PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: ‘Compromise’ Negates Principles

If you embrace the notions of individual rights and liberty and self-governance, then you must embrace and protect the principles and ideals of Natural Law.  This is because these things come only from Natural Law and not from man.  They can never come from man.  By logical extension, this means that we cannot compromise on matters of principle.  If we do, we actually negate that principle; and if you negate Natural Law, you negate the notion of individual rights and liberty and of self-rule.  In this sense, it is a matter of Natural Law that compromise negates principle.  Now, I’d like to illustrate how this works by answering a question Glenn Beck asked his audience today (and I hope this answer somehow finds its way to him).  Mr. Beck, follow the advice of Mr. Beck: always place principle over interest.

During his radio show today, Beck informed his audience that Grover Norquist is an ‘agent of influence’ for the Muslim Brotherhood.  This has troubled Beck because Norquist — who is currently on the board of the NRA — is running for re-election and Beck does not know what he should do if Norquist is re-elected.  Sadly, the answer to his dilemma should be obvious.

For some time now, Beck has been telling people that our nation has created problems through a foreign policy that favors national interests over national principles.  He is correct about this.  Our leaders have been making the world less stable for decades because they have been compromising the principles and ideals upon which the nation was founded.  By doing so, they have negated those principles and — in the process – they have erased the moral high ground upon which this nation once stood.

Applying this line of reasoning to his political affiliations, Beck has told his audience he is done supporting the Republican Party.  In fact, Beck has called for his audience to help de-fund the GOP.  Once again, Beck is correct.  The GOP has lied to its constituents and has been working against the Constitution.  There is little difference between the Republican Party agenda and that of the Democrat Party.  Since Beck rightly understands the Democrat agenda to be subversive, and he has correctly deduced that the Republican agenda is equally subversive, Beck has chosen principle over interest and withdrawn his support for the GOP.  He did something similar with GM when it took government money in the auto bailouts.  So Beck has the idea and has shown a willingness to ‘walk the walk’ — until it came to the NRA and Norquist.

The problem for Beck is what he should do if Norquist is re-elected.  Norquist is a problem because he is working for the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood is a problem because they are a known terrorist organization that has openly stated its goal is to destroy the Constitution and replace it with Shari’a law.  This makes the Muslim Brotherhood a subversive organization that has also declared war on the Constitution.  However, Beck is torn between what he knows he should do and the consequences it would have on the NRA and — by extension — the Second Amendment.  He is waffling because he thinks preserving the Second Amendment is more important than taking a stand over the election of a subversive agent to the organization trying to protect the Constitution.

There should be no question as to what a principled man should do in such a case.  If you compromise on principle, you negate that principle.  Period!  So, if you compromise on the protection of the Constitution, you negate the Constitution.  This makes Beck’s decision pretty simple: Norquist gets re-elected, Beck resigns and tells his audience.  To do anything else is to — in principle — do the very same thing Beck has attacked others for doing: ‘joining them to defeat them.’  This is fornication for chastity (I know it is a crude analogy, but it is effective because it drives the point home).  It is no different than choosing the lesser of two evils.  The very phrase openly admits you are choosing evil.

When it comes to matters of Natural Law, right and wrong works the same way as it does with morality:

Right and wrong is always black and white — there is never any gray.  If you are seeing gray, that is a sure sign you are on the wrong side of right.

Politics will tell you to compromise to win, but that voice whispering to you about the need to compromise on matters of principle is the voice of the serpent in the garden.  It usually sounds true, but it never is.  It always twists things just enough to convince you to compromise on right and wrong, and once you start down that path, the next step becomes easier, and the next, and the next until — eventually — you find you are standing with the serpent and not the Light.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s