What Do The Democrats Believe?

 

Religion and the Democrats. Two words which have taken a beating when uttered simultaneously in recent times. In this post, I am going to break a few ATB ground rules, least of which is linking to Duncan 'Open Post' Atrios Black, and tell you an amusing story about a fight involving Democrats and Religion which has ensued, spreading like bushfire (to coin a phrase) and involving some of the biggest names in the liberal Blogosphere.

It all began, a couple of weeks ago, with an Amy Sullivan article in the Washington Monthly.

Followed by some "Knee Jerk God Baiting" by Digby.

I wonder who all the religious candidates we've unfairly scorned in the past would be? Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? (and no, having affairs does not mean you are not religious, just a sinner.) Al Gore? John Kerry? They all go to church and profess to be believers. Are they just not religious enough? Now, it's true that the knee-jerk left doesn't much care for Joe Lieberman but that's not because he's a religious man. It's because he is disloyal and enables the right wing. (We knee-jerk left wingers do tend to be dismissive of right wingers, that's true.)

I recall scorning both Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and neither one of them were particularly religious. Bobby Kennedy was a youthful hero and he was as catholic as they come. In fact, I'm having a hard time coming up with any consistent views on either side toward religious politicians at all. It would seem to me that this entire argument is nothing but a political football used to shut down criticism and advance a particular agenda without having to debate the issues on their own merits.

I hesitate to call this kind of lazy observation "religious correctness" because that gives the impression of an objection to rude derisive language about religion. This is something else. It's "God-baiting" designed to put any critic on the defensive if the person they are criticizing is religious. (The right, interestingly enough, is using this and its close cousin, race-baiting, very effectively these days. Nice to see people on "our side" helping them out --- again.)

Every secular "knee jerk liberal" has voted for religious candidates their whole lives. Indeed, it is impossible not to. You cannot get elected in this country if you do not profess religious belief. We have enthusiastically backed candidates who are from every religious tradition and from every region. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both born again, southern evangelicals. We do not scorn religious candidates, period.

Many of us knee-jerk leftists are hostile to those who want to use the state to dictate the proper social attitudes of its citizens and interfere in their most personal, private decisions, that's true. I would scorn Pat Robertson and Sam Brownback's ideas no less if they were secular. It's the lack of respect for the division of influence between the private and public sphere's that is causing the problem.[...]

Who scorns who again? Perhaps some of these religious politicans could speak to the flock about giving some respect to the non-faithful. It's the Christian thing to do.

It then continued here with a post from Faithful Progressive:

He dissed Belief Net's Steve Waldman ("I'm so sick of this") for making the narrow point that: "...many liberals carry an elitist attitude toward evangelical Christians. Lerner's indictment is far more sweeping. Is he being unfair? I think a distinction should be made between the elites and the rank and file on this. The fact is that most Democrats are religious. But secular liberals, who made up about 16% of the Kerry vote [...] seem to have a disproportionate impact on the party's image and approach".

Here's the thing, Atrios: you may be "sick of" such talk, but the next election might well hinge on whether people adopt your dismissive tone or speak in a language that is at a minimum non-confrontational and preferably familiar to evangelical Christians. The sad truth is that some people won't listen to you at all if you don't frame issues in such a manner. Further, in the last month alone there have been three key stories about conservatives and moderates breaking from the grip of Christian right extremists. (Evangelical Climate Initiative; House Catholic Democrat statement that there is more to Christianity than abortion; distancing from Pat Robertson's comments.) Is this a process secular liberals want to encourage or not? Is this an opening back into some red states or not? Gov. Kaine's victory in Virginia demonstrated the political potency of showing respect for religious values in these areas.[...]

Ugh. That, of course, led to a lengthy and 'thoughtful' response by Digby.

Meanwhile, back at the headquarters, Duncan "my favorite post title is 'Wanker of the Day'" Atrios Black responds to a few of his literate readers who have been sending him hate mail regarding the issue:

[...]I'm not hostile to religion. I don't much care about religion. I'm not much interested in it. This isn't strange. Most people aren't much interested in religion other than their own, if that.[...]

I am sick of people who keep claiming that the Democratic party is hostile to religious people and controlled by secular liberals who are hostile to religion. If by "Democratic party" you mean "some people who post anonymous comments on the internet" you may have a point. Otherwise, the idea is ludicrous.

Do the Democrats have a perception problem about religion? Sure. We have a political party which has been claiming to be God's Own Party for decades. We have a mainstream media which equates Christian with Religious Right most of the time, and news anchors who don't think liberals can be "good Catholics." We also have some left-leaning Christians who seem to think this perception problem is due to hostility to religion by secular liberals who (see below) have no public presence. I don't understand this. People who perpetuate right wing talking points about Democrats always piss me off especially when they have no basis.

Secularism has essentially no representation in our media or politics. I'm sure there are secular politicians and media types, but few discuss it. No one gets on tv or writes newspaper columns or in any way participates in our contemporary mainstream political discourse and praises secularism or atheism or anything similar, and certainly not in a way which denigrates religious beliefs generally. Advocates for the separation of church and state are not advocating secularism, aside from government secularism, they're simply trying to defend freedom of religion.

After some major groveling directed at Black, mainly to do with being eternally grateful for the crumbs given by sheer virtue of linking to him, the liberal Faithful Progressive concentrates on a lengthy response: "First, can anyone read the comments to the last post and really think that the hostility of many on the left to religion in general is just a GOP Talking Point? If so, FP's gotta couple of other things to sell ya."

So, do the Democrats indeed have a perception problem about religion?

The Left Leaning agenda, I would argue, is radical at it's very foundation, whereby the goal is to reform the very value system upon which the government was established. And, as I recall, the Founders wrote a great deal about the fact that if America ever ceased to be a religious society, freedom, and the republican ideal, would fail, because the citizenry would lack the moral virtue to keep it all going.

The framers of our highly successful form of government declared that individual rights are maintained and tempered through individual responsibility, they demanded the confrontation of evil and wrongdoing with the aggressive use of force, and were adamant concerning the freedom to pursue and propagate religion without the encumbrance of government, which, by-the-way, was the original intent of the separation of church and state doctrine. We who lean right simply want to preserve those precepts. We see these as fundamental to our success as a culture and as a nation.

The Liberal left conveniently fails to comprehend the "E pluribus unum" motto. What they really want is for the "many" to remain "many"; or, more accurately, to break down the "one" into "many" without any common culture, moral cohesion, or civil society to bind them. I of course, am familiar with that model from the Balkans, where it worked so very well, ahem (!). My culture has also been under the Turks for 500 years, and we are still reeling from the problems.

