THE BOTTOM LINE ANGST OF LIBERALISM

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


When are liberals going to discover conscience? Don’t they get it?


A levelheaded individual has convictions that are reasonably down-to-earth. Fuzz won’t cut it. Nor does braggadocio nor money-alone nor egocentricity nor strut-and-sway nor prance-and-preen. Nor does being-on-Hollywood’s-side. Nor does ad infinitum weeping and wailing at how dumb conservatives are.


So liberals are losing big time in an era of logical-practicality-is-a-must.


The same goes, not only for politics, but religion. Theological liberals have one main line: “We’re not conservatives.”


That means: “We’re not Billy Graham.” Or “We’re not evangelicals.” Or “We’re not Bible-carriers.” Or “We’re not virgin birth holders.” Or “We’re not personal religion enthusiasts.” Or “We’re not Jesus cheerleaders.” Or “We’re not morality advocates.” Or “We’re not absolutes defenders.” Or “We’re not clear-with-convictions citizens.” And on and on.


Liberalism—theological and political—is basically a postulate of “knots” ("nots"), though liberalism’s p.r. puts out just the opposite. However, once thinker figures out that the liberal line is honestly understood when flipping its “logic coin” to reveal the liberal lie, then thinker gets to liberal reality.


For instance. . .


Liberals say they are pro-choice when actually they are pro-murder.


Liberals say they are for open dialogue when actually they are tolerant only of liberal diatribes.


Liberals say they are for first amendment rights when actually they are for killing off religious faith.


Liberals say they are for separation of church and state when actually they are for gagging the church.


Liberals say they are for inclusive language when actually they are for championing radical feminism.


Liberals say they are for female clergy when actually they are for every pulpit to be womaned by radical feminism.


Liberals say they are for ethical this-n-that when actually they are for amoral rule.


Liberals say they are for sex education when actually they are for a sexually active
culture.


Liberals say they are for safe sex when actually they are for sexual amorality.


Liberals say they are for the family when actually they are for family-as-relativists-define-it.


BUT. . .


When conservatives say they’re for life, they’re for life, not murder.


When they say they honor honest dialogue, they enter courteously into intelligent exchange.


When they say they’re for separation of church and state, they mean they’re in favor of no state-run denomination.


When they say they’re for first amendment rights, they mean they’re for free
religious expression.


When they say they’re for family, they mean they honor God-given absolutes for marriage and home.


When they say they’re for sex education, they mean abstinence as the baseline.


In other words, theological and political liberals don’t really mean what they say; they are masters at double-speak.


When theological and political conservatives speak, they really mean what they say. Why? Because conservatism is based on conscience—plain and simple—a conscience formed by eternal absolutes.


So that brings us back to Hartpootlian’s wailing comment. He speaks truth, even as a wide-eyed but sad Democrat.


In other words, when a double-edged tongue lets loose, flip it over to find a lie. However, when a single-focused tongue lets loose, believe what you hear.


With that, single-focused tongues end up on the right side, for both earth and eternity.