Monthly Archives: January 2014

FDR’s Four Freedoms

Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941 said, that there are four fundamental freedoms that people everywhere in the world ought to enjoy: Freedom of speech, Freedom of worship, Freedom from want, and Freedom from fear. Was he right?

The first two are fundamental freedoms that everyone, everywhere in the world, ought to enjoy just as Roosevelt said. However, the last two are not fundamental freedoms, rather they are entitlements that people want at the expense of others. Before we go on we have to define freedom. Freedom is a state of being exempt from the power or control of another. Every person is endowed by God with certain unalienable rights. The definition of rights is a legal immunity (protection) from other people or from the state. Freedom allows us to exercise these rights as we choose.

The freedom of speech allows us to communicate ideas and beliefs without interference from the government or anyone and without punitive action. We can express our ideas and beliefs in person, with a pen and paper, a film, an audio recording, and so on. All of these ways are protected under the freedom of speech. These are a few of the reasons why the freedom of speech is a fundamental freedom.

 

The freedom of worship allows everyone to worship God as they believe is right. If we did not have this freedom all of our God-given rights and freedoms would be in jeopardy from the First Amendment all the way to the Tenth Amendment. John Adams said,”Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  Samuel Adams said,”Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.” They both knew that liberty is impossible without a moral and religious people. The Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Worship depend on each other. If you do not have one you do not have the other.

Freedom from want or the right to an adequate standard of living is not a freedom nor a right. Sure, this sounds like a moral principle, but it’s not. Rights are very limited on what they do. This pseudo freedom allows the government to take wealth and property from the rich to give to the poor, thus infringing on someone else’s freedoms.  This action is totally opposite to the definition of freedom. Don’t get me wrong I am not opposed to charity. I encourage it, but what the government is doing is plunder, plain and simple. It decreases charity and productivity and in the end no one is better off.  This is the danger of this pseudo freedom or right. 

 

Lastly but not least is the freedom from fear. The same thing applies to this fake freedom as it did for the freedom from want. President Roosevelt said the following in his Four Freedoms speech concerning the “freedom” from fear. “The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.” First, the problem with this statement is that it contradicts our Second Amendment. Secondly, this will not stop wars nor will it make a world void of fear. For example, alliances can be made with other nations to overpower weaker ones, thus starting wars.

 

Laws are only obeyed by law abiding citizens. When laws are passed to reduce the amount of guns law-abiding citizens can own the end result will not be a nation without fear. Crime and fear will increase because the criminals know that there are fewer citizens armed to defend themselves. Remember, gun reduction laws do not disarm criminals. They only disarm the law-abiding citizens.

 

Freedom is very valuable but if it is tainted with so-called freedoms it can become worthless and meaningless.

Advertisements

State Subsidizes are Unconstitutional

Our First Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

With this in mind let’s see if there is a difference between state-subsidized churches and state-subsidized schools.

First, state-subsidized churches are unconstitutional as mentioned in the First Amendment Congress is making a law respecting an establishment of religion when it gives money to a church or denomination. It is also morally wrong, because it involves the politics of plunder. For example, congress taxes all Americans and gives a portion of that money to a certain denomination. Americans would be outraged if such a thing happened.

When it comes to state-subsidized schools most Americans believe that this is fine and that it doesn’t violate our First Amendment. Are they right? Sadly they are not. Our public schools all teach evolution which is a religion. Religion is a particular system of belief. Evolutionists must have faith that what they believe is true. They do not know what happened millions or billions of years ago. The evolutionists  have to take all this on faith. Why then is evolution taught in state-subsidized schools. This is a violation of our First Amendment. Many Americans do not believe in evolution but they are forced to support it through their taxes. This is unconstitutional and morally wrong. If the evolutionists were forced to pay creationist ministries through taxes they would say that it is a violation of the First Amendment.

We now see that there are no differences between state-subsidized schools and state-subsidized churches. Both are unconstitutional and immoral. Americans should put a stop to this. The longer we continue in this act of disregard of the constitution the sooner we will lose our regard to our constitution.