Authored by William Robert Barber
An origin that complements the philosophical basis of social conservatism is the belief that the “rights of man” are derived from God. That these rights are unalienable and compose the ethos from which American exceptionalism is founded. While this defining approach to a philosophic belief is certainly a rational, even moralistically upgraded version of the past justification for attaining power: “Saint Peter by His divine will anoints me king, (pope, prince etc.,) and therefore, to defy me is to defy Saint Peter.”
Withstanding the rationally enhanced moralistically upgraded version encapsulated in the phrase “rights of man,” and aside from the hubristic inclination intrinsic to such a philosophic belief, I do believe that such a belief is the a priori of social conservatism.
Remembering that the Declaration of Independence was written by men of fallible and morally imperfect behavior; these treasonous signers (certainly King George believed them traitors) were also men of the 18th century with all the moral and intellectual prejudice of their time. Men who, by affirming this document of independence, put at risk their reputation, property, and life. Nevertheless and inclusive of the understanding that these founding fathers inserted God and godliness into this country’s founding document there is no evidence that God was a party to these transaction; nor of Jesus Christ inspiring or motivating these actions. Indeed the forthcoming to the declaration of July 4 1776, the Constitution of The United States of America, specifically, stated the separation of church and state as a founding law of the land.
In other words, withstanding references to, innuendos of, and emphatic statements endorsing the people’s trust in God, America was founded on the concept of limited government, principled on the philosophical merits of existentialism, valuing individualism rather than collectivism, wherein individual liberty, and freedom is the highest priority of governess.
The thesis of natural law put forward by the English political philosopher, John Locke essentially says that government derives its power from the people indeed Locke’s remedy for what the people would consider an unlawful act was to disobey. He felt the basis for such disobedience was that the State had exceeded its authority or breeched the rule of law. Now he also felt that the people should be armed so to protect their rights, explicitly, if required, to protect themselves against the absolute power of the State.
A component of theological faithfulness may include the belief that God inspires all of man’s actions; certainly, I am not one to critic such a belief. However I am skeptical that God is concerned about the day-to-day chaos of politics in particular or frankly even general human activity. Of course I do not know this conclusively it is simply my conjecture. I do know the criteria required to defeat President Obama is to positively and inclusively broaden the reach of constituents. Some of these constituents may fear an evangelist in the executive office more than Obama; or simply turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the conservative message when the message is heavily tainted with the insertion of God or godliness.
As stated more than once by the peanut gallery of pundits this next election will be the most resounding cry of the impending death of a conservative America or a joyous cry of relieve that the liberal progressive socialist was defeated. The goal is to win the election of 2012 unless there is a conservative electoral victory it matters nominal whether God is the source of the “rights of man” or not.