Well,Yes, wouldn't perhaps be about a Christian pushing for change based on the principle of Freedom arrived at through his faith could it? Yes, liberals were a force for good, until they became socialist pigs and rejected God. You might want to adjust your context there a bit, your modern secular liberal scum philosophy would have nothing to do with the man. And I wonder if William would possibly be pro-life? Hmmm, ya think? The modern struggle against the culture of death is paralleled in the abolitionist movement. So I would say, those tenacious Christian activists, if something is wrong they fight tooth and nail for change, against things like, you know, killing unborn humans.
Went and saw a great movie last nite.
Amazing Grace (yes, the song)
About William Wilburforce,
An MP who spent 30 years pushing for a bill to end the slave trade in the British Empire.
Of course, the Conservatives/Tories of his day were opposed to ending slavery, because they made money hand over fist in the Triangle Trade.
But, you know those damn Liberals. If something is wrong, they fight tooth and nail for change.
You know, things like slavery.
Where did his tenacity and conviction come from? Inspired by the glories of liberal thought? Yeah, I can hear it now: "Amazing humanism, how sweet the sound, that inspired a liberal like me! ..." Glad you liked the movie, sad that you can't see the mote in your own eye. I love the title and intention inherent in on of William's most influential writings: "A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes of This Country Contrasted With Real Christianity". A man who, without pride or pretense, can claim to know real Christianity, is one of great character. There is a fantastic introduction in the book (third printing?), maybe you could get some context of its purpose: "It is a contrast between Christianity lowered, misapprehended, obscured, falsified, by the prevailing doctrine and morals of the day, and Christianity as it came from heaven, as it remains in all its freshness in the Sacred Records, as it is loved and obeyed by those in every age, who, like the primitive Christians, or our Reformers of the sixteenth century, come out from the world, and live unto God by the faith of a crucified Savior." A reformer in the Anglican church, lookout! So William's real pounding desire was to see a revival of Christian values in the UK? Now that is a real liberal.
I wonder what the great liberal's view on politics was? Well, if we delve further into this fine text there is a fairly concise statement towards that question: "Legislators must act fully as Christians. The public mind expects this, and will bear them out in it. England must rise to her high destiny. If she remain stationary, -but she cannot remain stationary- she will decline and perish, unless she press on in the noble career which providence now opens before her." I am afraid your band of socialist secular humanists are a long, long ways from a man like this. So now that we have cleared up that little trap of history, lets address a interesting question about the divergence of state sponsored religion, religion of the crown, and freedom of religion.
These three conditions existed in the west at the time of Wilberforce, and the outcome of countries practicing each model could be examined. I propose this in light of the apparent contradiction in William's desire for reform within the church. Though the Anglican church was free of Rome's influence for generations, it had persecuted fellow Christians, many of whom emigrated to the New World. Perhaps the structure of a sect that is inextricably tied to the government lends itself to the corruption expressed by the title of William's work. This does not mean the modern interpretation of 'Separation of Church and State' as bandied about by secularist in the modern day. What it represents is the strength in having diverse decentralized Christian communities lending their support to a government of the people. That is close to the intentions of our founding fathers, and probably something Wilberforce would approve of with hindsight of a couple hundred years.
One can only wonder, if his mother had not been fearful of his becoming a evangelical, whether history would have been quite different! However, speculation is just that, and in no way am I suggesting he may have become a second George Whitefield, but the thought is enticing. Anyhow, what a wonderful story about a remarkable man. A giant of a man that we would be wise to emulate in our daily activities, especially in the concerns of political philosophy, and precisely as that philosophy relates to the underlying Christian principals of open, honest, and moral governance. Unshackle the bondage that is secular humanism! Pull back the blinding veil of modern phony liberalism! You too could proclaim with peace and joy: "... Was blind, but now I see!"