If you were to check US law up until the late twentieth century, you would see that religion- Christianity-was also an integral factor in law. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S.(1892) cited 87 historical precedents in its conclusion that, "Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

The position of the left collapses the moment one takes a look at empirical historical evidence from the 18th and 19th centuries, particularly actual law and governmental practice. Washington, Jefferson, et al, the supposed ACLU Separationists, for some odd reason never objected to the recitation of Christian prayers in school or at official governmental functions, the use of the New England Primer in schools, the use of public lands and buildings for religious events etc.

The left fails to understand that the broad-minded tolerance of the Fathers went hand-in-hand with their desire to actively encourage all religious faith: the proof is in the pudding. Again, I challenge anyone to actually examine American laws and governmental practices of the 18th and 19th centuries- you're in for a real shock. Historical reality makes Jerry Falwell and any other bogeyman of the left look like a real ACLU member by contrast...

Again, the proper relationship of government and religion as conceived of by the founders was to further the cause of religion (not looking too kindly on atheism) and enable its free and untrammeled expression. Yes, these men would have disapproved of "moments of silence" in schools- but only because these were men who approved of and allowed actual Christian prayer- sometimes delivered by Christian ministers and priests, no less- in schools, government assemblies etc.

To pretend otherwise by the left is false; it is an Orwellian revision of history, and absolutely no foundation for their scurrilous accusations which range from assertions that the Founding Fathers did not promote a religious society, to accusing them of being deists.

Since the Gore defeat in 2000, left-liberals in the US have turned away from identity politics. You could say that this was one of the few unambiguous intellectual victories of American conservatives, except that devotees of Old Left class politics provided much of the ammunition. At first, the multicultis blasted the likes of me as crypto-racists or, worse yet, crypto-conservatives, but Bush hatred ended all of that, and we became simply the all incompasing Bushies.

The problem for the left is that their agenda has one giant obstacle: Our National Heritage. To overcome this obstacle they will have to rewrite history ... which is being accomplished at a level that should alarm all Americans. They have to rewrite or reinterpret law ... primarily through activist judges, and they have to replace mainstream religion with Human Secularism, which is hostile to the idea of God, denies individual responsibility, and would have America adopt a culture of personal indulgence.

The Anchoress has an excellent discussion joined by CBS's Dick Meyer in her comments section; instigated by Meyer who is wondering whether political ruminations are worth putting to paper, or is political debate a futile and dead thing. In her argument, she draws in religion, which has of course "got rather co-mingled with politics, especially for those who have been worshiping at the altar of political correctness, which has it's own list of commandments and sins. [...] so many on the left, their leftiness is their religion..."

More discussion on Dick Meyer from The Moderate Voice, Power Line, and  ShrinkWrapped

Memeorandum features my post here (cool new layout with photos) and so does Salon's Daou Report in Blogging from the right (const. changed & updated)

Linked to Mark Noonan,  @ B4B who is featuring Senator Feingold attempting to get support to censor the President, whoops did I say the President, I meant the democrats. More @ Hugh Hewitt, Captain's Quarters, Althouse, Decision '08, Flopping Aces, Sister Toldjah, The Moderate Voice, Unclaimed Territory, California Conservative, The RCP Blog, Below The Beltway, Daily Kos, Big Lizards, TigerHawk, YARGB,  Iowa Voice,  Gina Cobb, Confederate Yankee, Gateway Pundit, The Strata-Sphere, 

Rick Moran's Carnival of the Clueless. 

Comments

[Greg]

I would comment on a comment... "At the core foundation of liberalism lies individual responsibility".

This is absolutely true with respect to true liberalism and absolutely false with respect to many if not most of those who claim to be liberals today. The term "liberal" has been misapplied, as I see it, to those who have hijacked what was once a great party, the Democrats.

By the generally accepted definition, liberals are those who are willing to go in a new direction, those unbound by tradition. As I see it, the left and the Democrats are determined to go down the same socialistic paths that have failed time and time again elsewhere and are doomed to fail here. Two of their greatest social triumphs, Social Security and Medicare, are even now in the initial stages of failure. If anything, it's the so-called neo-cons (as the name clearly states) who are willing to try something new and who therefore are the true "liberals" in the sense of the word I highlight.

I'm proud of the fact my parents WERE Democrats back when that party was worth something. Some years ago they realized the party had gone wrong and left it, though they like me are not content with the Republicans either. I suppose if the Democratic party comes to it's senses they might return some day.

I am dismayed at the fall of the Democrats of today and particularly their "leaders" - their repeated failures and obvious dishonesty make the future they say they dread all the more probable as they lose their credibility and give the extreme right a better chance of growing stronger with no credible deterrent. For the record, I'm a registered Independent and like many I dream of the day a viable third party will knock some sense into both Republican and Democrat alike since neither party seems to see the light at the end of the tunnel today. Meanwhile I vote for by candidate and issue, not by party.

[Washington]

Jim,

You can cite those examples and others can cite examples proving the Christianity had a profound influence on the founders...researching some of the original documents will offer you a clear insight into the founders frame of mind. It is not as simple as you posit in your last sentence.

American liberals tend to take a fraction of an arguement and use it without providing any factual data to back it up. The American liberal is desperate to either convince us that the founders were immoral, irrelevant, or unresponsive to Christianity...I would further add that many Unitarians were in fact Christians but Jim is no doubt aware of the history of the UC prior to the 1880's.

[Stefan]

Jim,
What you are suggesting makes zero sense. “Keep your religion out of the Government” is only a legitimate statement if you mean that no law shall be passed that requires citizens to take and oath of loyalty to Christ or Mohammed or Baal or some other God (which no one is even remotely asking for). Please read (or re-read) my above post with an open mind because it is an attempt to clarify the position of religion's legitimate place in public discourse. Religion is the source and guide of many, many people’s entire world view and informs the type of culture and society they wish to live in. You are saying that those ideas are off limits. Check your morals at the door. The abolitionists brought their religious beliefs directly into American society and that was a good thing right? Martin Luther King did as well and no one bitches about it. You just object when those ideas are contrary to yours. You are censoring the free exchange of ideas if they don’t jive with yours. This is a totalitarian attitude.

This country is deeply Christian. Where do you think the ideas of progress, individual responsibility, equality, and liberty came from in the first place? Christianity. As Rodney Stark writes:

“The path to modern times did not suddenly open during the Renaissance any more than it sprang from the head of Zeus. Western civilization arose progressively over many centuries subsequent to the fall of Rome: the so-called Dark Ages were a period of profound enlightenment in both the material and the intellectual spheres, which when combined with Christian doctrines of moral equality, created a whole new world based on political, economic, and personal freedom”.

