As many of you know, Robin Burk started an in-depth discussion a while back in Who Owns God and Politics in the Blogosphere. As someone with a Master of Divinity degree from a Christian seminary, her points about keeping the doors open to other expressions of belief aren't casual and deserve to be taken seriously. This being Winds of Change.NET, they were.
It's a worthy topic. Over the past 20 years, I've seen the libertarian right become more receptive to arguments about the importance of the values that underpin the endurance of their freedoms. I've also seen quite a few social conservatives like Dignan here become more conscious of the importance of the freedoms that underpin the endurance of their values. As Os Guinness puts it, pithily:
"Freedom requires virtue. Virtue requires faith. Faith requires freedom."
So, how do we get there? I'd like to discuss that a bit, address Robin's subject, and show a different facet of Robert M.'s comment in Robin's thread because it may open a few eyes on both sides:
"...what is so scary to many moderate and liberal members of the left is the conviction of "rightness" on the part of the r/c [JK: "religious conservative"]. Even when we agree with the r/c over a particular issue their is a demand that we repent and become true believers. It's repugnant and offensive."
Robert isn't just right - he's really, really right. More than he knows, even.
Some Thoughts to Ponder if You're a Liberal or Secularist
I'll accept that some religious conservatives do behave the way Robert describes. It's a natural human instinct, and it sometimes gets out of control... we've all experienced the friend who discovers a new diet, or yoga, or whatever, and does pretty much the same thing. So I'm quite willing to believe that he's on the money here.
Here's something else that's on the money, though: Robert's quote is also an excellent explanation of why American Christian groups got so involved in politics in the first place. You see, they've been on the receiving end of that very dynamic for over 30 years now.
Religious conservatives watched liberals and the left envision and then use many public institutions (schools/universities, municipal services, etc.) in those exact terms: Repent of your faith, and become true believers in ours. Just to make sure, we'll put your kids through "sensitivity training" or whatever the fad of the day is to convince them we're right, all funded with your money. We'll also work to drive you from the public square, while celebrating other religious traditions as "diversity." Now throw in a dollop of snobbishness and hostility toward "unenlightened" religious people. Voila!
The inevitable reaction to all that in a country that still takes religion seriously didn't surprise me one iota. It still doesn't.
Even those us who didn't have that same kind of religious framework to defend have found these demands for repentence and conversion from the Left just as repugnant and offensive as Robert's observations would predict. Escaping it was difficult, so some of us turned on to political involvement, tuned in to opposing thinkers - and dropped out of liberalism. Here on the web, we've watched that same process unfold in real time on a number of blogs.
Which brings us to Tip #2: the cries of "theocracy!" aren't going to help.
First, because they're so nonsensical. - especially in a world where people can see, you know, real theocracies.
Second, because the math doesn't work. It'll shore up the base some among the white liberal latte set. It'll also give the GOP a big paved avenue to start working through people of faith, in order to carve great big chunks out of your Black and Latino base. And it will alienate people who share this insight:
"It was about this time people started calling The Public Interest a neoconservative magazine. I'm not sure that word still has meaning, but if there was one core insight, it was this: Human beings, or governments, are not black boxes engaged in a competition of interests. What matters most is the character of the individual, the character of the community and the character of government. When designing policies, it's most important to get them to complement, not undermine, people's permanent moral aspirations - the longing for freedom, faith and family happiness."
If you think that all those people are neocons, you're way detatched from your voting base. But we'll take it.
If liberalism and the left create the impression that squeezing religious groups out of any public role (in the most extreme manifestation, labeling people of faith unfit to serve in public office) and converting its kids away are de facto priorities, it kind of makes sense that those who feel targeted by this kind of "secular fundamentalism" would seek responses of both internal consolidation and external counter-conversion. Those are normal responses to friction between rival religions, each of which has "a jealous G-d", to use that quaint but misleading biblical translation.
I'll discuss the wisdom of those responses a bit later, but for now let's just accept that they exist.
You know, not too long ago the number of religious conservatives involved in American politics was far lower - and I suspect they would have been happy to keep it that way. Believe it or not, many still would.
I say this to our liberal friends with amusement, but without a trace of irony: perhaps it's worth asking yourselves "why do they hate/fear us?"... and removing the irritants in question.
