March 25, 2010 by Stacy McDonald

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…

Print Friendly


LIFE I have a right to life. God gave it to me. No one may take it without being guilty of murder. The youngest among us has a right to life. Any law that claims another person is entitled to the “choice” of taking the innocent life of another (abortion) is a law that shuns the commandment of God and ignores the rights of man.

LIBERTY I have a right to freedom. No one may trample upon my freedom without being guilty of sin. No one may compel me to do anything against my will unless I am violating the rights of another, or the law of God.

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS I have a right to pursue the life and liberty given to me by God. To take that right away from me, either by force or by indulgence, is sinning against the God who called me to work and to glorify Him with my efforts.



Similar Posts:

31 Responses to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

  1. Deanna says:

    Blessings to you.
    This is an impressive picture/illustration symbolizing what's going on.
    Am nourished when I stop by your blog.
    d

  2. Jennifer says:

    This is AWESOME!

  3. Marmee's Pantry says:

    Excellent…thanks for posting…'nuff said!

    Blessings from Ohio…Kim<><

  4. Georgia says:

    Forgive me for being direct but I do not see your lifestyle as freedom but very regulated. I understand that you chose this life, seem happy and you do not harm anyone.

    I have read some of your past posts regarding submitting to your husband and how wrong it is to have "me time".

    You stated that when you met your husband you were very independent and he taught you how to submit.

    Another post you claimed that if a mother got in the habit of getting away from the children for awhile they would want to do it more and more.

    However, you seem to have a need to live your life where the lines of authority are very clear.

    Not everyone can handle freedom. The responsibilty is too great.

  5. Georgia says:

    I will repeat what I wrote on your post You go Victoria.

    You stated you believe in Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness. However I think persuit of holiness instead of happiness is what many christians want.

    In fact according to many christians, maybe the constitution should be amended to replace Life, Libery and persuit of happiness with God, family and country.

    I feel that the biblical conservatives have a penchant for directing the social lives of people. Many conservatives say this country needs the bible.

    But economically are you really for free enterprise? Does that matter to you?

    I believe it is spiritual, moral, and intellectual controls that Christian conservatives want. I don't know how they plan to do it. Probably some serious censorship over literature and film to start.

    I believe in freedom. I believe the Constitution should be amended with a clause which states that neither the federal nor any state government shall make any activity that does not violate, through force or fraud, a persons right to life, liberty or property, a crime.

    Christians proclaim to be capitalists but I have serious doubts.

    I am not trying to cause a big debate or disrespect your beliefs but God did not annoint you to preach to like minded people. Thats too easy.

    You may be a busy mom but you do find time to start this blog so I would appreciate you take the time to respond to those who respectfully challenge you.

  6. Meggan says:

    Amen!

  7. Kate says:

    Amen! This is so very true… if only Congress knew it.
    Blessings to you!
    Kate

  8. christschild says:

    Beautiful!
    Blessings,
    Elizabeth

  9. Terry @ Breathing Grace says:

    What a riveting picture illustration!!

    Great commentary, too. Thanks for sharing.

  10. Stacy McDonald says:

    Hi Georgia, I do plan to respond to your comment, but probably won't have time today. Just wanted you to know I haven't forgotten about you and will respond as soon as I can (probably tomorrow).

    I will say that many of your statements sorely misrepresent what I've said, what I believe, and what I teach. I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you for your patience.

    Blessings.

  11. Homekeeper247 says:

    Enjoyed it!!

    I'd like to say to:
    Georgia:
    Why would you want to come on someone else's blog to challenge them in the first place. It's her blog she can post what she wants to. And by the way a life in God is freedom. If you don't know that kind of freedom I hope that you will one day.

  12. Terry @ Breathing Grace says:

    Hi, Stacy! I hope you don't mind my jumping in here as it relates to Georgia's challenge to conservative Christians. I know you are perfectly capable of defending yourself (and much more eloquently than me I might add), but it seems she misses a point that bears highligting.

    To compare the freely chosen lifestyle of a family motivated by love and devotion to God to the political machinations of a government motivated to forcibly curtail the freedoms of its people is a terrible comaprison.

    Additionally, to say that some people can't handle freedom leaves a vitally relevant question hanging there that needs to be answered:

    Who exactly is it that decides who among us can't handle freedom?

