

Concluding thoughts on the Federalist Papers and Constitutional Government

Last night I finished all 85 essays in the Federalist Papers.  After nearly 2 months, I have learned a ton about our government and its foundational theory, but at the same time I have struggled to understand what has happened.  Anyway, here are a few of my concluding thoughts/questions:

From the 45th paper: Madison believed that the federal government would have less influence on the typical citizen because they would employ fewer people in comparison to the state and local governments.

Public Morality and Religious Belief

While reading the periodical Liberty, I ran across this quotation:

"In a pluralistic society a fundamental assumption of public policy is the recognition that everything immoral need not be declared illegal. The public morality that is expressed in law reflects a consensus derived from public debate...Social realities as well as religious principles must be taken into account in judging the wisdom of any legislation. Citizens who come to different conclusions are not necessarily immoral or unchristian. The tendency to so brand one's political opponents suggests a kind of moral fascism." -from an editorial in America dated 9/13/1980.

These sentences reflect a profound understanding of the Constitution's freedom of religion clause. Too often many religious and non-religious people have forgotten these truths. We live in a nation where every worldview is acceptable. The humanist, the Christian, the scientific, Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, atheist, etc. All of these worldviews are essentially religious for each of them posit a claim to the manner in which Truth can be known. To some it is the teaching of a leader, to another it is the a person himself, and to still another a method of inquiry, but all of them are religious, for even to deny religion is a religious belief in itself which is as dogmatic as any faith commitment.

The struggle then becomes allowing each person to pursue their conscience freely and in a manner which doesn't force any other person to violate their conscience. This is where the rubber meets the road. Take for instance gay marriage. Personally I am opposed to it, but to deny another the ability to "marry" is to force my beliefs upon them. That said, to dictate that I must marry them and accept their marriage is to force their beliefs upon me. I am not opposed to gay marriage as much as I am opposed to telling an employer they are required to provide benefits to same sex marriages when those marriages violate their consciences. Or telling me that to speak in opposition of gay marriage is somehow a hate crime. It isn't, it is a matter of conscience. The road must go both ways, and that is a lesson many religious and non-religious folks forget. And regardless of the issue, the right and left inside the Church often forget it about one another.

The question then becomes - When can one person's religious liberty be forced upon another? When can one's beliefs become the norm by which all other beliefs must conform? The answer comes from Christ - "Love your neighbor as yourself." Only when you are willing to allow their beliefs to become your absolute, can you lobby for your beliefs to become their absolute. This simple lesson, if remembered would curb many of the political fights that exist today.

If you want to be able to deny someone benefits because of some choice they are making, then they have every right to deny you benefits because of some choice you are making (the number of children you have, for instance). If you want to fire someone, or hire them based upon their religious persuasion (you could also read political, environmental, socio-economic, etc.), then you must grant them the opportunity to do the same thing. Then and only then will we find out the true nature of our actions and the true motivations of our politics.

Under this schema, St. Paul's statement, taken out of context I realize, has some bearing. "All things are permissible, but not all are beneficial." When we grant liberty broadly, individuals will find out very quickly which choices are permissible and which are beneficial, then their "issues of conscience" will be shown for what they are religious freedom or religious fascism. For if they are willing to live with the consequences of their choice(s) and not impinge upon another's freedom, I would submit they are truly issues of conscience. However, if they are unwilling to live with the consequences and instead are willing to override another's conscience in order to have their own ways, then fascism, whether of the right or the left, is at play.

...Read more

Is Social Security a good option?

Recently I have been reflecting on social security and its perceived benefits to society by acting as a safety net for retirees and other at risk families. I am increasingly questioning whether the notion of governmental insurance programs like social security are social and/or secure.

