The rule of what law?

"Liberal" leaders and influencers seem to have forgotten the human cost in their calculations for progress.  It makes us wonder if their absence of concern for that is a sign of intellectual or moral weakness – perhaps both?

What I see is an America where it is OK to:

• have the law of the land ignored by the Supreme Court;
• slaughter babies before they are born;
• be discriminated against if you are Christian;
• be treated as a citizen if you are not a citizen;
• have female "buddies" in war-zone combat;
• have your children indoctrinated in school with ideas and beliefs that you oppose, without your consent or knowledge;
• have people who do not represent you or have not been elected to office set rules for what you may or may not do, say what you may or may not say, think what you may or may not think;
• face criminal charges for exercising constitutionally established rights that the Supreme Court decides are unconstitutional!

How on Earth can anyone call this progress toward a better world?

It should be clear, from childhood onward, that ignoring the moral line in human interaction is apt to lead to serious trouble, not just for self, but for others.  This failing is especially dangerous in a democracy, where the "rule of law" is supposed to be above "the rule of men."  Yet in our time, the moral misconduct of many a leader has become painfully obvious.

In one way or another, the "rule of law" as applied by amoral men and women in power has become the same old rule of "might makes right."  The cruelty of moral indifference is manifest in the misery, not welfare, that such rule imposes upon the people – whether by force, lies, or schemes – regardless of what the system of government is called.  Morally deficient leaders have proven over the centuries that everybody loses in the end, often at terrible cost to all involved.  

"The descent to hell is easy," wrote Virgil 2,000 years ago.  Going down is easy, but coming back up is not.  He was aware of the danger to his society of entering that gate – as have wide awake observers and orthodox religious leaders through the centuries, warning of what has come to be known as "the  slippery slope."  To date, these warnings remain unheeded.

No special powers of observation are needed to understand that the path to human wellbeing was cleared by our Creator, from Whom we inherit the rules for life best lived.  In the West, that path was obstructed by men who hated His Law because it interfered with their law.  The intelligentsia among them have long been pitting their minds against the One Who gave them their brains.  Not very smart, I'd say.

Divine insight did not suit the egocentrics of the Enlightenment, who, wise in their own minds, were sure that the power of human reason and the magic of science would steer society successfully without the need of God.  These self-anointed illuminators of their fellow human beings bet against all odds – including Murphy's Law, pride, anger, envy, lust, covetousness, gluttony, and sloth (the Seven Deadly Sins) – that they would succeed in their mission to make the world better.

Were they right?

Considering the rivers of blood for the more than 200 years since their insistence on total reliance on human brains, I must say no and conclude that the Enlighteners lost the bet.  We have to wonder why the movement's disciples – today's so-called "progressives" and "liberals" – still follow a lost cause – namely, progress without divine guidance.

Americans have been waiting for that better tomorrow promised by politicians since any one of us can remember.  What is holding up the delivery?  Could it be a loss of moral muscle that stymies the will to follow through on the dictates of conscience?

I don't see better times.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/the_rule_of_what_law.html