If you want religious conservatives to trickle out of politics, and many of you do, that's how to see results. Or, you can do more of the same - and see more of the same in return.
Of course, I offer this advice knowing that the Left is pretty much incapable of taking it. But... think about it.
Some Thoughts for Religious Conservatives
In this case, I'm speaking as a libertarian-leaning conservative who nonetheless has firm religious beliefs and takes religion seriously. After migrating toward a more conservative political outlook around 20 years ago, I've also come to have more appreciation for what religious conservatives are trying to do and why.
Despite our remaining political disagreeents, I think that's a journey the GodBlogCon types might like to see more often. So I'm going to share a few insights based on the experience of going through that process.
I'll acknowledge up front my shared conviction that many on the liberal-left ARE hostile to religion and WILL use the power of the state to further that hostility. Y'all aren't making that up, and you aren't imagining things. With that said, the question remains: is the 'conversion' that Robert described in his quote necessary for your purposes? Or is it just an example the same attitude I described above - the very attitude that drove so many religious and even non-religious people into politically active opposition?
Does that outcome help with what you're trying to accomplish?
As an alternative, I could envision a moral, proper, and winning program built around 2 pillars: (1) Insistence on genuine tolerance for and balanced public portrayals of the religious lifestyle; plus (2) A battle to define and drive a broad set of common values in concert with interested coalition partners, without requiring common beliefs or the achievement of salvation by members.
As my points in comment #8 of Robin's post noted, these 2 pillars could become the central tenets of an asymetrical response that seeks to brings others into your conversation space first and foremost... because only then can they become open to deeper conversations and really hear what you have to say.
Those conversations will be many-way discussions, of course, not even 2-way. Indeed, they must be many-way conversations and should be structured that way from the outset. Why? For 3 reasons:
First of all, it needs to be a many-way discussion because anything that sounds like "God is owned by one denomination" divides those who are interested in a moral society with a strong foundation of principles - at the very time when they need to stand together more than ever.
There are other people of many faiths who share many of your values and concerns. They ought to be welcomed into the discussion. "GodBlogCon" is fine, IMO, but there should have been a wider invite list to make the above point clear and build a better foundation.
Don't leave your friends outside the door, it isn't nice OR smart.
Second, it needs to be a many-way discussion because ethics may be guided by faith, but politics is a matter of works at its deepest heart. It's possible to harmonize that, but NOT by collapsing the conflict to "faith, always." While I'd agree that your personal choices must be guided by faith, political coalitions are guided by works. Which means they aren't about conversion to a faith, just acceptance of common principles around specific issues, followed by agreed-upon action.
That your source is Chrstianity is great. Please talk about that, and highlight the connection between virtue and faith, especially faith as a source of continuous refreshment through the generations. But just as liberty is G-d's gift to all mankind, the values and virtues you seek to reinforce are the same kind of gift. Those who uphold them with you in whatever fashion are worthy of honour, and they make what you're trying to do easier. Appreciate them more.
Thus groweth the tent, that we may stand together. Of many beliefs, but one heart.
Third, those conversations need to be many-way because your allies will want to be listened to and taken seriously... just as you yourself will want to be listened to and taken seriously by them. Once that happens, they'll hear some wisdom that they might not have been expecting - and so will you.
For instance, I have some values of my own around science that I'd like y'all to pay close attention to. I think those scientific values are bound up with the very foundation of America's political order in a way that goes every bit as deep as the Judeo-Christian tradition, and that this binding protects and defends religious conservatives to this day.
You say that 'values' cut off from their religious roots are like cut flowers that must wither in time and perish - and I agree.
I say that this is also true in the case of science. There are important values that have science at their root, and the principles and obligations they uphold are things you value deeply.
I think it might behoove you to listen to that, and to be more cautious about taking swings at science, lest you injure more than you bargained for. Just as you (correctly) point out that it might behoove some libertarian types to be more cautious about being careless with the moral legacy and foundation upon which the durability of their political freedoms ultimately rests.
Can we talk about that, too? I hope so.
UPDATES:
- Can science and faith in a divine creator be reconciled? How? And why does this matter? Divine Evolution... explores the topic, and explains why creationism that denies science is a spiritual ripoff as well.
- Or perhaps you'd rather listen to a parable. A true one, as it happens. Meet Dr. Mordecai Haffkine, The Holy Scientist.
