On and on the pendulum swings

By Andy Torbett

So similar is the dilemma of the battle of religious liberties against the cry for the equitable treatment of the humanities to the lack of knowledge transference that it begs the question of whether the severing of the conduit of knowledge is directly related to the need for those most tolerant of the humanities to facilitate and necessitate the trampling of the religious liberties of their fellow countrymen to achieve their end. But to what end? And could it be the knowledge of our forefathers, a knowledge not transferred, is the reason we can behave so abominably?

Certainly history bears out the truth of this premise. At the genesis of the revolutions of noted social engineers such as Marx and Lenin, of Democratic socialists and Communists, was the fabric of teachings that the old beliefs and morals of their forefathers were outdated, inhibiting, and not capable of embracing the new ways. Disciples were admonished to reject these old ways and embrace what was new. It was this severing, specifically of moral codes, that allowed these brutal uprisings that that typified social democratic revolutions leaving 100 million slaughtered in its wakes.

Now we see another rise of social engineering. Our moral codes are once again are seen as the obstacle to its resurgence. Our religions, Our Constitution all paint a negative pall on what many consider progress.

So we have passed laws to protect the perceived rights of those believed aggrieved. Still, it is not enough to pass laws to protect those rights, citizens who do not agree must be forced to agree or face the wrath of government. It is necessary, again, to force acceptance, and the cries from the ghosts of perils pasts call to warn us.

But the Constitution calls a halt, reminding us that no law can be made that prohibits free speech and the free expression of religion. Still states have passed humanity laws assuring the populace that when the Constitution said “no Law” it didn’t mean this law. The need for tolerance outweighs the need for freedom.

Christianity is the culprit now. Its tenets, the “dos and don’ts,” have inhibited the “safe places” of so many, so many who just want to be accepted. And Christians will accept them, even if we must use the bludgeon of government to enforce it. “It’s time to swing the pendulum against those have oppressed us for so long,” rail the social engineers, the social democrats, again. “Away with the old ways of right and wrong.”

Ah, but the pendulum always swings back. So, what of that? Christianity is the easy target. With its gospel of “dos and don’ts” is coupled the gospel of peace and love. There’s no fear of retribution. But what of those that do not worship God but worship government?

Our founding fathers wrote that no law should be written to prevent religious freedom because they knew that once one law was written to prevent religion, then another would come and another, all in retribution for the other. On and on the pendulum would swing, only settling after untold damage had been done.

Freedom is freedom whether in the home or the market. Freedom inhibited anywhere is not freedom at all. It’s just that simple. Whether a person’s beliefs disrupt your “safe zone” or your feelings is not a warrant that cancels their freedom to do so. You might just need a stronger “safe zone” or as they said in “olden times”, thicker skin.

A pendulum swung is an energy time not easily recovers

Each energy rails against the swinging to balance the other

But woe is the battle inertia between them until the pendulum calms

Would to God that pendulum stayed settled and never swung at all

Andy Torbett of Atkinson writes a regular column entitled The Maine Conservative Voice. He can reached at meconservativevoice@gmail.com.