He continues:

“To the extent that participants in controversies over equality of outcomes take any interest in the origins of the assumption of moral equality, they mostly trace it to “secular” political theorists who wrote during the eighteenth-century Enlightenment or even later—many are content simply to attribute it to “liberalism.” Many also express admiration for John Locke’s seventeenth-century works as a major source for modern democratic theory, seemingly without the slightest awareness that Locke explicitly based his entire thesis on Christian doctrines concerning moral equality. Most textbook accounts of the birth of our nation now carefully ignore the religious aspect, as if a bunch of skeptics had written these famous lines from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Westerners are so steeped in a Christian view of the world that they don’t even realize it. Leftists often remind me of spoiled, rich heiresses like Paris Hilton who were born into extravagant wealth and squander it mindlessly because it has always been there and they assume it always will be. They have little understanding of the work and perseverance that built their inheritance and treat it as if it were nothing. The Muslim world does not have this same moral and intellectual inheritance and this is part of the reason that Rights, which we in the West take as a given, are considered alien and contrary to the world which they are seeking to create.

John,
The vast majority of Christians is not now and never will be seek to create a state that is run by the church. You totally miss the point that we are making…either because you don’t understand it, you don’t really listen, or you are willfully misinterpreting it to create a straw-man to attack. Democrats and other Left-wingers are always talking about how the “Religious Right has taken over America”. Instead of fabricating a “boogey-man” how about citing one single example of how, so-called, "religious extremists" have “taken over the government”? I know you won’t, because you can’t, because it is a political myth used in a weak attempt at fear-mongering.

[jim]

Separation of Church and State.

Just keep your church out of our government, and I as a liberal and you as a conservative will have no religious issues to quarrel about.

Just how the Founding Fathers wanted it.

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

"Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the gospels; he was uncomfortable with any reference to miracles, so with two copies of the New Testament, he cut and pasted them together, excising all references to miracles, from turning water to wine, to the resurrection."

"John Adams, the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and became a Unitarian. It was during Adams' presidency that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI that:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Benjamin Franklin - A direct quote: "As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have...some Doubts as to his divinity...."

So, either the Founding Fathers of this country were liars, or you are wrong.

[John]

"...and they have to replace mainstream religion with Human Secularism, which is hostile to the idea of God, denies individual responsibility, and would have America adopt a culture of personal indulgence..."

I don't want to sound flip, but what is more personally indulgent than adopting a twisted version of Christ's teachings that manages to both completely ignore the true spirit of Christ and claim to exhault it at the same time? Forgive me, faithful Christians, but you don't know the first thing about your religion or history. Site as many examples as you like but it is striking how you ignore, just as you do the spirit of Christ, our founding FUNDAMENTAL principals. It is amazing to me how so called "fundamentalist" Christians want religion to drive the state. Throughout history the most "religiou" folks have always suffered more than anyone else when church was state. What drives you people forward with this crap? Is it just that you like to hear yourselves echo in the chamber misconception you have built so solidly? Is it that your old testament sensibilities have invaded your ability to reason like a malevolent virus? Whatever it is, you are enjoyable for the unintentional irony if nothing else. You don't seem faithful at all, but superstitious to a medieval degree, though certainly cleaver enough to spin whole cloth out of the delicate threads of your research. This country has been mired in self-indulgence for many decades...your blog is a monument to self-indulgence and Christ would NEVER sponser church as state let alone the fanatical church of your superstitions. What bible translation have you been reading? Christ was a radical...hello...he was trying to bring the whole damn thing to the ground so we could KNOW that God wasn't some person, but everything and everywhere. How did you miss that? Are you so lost that you think God, the person, prefers Republicans? or prefers the United States? Or prefers Humans? How sad, and ironically enjoyable all at once.

[Raimondo]

Contemporary Liberals, both here and in Europe encourage the noton of a "cradle to grave society". I'm sorry that the term Liberal has been de facto hijacked by people who are enamored by the notion that the individual needs to be controlled, coerced, coddled and ultimately imprisoned.

Furthermore Liberals today are generally wary of anything that has to do with Religion. They believe in Marx's dictum: "Religion is the Opiate of the People". For a simple reason, religious organizations undermine the power of the state. many people find strength and solace in Religion. Liberals want to be the ones dispensing such luxuries. Perhaps through a Kafkaesque bureauocracy, at a very high cost, imposed on those who work ideally through taxation without representation.

Liberals are completely fearful of the enlightened individual, because a self posessed person might excell in relation to other more mediocre individuals. Lemmings in a gigantic pack may be self destructive, but are a force to be reckoned with...hence the Liberal power base. Liberals are all too willing it seems to embody the proverbial hammer that bangs down the nail that sticks too far out.

A perfect example of one of the multitudes of recent Liberal contaddictions. The forced closure of Catholic Charities an organization that for a century or so placed children with adoptive parents. Why will they have to close down? Because they will not grant adopive rights to gay (contemporary use of the term) couples. So they are willing to trample on one group's rights in order to ensure another group's perceived rights, at the expense of the most important most neglected group of all: the orphans who now stand a far lower chance of being adopted at all, by either straight or happy couples.

The thought process is Byzantine at best. Contradictions, within contradictions, like a giant Russian doll, the contemporary Liberal mind keeps revealing the same thing, perhaps in a different size, but its always the same...It is Socialist, and it has failed over and over again, in each and every part of the world where it has taken root, often devastating indigenous cultures, expropriating entire classes, comitting genocide where need be, diseducating entire generations of people, causing immense demographic and environmental upheaval in record time, etc, etc, etc, etc...Yet this vicious worm is still capable of mutating and morphing under many guises, like VoldeMort in Harry Potter.

[Stefan]

As a Catholic who would probably be lumped into the asinine category the “Religious Right”; allow me try to explain the frustration that I feel with the Democrats (the Left, “liberals” or whatever). I am told, by Democrats, that my religious beliefs are respected and encouraged but that I am not allowed to “force” those religious beliefs on others. Sound fair right? Here is the catch. Let me use abortion as an example for no other reason that it is the easiest. Science can determine that a human fetus is indeed a form of human life but the real crux of the problem is the debate of when a human person is present necessitating protection under law. David Byron and I agree that this is not a question that is in purview of scientific knowledge but rather is a philosophical or metaphysical question. As a member of a democratic society, I have every right to join with other like minded pro-life citizens in the arena of public politics to elect pro-life representatives who we would expect to work for the advancement of our positions through legislation. Everything is above board so far right?