Hear, Hear!
As liberty oriented conservative who happens to be religious, and attending GodBlogCon, I've often felt outside the range of acceptability in circles of religious conservatives, and far from being tolerated in the secular left. I'm attending GBC to lead a technology session, and while I admire many of the speakers attending, the religious affirmation required to attend was concerning, even as someone of faith. It isn't my faith that I blog, it's my values, reason and thought, or so I hope.
Perhaps future efforts will expand to a larger audience. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Joe, I think science gets the short end-- we scient types are small in number and have no real constiuency to back us.
In an argument with my friend Dymphna (definite religious conservative) at my blog over ESC research, she said:
Thing is, Jinn, there seem to be two kinds of people: mechanics and farmers. Mechanics want to tinker with stuff; farmers plant seeds and then let it happen (w/ a little husbandry here and there). Anyway...one's a fixer, one's a watcher. Sounds like this Leon Kass tends toward the farmer category, while you, my girl, are in there with your ratchet, taking things apart and making them run better.
As a farmer, I would suggest: slower, please.
What I really want, as a scient type, is for no one to mess with my rachet!
And, Joe, in case you are wondering how I reconcile this with my interest in Judaism, I view Judaism as an infinitely superior sort of memetic rachet. ;)
Don't equviocate science with leftism-- the hard sciences are loaded with conservatives and libertarians, and to a man (or woman) we reguard Noam Chomsky with horrified, incredulous loathing.
"GodBlogCon" is fine, IMO, but there should have been a wider invite list to make the above point clear and build a better foundation.
While I know that you make this suggestion with the best of intentions, I have to point out that Catholics and Protestants continually face criticism whenever they try to draw a line around their identity, and are made to feel that asserting their identity is inherently exclusionary - even threatening. And to be a Catholic or a Protestant is to have a definite identity, and very many people came to this country in order to have the freedom to live in accordance with a spiritual identity. And very many people (some of them Christians - you can look it up) have fought and died to preserve that freedom.
This criticism does not only come from secular society. I'd be willing to bet that many of the participants in this Con have seen their own churches watered down and parceled out to make them more acceptable to secular and political critics. They have been made to feel like chauvinists for not accomodating (within their own churches) points of view that would be more appropriate to atheism, agnosticism, or another religion entirely.
They also feel that this is a requirement not imposed on other faiths, and they're right. Christianity is openly attacked as "majoritarian culture" - which is borrowing the logic of the Symbionese Liberation Army, IMO, but if it has to be employed, it could at least be employed with the recognition that majoritarians have rights, too.
Still, I know you don't fear conspiracy (though plenty of others will) and are only suggesting that the whole project would benefit from a wider participation. But "wider participation" seems to be the only kind of participation Christians are allowed to have.
There are things that mainline Christians could profitably discuss among themselves as Christians, without having to justify their identity to others at the same time. Not the least of these issues is continuing the healthy trend towards ecumenicalism and tolerance for other faiths. Confronting the havoc of politics, pseudo-science, and anti-secularism within the churches is another. Rationalizing their response to a secular challenge - in which they are the prime target - is another.
So let there be many conferences, with widening ripples of participation and inter-faith dialogue. But don't begrudge them this one.
Faith is by definition not “testable”, for all but the most epistemologically confused. No means of discourse, nor coercion, has been discovered which will reliably secure the conversion of the “heretic”. Fortunately, the reconciliation of faiths, with even a modicum of earthly tolerance, may at least await the eschaton.
The adepts of the secular “faiths” brook no such postponement.
Is Liberty “testable”? Jefferson thought not: “We hold these truths to be self evident…” The secular mirror of the ecumenical project would thus seem similarly doomed. I fear sometimes we Liberals have grown dependent on the tactic of playing one illiberal faction off against another, and have lost the aptitude for evangelism – as distinct from preaching, for which we’ve attained a degree of notoriety…
>>Don't equviocate science with leftism-- the hard sciences are loaded with conservatives and libertarians, and to a man (or woman) we reguard Noam Chomsky with horrified, incredulous loathing.
Regarding Noam Chomsky with "horrified, incredulous loathing" eh? How very scientific.
