Religious Freedom Day

Here in Houston we have an ongoing discussion about the Astrodome, one of the modern wonders of the world (the 8^th, specifically). But, as modern buildings go, it’s old. It was built in 1965 and hasn’t been used for baseball or rodeo since 2002. If it weren’t considered historically significant, the building would simply be razed and replaced with something more currently useful.

But because it is historically significant, the debate goes on. Should it be restored? Used for some other purpose? Maybe a museum? Who should pay for whatever is done with it?

A couple of times the people have been faced with an ultimatum: pay big bucks for some specific purpose (which they may not prefer) or it will be destroyed. Even when the big bucks aren’t approved, however, the destruction doesn’t happen, and the debate continues. Eventually the people will need to answer the question, does it still have value?

celebrating religious freedom
image from LDS.org/Newsroom

I’m using this as a metaphor for the way our larger society has been tossing around the idea that religious liberty is maybe historically precious, but can we afford to bother about such things in a modern world?

This ought not to be in question. Unlike a physical building, which may or may not have utilitarian or nostalgic value to various people, religious freedom’s actual value is beyond price.

Who should control what you believe: you, or some distant ruling authority?

If you think you should be in control of your own thoughts and beliefs, then you value religious freedom.

 It’s not some quaint tradition, for those people who care about such things; it is the essence of being who you are, instead of having everything about you, even your thoughts, enslaved.

This Saturday, January 16^th, marked National Religious Freedom Day, which has been happening annually since 1993. It consists of a presidential proclamation on the subject. And possibly something schools and churches might bring up. (study guide for schools here).

I believe I’m pretty involved in the support of religious freedom—our first God-given right in the First Amendment of the Constitution. But I wasn’t aware of this designated day—which in some years has coincided with Martin Luther King Day, being celebrated today. But Saturday I came across a video on Facebook, shared by my religion about Religious Freedom Day. I'm unable to embed, but it's available here.

The video has a link to this page on Religious Freedom. This page has several additional videos and resources, and ends with a list of What We Can Do:

·         Learn about religious freedom—what it is, how it works and the issues that threaten it.

·         Practice religious freedom—respect the religious beliefs of others and the beliefs and opinions of those with no religion. Be civil in your conversations and interactions, both face to face and on the Internet.

·         Join with others to promote religious freedom—get involved in your community wherever you feel comfortable. Use the Internet and social media to help others learn about religious freedom.

In Ryan T. Anderson’s book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, he talks about the recent threat to our religious freedom. I’ll just share some of his words from chapter nine:

In recent political memory, religious liberty was a value that brought together conservatives, libertarians, and progressives. As recently as 1993, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed by a nearly unanimous Congress and signed by a Democratic president. Today, the same value is a political liability. Bakers, photographers, and florists are being ruined, adoption agencies shuttered, schools threatened with loss of accreditation and nonprofit status. So what happened? Why is religious liberty now losing so much ground?

Three historical developments explain our current predicament: a change in the scope of our government, a change in our sexual values, and a change in our political leaders’ vision of religious liberty. An adequate response will need to address each of these changes.

First, government has changed. The progressive movement gave us the administrative state. Limited government and the rule of law were replaced by the nearly unlimited reach of technocrats in governmental agencies. As government assumes responsibility for more areas of life, the likelihood of its infringing on religious liberty increases. Why should government be telling bakers and florists which weddings to serve in the first place? Why should it tell charities and religious schools how to operate and which values to teach? Only a swollen sense of unaccountable government authority can explain these changes.

Second, sexual values have changed. At the time of the American Revolution, religion and liberty were so closely linked that Thomas Jefferson could affirm, “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.” Meanwhile, his French contemporary Denis Diderot, expressing sentiments that would culminate in a very different revolution, declared that man “will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” In our own time, however, the sexual revolution has shattered the American synthesis of faith and freedom, setting religion at odds with “liberty”—or more accurately, license. Now bakers, florists, adoption agencies, and schools that uphold what Americans have always believed about marriage find themselves at odds with the law.

Third, religious liberty has changed. Our Constitution protects the natural right to the free exercise of religion. But some liberals are trying to drastically narrow that right by redefining it as the mere “freedom of worship.” If they succeed, the robust religious freedom that made American civil society the envy of the world will be reduced to Sunday-morning piety confined within the four walls of a chapel. They have even gone so far as to rewrite the U.S. immigration exam to say that the First Amendment protects “freedom of worship” rather than the “free exercise of religion.” True religious liberty entails the freedom to live consistently with one’s beliefs seven days a week—in the chapel, in the marketplace, and in the public square.

These three changes represent a rejection of the American Founding. Progressive politics and a radical view of human sexuality are combining to coerce compliance at the expense of a bedrock human right. And of course much of this has been enabled by judicial activism, as in Obergefell.

Anderson talks about what we can do. First, fight for courts to interpret and apply laws fairly. And, outside the courtroom, do all we can to limit government. And then, correct the faulty anthropology; restore a sound understanding of human nature and the laws of nature—combining the efforts of churches and synagogues, schools and universities, and other organizations. He says, “We need groups like this to push back on the sexual revolution and remind people of the law written on their hearts—a law that points the way to true, ordered liberty, not license, when it comes to human sexuality and the family.”

