Liberalism's divine flaw
The controversy regarding the Ten Commandments presents a golden opportunity for our city to be a beacon of light in a dark world of self-destructive liberalism. I love Connellsville.
I lived in the North End neighborhood as a kid, but my best buddy, Danny Luczak, and I played all around town — South Side, East Side, West Side.
The controversy is a microcosm of the macrocosmic end toward which our nation is headed under the liberal/socialist policies of the Obama regime.
Religious freedom, under our Constitution, already has been trashed by his mandate that requires Catholic and other institutions to provide for abortions or be fined and tracked down by the Internal Revenue Service.
Prior to convening for its convention in Charlotte, N.C., the Democratic National Committee intelligentsia decided to take God out of the party platform. Concern about repercussions forced a vote by the delegates. It took three tries in order to get enough votes to put God back in. The result was met with resounding boos from the floor of the convention hall.
Removing God is as old as our human nature, when the first “liberal” entered the Garden of Eden, where economic and social conditions were perfect and suggested that God's law was destroying freedom.
Thus was born the false theory that freedom means the absence of law and that liberty means license.
It remains the fatal flaw of liberalism to this day — a delusional belief that man is innately noble and that through education and evolution can become a god, without God.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.