Following are my initial thoughts:
To begin, the idea of sociality is that a group of people come together and cooperate because it is in their best interest to promote each others welfare. Every society and culture is founded upon this notion. At its core, socialization allows individuals to become more human by cooperating with one another, not by withdrawing and separating. Unfortunately the effects of governmental insurance programs have been to separate people from those who are most interested in their success.
By turning to governments to fill needs in times of crises, people are actually made less social and relationships are destroyed as family coherence breaks down and the nuclear and extended family increasingly neglect their responsibility to care for their families needs (1 Timothy 5:3-4). Some may argue that my payment of taxes for such programs is proof of my concern for their welfare. Is that so? Show me when you visit these needy and neglected people. I have spent time in the retirement centers and those on social security are the neediest and loneliest of all people. Sending money is not the same are strengthening social bonds. Furthermore, the social function of the church is destroyed by taking from the church their God appointed place as those who care for the orphan and widow that others aren't caring for (1 timothy 5:5).
This is not to say that a government system can't coexist with a strong family and church social structure, the Amish are evidence that it can. What it does say, however, is that it is increasingly unlikely that in the midst of widespread government insurance for a family and church system to stand up and maintain integrity in caring for those under their care. Increasingly, denominations large and small, across the theological spectrum have encouraged their clergy not to opt out of social security claiming it is morally sound. Is it morally sound to destroy the social fabric of society for a few dollars?
That leads to my second thought. Is social security secure? As birth rates fall, and the older generations age, their are only three options for providing the required funds needed for the promises governments have made:Reduce the benefits these insurance programs pay, Tax the younger generations more, Inflate the currency. Historically, ruling authorities do not survive when they reduce benefits, and while taxing the younger generations may be a temporary solution, it cannot be a long-term sustained solution. As birth rates continue to decline, tax rates must increase in such a situation and there is a threshold which will inevitably be reached before revolution or black-markets take over, thus crippling the system even more. That leaves the third option, as the option most governments including our own have taken: Inflate the currency by printing more money. However this tack, actually penalizes the very people government has set out to help. As fixed income elderly and those in need, the very act of causing inflation is insecure, instead of secure.
Thus social security is neither social, nor is it secure for those who most need help. The answer, return to the primacy of the nuclear family and allow them to maintain as much of their income as possible in order to care for those the Word of God calls them to care for.
For a great book on the interrelation between governmental pensions, prosperity, population and family see
Juurikkala, O. (2007). Pensions, Population, and Prosperity. (Acton Institute:Grand Rapids, MI)

...Read more

Federalist Paper #31 - Taxation

There are a series of papers written by Hamilton on the general power of taxation conferred upon the legislative branch of the government. In the 31st paper, Hamilton repeats the argument of those opposed to this general power. Here is their argument,

"But an indefinite power of taxation in the latter (Federal govt.) might, and probably would in time, deprive the former (State govt.) of the means of providing for their own necessities; and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the national legislature. As the laws of the Union are to become the supreme law of the land, as it is to have power to pass all laws that may be NECESSARY for carrying into execution the authorities with which it is proposed to vest it, the national government might at any time abolish the taxes imposed for State objects upon the pretense of an interference with its own. It might allege a necessity of doing this in order to give efficacy to the national revenues. And thus all the resources of taxation might by degrees become the subjects of federal monopoly, to the entire exclusion and destruction of the State governments."

Unfortunately, Hamilton dismissed this critique as speculatory writing, "It should not be forgotten that a disposition in the State governments to encroach upon the rights of the Union is quite as probable as a disposition in the Union to encroach upon the rights of the State governments. What side would be likely to prevail in such a conflict, must depend on the means which the contending parties could employ toward insuring success. As in republics strength is always on the side of the people, and as there are weighty reasons to induce a belief that the State governments will commonly possess most influence over them, the natural conclusion is that such contests will be most apt to end to the disadvantage of the Union; and that there is greater probability of encroachments by the members upon the federal head, than by the federal head upon the members."

Has this dismissal proved true? I would submit that it has not, federal taxes are greater than State taxes, and how does the State make up the difference, by appealing to the Federal government for special funds, be it for Transportation projects, Education projects, Social welfare projects or whatever else is needed. The States do not support themselves. In fact, quite the contrary, if the Federal government were to cease providing funding to the States, much of the so called "projects of social benefit" would dry up, for the people would refuse to vote for such legislators. It is only in a Federal government that has subjected the State and the State government that has aligned itself with a great funding source that produces the inefficiencies we see in our present system. Sure, I concede that the system is not as bad as it could be, but neither is it what was envisioned either.

What do you think? ...Read more

26th Federalist Paper and Israel's request for a King

Recently I finished reading Alexander Hamilton's 26th Federalist Paper. In this particular text, the argument is made for restraining the powers of a strong standing army perpetually, but not limiting the legislative branch in their ability to call up an army. Hamilton argues that forcing the democratically elected officials to review a military budget every 2 years will bring to the people's attention the question, "Is this army really needed right now?"