Well, we are told that since our ideas and positions have a religious component or origin that we are being fascist and that we are “forcing our religious beliefs” on people by advancing a pro-life cause. This would be calling the kettle black, so to speak, because, as most people would agree, this is a philosophical question. Those that believe that no human “person” is present prior to birth are advocating a contrary metaphysical belief. Why is the pro-life belief out of bounds but yet the pro-abortion belief acceptable when it is “forced” on the entire society? Are people allowed only to have their religious belief in private but are forbidden to act in any public manner to affect the society and culture in which they live? Are we to have a society which is completely stripped of any tinge of religiously informed ideas? Is America to have, to borrow a famous phrase from the eminent Richard John Nuehaus, a “Naked Public Square”? Is this not just paying lip service, in the most belittling and condescending way, to people who hold religious beliefs that differ from the agenda of the Left? “You may have your little beliefs but don’t you dare try to act on them?” When the actions these citizens take are peaceful, legal, and through the proper channels of political activity, is it any surprise that religious people are deeply insulted by this demeaning attitude?

The solution the left has come up with is to sell a full menu of moral relativism like the clever idea of being for “Choice”. This is the “middle ground” that Democrats (and the country club Republicans) have tried to sell the country as a compromise. The result, however, is the same: status quo. Now we can be pro-abortion, or look the other way and pretend that, what we see as a grievous societal injustice, is not our problem, or we can act and be accused of being religious zealots who favor Taliban style repression. There is no serious attempt made to meet religious people and their deeply felt concerns. There is no real respect for their most cherished values. They are called intolerant, bigots, homophobes, racists, misogynists, hate mongers, and fascists. Christianity is slandered as if it was the equivalent of Nazism.

If Democrats really want to engage the religious citizen (which they keep saying over, and over, and over, and over….) then they must be willing to address their concerns seriously and with a genuine respect for their beliefs. They must find room in their thoroughly secular agenda for a real compromise. To continue with the abortion example, most pro-lifers would be ecstatic to find support among Democrats for allowing some reasonable limitations or restrictions on the unlimited abortion license. At the very least, please allow the democratic process to play out (without bypassing the public by appealing to the courts to force your agenda through) in order to let the population as a whole decide what should be allowed and what should not. This is by no means an unreasonable request. It would be government for the people, by the people.

[Giacomo]

"Similarly, and again I'm sorry if this sounds like a pathetic cheap shot, but I think Al-Qaeda (who I think are wrong but have a lot of sympathy for) has a great deal in common with the religious right in America (who I also think are wrong but have a lot of sympathy for)."

It's not pathetic as much as it is obtuse. First, your sympathy is thinly veiled arrogance ("these poor misguided religious nuts, they aren't as enlightened as I"). Second, the commonality between the two groups ends at the door of "they're both religious and they're both upset with behaviors they perceive as sinful". As I've mentioned in the past, one must consider the methods that both groups employ to bring their message to the world as well as the actual message itself. It is here that your comparison breaks down. Where are the Christian suicide bombers (there are many Palistinian Christians) ... where is the demand by Christians to observe Biblical law (as opposed to the demand for sharia law) ... where are the Christian societies that crush freedoms (and don't even compare abortion restrictions with chopping someone's head off) ... where are the Christian leaders that constantly call for death to those that disagree with them ... found any that fit any of these criteria individually (let alone the many Muslim ones that fulfill each)?

And then you end with saying ... "But if you ask the rank and file members then I think it's about helping out the little guy against the bullies" ... I'd add one caveat ... except if that "bully" is Saddam and the "little guys" are Iraqis ...

[DavidByron]

Btw has anyone seen the BBC documentary The power of nightmares? It compares the neo-cons with Al-Qaeda and suggests that both are reacting to the perception of a failure of liberalism to keep society moral by creating external enemies for their societies to fight against.

Similarly, and again I'm sorry if this sounds like a pathetic cheap shot, but I think Al-Qaeda (who I think are wrong but have a lot of sympathy for) has a great deal in common with the religious right in America (who I also think are wrong but have a lot of sympathy for).

I mention this in reply to this comment:

...useful idiots feeding the anti-Western narrative of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

But it seems to me that Bin Laden doesn't have an anti-western narrative as such -- at least no more than the right does in general, which is that America is in moral decay.

It seems that they'd be naturally allies if not for the war, and of course they were allies during the Afghan war against the Soviets, when Reagan called them all freedom fighters and compared them to the founding fathers. (Not that the Democrats didn't ally with them too of course, during the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo).

I wonder how much of the present negative view of muslims is simply generated for purposes of prosecuting Bush's war against Islam? That happens in all wars of course.

I guess this is getting off the topic of this post - although it all seems to sort of hang together.

What do Democrats believe? Well judging by what their elected representatives are willing to fight for, nothing at all. But if you ask the rank and file members then I think it's about helping out the little guy against the bullies.

[DavidByron]

On the fascism thing again... obviously my comment was intended to underly a commonality (between the religious right and fascism) which was not of itself a bad thing. On the contrary a good thing I believe. But there's a serious worry about America and fascism today. If we are to learn from history it's no good saying people are fascists. Because if they are it's too late, and if they are not then you're just flaming people and making it harder for a serious consideration.

And I think someone asked if I had sympathy or compassion for fascists to, and of course I do; you have to be able to see people as people to understand them.

Alexandra did you read the post up at Glenn's place called "Cornered Rats"? Also have you read any Orcinus?

As I understand it in part the fascists in Germany were able to gain power by convincing the right that eliminationist rhetoric and actual violence were necessary to defend the country from the left, from communists and from terrorists. Hitler was able to convince them that in a new kind of war they shouldn't expect their head of state to obey the laws - it was too confining. There was a lot of fear.

Do not let fear rule you.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Hmm thanks for that article, I will write something about that later today.

I agree with such an initiative. It is important for everyone to know that certain things are accepted here and that, if they do not accept it, they probably should not want to live here.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

But is it not true, that the difference is not whether someone is Christian or not, but whether someone believes the 'Christian values' should put upon everyone, including those who disagree?

And that whether or not the founding fathers were Christian, is not the most important thing here. The important thing in this debate is that they did not put the values they had because they were Christians on others.

That is the difference here.

[Dr Victorino de la Vega]

The New York Times reports that the Dutch government has decided to upgrade the compulsory “cultural integration” exams prospective immigrants have to take before obtaining a visa to the country of Erasmus...in order to “filter away all unwanted religiously conservative individuals”

“A lesson, about the Netherlands' nude beaches, is followed by another: homosexuals have the same rights here as heterosexuals do, including the chance to marry.

Just to make sure everyone gets the message, two men are shown kissing in a meadow.