In an earlier chapter, Anderson refers to Pope Benedict XVI, who said, in Anderson’s paraphrase: “While intellectual arguments are important, people are moved more by beauty and holiness. The first thing we need to do is live the truth about marriage ourselves.”

His book is mainly about marriage, but also how changing what marriage is affects religious liberty. So, we could take that last statement and apply it to our religious freedom: The first thing we need to do is live the truth about our religious beliefs ourselves.

We who are used to doing that quietly, as a natural part of our peaceful lives, may find ourselves needing to do it more boldly, more firmly. Because we must not allow someone—anyone—to enslave our beliefs, which would enslave our very selves.

Religious freedom isn’t something nice to have, if we can afford it, and if “regular” people decide to tolerate that in believers. Religious freedom is the essential freedom of our minds and hearts.

The Matchup

I stayed up and watched the Republican presidential debate Thursday night. We’re only a couple more weeks away from the first primary (Iowa, followed by New Hampshire). Texas early voting starts in a month, and our primary day is March 1^st. So it may be time to settle down and make an endorsement.

I’m for Ted Cruz. I’ve been for Ted Cruz since more than a year before he announced his campaign. I voted for him in the straw poll at the 2014 state GOP convention, and picked up a button, just in case. And the promises he has kept as our senator from Texas have kept me in his camp.

So the debates are of interest to me, not to convince me who to vote for, but for me to see what is being said, and what the other candidates are like. (Transcript available here.)

I have also been strongly against Donald Trump since he announced. I think he is an embarrassment to conservatives—because he isn’t one. And he isn’t much of an improvement over the other narcissist authoritarian/dictator/tyrant we’ve been suffering from for the past seven years—the candidate Trump voted for, back just a few years ago. I’m guessing he also voted for Hillary as senator from New York, since that happened during the time he was still calling himself a Democrat.

So, you can expect my view of the debate to be colored by my feelings. However, because I know that, I’m trying to avoid knee-jerk reactions and get a more accurate view of what’s really happening.

What I witnessed was apparently not the same debate the commentators were watching. Immediately afterward they couldn’t say strongly enough how they thought Trump had been brilliant and was the clear winner. That is exactly the opposite of what I saw happen.

Before I talk about Trump and Cruz, let me mention the others—all of whom appeared reasonable and appealing. In another year, any of them might seem quite electable. Maybe even John Kasich, who hasn’t ever been impressive but is, as last night, well-spoken and competent sounding. And while Jeb Bush is on my list of absolutely not getting my vote—because his view on Common Core reveals he doesn’t understand the Constitutional limits of government, nor government’s basic limited role—he also appears reasonable and conservative.

I am a Christie fan. I find him entertaining and appealing. When he says conservative things, he says them with color and clarity that delight me. I feel confident in his economic conservatism, his grasp of foreign affairs, and his willingness to stand up against the tremendous liberal push in his own state of New Jersey. However, on social issues I have my doubts. So I would rather look at him somewhere in the future.

I also like Marco Rubio. People keep talking about him as the youthful optimist, which I find puzzling. He is youthful. But he counters that by sounding very serious—always. He’s clear. He’s articulate. He gives you the sense that he understands the issues clearly and can explain and persuade with some ease. The main drawback is his Gang of 8 participation in an attempt to do “comprehensive” immigration reform, which is translated as “path to citizenship for illegal aliens.”

There is, of course, a need for real comprehensive reform—an easier, fairer process. Something much less Vogon-like. But that can’t be accomplished until the borders are secure. Those of us with some experience recognize that the federal government cannot be trusted on this. They have had funding provided for a border fence, and they failed to use the money and build it. This administration has gone out of its way to allow in illegals and possible terrorists pretending to by refugees—without an appropriate vetting—while keep the process as painful as ever for law-abiding potential immigrants.

I’m guessing Rubio learned that truth the hard way. I’m willing to forgive him for that one thing, pending future evidence that he now knows better.

However, his attacks on Ted Cruz are losing me. This may be some acceptable part of campaigning. I can roll my eyes and ignore it from some PAC. But right there before our eyes, coming from Rubio himself, it was unseemly. And untrue. Attempts to characterize Cruz as inconsistent and dishonest are going to fail, because Cruz is about the most consistent elected official any of us have ever encountered. Plus, his specialty is the law, particularly the Constitution, which is the basis of our law. He’s scrupulously law-abiding. If your campaign depends on painting Cruz as something other than he is, maybe you need to be self-aware enough to realize you don’t measure up.

That said, if the nominee were Rubio, while he wouldn’t be my first choice, I believe I could support him. He would take us in the right direction.

Now, about the two main characters.

Trump appeared petty, vindictive, proud, and uninformed. As usual. The target this time was clearly Ted Cruz. The particular attack that Trump trumped up (pun intended) was the birther issue. It came ahead of the debate, so Cruz was ready for it.

