The latest way for the left to reject the truth is to call it a conspiracy. Then they simply pass off all evidence as a far right conspiracy. Once the label is applied they cease their inquiry into the evidence. However, the following video should give them pause for it is evident that Kennedy believed in a conspiracy against the country that was going on in secret and in high places. After viewing the video and giving it some thought, take a look at George Soros and his army of useful idiots that are undermining our country. He has given $100 million to the DNC and has funded millions more to them through his shadow organizations. Watch the video on him after Kennedy’s on lyleduell.me. Hit below link.
The Cornerstone of Liberalism
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! John 8:43-45 NIV.
The foundation of Liberalism is made up of many stones. However, the cornerstone of the philosophy is the autonomy of the individual. What do we mean by the autonomy of the individual? It simply means that the individual is self-governing and to some degree is self-directed.
It may surprise you to hear that the Bible has quite a bit to say about this doctrine of the autonomy of the individual. In the story found in the book of Genesis, God created man free to make a choice and he also warned man that if he made the wrong choice there would be consequences. The choices were to governor one’s self and be independent of God (autonomous) or to choose to be self – denying and allow God to govern one’s life.
If we look at the liberal faith through the lens of the story. Liberalism is nothing more than an organized rebellion against God. Like Adam in the story liberals do not believe God, of course in our age it’s not a matter of believing God, but rather not believing IN God. However, no matter how you word it, it’s the same old story. Man , wanting to be independent and free from the authority of God. In the story Satan deceived man in two ways. He first convinced man that God’s word was not true and then that God did not mean what he said. Both of his arguments were attacks on the truth of God’s word. Based on what I’ve all already said, it only follows that the liberal faith would be attacking God’s word today and even setting themselves up as the judges of God and his Word. Well, that exactly what we find.
It is the liberal faith that has embraced relativism (the denial that there is any absolute truth) and has led the attack on scripture and on the living word who is Jesus Christ. In fact, liberals and their siblings despise any authority, but especially anything or anyone that represents the authority of God. Like their father they hate God and everything that pertains to the true God. Like their father they know how to subvert language and appear as angles of light to naïve and gullible men. The apostle Paul says of them “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness” 2 Cor. 11:14-15. Still to this day we have liberals masquerading as Christians for their own purpose or the purpose of their father.
Even from a utilitarian point of view, liberalism has a number of problems, if every person is self-governing and self-directed, what happens when people begin to go in different directions and they then begin to disagree on whom and what should govern? The liberal answer is that a man’s freedom or self-governing ends where any others man’s freedom begins. But does this really take care of the problem or does it just raise more questions? For example who will determine where one man’s freedom ends and any other man’s begins? The state? If the state is to determine this, is the individual really free? What happens if the state defines freedom differently than the individual? Maybe we should toss a coin? No, the one with the most power wins and in the modern world that means the state. Liberalism therefore will always look to the state to determine where freedom begins and ends. The state then judges the difference between good and evil. In other word the state begins to determine morality. Could this be the source of political correctness? It surely is the beginning of a totalitarian state.
In the story, God creates man and then gives him freedom. In the liberal system it is the state that defines and gives freedom to the individual, of course, if the state gives freedom, the state can take it away. If the deity gives freedom no government would have the right to take that freedom away. This was the thinking of the founding fathers when they said that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” and government was created to protect those rights. It is quite obvious that the founding fathers were not liberals. This is the reason why liberals are not extremely fond of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. They simply don’t believe them.
There is any problem with the liberal faith, which is, who has the authority to define the concept of freedom? Freedom is one of those elusive concepts that could be defined in a numbers ways. For the atheist it could be defined simply by the expression “Freedom is doing what I what to do or simply being left alone by the authorities”. For the Christian freedom would be defined “as being free from self to serve God and others.”
Now liberals, will respond by saying that the state should stay out of defining freedom or liberty. But if this true, why then do they use the public school to push their liberal faith? In fact, every time they have a change, liberals use the government and the court system to impose their liberal faith on the American people. They get away with this because the American people do not recognize liberalism for what it is, a godless religion that is against all other religions.
In the story when man sinned something happened to his nature. Before the fall his will was directed toward God, after the fall his will was directed to himself. His will was directed to satisfying his lower nature. He then began to live not for God, but rather to satisfy his lower nature’s appetites. The story therefore depicts liberalism, perfectly, for liberalism is nothing more than a high form of hedonism (living for pleasure). Even, discipline and self-restraint is practiced primarily to extend the ego.