The scenes are brief parts of a two-hour-long film that the Dutch government has compiled to help potential immigrants, many of them from Islamic countries, meet the demands of a new entrance examination that went into effect on Wednesday
”

Or course citizen of certain countries with high numbers of “religious conservatives” such as Israel and the US are exempted from taking the exam…but the Dutch government wants us to believe this shouldn’t be interpreted as blatantly racist double-standard directed at Arabs and Mohammedans!

But there’s even worse that sheer racism at work here: ironically, by focusing its message on nude beaches, swingers clubs, hash bars…etc. the Dutch government is contributing to the distortion and debasement of Western culture in the eyes of its critics, thus reinforcing their prejudices.

Just like their Neocon friends in Washington and Tel-Aviv, the Muslim-bashers of Amsterdam and The Hague are useful idiots feeding the anti-Western narrative of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

Instead of promoting humanistic and secular values by building schools and universities with modernist secular curricula in the Middle-East and South Asia, instead of telling prospective immigrants the world over that Europe is a beacon of humanism and democracy, we’re content with provoking Muslims gratuitously.

In Hitler’s Germany, Jehovah's Witnesses were forced to accept blood transfusion and force-fed ham so they could become “good Germans”.

In Guantanomo’s prisons, Arab and Muslim detainees were routinely forced to watch gay porn movies while listening to the Israeli national anthem

I guess this must have paved the way for the Dutch government’s new immigration law…

[North by Northwest]

go1,

"...but in putting ideas into practice, they [Republicans] are wrong, wrong, and wrong again, almost non-stop."

I see that you've made up your mind sometime ago who you'll trust to steer the ship. LOL.

Btw, I think the religious right can at times be rather overbearing, but hardly 'frothing'. Alexandra makes a compelling point that a certain vocal faction of the Democrats are the ones who are doing all the 'frothing', or to be precise, 'anti-religious frothing'. Which brings us back on topic ;-)

[North by Northwest]

go1,

Apart from your point 1), you'll find that pretty much every Republican voter agrees with you. The only difference is, they feel, the Republicans are doing a better job at achieving/protecting these goals.

I think you can't settle this issue in this general fashion. You also need to accept, that you have essentially two types of voters: one, whose vote is determined by tradition, but who retrofits his arguments to support his ingrained bias; two, who prioritises issues and votes for the candidates who are less likely to mess it up. There is no perfect fit; it'll always be a, more often than not, 'bad' compromise.

As to your point 1). This is a delicate balancing act. If whoever is in charge has its basic motivation wrong, it messes up big time. This is your supertanker-in-the-harbor analogy. Even at a speed of 2-3km/h, it smashes the entire pier.

Also, all these issues are increasingly influenced by lobbyists and less and less by voters or politicians--and as you know you've got good and bad lobbyists on either side of the aisle.

But, you definitely don't want an 'activist' filled with the best intended utopian idealism to do the 'overseeing'. What I think everyone wants is what the Germans call a 'Nachtwächter Staat' in relation to economic regulation; means 'night-watch Government': protect the economy from assault and abuse, but otherwise stay out of day-to-day business.

[go1]

Oh, and regarding religion, what do Democrats believe? Democrats believe the same crap Republicans do. You will find both Democrats and Republicans in almost every church in America.

You will also find Democrats and Republicans who are athiests. Who believe in abortion and actually have abortions. Who claim to be Christians but dont ever go to church. It happens to both.

Religious frothing by Republicans is meant to evoke an emotional response. Its meant to keep people from thinking of ANY OTHER ISSUE. Because they know they are wrong on so many of the other issues, as far as the common man is concerned. Maybe not ideologically, but in putting ideas into practice, they are wrong, wrong, and wrong again, almost non-stop.

[go1]

Being a liberal to me means:

1) Competition/Economy. A free marketplace, free from domination by monopolies and cartels. The only entity that can guarantee this is the government, by granting and having the ability to regulate business. Only by regulating the giants can you guarantee that there can be true competition in business.

2) Socially. It means keeping out of my business for the most part. Republicans seem to want the government to create a nanny-state where police/soldiers outnumber citizens. That equals the sacrifice of our freedom for so-called security. Give me liberty or give me death . . . anyone remember that who claims to be a Republican?

3) Responsibility. Democrats are for responsibility for your own actions. Republicans want to strip the one thing from this country that makes us unique in holding people responsible . . . the right to jury trials. You take away this right, then guess who will settle disputes that juries once settled? Beaurocrats appointed by government officials, thats who. That's what Republicans want, who woulda thunk it.

It all amazes me, the two-tongued Republican mantras always mean exactly the opposite of what they say, when you look at their philosophical ideals, and then you look at their actual actions, how can you ever believe in that?

4) Saving America. Liberals want America to be America. Which means that America isnt just a stretch of land and people. America is based on a Constitution, with built in rights, and respect in the division of power in government. All these things the Republicans in power are currently trashing. Which means that its the Republicans who are trashing America, not liberals.

(Notice I never said Conservatives, because true Conservatives wouldn't do what Republicans are doing).

To me, being a liberal means being an American.

[Joseph Marshall]

And, as I recall, the Founders wrote a great deal about the fact that if America ever ceased to be a religious society, freedom, and the republican ideal, would fail, because the citizenry would lack the moral virtue to keep it all going.

Perhaps so. But it is noteworthy that absolutely the only mention of religion in the Constitution are the anti-establishment and free exercise clauses. And there is not a single mention there of God, Jesus, Christianity, or any of its many variants well planted in the former colonies. So why was all this excluded?

The point of the anti-establishment clause [which I notice you conveniently fail to mention] is to keep government out of favoring particular religious preferences.

"Establishment" meant two things to the Founding Fathers: First, it meant making one denomination only the official religion of all the King's subjects. People who "dissented" or openly held any other beliefs were barred from political participation and subject to greater or lesser legal sanctions depending upon the whims of the goverment of the moment.

Second, it meant the support and patronage of priests of that particular denomination as employees of the government whose livelihood and activities were maintained by public taxes.

This, of course, meant that any country curate in any Anglican rural parish simply could not preach on certain topics if they might offend the local Squire. This hardly qualifies as "religious freedom" even for the members of the Church Established.

When a religion is "established", the free exercise clause has no essential meaning because, inherently, "dissenters" cease to be equal citizens to the orthodox. "Religious freedom" then degenerates to mere "religious tolerance". Simply promising not to pass a law against someone does not mean you recognize their right to full and equal citizenship under that law.

This was the actual state of religion before the Revolution--full religious freedom was present only in certain colonies: Rhode Island and Pennsylvania being the most prominent.