Do you really think one of the best Constitutional scholars ever to run for president would not know whether or not he is a natural-born citizen? He is, of course. He was born to a native American mother; his father was a refugee from Cuba who was not planning to return to Cuba. While Canada may be one country that would allow Cruz to consider himself to be a native Canadian, if he had stayed there from birth onward—unlike most countries—he was his mother’s son, an American.

When they moved back to the US, when Cruz was still a preschooler, there was no need to apply for naturalization; he was already a US citizen. To assume that his parents could return to the US with him, where he would live the rest of his life, and raise him as a Canadian instead of an American is absurd. As the law in practice has said repeatedly. Words with the nat root refer to birth: nature, native, nativity, natal. He was born a native American citizen, not naturalized (made native through a legal process) later.

Cruz pointed out that in September Trump had been asked the question about Cruz’s eligibility, and he had said he had asked his lawyers and there was no question about Cruz’s eligibility. As Cruz said, “Since September the Constitution hasn’t changed, but the poll numbers have.”

What had changed was the threat in the polls from Cruz. Trump insisted temporarily that his only thought was the Republican party, because there will be a legal challenge to Cruz’s eligibility. But eventually he admitted that he brings it up now, because Cruz is doing better.

In other words, he lied about it not being an issue in September because he didn’t think Cruz was important enough. Or he’s lying about it now, because Cruz is a threat.

The exchange was highly entertaining. Cruz verified that the main Trump’s legal expert was a far-left partisan—so no wonder Hillary, et al., are jumping on with Trump’s claim. Some of the experts twist the “natural-born citizen” law to the point that they insist a presidential candidate must have not only been born on American soil, but must have both parents born on American soil. You should hear Cruz present this—about a minute in:

Trump’s response appears to me a combination of embarrassment and failure to understand what Cruz is saying. To view this and think Trump came off better is to fail to see.

That’s why the pundits’ response was so puzzling. To get a view of what actual Americans saw, it helps sometimes to watch Frank Luntz’s focus groups. Usually he asks for a raise of hands for the winner. This time it was so clear, he let them just say it. With one voice, they said “Cruz.” 

Another attack that was supposed to have thrown Cruz off the rails was his comment a few days ago abut Trump being a New Yorker, and we all know what New York values are. We do. But Trump took issue with that, as did a few newspeople who live and work in New York (Megyn Kelly was one). So that nonsubstative issue also came up at the debate. And Cruz said people outside Manhattan know what he means by New York values: not very many conservatives come out of Manhattan.

Trump countered with William Buckley. Yes, Buckley was conservative. But what was remarkable about him was his ability to be conservative and good humored while surrounded by unfriendly liberals. And he’s been dead for some years now. In a city of 8.4 million, Trump can only recite one person—one who is no longer living.

He might have mentioned Rudy Juliani, who was a very successful law-and-order mayor there, and a Republican. But he’s not a conservative either and would have only proved Cruz’s point.

New York conservatives aren’t completely unheard of. But they are rare. I saw a figure of voters in Manhattan (not the whole city, but representative for our purposes). Of registered voters, 82% were Democrat, and 12% were Republican.

Being Republican does not necessarily mean conservative, especially Constitutional conservative, which Ted Cruz is. In Texas we could estimate maybe 50% are conservative—in this reddest of red states. New York is much more likely to produce “progressive” Republicans. But to be generous, if we say half of Manhattan Republicans are conservative, that’s 6%. That’s only 6 out of every 100 voters. They’re as outnumbered as blacks voting against Barack Obama. So that means Cruz’s statement is accurate.

Being referred to as having New York values does not mean all New Yorkers are bad people, or that all their values are bad. He was, as he said clearly, referring to the tendency to be socially liberal—favor abortion and gay marriage, disfavor freedom of religion and the right to bear arms. But the only values Trump could come up with were the ones that matched the whole rest of the nation after 9/11. Those weren’t at issue. Only someone as thin-skinned as Trump (or Obama) would jump at the chance to misconstrue.

But Trump took it personally. He takes everything personally. He would rule personally, by his gut, regardless of the law or the Constitution. I do not trust his New-York-values-laden gut. Or him. Or his temperament or preparation for this powerful position.

I do trust Ted Cruz, who handled the attacks with calmness, good humor, and an extraordinary command of facts. Even on those ridiculously irrelevant issues. On the issues that count, he is very prepared.

One of his better points (and it was offered first by Dr. Carson) is that, if we do not elect a Republican (and I add, a conservative dedicated to the Constitution), the next president will appoint three or four justices who agree with the dissenters on the Heller case: they believe in depriving Americans of the right to defend themselves with arms. As Carson put it, if “a progressive gets in there and they get two or three Supreme Court picks, this nation is over as we know it.”

Since Trump has agreed with the Clintons on so many issues over the years, I have no confidence that he would appoint better jurists to the Court than Clinton or Sanders.