    And who decides if the people who make that decision can handle freedom themselves? Can you see where this whole thing breaks down? In the a democratic society, we must default to the position of liberty for all or we will soon have a society where liberty only applies to the elite few who are fortunate enough to maeuver themselves into a position of power. This is in fact, where we are right now. Does Georgia know that our congress actually wrote a provision into the new healthcare bill that excludes them from its demands?

    We are at the endge of tyranny, hopefully far enough away to still turn the ship around, but the people must awaken and soon.

    As for the accusation that conservative Christians want to establish theocracy for all, I see no evidence of that. To desire freedom and a healthy respect for life does nothing to encroach upon the freedoms of those who want to live a lifestyle different from ours.

    In the interest of fairness and honesty, I do agree with Georgia that many of the people crying "socialism" and a desire for a free enterprise system probably have no idea what they are asking for. A truly free enterprise economy would mena the end of many of the perks that Americans have come to know and love (Social Security, Medicare, Public Schools) and have gotten attached to. In all honesty, a true free market economy woud mean big adjustments and a tough transition for my family. But my husband and I have decided that the trade off is worth it, given the alternative we are faced with today. And we aren't even government dependent.

    For those who have placed our trust in God and have shed the materialistic, consumer driven, lone wolf American mentality, God will supply for His people, from among His people.

  13. Kate says:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/29/duke-university-cancels-motherhood-event-when-pro-life-group-participates/

    Duke University Cancels Motherhood Event When Pro-Life Group Participates.

    Thought you'd want to see this article.

  14. Jennifer says:

    I saw no unkindness or "demands" at all in Georgia's questions. She said that she'd appreciate Stacy answering, which isn't forceful in the farthest imagination, and the claim that she's contradicting herself by expressing the desire for freedom yet "forcing" Stacy to answer? Where is the gun at Stacy's head??

    Stacy's answer does indeed speak volumes, indicating that she doesn't feel in the least threatened by Georgia or her statements.

  15. Michelle says:

    Whew! Lots of opinions going on here! Personally, I love the illustration and agree with the sentiment. I also think that Terry had a terrific answer and think she sums it all up nicely.

  16. Michelle says:

    Whew! Lots of opinions going on here! Personally, I love the illustration and agree with the sentiment. I also think that Terry had a terrific answer and think she sums it all up nicely.

  17. Stacy McDonald says:

    Hi Georgia,

    I am sorry it took me so long to address your comment. Between traveling and recovering from a five-day long headache I've been a bit distracted.

    While I was going to address your comment in more detail, it looks as though Terry and others have done a fine job.

    Freedom does not equal "do whatever you want." We are still commanded to obey God's law. The difference for a Christian is that we are no longer in bondage to sin, so we are finally truly free!

    I will say again, that many of your statements sorely misrepresent what I've said, what I believe, and what I teach. If you'd like to quote me and discuss a specific article, I'd be happy to discuss things further.

    The way you refer to "Christians" infers that you are not one. Is that correct?

  18. dora says:

    I thought the original slogan was 'Life, Liberty and Property'

    But, somewhere along the line, it got changed.

    Don't know by whom or when, but it must have been when the government decided having private property meant having too much freedom and say in your own life.

    God bless.

  19. Georgia says:

    Mrs. Webfoot
    "Then, Georgia contradicted herself at several points. Think about how oppressive her proposed amendment to our Constitution would be, just for starters"

    I am sorry you are so angry at me.
    Could you please clarify how it would be oppressive if the constitution stated:
    "neither the federal nor any state government shall make any activity that does not violate, through force or fraud, a persons right to life, liberty or property, a crime."
    How does that contradict freedom?

    Yes Mrs. McDonald I love Jesus but I feel too many christians worship the law. Not often very gentle or gracious about it.

    You are a very gracious lady and I would never make demands or disrespect you. Jesus was also a gentleman. He wants our hearts first. Legalistic christians can be hard hearted. The good samaritan is a perfect example.

    .

  20. Georgia says:

    You stated that when you met your husband you were very independent and he taught you how to submit.
    I took a part from "The Independent Woman Syndrome"

    Before my husband, James, and I met, I managed apartments for a large company in Houston. I was extremely self-sufficient and took pride in the fact that I had been successful on my own. However, especially after becoming a Christian, I had a deep desire to have a family. I would have traded my “career” in a second to be a homemaker.