The conclusion is this; liberalism is nothing more than an organized rebellion against the living God. It is a religion or a philosophy that denies and subverts God’s word. Therefore, it is sinful for Christians to be involved in liberalism or to support any group or politic party that supports it.
 Liberalism is not being nice or compassionate. It is a philosophy that competes and stands in contradiction to the Christian faith. The advanced liberals which often call themselves progressives are liberals who have embraced the liberal philosophy and have taken it to its end, which is anarchy.
 The symbol and the height of the liberal move is the French Revolution with its motto “No king and no God”.
 Liberals have used the methodology of higher criticism to deny the authority of scripture and to deny the Lordship of Jesus. Note Eta Linnemann Book “Historical Criticism of the Bible” with the sub-title “Methodology or Ideology? Reflections of a Bultmannian turned evangelical”. Also note Jude 8-16
Harry Blamires book “The Christian Mind” saved me from embracing a liberal view of the Bible.
 The two siblings of liberalism are atheism and libertarianism. Atheism is the ultimate distortion of the image of God in man and libertarianism is a secular counterfeit of the Christian faith which in its true state lives above the law.
 In the end for the liberal the state becomes God walking on the earth. A good example of this that the state in the abortion controversy ended up determining what is life or non-life. In this Secular liberalism is nothing more than man playing God.
The One True Heaven
Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth. “But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel–because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. Gen 11:3-9
The intellectuals of the Renaissance were made up basically of two groups of thinkers, those which were atheists who rejected the idea of God and organized religion and those that maintain their faith in God and yet rejected the corrupted forms of religion. The former evolved into what we call the enlightenment and the latter evolved into the Reformation movement. Looking back on these developments, we see these two movements traveling along through time side-by-side yet with an increasingly greater gulf growing between them.
In the beginning of the Renaissance, there was an emphasis placed on a return to reason and freedom. In order to accomplish this goal the old authorities of dogma, tradition and church had to be overthrown and replaced with the concepts of reason and freedom. However, the two different branches of the Renaissance, the enlightenment and Reformation would develop these two concepts of reason and freedom differently. The enlightenment side would enshrine reason and human knowledge as the ultimate authority, reason and science would become God and bring heaven down to earth. Man would be free from all authority and be self-directed. Out of this, thinking came the later systems of philosophies known as humanism, liberalism and communism.
The other branch of the Renaissance, the Reformation, believed that there were limits to reason and knowledge and that in order for man to be truly human he must live within those limits. They believed, without limits mans freedom would generate into chaos and the loss of freedom to his uncontrolled passions and his own finiteness. They believe that those limits were set forth in the revelation of God in Christ. The Reformation, therefore, believed that there were limits to the development of culture and that any attempts to bring heaven to earth would only end in misery. They were skeptical about the enlightenment’s blind faith in progress and in human goodness. In this, they rejected the twin myths of unlimited progress and the innate goodness of humanity; myths that still shape the vision of liberals and progressives to this very day.
After hundreds of years, we can clearly see the movement of both groups. The reformation group has lost its hold on Europe, symbolized by the French revolution that had its slogan “No God No king” which could be interpreted as no authority other than the individual. The failure of the Reformation in Europe could be largely contributed to its association with the ruling class and its failure to follow through on its attempt to reform organized religion and the culture. Its failures allowed the men of the enlightenment to hold out a secular hope to the people and actually create a brand-new faith, a faith in progress (heaven on earth) and human knowledge (science). The populace which had already lost their faith in religion were eager to accept this new faith even though there was no historical grounds or empirical evidence for it.
The question arises, How did the enlightenment thinkers believe they would accomplish bringing heaven down to earth? Well, it’s not a hard question, they simply had to bring God down to earth. That is exactly what the thinkers of the enlightenment did. They created the modern state. As one of them said,” the state is God walking on the earth.” This idea was set forth in varying degrees by a number of enlightenment thinkers and perfected in the writings of Karl Marx. In Marx, you see the state exalted to the place of God and the animosity of the enlightenment towards religion and any moral authority other than the state (human authority). For in the new heaven, no other authority can exist but that of the state which is nothing more than a human oligarch of authority. Of course, that authority should be based on reason alone and science, the two demon gods of the enlightenment. However, we also see in this system of unbelief a denial of free will and of human dignity. Man is nothing more than an animal predetermined by biological forces; life is not scared but is expendable for the higher good. Of course, the state is the higher good.