In terms of the Spherical Model, Trump would do nothing to move northward; he might move the country further southward. Most of the candidates might be capable of moving us a tick or two northward, toward the equator. Cruz is determined to move us up where we have the opportunity to enjoy freedom, prosperity, and civilization. 

Self-evident Good and Evil

There are some things that ought to be self-evident. Our founders identified a few of these:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….

And yet, even though these are self-evident, our president and a large number of people miss the obvious. They don’t recognize the God who gave us our life and the rights that go with being His children. They don’t recognize the equality of each of us, and give special privileges to some and prevent others from enjoying their life, liberty, and property.

Today I want to talk about what is right and wrong, or good and evil—things I think are self-evident, but that many selves are ignoring the evidence of.

The impetus to write about this comes from a video clip of news people on PBS discussing the presidential campaign, using the word Satanic to describe Ted Cruz [on Youtube, and also found here].

PBS News Hour, photo from here

Judy Woodruff is the host. She is speaking with David Brooks, writer for The New York Times, and David Corn, writer for Mother Jones. Woodruff asks Brooks to comment on the Republican presidential race.

Judy Woodruff: What’s going on over there. Is anybody making any headway among that group?

David Broooks: Yeah, Ted Cruz is making headway. There’s… You begin to see little signs of liftoff. Trump’s sort of ceilinged out. Carson’s collapsing. And Cruz is somehow beginning to get some momentum in Iowa and elsewhere. And so people are either mimicking him, which Rubio is doing a little by adopting some of the dark and Satanic tones that Cruz has. And so…

Judy Woodruff: Let me just ask you, what did you just say?

David Brooks: If you watch a Cruz speech, it’s like “We’ve got this enemy,” “We’ve got that enemy.” “We’re gonna stomp on this person,” “We’re gonna crush that person,” “We’re gonna destroy that person.” It is an ugly world in Ted Cruz’s world. And it’s combative, and it’s angry, and it’s apocalyptic.

David Corn: Well, it’s actually, if you go to a speech from his dad, who’s a pastor, evangelical, Rafael Cruz, it actually is Satanic. I watched this speech in which he said Satan was behind the Supreme Court decision to legalize gay “marriage.” So it’s not too…

David Brooks: OK, well, I withdraw the Satanic…Ted Cruz.

David Corn: Sometimes it’s metaphorical, but sometimes it’s literal.

David Brooks: Mephisophelian, maybe, but it’s dark, and combative, and, frankly, harsh. He gets some jokes in at the beginning, but then it’s just, “We have enemies. We’re in an apocalyptic situation. We’re on the edge of the abyss. You need a tough guy to beat that back. That’s his personality. That is not Marco Rubio’s personality. He is a sunny optim….He’s been running the youthful optimism campaign. But he’s beginning, to prevent Cruz from getting liftoff, to mimic that, sort of get a piece of that. I personally think that’s a mistake, because in authenticity almost never works. And so if Rubio starts to go like Cruz, he just doesn’t look like himself, and that bothers me.

I’m not sure how to get a transcript of everything Ted Cruz says and then do a word search and check for tone, but I wouldn’t use those same words to describe him. I would say resolute, strong, bold, firm, really smart, good-humored, and optimistic. He inspires hopefulness in me. And he scrupulously avoids tearing others down, so I don't know where Brooks gets that.

I’d also need evidence from everything Marco Rubio has said. I don’t think he’s being anything but the real Marco Rubio, which is both articulate and serious. I don’t think he’s doing any Cruz mimicking.

These commentators’ use of the word Satanic was just a metaphor, from people who comment about politics-as-a-game. It’s fluff and unimportant. And also happens to be inaccurate. But it reminded me of this scripture from Isaiah chapter 5:

20 ¶Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

We’ve seen that switch vividly, especially the past decade. The following verse is also pertinent:

21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

I don’t have a lot of patience for politics-as-a-game. I recognize that swaying people’s opinions is necessary in the process of finding leaders worth supporting. But it ought to be that every voter studies the Constitution, studies the issues, studies the candidates, and uses wise discernment. That’s what I expect of myself as a good citizen.

But, since we’re in a world where some really bad stuff is going on, and we have media elites who sort of miss that and zero in on political speech they don’t like and call that Satanic, I thought I would offer as a service this list of actual self-evident evil:

·         Killing people because you don’t like what they believe.

·         Killing people because they aren’t of the same ethnicity (skin color, etc.) as you.

·         Killing people because you want their land.

·         Killing people because you see yourself as superior to them.

·         Killing people because you want their stuff.

·         Killing people because their existence is an impediment to you and your goals.

·         Killing people because their existence is an inconvenience/annoyance to you.

·         Killing people because you consider yourself to be their judge, jury, and executioner.

Are you with me so far? It should be self-evident that killing innocent people is evil. Plus we have that big commandment among the Ten that spells it out. And yet—there are jihadists who are going around killing innocent people. They’re a fringe, but they’re a leading cause of terror and murder in the world.

And then there are those who think a woman’s “right” to “choose” to kill the innocent unborn child she conceived trumps any right the child should have. So, if you’re thinking this, ask yourself, when did the evil of killing innocents stop being self-evident for you?