The rigorous exclusion of "establishment" was a deliberate, and absolutely unprecedented, step to exclude religion from the process of government. It had no model anywhere else in the European or European colonial world. Establishment was the norm throughout Europe: Russia was officially Orthodox, France and Spain officially Catholic, Britain officially Anglican, Holland officially Protestant, and, as you know, Islam was the official religion of the Ottoman Empire.

Every application of the establishment clause since, no matter who has argued for it [since you have chronic ACLU fantasies] is based on exactly that premise: intrusion of religion in the process of government inherently disenfranchises some other group of citizens, and thus, inherently prevents true free exercise.

This has been the case from the beginning and it is the case now, whatever the private beliefs, or lack thereof, professed by the white men of that day, and the men and women of this day.

Now, having disposed of that, we can turn to the more interesting question of the relation of "secularity" to politics. This is a term that requires more careful thought than most people give it--since it usually functions as an epithet hurled in political abuse. But it does reflect a reality that runs far deeper in America and its history than perhaps you are aware.

It has to do with the tradition, most prominent in New England, that liberty of private conscience also means privacy of the free and private conscience. It is a set of social conventions that boil down to the following statement: I will keep my religion tucked away somewhere on my property, thank you, and you will please keep your religion on your side of the stacked stone fence between us.

This is actually explicitly and openly part of the history of the Congregationalist Church, where it is known as the New England Way. And it is still fostered as the implicit curriculum at the prep schools of the wealthy and the Ivy League universities which they feed.

Secularism is this social cleavage not any particular belief or lack of it, already present at the birth of this nation, that separates Atrios, Digby, John Kerry, and Bill Clinton [a true Harvard Man, whatever his Arkansas roots], from you and yours and, actually, even from me.

In this sense, Democrats are almost exclusively [well over 90% if Zogby is to be believed]secular, even when they are religious. This cleavage is so strong that one of the ways in which Jimmy Carter so constantly got on non-Republican nerves was his open religiousity.

Seculars also largely make up the libertarian third of the Republican Party, who, I think, are far more likely to be non-believers than any Democrat. Try as I might, I can hardly imagine Allan Greenspan or Grover Norquist attending any church. Though, what with the New England Way, I might very well be wrong.

So, really, the question is not what Democrats or Liberals believe. Some are religious, some are not. But it is a real question of how willing they are to make a public issue of it.

[Alexandra]

Robert,

You can ask it as much as you like, but that doesn't make it any more relevant, hence my earlier comment. Now if you were to have cited Roe vs. Wade, that would have been another matter...

[Stefan]

This is a very interesting discussion and I wish I had more time to properly respond to some of the comments here. I will just leave a few quotations as food for thought. I got them some time ago and forget who collected them so I can’t properly give credit...it seems long but it goes quick ;-)

John Adams:
“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” (Letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress)

Sam Adams:
“Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” (October 4, 1790)

John Quincy Adams:
“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"? (1837 4th of July Speech)

Alexander Hamilton:
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

Patrick Henry:
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” (May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses)

Thomas Jefferson:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (Excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nation’s capital)

James Madison:
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” (1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia)

At the Constitutional Convention Madison proposed the three branches of government which were inspired by the Perfect Governor and his reading of Isaiah 33:22:

“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”

George Washington:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." (From President George Washington's Farewell Address)

Liberty Bell Inscription:
“ Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof” [Leviticus 25:10]

Ben Franklin's Proposal for the official Seal of the United States:
“Moses lifting his wand and dividing the Red Sea”

It is both foolish and self-hating to try to censor out the deep influence that Christianity has had on the founding of this country and on the entire fabric of the Western world. Anyone who insists that it is irrelevant to the very way in which we understand freedom, justice, equality, and civic duty has already taken it for granted. Beware of chipping away at the foundation upon which you stand.

[Robert]

Alexandra,

Am I not supposed to ask that question?

[Washington]

What is debatable, just as it is every four years when a presidential election arises, is how much the founders leaned on their faith. Certainly, from studying hisotry, one concludes that the majority were indeed practicing Christians. However, as is the case today, were some of the founders religious to help their public careers? We are almost certain to find that to be the case at least once or twice with the founders.

Reading memoirs, letters, and such from that period leaves little doubt as to the influence Christianity played in the formation of this Republic-it was enormous.

[Alexandra]

David,

What do you want me to say: Exterminate the minority, I am a Fascist Christian Conservative. LOL!
As for the "arguments against the tyranny of the majority", argue away, just wake me up when you are in the majority. Just kidding...

By the way, on a lighter note, I am just about to update the George Clooney post: You see what happens when you give a liberal latitude: they take liberties.

Robert,

You are quoting me a 50's racial segregation issue? Give me a break.

[Robert]

Legislating from the bench?

Is that like the result of Brown vs. Board of Education?

[DavidByron]

But the arguments against the "tyranny of the majority" are well known and the constitution seeks to protect the rights of the minority. That's deliberate. Do you disagree with those protections for the minority?

[Alexandra]

David,

Doesn't this statement actually undercut your argument Alexandra?

No, on the contrary. You affirm my point with your example when you suggest that it is a whole different ballgame if there are “only” 60%. That’s still the majority.

My complaint is exactly that the left seems to feel the agenda ought to be set by the minority. Legislating from the bench is just one of many examples how the left manages to bypass the electorate systematically. As the majority, I believe any such activism must be resolutely resisted and whenever possible exposed as such.

[Giacomo]

"But briefly both groups believed that society was in moral decline and needed to be returned to a golden age where cultural values were valued and people acted right"

And of course how they propose(d) to procure said changes is/was the exact same, right? I haven't posted here very much, but you clearly seem to be in the lead for the fallacious argument trophy ... at this pace, you're a lock.

[DavidByron]

They were living in a time when Christianity was an integral part of public life, something that permeated the entire fabric of American society to such an extent that it was taken for granted

Doesn't this statement actually undercut your argument Alexandra? It's one thing to say that core christian practises shouldn't be banned in a population that is 99.99% christian. It's one thing to say that the founders were thinking in terms of not giving one strain of christianity, say anglicans, precedence over catholics in a country where christianity is assumed.

But now the country is only majority christian and now the minority position isn't another christian denomination but another religion altogether, or atheism. You can no longer say that everyone agrees with the core christian tenets. They are no longer common ground.

It would be perverse to ban christian core values in a population that's 99.99% christian, but if it's only 60% christian that's a whole different story.

Hmm. I wanted to answer that question on what evangelicals and fascists have in common... perhaps later. But briefly both groups believed that society was in moral decline and needed to be returned to a golden age where cultural values were valued and people acted right.

[Giacomo]

"Most of the founding fathers (including Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine) were DEISTS, not Christians."