We now know that reason is never alone, and that science is limited and controlled by many things other than reason, such as money and the ideological taint. We also know from experience that the state never really promotes individual freedom, but rather it oppresses freedom. Though history has shown us the failure of the secular movement; those that have placed their faith in it continually are on the same course today, just as their ancestors of the enlightenment did. How do you explain this blind faith? I personally believe that it all comes back to their first presupposition of unbelief. Once you get on the road of unbelief, there is nowhere to go other than statism (God walking on the earth).
It only takes a glimpse of the last century to see what this new heaven on earth looks like. It looks like Russia and communist China. Where 100,000,000 people have been killed, and untold numbers persecuted for not bowing down to the new God of the state. Could it be that the materialist of the enlightenment promised one thing (heaven) and created the very opposite on earth? If we are the heirs of the enlightenment, what do we have to look forward to? It seems, if we continue on the same course of the enlightenment, there can only be one end; the ultimate state, a one-world government and George Orwell’s 1984.
Religious Phobia and Liberalism
Many of my atheistic and progressive friends are constantly accusing religious people of being homophobic and of having some other biases. That may be true of some religious folks. However, I have found that many progressives and many who fancy themselves as liberals have their own phobia, i.e., a religious phobia. In other words, they fear religion. Of course, one tends to hate the things that one fears. So I have found that many of my liberal and atheist friends have a dislike that approaches a loathing for religion. This has caused me to do a considerable amount of thinking about where these fears came from and whether they are real or imagined. Of course, a fear is real to the one who has it, but this raises the question of whether or not there is really something in reality on which to base their fear.
I began my research by asking my liberal friends if religion or religious people had done any personal harm to them that would cause them to hate religion. The majority of them said they had received no such hurt. I did find some who said that their parents had made them go to church when they were little. However, this to me seemed to be the normal thing for good parents who believed in their religion to do. Yet, many of my friends felt that this was reason enough for them to reject religion.
I did find some people who told me that they hated religion because religious people are hypocrites. I’ll admit this might be a good reason if we were not all hypocrites. Most human beings are guilty of saying one thing and doing something else. If we all stopped doing everything that hypocrites do, we wouldn’t do much.
My research did lead me to a few books whose authors seem to hate religion. I gathered from these books that the authors hated religion for all of the terrible things that it had done in the past, such as the witch hunts and the Inquisition. Of course, if you were to count noses, you could say that religion has killed its tens of thousands, but atheism and liberalism has killed its millions. It was atheistic communism that killed twenty million of its own people in Russia and even more in China, and it was Western liberalism that spread its philosophy with the sword. It looks to me like it’s not religion that kills people, but it’s people who kill people. If truly analyzed, it is usually people who have a will to power who do the killing, whether religious or not. You will find these people in religion, business, and government and for that matter, virtually in every walk of life.
However, all of the above does not explain the irrational fear and hatred of some people toward religion. I believe the truth is that liberalism as a world view and philosophy itself has a propensity to dislike religion. Liberalism belief in the autonomy of the individual tends to color its views of all authority but especially religious authority. This bias was embodied in the French Revolution, whose motto was “no master, no God.” A quick review of history reveals that at the time of their revolution, the French had reason to fear and hate religion. During that period in their history the church had been captured by the governing class and was being used to oppress the people. However, the hatred and bias of the liberals and progressives of the French Revolution are still with us today. Like all bias and prejudice, these are passed on blindly from generation to generation.
However, much of the dislike of religion comes from the fact that religion tends to cramp the lifestyle of some people. Some people just don’t like the idea of being told that they are going to stand in judgment for their behavior. Jesus hinted at this when He said, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed” John 3:19-21.
It is obvious from the above words of Jesus that a strong anti-religious bias can come from a godless amoral lifestyle. This bias goes much deeper than many liberals would like to admit. This bias comes from a deep-seated prideful rebellion that exists in the human heart, and like all bias it is hard to detect by those possessing it, and like all biases it can be passed on for generations.
My conclusion is that my far left liberal friends have been biased toward religion by the traditions and the propaganda of their own philosophy more than by reason or clear thinking. This is not to say that religion should not be watched. Religion is a power that can be abused, but it is also a power that can be a blessing to people. However, it is irrational to hate all religion because some men have abused it and used it as a means to gain power over others.