He goes on to write,

"Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person."

Obviously Hamilton felt that the answer to each of his questions was "No." However, time would tell that, should our military,police and intelligence establishments decide to impinge on our liberties, their is nothing that the general American could do to repel such an infringement. His last statement stands, our only solution is to do away with representative government and move towards true democracy. But the problem with this is the fickle, changing opinions of people. We are so easily swayed to the left and then to the right, generally based on what serves our best interests. No, the solution is truly to be found in the kingly reign of Christ.

For Christ alone leads us in the way of self-denial, love and peace. He teaches us to give and not take. He alone, can bring us true security even in the midst of military infringements upon our freedoms. Christ is the solution to all our governmental woes, to cast ourselves at the cross and lament our desire to rule ourselves. Hey, this is starting to sound strangely like 1 Samuel 8 and the Israelite desire to have a King instead of allowing the Lord to rule them. Read the story and draw your own conclusions on the path forward. ...Read more

Leadership and Decision making

Carl Trueman gives an insightful essay on why leadership must make choices and why cultural postmodernism is destructive to true leadership.

Supreme Court and Foreign Law

Here is an interesting article on how Supreme court justices are turning to foreign law in order to interpret the Constitution. The two highest profile cases where this has occured are Lawrence v. Texas in which British law governing Sodomy practices was referenced to overturn an earlier Supreme Court decision on the same issue. The other case is Roper v. Simmons in which the execution of juveniles was outlawed.

Whether or not you agree with the outcomes of the cases in question is irrelevant, the issue at stake is whether we should be looking to other countries in establishing our own internal laws.

Do the Federalist Papers argue for one World Government?

I must sadly admit that I have never read the The Federalist Papers before now. My high school, college and master's work were all bereft of any significant engagement with the American political landscape and history. Yet to my credit, I seek to correct this deficiency. I have completed the first 22 essays so far. What strikes me most is that every argument proposed by Madison, Hamilton and Jay could be used to argue in favor of one world government. Take for instance the idea that a confederacy lacks power to restrain a wayward state and so the state or states with the most force will always rise to the top, whether or not it is healthy and in the best interest of the others. The same could be argued for the international scene, a confederacy, the United Nations is essentially a weak confederacy, lacks any power aside from what the individual nations give to it and to date, it hasn't successfully restrained any aggression by any nation against another. Why because, like the early American confederacy it lacked real authority and power to tax and enforce its decisions. So, the most powerful nation has risen to the foreground. And as an American citizen, I am thankful for our ascendancy, for it could just as easily have been Russia or China or Germany which had taken this place, had circumstances been different.



Now given all of this, it would be reasonable to assume that since the Constitution has been so successful in American political life, and since the arguments of Madison, et al. were persuasive enough to convince our forefathers, then as a world people we could equally share in "progress" by working towards a single world government which is powerful enough to enforce its laws and decrees, to draw from the best and the brightest of the world for its management (instead of from a strictly local or national geographic boundary), and had the power to tax and ensure financial stability. These are the very arguments made in the Federalist Papers, yet what is wrong with these arguments?

On the surface, they seem wise, but underlying them all is the reality that absolute power corrupts and those in power will always seek to enlarge their power base while simultaneously seeking to quell any dissent. Furthermore, there is a lack of acknowledgement of the sinful nature of humanity and that the will of the majority isn't always right, just or true. Then there is also the fact that Christ alone is to be our head and in a pluralistic, world government, religion would, by necessity, be forced to the background in order for the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, etc. to be able to serve and govern together. This would have the effect of continuing the secularization of the nations and the world. Furthermore, what is in our best interest and a local nation may not be in the best interest of the world and so our people may suffer greatly for another people to not suffer.

True, the same argument or injustice could be leveled against the present system, to which I would say, so why change one problem for another. But that aside, I am surprised to see the commonalities between American politics in the 1780's and International Politics in the 2000's.

Following are two excerpts from the Federalist which will serve to illustrate my points. Many more could be taken, but I will leave it to the reader to read for themselves and draw there own conclusions.