    Through out the bible God uses all kinds of people to bring people to Him. Not all had spouses or children. I do not see your self sufficiency as rebellion. To the contrary, you are an intellegent, organized and have a good business sense. Why would God give you these gifts and tell you not to use them?

    The me time myth post may have come from another source.
    http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/Raisingarrows/432782/
    If you have time to read the article. Even Jesus had to spend some alone time to pray, rest and clear his head temporarily.

    If you feel I am misunderstanding you hopefully you can forgive me.

  21. Stacy McDonald says:

    Georgia,

    You seem to have missed the point of my article; my husband did not "teach me" to submit! LOL In fact, if he would have commanded me to submit to him, he would have been going outside of what Scripture teaches.

    Scripture never tells a man to see to it that his wife submits to him? Scriptures takes the directive straight to the woman. “Wives submit to your own husbands…” Not, “Husbands, see to it that your wives submit.”

    Scripture tells men, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church…" (Ephesians 5:25) The whole point is to show the similarities between the marriage of a man and woman and the relationship of Christ to His Bride.

    The husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church (by sacrificing himself for her) and the wife is to submit to her husband as the church does Christ (willingly out of love and thankfulness).

    When I became a Christian, I learned from God's Word that a wife was to submit to her own husband as unto the Lord. Not as a child obeys his parents, but as a bride who fears the Lord submits to her God-appointed head – as a woman who understands that God is a God of order.

    Submission is not an act of slavery to man, it is an act of surrender to God. And that goes for men as well as women.

    When James and I married, because I had been very self sufficient, I struggled with submitting to anyone. I loathed the prideful, angry, stubborn spirit I constantly battled when I was around my husband (the poor guy couldn't do anything right in my eyes!); but, I couldn't seem to conquer it.

    But God orchestrated several difficult situations in my life, and I found myself broken and "needing" my husband for the first time. And his gentle, loving spirit won me over as he consistently displayed a sacrificial, servants heart toward me. He led our family with strength and gentleness, and that is exactly what I needed.

    I could go into more detail, and perhaps I will soon; but, since the comment section of this particular post doesn't really seem like the place for it, I'll stop now. :-)

    Also, you are right that you have misunderstood the point about me-time. Have you read our book, Passionate Housewives? I'll have to address this later though. My children are needing me. :-) Have a blessed day!

  22. Katy~The Country Blossom says:

    Amen! I couldn't agree more!!! :) Well said!

  23. Georgia says:

    Mrs. Webfoot

    Why do I object to your statement about what you would add to our Constitution? It is too vague and too open to all kinds of interpretations and abuses. How would "any activity" be defined?

    I believe that there must be no religion in the role of government. The purpose of a government is to protect the freedom of the individual. The state in a free society has nothing to say about ethics. It is about keeping us safe from violent criminals, invaders/terrorists and fraud. People can choose their own form of ethics or no ethics at all and ideal with the consequences.

    I'm not sure that you have actually read the articles you have been referencing. If you did, how could you have so misinterpreted what was being said?

    I do understand what I am reading and I do not always agree with Stacy. But I would never show her the disrespect that you are showing me. We must agree to disagree and end here.

    God Bless Georgia

  24. Stacy McDonald says:

    "The state in a free society has nothing to say about ethics. It is about keeping us safe from violent criminals, invaders/terrorists and fraud. People can choose their own form of ethics or no ethics at all and ideal with the consequences."

    This seems a little contradictory. How is it that "the state in a free society can say nothing about ethics" and still keep us "from violent criminals?" Shouldn't those criminals be free to "choose their own form of ethics or no ethics at all?"

    What about an adult having sex with a five year old? Do you believe that should be against the law? If so, why? If you say it is because it would be a perverted act against a child you would be correct. But isn't that simply your opinion? There are plenty of depraved individuals that would sex with children to be free and legal.

    To say that it is wrong, we have to have a moral absolute. If we don't get it from the Bible, then where do we get it? Do we take a vote? What happens when our society is so full of perverts, and sexual perversion becomes so normalized, that a vote would leave children unprotected and at the mercy of wicked men?