So that covers life. Next we’ll deal with self-evident evil related to liberty:

·         Kidnapping people.

·         Enslaving people for sex.

·         Enslaving people for work.

·         Forcing people to do your bidding.

·         Forcing people into a line of work against their will.

·         Forcing people to work without just compensation.

·         Forcing people to do things that are illegal.

·         Forcing people to do things that go against their conscience.

·         Forcing people to spend their earnings the way you prescribe.

The first few seem self-evident, and yet there are people who do them. If you’re one of those people who think everyone gets to decide on their own standard of good and evil, then you can’t say what they do is bad—even when they do it to you or someone you love. So maybe you should rethink that. Because if you think it’s all right for some people to coerce others, even if you don’t, then where do you draw the line, and why? (Consider the bakers and florists and photographers.) When did these deprivations of liberty stop being self-evidently evil to you?

Next we’ll deal with self-evident evil related to the pursuit of happiness, which we’ll shorten here to property rights:

·         Taking what belongs to others to use for yourself.

·         Taking what belongs to others to deprive others from having what is theirs.

·         Destroying what belongs to someone else to deprive them of what is theirs.

·         Taking what belongs to others to transfer to whomever you decide should have it.

·         Using up what is commonly owned by a group you’re in without agreement from the group.

·         Hoarding/hiding what is commonly owned by a group to prevent others from using it.

·         Cheating people out of just compensation for an exchange of property.

·         Lying to prevent someone from gaining something you want to own.

·         Lying about the value of something to get more than you deserve in exchange for it.

·         Lying about work you claim to have done to get pay you haven’t earned.

There’s a reason life, liberty, and property are related. If you take someone’s property, you are depriving them of the fruits of their labors. That means you are forcing them to have worked without compensation—which is slavery. You have used up part of what life consists of: their time. Decent people, good people, see the connection and earnestly strive to be honest in their dealings. It isn’t less evil when it is a government that does these things.

There’s more. When we talk about good and evil, the Ten Commandments is always a good starting place. They include valuing God—who has granted us our life and our rights to live as free people—and valuing family, life, and truth. Some of those things fit in the categories above. But let's add a few broken commandments that ought to be self-evidently evil:

·         Breaking the covenant of marriage by committing adultery, abuse, addiction, or abandonment.

·         Breaking the covenant of marriage for trivial reasons.

·         Engaging in sexual relations without intending love and commitment.

·         Engaging in sex outside of marriage.

·         Producing pornography.

·         Viewing pornography.

·         Failing to provide a secure, loving home for your children.

If you were born in the last few decades, you might not have known these things were self-evidently evil. Media tells you otherwise. But media is produced, in large part, by people whose sense of decency was long ago forfeited—people who are “wise in their own eyes” and prefer to call it evil to disagree with them, or even to sound disagreeable. And then they ignore, or extol, the behaviors that lead away from civilization.

Woe unto them. And woe unto us if we heed them.

Defining Freedom

This past week or so, law blogger Eugene Volokh wrote two pieces about the word freedom, and how we use that word, and its synonyms, differently: Freedom and Hypocrisy, on December 28, and “We All Declare for Liberty.”

The point of Volokh’s first piece is that calling each other hypocrites when we are really just using different definitions is polarizing rather than helpful. And that is worth considering. He followed up with a reminder of a similar discussion by Lincoln in 1864:

Volokh shared this image in his piece,
from the Library of Congress

The world has never had a good definition of liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in need of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing.

With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the processes by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty.— Abraham Lincoln, in his Address at a Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Apr. 18, 1864

One thing about truth is that it is timeless. Lincoln’s words could have just been spoken.

Volokh’s pieces got me thinking, because I use freedom (and liberty, as a synonym) as one of the three main things we’re trying to restore and retain in the Spherical Model—freedom, prosperity, and civilization. So I thought it might be worth defining the way I use the term, plus maybe some related terms. I’m combining my favorite 30-year-old Webster’s dictionary with my own words.

Freedom: absence of hindrance, restraint, confinement, repression. In the political sense, it is ownership of one’s own life and the production of wealth and property that results from one’s use of life and effort. A government should protect the freedoms of life, liberty, and property; it does not grant these things, but protects them from infringement. A government that takes life, liberty, or property unjustly—when the person has not unlawfully infringed on those rights of another person—that is a tyrannical government, which is the opposite of freedom.

Political freedom means living in a society in which our God-given rights are protected rather than infringed. These would include freedoms of belief and expression, such as freedom of religion and freedom of the press, as well as freedoms of property and security, such as freedom from illegal searches and seizures and the right to bear arms.

Liberty: synonym of freedom. It is ownership of one’s own life, to pursue as one chooses, and to enjoy the fruits of one’s efforts. No person or government or other entity owns a person or controls how the person pursues happiness.

Libertine: originally from Roman society, a libertine meant a freed slave, but in our day it is a person who leads an unrestrained, sexually immoral life.