Two Kinds of Liberals
Today we hear a lot about liberals and conservatives, but much of this talk is misleading. All Americans are liberal to some degree. The liberal philosophy is so broad that it would take in the majority of Americans. There simply is no fixed definition of liberalism. Liberalism only has some vague principles, which most Americans would endorse to some degree. They would be things like democracy, equality, individualism, the rule of law, and the free market. How these things are defined and to what degree a person takes them is where the great divide in liberalism takes place.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that in America we have two kinds of liberals–not liberals and conservatives–but two kinds of liberals, and for our discussion one can call these two groups French liberals and English liberals. Note that one can only take this allegory so far for it will break down because of the diversity of the liberal view.
Let’s look at these two kinds of liberals. First are the French liberals. These are the children of Voltaire and the French Revolution. They are characterized by a dislike of authority, a dislike of religion, and distain for the upper class. They tend to be populists and feel comfortable with socialism. They tend to put more emphasis on collectivism than on individualism. They believe that mankind can trust in reason alone, apart from a faith that informs reason. They also seem to put more stress on the concept of equality and define it differently than their English counterpart. Because of their negative view of faith and religion they seem to be informed more by their vices than their virtues. For this reason, I sometime refer to this group as profane liberals.
The extreme French liberals come closer to being classified as revolutionaries rather than liberals. They see man’s greatest need to be liberated from tradition, morality, and superstition (religion). Many of them would preferred to be call progressives rather than liberals. I often call these folks advanced liberals. Of course, many scholars today would call their form of liberalism something other than liberal. The champion of French liberalism is in fact not French but English. His name is John Stuart Mill, and he is most famous for his small book entitled On Liberty. However, to be fair to Mills’ he probably would be shocked by much of the thinking of modern advanced liberals. Mill himself did not believe in socialism.
On the other side we have the English liberals who in some degree reflect many of the French liberal characteristics, but to a lesser degree. However, there are some marked differences. One is that English liberals see religion as a positive force in culture and at worst a necessary evil. Their view of religion varies from true faith to seeing it from a pragmatic point of view. A great example of this is the American philosopher William James who was the father of the philosophy of pragmatism. English liberals also believe more strongly in the free market and the concept of limited government. They seem to have a respect for government, but at the same time a healthy distrust. Many of our founding fathers embraced this form of liberalism to some degree. It is this group of liberals who today are called conservatives by many people. Their champion in the time of Mill was James Fitzjames Stephen. He is famous for his rebuttal of Mill in his classic book Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. In his book he completely dismantles Mill’s form of liberalism. (Note: John Gray, Liberalism)
What causes people to be in either camp? Well, that is difficult to say, but I think we can say that no form of liberalism is based on reason alone. If it were, there would not be such diversity in liberalism. Liberalism, like all systems of thought, is diversified because people come to it with diverse presumptions. What are some these presumptions?
One of the obvious is a belief or lack of belief in a deity. Belief or lack of it tends to shape one’s attitudes on a host of subjects, but especially on the concept of authority. Authority seems to be a thing that all liberals struggle with, especially the French liberals. Religion tends to temper this rebellious spirit, so large numbers of religious people seem to lean toward the English side. However, by religious I do not necessarily mean Christian. Most knowledgeable Christians would have some problems with any form of liberalism. However, you will find vulgar Christians in both camps.
Still, another factor could be the geographies of where a person was brought up or lives. Rural people seem to lean more toward the English side than city dwellers. This can be contributed to by many factors like the fact that rural people tend to be self-sufficient and independent from the system and have less trust in any form of government, even a liberal form. Also rural people are closer to nature and often have more of a God consciousness which the city dweller may not have. An example of this is a study I saw on how the people in California voted in a recent election. All the counties that had large cities in them were blue and the rest of the counties were red.
Other factors that may contribute to the tribe of liberals you belong to could be: family ideology which greatly affect the values and beliefs of an individual, the educational institution attended, one’s chosen profession and one’s social economic level. All this is to say that the source of one’s liberalism has very little to do, for most people’s, with intellectual choice. In fact, for the most part, liberalism of all kinds has many intellectual inconsistencies. Therefore if you fancy yourself as a liberal intellectual, think again.
For those that would like to know more about Liberalism the following are interesting books on the subject, Liberalism and Its Discontents by Patrick Neal, The Tyranny of Liberalism by James Kalb, Two faces of Liberalism by John Gray and The Betrayal of Liberalism by Hilton Kramer and Roger Kimball.