Essay #3 by Jay - "when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under national government - especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more safe with respect to us." (pg. 10)

Essay #9 by Hamilton - "'This form of government [a confederate republic] is a convention by which several small states agree to become members of a large one, which they intend to form. It is a kind of assemblage of societies that constitute a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, til they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the united body. A republic of this kind, able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruptions. The form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniences.'" (pg. 39)

He goes on to show how any 'popular insurrection' can be defeated by the other member states coming to the aid of the impoverished member. This sounds strangely similar to the scene in Revelation where all the nations gather together against Israel at the battle of Armageddon. Who the Israel is and the "confederate republic" remains to be seen, although I have my suspicions that it will have something to do with a world attach on Christianity and the Body of Christ.

In conclusion, beware the ones who seek to take your freedom under the pretense of safety or progress.

Note: All page numbers are from the Phoenix Press edition edited by William Brock.
...Read more

Tenents of Liberalism

I promised to post Burnham's Tenents of Liberalism and a possible set of contrasting non-liberal tenents a few weeks ago after finishing his book, Suicide of the West. Here is a sample

L1) Human nature is changing and plastic, with an indefinite potential for progressive development, and no innate obstacles to the realization of the good society of peace, justice, freedom and well-being.
One possible set of contrasting non-liberal elements:
X1) Human nature exhibits constant as well as changing attributes. It is at least partially defective or corrupt intrinsically, and thus limited in its potential for progressive development; in particular, incapable of realizing the good society of peace, justice, freedom and well-being.

If you want to see all of them, keep reading.



Suicide of the West: an essay on the meaning and destiny of liberalism – by James Burnham, Gateway Editions, (Lake Bluff, IL), © 1985, 323.4097 Burnham, ISBN 0-89526-822-1

pg. 125-131

A Critical Note in Passing

So that the complete syndrome may be freshly and simultaneously before us, I shall now make a summary list, though this will oversimplify, of the nineteen liberal ideas and beliefs that were discussed in Chapters III-V. But in order to know what a thing is, we must understand what it is not. To clarify the liberal beliefs still further and to help, perhaps, to objectify our estimate of them, I shall draw up a list of nineteen corresponding contrary beliefs, also stated summarily, and printed in a parallel column. In each case more than one contrary belief, in fact an infinite number of contraries, are logically conceivable; but since our positive interest is merely to throw more light on the meaning of liberalism, I have given only one of the possible contraries, as it happened to occur to me in first writing the list down.

Elements comprising the doctrinal dimension of the liberal syndrome:
L1) Human nature is changing and plastic, with an indefinite potential for progressive development, and no innate obstacles to the realization of the good society of peace, justice, freedom and well-being.
L2) Human beings are basically rational; reason and science are the only proper means for discovering truth and are the sole standard of truth, to which authority, custom, intuition, revelation, etc., must give way.
L3) The obstacles to progress and the achievement of the good society are ignorance and faulty social institutions.
L4) Because of the extrinsic and remediable nature of the obstacles, it follows that there are solutions to every social problem, and that progress and the good society can be achieved; historical optimism is justified.
L5) The fact that an institution, belief or mode of conduct has existed for a long time does not create any presumption in favor of continuing it.
L6) In order to get rid of ignorance, it is necessary and sufficient that there should be ample, universal education based on reason and science.
L7) The bad institutions can be got rid of by democratic political, economic and social reforms.
L8) It is society—through its bad institutions and its failure to eliminate ignorance—that is responsible for social evils. Our attitude toward those who embody these evils—of crime, delinquency, war, hunger, unemployment, communism, urban blight—should be not retributive but rather the permissive, rehabilitating, educating approach of social service; and our main concern should be the elimination of the social conditions that are the source of the evils.
L9) Education must be thought of as a universal dialogue in which all teachers and students above elementary levels may express their opinions with complete academic freedom.
L10) Politics must also be thought of as a universal dialogue in which all persons may express their opinions, whatever they may be, with complete freedom.
L11) Since we cannot be sure what the objective truth is, if there is any such thing, we must grant every man the right to hold and express his own opinion, whatever it may be; and, for practical purposes as we go along, be content to abide by the democratic decision of the majority.
L12) Government should rest as directly as possible on the will of the people, with each adult human being counting as one and one only, irrespective of sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, property or education.
L13) Since there are no differences among human beings considered in their political capacity as the foundation of legitimate, that is democratic, government, the ideal state will include all human beings, and the ideal government is world government. Meanwhile, short of the ideal, we should support and strengthen the United Nations, the World Court and other partial steps toward an international political order and world government, as these become successively possible in practice.
L14) In social, economic and cultural as well as political affairs, men are of right equal. Social reform should be designed to correct existing inequalities and to equalize the conditions of nurture, schooling, residence, employment, recreation and income that produce them.
L15) Social hierarchies and distinctions among human beings are bad and should be eliminated especially those distinctions based on custom, tradition, prejudice, superstition and other non-rational sources, such as race, color, ancestry, property (particularly landed and inherited property) and religion.
L16) Sub-groups of humanity defined by color, race, sex or other physical or physiological attributes do not differ in civilizing potential.
L17) The goal of political and social life is secular: to increase the material and functional well-being of humanity.
L18) It is always preferable to settle disputes among groups, classes and nations, as among individuals, by free discussion, negotiation and compromise, not by conflict, coercion or war.
L19) Government, representing the common good democratically determined, has the duty of guaranteeing that everyone should have enough food, shelter, clothing and education and security against unemployment, illness and the problems of old age.