This horse is almost always trotted out as evidence of something ... I'm never sure what, though. I'm assuming that because some of them MAY have been deists, this should lead us to believe that a majority of them WERE deists?

But what is a deist exactly ... "the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists." The question then is do the founders fit any of these definitions? Let's, for kicks, only look at those you mention ...

Jefferson ... as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided (at the government's expense) Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

Franklin ... in his 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States ... that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital ... that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress ... that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning” built “on Christ, the Corner-Stone.” Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist.

Paine ... in his discourse on “The Study of God,” forcefully asserts that it is “the error of schools” to teach sciences without “reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin.” He laments that “the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism.” Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.

None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, you name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are "over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate."

"The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights."

(source ... http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29)

[Alexandra]

Simone,

Most of the founding fathers (including Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine) were DEISTS, not Christians. Any suggestion that the most influential Americans of the Enlightment would welcome the fascist attitude of today's Christians (i.e., the law should codify my religious beliefs) is absurd.

Deists? Dream drummed up by the American left, repeated enough times, they seem to believe it to be true

1) While this is perhaps to some extent true of Jefferson, it is absolute nonsense with regard to both George Washington and James Madison (remember him, the minor guy who wrote the Constitution?), pure canard. Both were devout, orthodox Episcopalians.

Their letters, speeches, actions, practice, and even the wording of the Constitution make clear that their aim was not to prevent the intrusion of religion into public life, but to PREVENT THE Intrusion of Government into Religion in any way, shape or form- but above all, into the abridging of the "free exercise thereof."

2) The founders were all CHRISTIANS, and that- again, going back and looking at historical context, as good historical method requires- whenever they use the word "religion", they were a) clearly referring to Christianity and a Judeo-Christian heritage (yes, there were Jews, and Washington respected them highly, but they were statistically insignificant); b) when one cites "fiat lux" as the basic tenet of the Founding Fathers, please note that this is a Judeo-Christian tenet, from the Jewish Bible!

3)They were living in a time when Christianity was an integral part of public life, something that permeated the entire fabric of American society to such an extent that it was taken for granted until the 20th century. When Washington, Madison and Jefferson write of "religion," they were referring to the beliefs of the 99.9% of their populace that was Christian.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

I must admit I never heard of anything called "deist".

Until I found this:
"Deism is a belief in God as revealed by nature and reason, not scripture and faith. The Deist sees an order and architecture to the universe that indicates an Intelligent Creator or First Cause. However, Deism itself makes no positive assertions about the nature of this designer and Deists disagree with any individual's claims to divine authority, including the individuals who wrote the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad-gita, and other works of fiction"

People come up with some weird ideas / words...

[North by Northwest]

Well put, Giacomo.

Simone,

I don't like the tired retort: "where's your proof". But what exactly are you referring to when you say, "fascist attitude of today's Christians..."?

[Giacomo]

"The 'historical meaning' of the word 'Liberal' still exists"

I think some are confusing Denotation (a word's literal meaning) and Connotation (the suggestions and associations that go with it). Consider the phrase, "The US is a liberal society" ... could mean that we all adhere to a left-leaning ideological line or could mean that we are a free society. Alexandra is clearly discussing the former.

[Washington]

DavidByron:

Thank you for further illuminating your ignorance. :-)

Cheers!

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Jesus never, nowhere, ever said that we should legislate his teachings.
As a Christian I believe it is the duty of the Church, organisations and individual people to help out the poor.

[Simone]

Most of the founding fathers (including Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine) were DEISTS, not Christians. Any suggestion that the most influential Americans of the Enlightment would welcome the fascist attitude of today's Christians (i.e., the law should codify my religious beliefs) is absurd.

[Giacomo]

I find it curious that many people who profess little to no belief in God (or Christ) feel confident in asserting how Jesus would operate.

"Because he'd be a communist. Let's review Jesus' policies vs socialist policies."

While it's true that the early church was highly communistic, 1) they were so by extension of their gratitude (with what they'd been given) and 2) they were so willingly and gladly. To say "Jesus would be a communist" is a loaded statement given the nature and realities of our most recent examples of communistic societies. These bear little to no resembance to the early church.

The inference, then, that Jesus would disapprove of any other form of societal organization is somewhat of a non sequitur. To assume that because capitalism has faults (especially those of the predatory kind) it is thereby eliminated from WWJD territory is erroneous ... especially given the same could be said of all other types of government.

While it's true that Jesus warned of reliance on things of a temporal nature ("Do not store up treasures on earth"), he was also extremely practical (water to wine, feeding the 5000). We cannot under or over emphasize either of these attributes, for they tell us something about how Jesus would perceive Capitalism (and the USA). While Materialism is often a by-product of Capitalism, at its core lies the concept of finding success by serving (or providing a service to) your fellow man. This basis is heightened when that society also embraces freedoms and social welfare ideals, for without them the process eventually breaks down. The presence of evil capitalists and self-serving behaviors are not evidence of a "sinful" system, but of a broken people (or persons). People mature enough to handle ambiguity can cede as much ...

[North by Northwest]

Michael,

No solution, just understanding. I think we posted more or less parallel and in essence arrive at the same conclusions.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

North by Northwest.

Interesting post. So what do you suggest to 'solve' the situation?

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Ah how nice a completely irrelevant word-trick. As we say here you're comparing apples with pears. I'll try to explain why:

The problem is that a lot of Americans don't understand what 'true' liberalism is. I found this out the hard way; by saying 'yes I'm a liberal' - boooom. Severely under attack; from anti-american to more insulting stuff. So it is important for them to realize that when they engage in a debate with a european, they should be aware of what liberalism means in Europe, what it originally meant and what the differences are.
I agree that quite some so-called 'liberals' are in fact socialists. But the problem with that is that there are, on the other hand, 'true' liberals (in the world) as well. In other words: same word for 2 completely different idealogies.

That is why I tried to point out the difference. As a Liberal I find it very important that people grasp the true meaning of the word and call those people out who call themselves liberals, but who are in reality everything bút liberal.

"that you are entitled to opt for the historical meaning, rather than the current Ameerican meaning of "Liberal"

Again I understand your point but my point is that it is not just a 'historical meaning'. The 'historical meaning' of the word 'Liberal' still exists.
In The Netherlands for instance, the party I vote for, VVD, is traditionally thé Liberal party in The Netherlands. Their / our views are very similar to traditional American thinking.
Something interesting maybe; Liberalism, in essence, is very similar to conservatism in Europe - far most liberals are conservative.

