Nor should they be denied as has been done for months under the China virus with churches still closed or reclosing. (Mine just did)
Exactly! Quite obviously, present globalist elitist minded religious, political, and "scientific" leaders care nothing for the basic God given rights our forefathers fought and died to create and preserve. Traitorous politicians the world over who were elected to protect and maintain those rights for their citizens, are bowing to these self important and appointed elitist dictators. It goes without saying, that it is foolish to elect persons who belong to religious, political, or "scientific" organizations whose leader or leaders preach or promote a common good or anything else that threatens individual rights and freedoms. Even a devout atheist from the past had enough common sense to see through the self aggrandizing mindset of one who would preach submission to a common good over individual rights and freedoms which they themselves define.
A Voice From the Recent Past Concerning the Common Good
The Only Path To Tomorrow
Readers Digest, January 1944, pp. 88-90Writers comments in blue, all Emphasis mine
The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.
Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called ``the common good.
Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing ``the common good.
´´ Napoleon ``served the common good
´´ of France. Hitler is ``serving the common good´´ of Germany.
Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by ``altruists´´ who justify themselves by-the common good.
No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good.
No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.
This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.
The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a clear consistent faith.
We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the common good
is served by the abolition of individual rights. General happiness cannot be created out of general suffering and self-immolation. The only happy society is one of happy individuals. One cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees.
The power of society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable rights of the individual.
The right of liberty means man's right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.
The right to the pursuit of happiness means man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement. Each individual is the sole and final judge in this choice. A man's happiness cannot be prescribed to him by another man or by any number of other men.
These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual possession of every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and requiring no other sanction. Such was the conception of the founders of our country, who placed individual rights above any and all collective claims.
Society can only be a traffic policeman in the intercourse of men with one another.
From the beginning of history, two antagonists have stood face to face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the individualist. His basic need is independence — in order to think and work. He neither needs nor seeks power over other men — nor can he be made to work under any form of compulsion. Every type of good work — from laying bricks to writing a symphony — is done by the Active Man. Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man's independence and initiative determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man.
The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative.
When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the Passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human progress.
Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for the incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the Active. But the Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is destroyed, the destruction of the Passive Man follows automatically. So if pity is the humanitarians' first consideration, then in the name of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man free to function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help him in the long run.
The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the Active Man and the Passive, between the individual and the collective. The countries which have produced the happiest men, the highest standards of living and the greatest cultural advances have been the countries where the power of the collective — of the government, of the state — was limited and the individual was given freedom of independent action.
As examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception of law based on a citizen's rights, over the collectivist barbarism of its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based on the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of the United States to a degree of achievement unequaled in history — by grace of the individual freedom and independence which our Constitution gave each citizen against the collective.
While men are still pondering upon the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, every page of history cries to us that there is but one source of progress: Individual Man in independent action. Collectivism is the ancient principle of savagery. A savage's whole existence is ruled by the leaders of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
We are now facing a choice: to go forward or to go back.
Collectivism is not the ``New Order of Tomorrow.´´ It is the order of a very dark yesterday. But there is a New Order of Tomorrow. It belongs to Individual Man — the only creator of any tomorrows humanity has ever been granted. (Readers Digest, January 1944, pp. 88-90)While the author of the above article was certainly not a Christian by any means, the truth embodied in the above article should not be denied by anyone who is. As it will be found in later chapters examining Protestant thought in relation to government and the founding of this nation, her thoughts concerning individualism were certainly not original or new. Though without question her views came from a different perspective, their motive was much the same as that of the Reformers, a reaction and observation in relation to experiential knowledge of abusive government. Hers at the hands of Communistic collectivism, and theirs at the hands for the most part of heavily Roman Catholic imbibed Feudalism. As the above author mentioned Hitler as one proposing the establishment of the common good, the above article itself being written in 1944, the following is his twenty fifth point, of the 25 Points of the Nazi Party.COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.
The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.
The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.We will not enter into an examination of Hitler and the Vatican in this book, since many others already have. The tie between the two has been examined by many, and is historical fact. The papacy was the first institution to politically recognize Hitler and the Nazi party by signing an accord with the same. Hitler was raised a Catholic and once intended to be a Priest of the faith, but obviously chose another course. He professed to have learned much from the Jesuits, and followed a similar course towards the Jews as that followed by the papacy long before his time. Perhaps “coincidentally“, the papacy had also removed all of their rights, confined them to ghettos, and made them wear identity badges, among other abusive demands. These abuses continued right in Rome until well into and beyond the mid 1800’s. Yet here we are less than a century and a half later, in a world increasingly looking toward the papacy as an institution of great light and reason toward the development of a global government with real power to enforce its will upon all. God help us, and He will.
In the following chapters we are going to examine the evolution of Protestant thought regarding government, and particularly the concept of separation of church and state, which prevailed until the maturation and establishment of these principles in the formation of the United States government. This was all of course in direct contradiction to the wishes, efforts, and long standing practices of the Roman Catholic Church, who vehemently fought and attacked all such notions for over a thousand years.