One possible set of contrasting non-liberal elements:
X1) Human nature exhibits constant as well as changing attributes. It is at least partially defective or corrupt intrinsically, and thus limited in its potential for progressive development; in particular, incapable of realizing the good society of peace, justice, freedom and well-being.
X2) Human beings are moved by sentiment, passion, intuition and other non-rational impulses at least as much as by reason. Any view of man, history and society that neglects the non-rational impulses and their embodiment in custom, prejudice, tradition and authority, or that conceives of a social order in which the non-rational impulses and their embodiments are wholly subject to abstract reason, is an illusion.
X3) Besides ignorance and faulty social institutions there are many other obstacles to progress and the achievement of the good society: some rooted in the biological, psychological, moral and spiritual nature of man; some, in the difficulties of the terrestrial environment; others, in the intransigence of nature; still others, derived from man’s loneliness in the material universe.
X4) “Since there are intrinsic and permanent as well as extrinsic and remediable obstacles, the good society of universal peace, justice, freedom and well-being cannot be achieved, and there are no solutions to most of the primary social problems—which are, in truth, not so much “problems” as permanent conditions of human existence. Plans based on the goal of realizing the ideal society or solving the primary problems are likely to be dangerous as well as utopian, and to lessen rather than increase the probability of bringing about the moderate improvement and partial solutions that are in reality possible.
X5) Although traditional institutions, beliefs and modes of conduct can get so out of line with real conditions as to become intolerable handicaps to human well-being, there is a certain presumption in their favor as part of the essential fabric of society; a strong presumption against changing them both much and quickly.
X6) There is no indication from experience that universal education based on reason and science—even if it were possible, which it is not—can actually eliminate or even much reduce the kinds of ignorance that bear on individual and social conduct.
X7) There is no indication from experience that all bad institutions can be got rid of by democratic or any other kind of reforms; if some bad institutions are eliminated, some of the institutions remaining, or some that replace them, will be bad or will become bad.
X8) There are biological, psychological and moral as well as social causes of the major evils of society. A program of social reform combined with a merely permissive, educational and reformist approach to those who embody the evils not only as no prospect of curing the evils—which is in any event impossible—but in practice often fosters rather than mitigates them, and fails to protect the healthier sectors of society from victimization.
.X9) Unrestricted academic freedom expresses the loosening of an indispensable social cohesion and the decay of standards, and permits or promotes the erosion of the social order. Academic discourse should recognize, and if necessary be required to recognize, the limits implicit in the consensus concerning goals, values and procedures that is integral to the society in question.
X10) Unrestricted free speech in relation to political matters—most obviously when extended to those who reject the basic premises of the given society and utilize freedom of speech as a device for attacking the society’s foundations—expresses, like unrestricted academic freedom, the loosening of social cohesion and the decay of standards, and condones the erosion of the social order.
X11) Whether or not there is any truth that is both objective and capable of being known to be so, no society can preserve constitutional government or even prevent dissolution unless in practice it holds certain truths to be, if not literally self-evident, then at any rate unalterable for it, and not subject to the changing will of the popular majority or of any other human sovereign.
X12) A number of principles have been appealed to as the legitimate basis of government, and most of these have been associated in the course of time with bad, indifferent and moderately good government. Government resting on unqualified universal franchise—especially where the electorate includes sizable proportions of uneducated or propertyless persons, or cohesive sub-groups—tends to degenerate into semi-anarchy or into forms of despotism (Caesarism, bonapartism) that manipulate the democratic formula for anti-democratic ends.
X13) In their existential reality, human beings differ so widely that their natural and prudent political ordering is into units more limited and varied than a world state. A world state having no roots in human memory, feeling and custom, would inevitably be abstract and arbitrary, thus despotic, in the foreseeable future, if it could conceivably be bought into being. Though modern conditions make desirable more international cooperation than in the past, we should be cautious in relation to internationalizing institutions, especially when these usurp functions heretofore performed by more parochial bodies.
X14) It is neither possible nor desirable to eliminate all inequalities among human beings. Although it is charitable and prudent to take reasonable measures to temper the extremes of inequality, the obsessive attempt to eliminate inequalities by social reforms and sanctions provokes bitterness and disorder, and can at most only substitute new inequalities for the old.
X15) It is impossible and undesirable to eliminate hierarchies and distinctions among human beings. A large number of distinctions and groupings, rational and non-rational, contributes to the variety and richness of civilization, and should be welcomed, except where some gross and remediable cruelty or inequity is involved.
X16) Whether or not sub-groups of humanity defined by physical or physiological attributes differ congenitally and innately in civilizing potential, they do differ in their actual civilizing ability at the present time and are likely to continue so to differ for as long in the future as is of practical concern.
X17) Among the goals of political and social life, well-being is subordinate to survival; and all secular goals are in the last analysis subordinate to the ultimate moral or religious goal of the citizens composing the community.
X18) disputes among groups, classes and nations can and should be settled by free discussion, negotiation and compromise when—but only when—the disputes range within some sort of common frame-work of shared ideas and interests. When the disputes arise out of a clash of basic interests and an opposition of root ideas, as is from time to time inevitably the case, then they cannot be settled by negotiation and compromise but must be resolved by power, coercion and, sometimes, war.
X19) Except in marginal and extreme cases, the duty of government is not to assure citizens food, shelter, clothing and education, and security against the hazards of unemployment, illness and old age, but to maintain conditions within which the citizens, severally and in association, are free to make their own arrangements as they see fit.