So the point I am trying to make is actually not to 'attack' Alexandra. I am simply trying to make sure that the people who read this understand that 'liberalism' in the world / Europe, means an entire different thing than so many Americans have, suddenly, given to the word. Besides that her blog is being read by people all across the world, not just Americans, so I think there are more people who think like me about this subject. As I am sure Alexandra is able to tell you, liberalism in its true ('historical' as you call it) meaning of the word, is still very much alive in the Europe.

Lastly: As a Liberal it is hard to read how the word is completely being raped - I do not care who does it, point is that it ís being ripped of its true meaning.

[North by Northwest]

Michael,

Manifestos hardly ever change and they always sound great. But reality changes dramatically. Our society changes dramatically. Many things said here are of course absolutely true. There is just as much rot withing the ranks of the right as it is in the left. The best way to picture that is by the law of the big number. Any large grouping becomes more and more consistent in its statistical distribution. Hence any large party will have similar distribution of bad apples as the general population etc etc.

But that is not Alexandra's point. Hers is that our society is gravitating to the lowest common denominator, instead of striving to a higher goal. Hers is furthermore, that this higher goal has always been Religious in nature. Hers is that our forefathers have known that. They were obviously Christian, and as such bias to Christianity, but they were enlightened enough not to enshrine Christianity as a dictate.

Rather than getting hung up on definitions of political labels, the core of Alexandra's point is actually much deeper than partisan affiliation. She addressed the dynamic of action and reaction. Christian Values, very often in your face, as we tend to be with all things, demanding absolute submission and strict adherence to 'club-rules' versus Secular, I am my own temple, answerable to none, with inalienable rights and personal liberties, which, as long as I don't break any laws, nobody has to right to interfere with.

The irony is that both groups are actually kindred spirits in their dogmatic approach. Left in the cold are those of independent minds as they are in many ways 'cursed' to remain on the outside; either side's rules and regulations are far too rigid and far too shallow to actually allow for true individuality.

Just consider the success of a WallMart and Citi Bank. Revenues equal in size of small nations. Impossible to build were the American public not neatly boxed and tagged. Try anything out of the ordinary and you'll find at best empty faces and at worst quick 're-oriantation' instructions. America today is more akin to what Karl Marx describes as equality within the commune than any efforts of all communist and/or socialist regimes put together, past, present and likely future.

Downside. The system is the Golden Calf. It will take many decades for the people to work out in which direction they really want to go and then call a spade a spade, i.e. priority in life is spiritual growth or material growth. Only precious few will manage both and whilst remaining at heart equally true to both. Most pursue one and pay lip service to the other--not even consciously mind you.

[gringoman]

Gringoman,

To who are you talking to?

It is important for everybody to realize what Liberalism stands for, instead of saying 'it changed over time'. No it did not change. Liberalism is what once was. Small government, individual responsibility, separation of church and state, checks and balances..............

Michael Galien:

I'm talking to anybody who thinks "Liberalism" is not a word and not subject to the laws of semantics. My post, I thought, made it clear that you are entitled to opt for the historical meaning, rather than the current Ameerican meaning of "Liberal.' People are also entitled to opt for the historical meaning of 'gay,' as opposed to the current meaning of that word. Or maybe you think they must stick to the historical meaning of 'gay'?

[jeff]

And what's with the cartoon at the top of the post anyway? Secularists are evil clowns standing on the sun? I don't get it.
jeff

[Jeff]

Washington:
DavidByron beat me to answer your question and I yield to his response. I was thinking more about admonitions to care for the least of my brothers and sisters sounding rather socialist. I was not aware of his more "radical" preaching and agree Jesus would probably be a commie. That would make him completely unelectable, however, and would spoil my mini-series plan.
jeff

[DavidByron]

I rather suspect if Jesus were in Washington today, he would be a fiercely independant socialist. If you think not, why not?

Because he'd be a communist. Let's review Jesus' policies vs socialist policies.

(1) on capitalism - Jesus is against lending money at interest, the basis of capitalism (instead he'd insist that investors become direct partners in any business they would otherwise have lent money to and give freely to anyone in real need). Socialists don't go this far.

(2) ownership of production - Jesus says that every 25 years all the means of production should be divided equally between all the people and all debts forgiven (the year of Jubilee). That's far more radical than any socialist. In fact his ideas are even more radical than that but space forbids...

[Washington]

Michael:

I cannot alter how people view classic liberalism as opposed to what it means today in America. You have a blog-you can treat the subject with care. I know what Alexandra means and if she were to undertake to explain the different meanings of words as they relate to different regions of the world the blog would become a dictionary. Also-Reagan did not change the word liberal - leftists accomplished that-perhaps you might take it up with them. Read a history of left wing politics.

Jeff:

Since you proposed Jesus would be a socialist why don't you undertake to explain why?

Cheers!

[matt]

Nice demonstration of the inane thinking of those who have internalized the Ayn Rand/Limbaugh misconception of modern liberalism. Your cartoon version of reality is uninteresting.

[Jeff]

I find the comment that "liberalism", which is well defended in various posts, has morphed into a left wing (GASP!) socialism interesting. This is because, of course, socialism should be shunned, pounded, crushed, and neutered before it can affect our glorious and nearly perfect society. In line with WWJD, I rather suspect if Jesus were in Washington today, he would be a fiercely independant socialist. If you think not, why not?
jeff
PS: How he would deal with crooked lobbyists and back-stabbing politicos would make for an entertaining mini-series ("Mr. Jesus goes to Washington"?) if it weren't so blasphemous.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Gringoman,

To who are you talking to?

It is important for everybody to realize what Liberalism stands for, instead of saying 'it changed over time'. No it did not change. Liberalism is what once was. Small government, individual responsibility, separation of church and state, checks and balances.

Whether Reagan (or others) gave a different meaning to the word 'liberal' is irrelevant. Whether you, and others, use it for someting completely different is irrelevant. Know why? Because liberalism is an idea, an ages old idea. That idea does not cease to exist. It still exists. 'Real' liberals still exist. So when you're attacking liberalism, be sure you know anything about the true essence of liberalism.

[gringoman]

Liberal. Liberalism. Semantics. Sure, meaning changes over time. Students of language know this. You can try to resurrect the old meaning of liberalism from Locke, Hume, or even Jacques Chirac if you like. Fact remains that 'liberal' in the USA today has evolved to something closer to what would have been called 'Jacobin' in the 18th Century, especially with its pc Thought Police and "People" rhetoric and half-honest half-phoney pieties about "equality," (even Republicans jump on board to keep up with the 24/7 demogoguery.) You want to resurrect the old meaning of 'Liberalism," i,e, make it understood as a kind of 'Compassionate Conservatism'? Okay. Fine. And good luck.But while you're at it, on the battlefields of philology, could you also rescue another fine old English word: 'gay'?