License: implies violating the usual rules, laws, or practices—taking some privilege not generally allowed because of its possible harm to other individuals or the entire society. Some licenses are legal—such as a driver’s license. A person becomes free to drive with the license, or permission, after proving ability or qualification.

Licentious: disregarding accepted rules and standards, morally unrestrained, lascivious.

I don’t use freedom to refer to doing whatever one wants without suffering the consequences; that is licentiousness. That is what a libertine does, rather than a lover of liberty.

When I use freedom, it is in relation to the God-given rights—those things we are born with, granted by God, not by some government or other entity. I do not include things that are nice to have, but not naturally given, such as freedom from want, or entitlement to have food, clothing, shelter, education, and other things that must be provided to a child by someone else, preferably parents, until the child becomes capable of self-providing those things.

If someone is entitled to those things, then someone else is required—enslaved—to provide them. If the parents provide these things, that is part of the agreement taken on when the couple choose to conceive a child to bring into the world; they choose to provide, so they are not enslaved. But the neighbor down the street didn’t bring that child into the world and isn’t required to use up his life in providing that child’s comfort.

What happens when parents cannot, or do not, provide? Shouldn’t the larger society step in and provide those things? In a civilized society, yes, people voluntarily provide for the needy, when they can. That is charity, or philanthropy. When government forces the confiscation and redistribution, even to those needy that we would sympathetically choose to help, that government is not being charitable, but tyrannical.

The Political Sphere

When government uses force to “do good” that is not government’s limited role of protecting life, liberty, and property, there will be unintended consequences, usually exactly the opposite of the stated “good.”

In the summary to the political sphere section of the Spherical Model, “The Political World Is Round,” I ask several questions to determine whether a considered policy will lead toward freedom or toward tyranny. One of these is to make use of the Bill of Rights:

Does the policy infringe in any way on the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Does the policy infringe on the free exercise of religion or try to establish a particular sect as a state religion? Is political speech hindered? Does the policy infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms? Does the policy constitute an illegal search or seizure? Does the policy deprive a person of life, liberty, or property when the person has not committed a crime for which that deprivation is the just sentence? Does the policy try to claim for government a power that was not specifically granted in the Constitution? etc. If the policy infringes on the God-given rights, then government cannot take that power without usurping power from the people.

We get the most freedom, prosperity, and civilization when we live the principles in all three spheres simultaneously. We limit government to protecting our God-given rights of life, liberty, and property. We exchange the results of our labor freely, within a free market economy that includes voluntary charity. We grow civilization when a critical mass of us worship God, who gave us our rights, and we value family, life, property, and truth—values you might recognize from the Ten Commandments.

Swedish Story

Once upon a time there was a quaint, civilized northern kingdom, a culture of people living comfortably and gently. People were industrious and frugal, and enjoyed adding color in their homes and clothing, to the white that covered the land through much of the year, echoing the northern lights in the long night sky.

photo from here

Despite the cold and other natural challenges, the people remained gentle and constant for a good long time.

And then something began to change. The people experimented in centralized ownership. Taxes became extremely high, but the people tolerated this in exchange for long vacations and guarantees of food, housing, health care, and other things they thought they ought to have but were tired of struggling for.

They decided to be the example of society working together for the good of all. Things that had been tried in nearby countries, to massive failure. But that was with the wrong kind of people These gentle people would be the ones to make it work.

For a while the world looked on in wonder: “See, it can be done. We want to do it like them.”

But after a time, they faced some challenges. Motivation to excel may have been one of them. Without the necessity of hard work to guarantee a family’s survival and thriving, less innovation took place. Less work got done. Even working together, and sharing alike and evenly, the standard of living wasn’t as high as many had foreseen and wanted.

Another thing that happened was a weakening of family strength. If the collective was going to take care of offspring, that meant a mother and father were relieved of the necessity of overexerting themselves to provide for offspring. It even meant mother and father might not stay together. Or they might not get married in the first place. The negative consequences of living without marriage, whether or not children came, were mitigated by the collective.

In time, a higher portion of children were born outside of marriage. And a smaller portion of adults had children, or fewer children. The next generation lacked the inculcation of culture that used to be a hallmark of this peaceful people. The next generation was taught more about relaxing and avoiding stress (not a bad thing in its place and in moderation)—but with greater burden per person to provide the collective needs.

The wealth and the culture of past generations was being depleted. Something had to be done. The logical solution seemed to be to invite foreigners to move in, to contribute to the collective work.

What they did not foresee was that inviting almost unlimited foreigners was a risk to the culture. The new workers did not want to settle in and become like the northern society; they wanted a new place to work and live, and they wanted their share of the guaranteed food, housing, health care, and the rest, if they were the ones adding to the workforce. But they wanted to bring their own culture with them. They wanted to be who they had always been—even thought that included being a people who had not made their former countries thrive.

It was too late when the northern gentle people realized the danger to their way of being. They tried making laws that would limit the invasion of a foreign culture. They tried altering laws to lessen the power of the collective. But without the power of family—which brings with it financial stability and continuity of culture—there was no vitality to stand up against the threat. It would not be long before the northern culture succumbed to the influx of an entirely different people. The centuries-old culture would disappear. Without war. Because of their own mistakes.