More Tenets of liberalism:
Pg. 40-42
1. All forms of racial segregation and discrimination are wrong.
2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
3. Everyone has a right to free, public education.
4. Political, economic or social discrimination based on religious belief is wrong.
5. In political or military conflict it is wrong to use methods of torture and physical terror.
6. A popular movement or revolt against a tyranny or dictatorship is right, and deserves approval.
7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves.
8. Progressive income and inheritance taxes are the fairest form of taxation.
9. If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners.
10. We have a duty to mankind; that is, to men in general.
11. The United Nations, even if limited in accomplishment, is a step in the right direction.
12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong.
13. Wealthy nations, like the United States, have a duty to aid the less privileged portions of mankind.
14. Colonialism and imperialism are wrong.
15. Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow Negroes to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites.
16. The chief sources of delinquency and crime are ignorance, discrimination, poverty and exploitation.
17. Communists have a right to express their opinions.
18. We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations.
19. Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong.
20. All nations and peoples, including the nations and peoples of Asia and Africa, have a right to political independence when a majority of the population wants it.
21. We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others.
22. The primary goal of international policy in the nuclear age ought to be peace.
23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong.
24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom.
25. The money amount of school and university scholarships ought to be decided primarily by need.
26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to academic freedom: that is, the right to express their own beliefs and opinions, in or out of the classroom, without interference from administrators, trustees, parents or public bodies.
27. In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong.
28. The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote.
29. Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War.
30. There are so significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types.
31. Steps toward world disarmament would be a good thing.
32. Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
33. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression.
34. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
35. The will of the people shall be the basis of authority of government.
36. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security.
37. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work.
38. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions.
39. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
“A full-blown liberal will mark every one, or very nearly every one, of these thirty-nine sentences, Agree. A convinced conservative will mark many or most of them, a reactionary all of nearly all of them, Disagree.” Pg. 42
...Read more