    This reminds me of a short video I posted a while back:

    http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2010/01/inconsistencies-of-relativism.html

  25. Georgia says:

    Perverts and pedophiles’ are violent criminals. Because they hurt and violate people. Children do need protection because they have not developed the ability to make rational decisions.
    I also know many people who have raised good moral families without biblical influence.
    The contradiction here is that government is bad when it when it tells people to do things contrary to religion. Government is good when it when it tells people to do what religion tells them. At the same time Christians claim they want less government. So which is it?
    If your relationship with Jesus is so strong then why do you need the bible in the government? "Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's.
    Lets end this discussion and just agree to disagree.

  26. Stacy McDonald says:

    Hi Georgia,

    I can appreciate that we don't agree, and that's ok. It can even be a good thing. We can all learn from these discussions and challenges. And, either we'll change our thinking, or we'll become stronger in our convictions.

    But, if you don't mind, I'd like to touch on what you said here:

    "Perverts and pedophiles’ are violent criminals. Because they hurt and violate people."

    Yes, I'm glad we agree here. Sexual perverts and pedophiles are criminals (whether or not they are violent); but, as we know, not everyone agrees on what makes someone a pervert. :-)

    Our dictionaries tell us that something is "perverted" when it is distorted from its intended purpose or meaning.

    Here are a few of Dictionary.com's definitions:

    - to turn to an improper use; misapply.

    - to bring to a less excellent state; vitiate; debase.

    - to change to what is unnatural or abnormal.

    - to convert or persuade to a religious belief regarded as false or wrong.

    - a person who practices sexual perversion.

    Of course, sexual perversion would be described as any sexual act outside of God's prescribed will (or what man and woman are clearly designed for, sexually speaking.

    "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged THE NATURAL USE for what is AGAINST NATURE. Likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is SHAMEFUL, and receiving in themselves the PENALTY of their ERROR which was due." (Romans 1:26-27, NKJV)

    Unnatural sex acts = Perversion

    So, I can say a pervert who goes after little children for pleasure should be punished; but, how can someone who thinks the law must be ethics-free say that? How can they even say it is wrong?

    After all, some people think children SHOULD be sexually active – even with adults. They don't see it as a violation, because THEIR ethical stand is that it is right and good. So who gets to decide if it's "wrong"?

    I said in this post, "No one may compel me to do anything against my will unless I am violating the rights of another, or the law of God." I stand by that.

    Personally, I think I should be free to choose whether or not I want to wear a seat belt, buy health insurance, or carry a gun. This doesn't violate the rights of others or the law of God. In fact, it may help protect the rights of some. I even think I should have the right to use marijuana if I'm suffering with cancer. (Don't fall over)

    However, I think I should be held accountable for walking around town half dressed; slandering God's name on my bumper or on a billboard; selling pornography; or committing adultery. ALL of these things do harm others, as well as the good of the people at large.

    But, then again, I'm strange like that. I would like to see God's law ingrained in the hearts of God's people, so much so, that it spills over into society. Problem is, God's people haven't been acting much like God's people.

    "And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord,” says the Lord God, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land." (Ezekiel 36:23-24, NKJV)

  27. Jennifer says:

    Wow, lots of revelatory thoughts, Stacy!

  28. Jennifer says:

    If you don't agree to disagree, Mrs. Webfoot, what option is left?

  29. Stacy McDonald says:

    Jennifer,

    When someone says, "Let's agree to disagree" they are communicating that in their opinion the discussion is futile. In other words, neither party is likely to convince the other part, so let's be friends anyway. Which is fine.

    While I'm not trying to speak for Mrs. Webfoot, it sounded to me like she was simply saying she didn't think the conversation was futile, and that she was trying to understand what Georgia meant by her comments.

  30. Jennifer says:

    Hi, Stacy. I don't want to speak for anyone either; it just seemed to me like a way of saying that the discussion wasn't over. I think that Georgia's expressed herself clearly and shouldn't be pressed further, especially since Mrs. Webfoot is so against that sort of thing.

  31. Stacy McDonald says:

    Georgia,

    Since you ended your own comment with a desire to "agree to disagree" surely you agree that it was fair for me to respond to what you had already commented. However, if you indeed have nothing else to contribute to this conversation, just so so, and I will ask everyone to honor that by not addressing you directly.

Leave a Reply

Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.