_______________

I haven’t really exaggerated. This is Sweden. The northern centuries-old culture is one I love; it is my heritage. My dad was the first generation born American instead of Swedish. We keep a few of the traditions during the Christmas holidays.

But I’m concerned that it’s disappearing. Socialism hasn’t worked. And lately the country seems to be realizing that, and making adjustments toward free enterprise. (Read here and watch here.) That’s a good thing. But it might not be enough.

The refugee/immigration problem reached crisis limits during 2015. According to a story earlier this week at PJ Media:

When the small, crumpled body of 3-year-old Alan Kurdi washed up on the Aegean coast Sept. 2, Europe’s humanitarian superpower sprang into action. Sweden’s prime minister headlined gala fundraisers, Swedish celebrities starred in telethons, and a country that prides itself on doing the right thing seemed to rally as one to embrace refugees fleeing for their lives.

But after taking in more asylum seekers per capita than any other nation in Europe, Sweden’s welcome mat now lies in tatters. Overwhelmed by the human tide of 2015, the center-left government is deploying extraordinary new border controls and slashing benefits in an unmistakable signal to refugees contemplating the long trek to Sweden in the new year: Stay out.

When the people you invite into your homeland turn you into the rape capital of the world and threaten you with suicide bombers, it’s time to pull up the welcome mat and bar the door.

Sweden welcomes Syrian refugees
Associated Press photo found here

An American Thinker piece from late December said this:

Despite their embrace of political correctness, the Swedes are at heart very decent, humane people, their main faults being a desire to please others in their community (which leads to silencing dissent and conformity) and self-righteous hypocrisy.  But these are minor blemishes considering the personal decency most people center their lives on.

Taking advantage of Sweden’s generosity, Muslim immigrants have been arriving in large numbers and, in recent months, catastrophically overwhelming the country’s budget and facilities to house and feed them.

That piece recommends watching this Pat Condell video from 2010 called “Goodbye Sweden,” showing the problem isn’t new; it’s just lately intensifying.

When I watched that video, YouTube next recommended a Pat Condell video from 2014, adding more evidence that the country is dying a sort of suicide by political correctness, called “Sweden Goes Insane.”

We should have seen this coming.

I’ve quoted British psychological researcher Daniel J. Unwin before. In the 1920s he did an exhaustive study of every civilization around the world through world history for which he could gather data. His purpose going in was to prove that marriage didn’t matter; that was his personal belief. But that was not his conclusion:

The evidence was such as to demand a complete revision of my personal philosophy; for the relationship between the factors seemed to be so close, that, if we know what sexual regulations a society has adopted, we can prophesy accurately the pattern of its cultural behavior….

Now it is an extraordinary fact that in the past sexual opportunity has only been reduced to a minimum by the fortuitous adoption of an institution I call absolute monogamy. This type of marriage has been adopted by different societies, in different places, and at different times. Thousands of years and thousands of miles separate the events; and there is no apparent connection between them. In human records, there is no case of an absolutely monogamous society failing to display great [cultural] energy. I do not know of a case on which great energy has been displayed by a society that has not been absolutely monogamous….

If, during or just after a period of [cultural] expansion, a society modifies its sexual regulations, and a new generation is born into a less rigorous [less monogamous] tradition, its energy decreases…. If it comes into contact with a more vigorous society, it is deprived of its sovereignty, and possibly conquered in its turn.

It seems to follow that we can make a society behave in any manner we like if we are permitted to give it such sexual regulations as will produce the behavior we desire. The results should begin to emerge in the third generation.[i]

It has been a decade since investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz wrote about “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia.” He referred to British demographer Kathleen Kiernan, who places Sweden in phase 4 of a 4-phase movement away from marriage, from which no culture has ever recovered.

There are some who would claim all of this concern is just homophobia, xenophobia, and/or Islamophobia. They shut down the discussion by saying so, and that is harming Sweden and its dying culture. It would be like shutting down discussion of cancer by calling a cancer patient cancerphobic.

A better solution would be to identify the problem with exact truth, and then do everything necessary to get rid of the problem(s) and recover. A dying patient who fears public opinion might call them “not nice” (as though that could ever stick with the people of the traditional Swedish culture) is not going to survive.

It’s likely that the language and culture of France will be gone within another generation as well. And quite likely the same is true of Germany.

But my main concern is my home—the United States. Just in the past decade we’ve been pushed from phase 2 toward phase 3 on Kiernan’s loss of marriage scale. I don’t know exactly how to fit Unwin’s prediction with Kiernan’s. I would guess that the US started to lose family strength with the implementation of no-fault divorce, court-legalized abortion, and the normalization of sex outside of marriage by media—at least by 1970. That puts us possibly 45 years into a 75-100-year death.

If there is a chance of recovery, we must take the healing actions right away. These are the simple, but not easy, principles that lead to civilization.

