Recently on FoxNews, Huckabee spoke in one segment with John Stossel about freedom and free choice when it comes to healthcare and a variety of issues, Huck even turns to the camera to dramatically emphasize its importance.
In the very next segment Huck’s making the case regarding the United States as a Christian nation, attempting to credential it by stating that the “intentions” of the founders are to be upheld rather than what was actually written in our Constitution.
We call this hypocrisy. standing for one thing while doing another.
Question: how is it that the great founders of this nation got it, Huck, but you can’t seem to? That irrespective of their belief systems, we needed to be objective in such matters so that each can decide for self? Does this not support the very freedom and free choice that Stossel spoke about in the previous segment?
Freedom of choice cannot just be about the options you happen to agree with; just as free speech cannot just be about the speech you want to hear.
Let’s conduct a thought experiment. Let’s give in to the idea that we’ll unanimously call ourselves a Christian nation, but with these caveats: gay marriage will be enacted and abortion will remain unchallenged.
Here is the question to ask yourself: are you willing to endorse it?
If you’re not willing to do so, is it because what you really want is policy enacted based on your religious beliefs?
It really has nothing to do with just being recognized or called a Christian nation, it’s about much more than just that – it’s about controlling others with your ideological belief systems?
Existence is a belief system, which is inherently subjective: meaning – opinion. No American upholding freedom would infringe on your freedom of thought or opinion.
The very nature of bigotry, though, is one group telling its people that all the other groups are not valid; devalued in their belief systems; yours is the only true belief system.
Are you seeking religious dominance or pluralistic acceptance? One is control, the other freedom.
Branding something is antithetical to freedom.
If you’ve branded something, then it has no potential growth. You’ve eliminated the probability of change; no revision or progressing toward something greater or more useful, more appropriate for the time, more convenient, more efficient.
Thank goodness Edison didn’t think that about the word “light”.
Suppose that a cola company creates a product that becomes competitive with Coke. The fact is that our founders drank Coke, so this new cola really has no value and we’ll even go so far as to disdain or devalue those who don’t drink Coke and especially those who drink no cola beverages at all.
Any other drink that looks similar will not be considered, it has to be Coke – even if it’s a product that another company makes and wants to call Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Tab, RC Cola, Diet Rite – doesn’t matter.
Since Coke was first and some of the founders enjoyed this beverage – they got to decide how the rest of the nation is going to be affected by such choices; doesn’t matter if you like Coke or not. Even if some of the founders decided later to stop drinking Coke or drank 7-up instead, it won’t matter because Coke was the first and we must uphold that tradition.
Now, if tradition is your platform, why don’t you repeal slavery and women’s suffrage – these were traditions of our founders. Why cherry pick which traditions; isn’t cherry picking, itself, subjective?
Look, limiting choice is nothing more than manipulation and control of others. With the exception of your own, no life is for you to decide.
Just like the Coke story, religion and Christianity have come to be the foundations for attempting to control others with subjective morals and values; subjective ingredients.
The problem is that you are not living in freedom by controlling others. In fact, you’re actually opposing freedom since the very nature of religion is that you’re accountable to something or someone outside yourself.
Why can’t I be accountable to myself? “You can’t be trusted to make the right decisions!” What political party does that sound like?
If your belief system demands that you believe yourself defective from birth, that’s fine. Or that self-accountability is anarchy in your mind, that’s fine, too. No American who upholds freedom would stop you. But, what is your motivation for insisting everyone else hold such beliefs?
“Anarchy in the streets” is a scare tactic to do what? Control your choices away from self-reliance.
It’s as if you’re too stupid to figure out how NOT to infringe on the freedoms of your fellow man.
It’s as if you’re NOT to be trusted with figuring out how to make personal decisions for yourself toward your own self-interest whereby you create self-governance, self-reliance and self-wealth.
Let’s face it, you just don’t get it and need someone else to decide for you.
Once again, if you want that life, no American who upholds freedom would stop you, but what is your motivation for insisting that everyone follow you down that path? Is this some shared suffering in your mind? “If I have to be in bondage to this belief system, so do you!” mentality?
Again, what political party does this sound like? Aren’t these the same arguments about healthcare?
If you hold the same ideological "belief-control systems" like the opposition, you’ll never advance freedom in the political arena. Better to hold your belief systems in private for yourself & family, and then speak only of limited government and personal responsibility with regard to elections, our representatives and policies.
Look at reality over the centuries: Freedom keeps advancing, not controls.
Develop Personal Responsibility through accountability, which means you own each choice you make in life; responsibility means you have the ability to respond to each choice you make in life; consent means making each choice certain that the choice is not at the cost of another human being without his consent – voluntary contract; the byproduct is every virtue you could possible muster in your mind.