---

[i] Joseph Daniel Unwin, Ph.D., “Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior,” address given to the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society. (Library of Congress No., HQ12.U52)

Spherical Model Review

As the final post of the year, I thought I’d review what in the world is The Spherical Model. Plus a few of this year’s posts that give a good sample of the model.

The Political Sphere
of The Spherical Model

The website, www.SphericalModel.com, is always a good place to learn what the Spherical Model is. It’s about 50 pages worth of reading—a short book. There’s an into page, and then a section for each of the three spheres: Political, Economic, and Social. The social sphere is divided into two, because strong families are such a necessity for civilization that it required a full article of its own.

If you want a shorter introduction, there are a couple of posts to start with.

·         The Political Sphere Is Round: December 29, 2014—if you want the basic explanation in just a few pages, with diagrams.

·         Spherical Model Video: August 17, 2015—if you want it explained visually in under ten minutes.

I try to make every post pertinent and helpful in understanding the interrelationships of the political, economic, and social spheres, and how to get to consistent freedom, prosperity, and civilization.  But there are upwards of 650 posts. And sometimes they are responses to specific news of the day. So if you want just an understanding of the Spherical Model and how to apply it, there were several this year you could sample:

·         Economic Glossary: April 13, 2015

·         Enlightenment: June 16, 2015

·         Ultimate vs. Relative Good: July 2, 2015

·         What We Conserve: October 1, 2015

·         Source of Morality: October 19, 2015

·         Wealth, Poverty and Politics: December 10, 2015—a reference to Thomas Sowell’s book by that name

And if you’re interested in the blog, but find it daunting to start in March 2011 and read them all, you might try the Best Of collections. 

In celebration of the fourth anniversary of the start of the Spherical Model blog, I did a new Best Of collection, in four parts. The original Best Of collection is linked in Part I (and is also linked in The Political Sphere Is Round, above.)

·         More of the Best, Part I: March 2, 2015

·         More of the Best, Part II: March 3, 2015

·         More of the Best, Part III: March 4, 2015

·         More of the Best, Part IV: March 5, 2015

Our freedom, prosperity, and civilization took some hits this year, 2015. But 2016 could be a year of change—let’s hope it’s for the better. In Spherical Model terms, let’s follow the principles that lead northward.

Real Christmas

I love the Christmas season. I love the reason for it. I love the music. I love the anticipation, and the getting together, and the special food, and the decorations, and the lights.

We’re having a good time here at the Spherical Model household with everyone home at the same time for a few days. It’s hard to beat that—especially when grandchildren are involved.

I’ve noticed that one of the things I enjoy is music that brings to life what the first Christmas must have been like. So here are a few musical glimpses of the long ago night.

Mary Did You Know?

This has been a favorite song for more than a decade. I sing it a lot at home, and performed it once. I love the verse that says, “Mary, did you know… when you kiss your little baby, you kiss the face of God?” And I used another line to describe this year’s Christmas card photo: “Mary, did you know…that the sleeping child you’re holding is the Great I Am?” We used daughter Social Sphere and her baby, when he was a week old, to illustrate.

“Mary, Did You Know?” is on my favorite Kathleen Battle (soprano)/Christopher Parkening (guitar) CD, Angels’ Glory.  This CD from 1996 has been playing in my car for several months a year for a decade so far. “Mary, Did You Know?” is the first piece on it. For me this may be the quintessential version.

But this year there were several new versions worth hearing.

I’m not a regular viewer of American Idol guy, but someone linked this on Facebook, and it really was worth hearing Jordan Smith perform “Mary, Did You Know?” earlier this month.

I like any Christmas song done by a capella quintet Pentatonix, and almost anything else they do. (They’re one of my favorite Pandora stations for Christmas.) Their “Mary, Did You Know?” is a great addition to my collection. 

There was a great list of video music—one a day for 12 days—in which YouTube stars introduced the Mormon.org video “A Savior Is Born”. Two of these were renditions of “Mary, Did You Know?,” and I loved them both. One was a capella solo phenomenon Peter Hollens. 

The other was Evie Clair, whom I hadn’t heard before. She’s very young, even younger than the real Mary. But her performance was touching, and I’m hoping to see more of her in the future. 

Breath of Heaven

Another song that takes us back to that nativity with real feelings is “Breath of Heaven.” I sang this in church one year. But Amy Grant’s version is probably the definitive one. I especially like the verse that says,

Do you wonder as you watch my face

If a wiser one should have had my place?

But I offer all I am

For the mercy of your plan

Help me be strong

This video uses images from the movie The Nativity. It’s quite beautiful.

Little Drummer Boy

This song doesn’t exactly fit into the “what was it really like to be there” category. And it hasn’t always been a favorite. But a couple of years ago, when I heard Pentatonix do "The Little Drummer Boy," it became new and brilliant. 

This year, as part of those 12 days, Alex Boyé did an Africanized, very upbeat version that she makes me happy.

It was the most momentous beginning in the history of the world; so we celebrate. Merry Christmas to all!