Noam makes many arguments that I find implausible, but some of what he says is difficult to dispute. His commitment to the Principle of Universality is certainly stronger than most of those here. I find this quite ironic, given his lack of "faith".
A serious question: If Bush justified his political beliefs through his faith in Zeus, would there be a national crisis? Why or why not?
T.J. tch tch...you are a bit behind the times-- Universal Grammer is under attack by the sociobiologists, led by Steven Pinker.
And we deeply resent Chomsky's attempt to use his (soon to decline) stature in the field of linguistics as a platform for his idiotic political views.
Apologia for Pol Pot? Abuse me!
Certainly Chomsky's science is open to question -- it's science. I'm pleased to hear that Noam's work has indeed been superceded by more accurate models. Any gloating over discoveries of weaknessess in Chomsky's science by Chomsky's political opponents are just as sophisitcated as phrases like, "That Idiot Aristotle."
Chomsky's political views are based on two simple principles:
1. Universality -- What's wrong for others is wrong for us. If it's wrong for Al-Qaeda to murder innocent people, it's wrong for us to do so as well.
2. Efficiency -- When fighting evil, one should start with the evil that's easiest to fix, notably that evil that is nearby.
Chomsky has made errors in the application of these principles. His economic notions in particular would likely lead to disaster, IHMO. However, most of the anti-Chomsky fervor seems to revolve around his application of the above principles to foreign policy. I find this particularly amusing since many of his critics seem to also be followers of George Bush's favorite philosopher.
Though a conversation about Chomsky is always great fun, somehow I bet Joe didn't intend this thread to become one.
How right lurker is.
Ixnay on the Omskychay, please.
Joe,
What an excellent post, and what a good topic to introduce.
Many of us acknowledge that there is this widening gap, ravine almost, opening between the two sides. This situation challenges each of us who recognize it, and it seems to me we only have three options.
1. Say "fare thee well" to those who face us on the other side of the divide, and pray (or hope) something external (divine or natural) might intervene before they meet the fate we secretly wish for them. This does not accord with the Author and Finisher of my faith, "shake the dust from my sandals" notwithstanding.
2. Walk down our side of the ravine and climb back up on the other side. This is out of the question, unless our beliefs are of such shallow depth as to not be worth holding.
3. Call out to or even throw a line to those on the other side, and try to enter into some kind of conversation. This option is most difficult, especially given the rancor and distrust, but anything else is a variation on 1 or 2.
If we hurl insults and accusations, we are as much surrending the other side to the fate we expect for them, for they will certainly turn away or dig the chasm deeper. If we compromise away our faith, we are climbing down into the ditch, and may convince ourselves we climb back out but that's an illusion.
There is no alternative but to try for a civil discussion and seek those elements of consensus that we can share. We may end up still separated, but the chasm will be a little shallower, the distance to the other side a little closer, such that by some positive influence and modeling love and mercy, some might jump the distance. (And we will have made a brother or sister in the end.)
This post is featured at SmartChristian Blog.
Andy
Dadmanly, there is another position besides the two edges of the chasm. It's one I hold and one Joe holds too, IIUC.
And that is the position of faith that is not dismayed by serious, hard science or otherwise by human reason and dissenting opinion - and not undercut by it either.
I'd be willing to bet that many of the participants in this Con have seen their own churches watered down and parceled out to make them more acceptable to secular and political critics. They have been made to feel like chauvinists for not accomodating (within their own churches) points of view that would be more appropriate to atheism, agnosticism, or another religion entirely
I understand Glen's point here - I've seen this phenomenon up close. However, I have to say that IMO a mindless rejection of science - which I have ALSO seen up close - repels me and does not seem to me to be based so much on faith as on fear. Some of that fear is of technological and other changes. Some is, sometimes, a fear that one's faith can't ultimate bear close scrutiny.
I'm troubled when a school board in Kansas pushes creationism as an alternative to evolution. I'm also troubled by some of the stances taken by the Kass bio-ethics commission, in part because I don't think they've been well-articulated and communicated to the wider public.
And while I certainly know that many strongly believing Christians are not dominionists seeking to impose by force a set of laws and rules they consider to be God's will, I also know that some DO in fact desire to do just that.
Such an effort is one I will personally oppose, and precisely from a stance of faith.
Joe,
An excellent post! I like Marvin above and the 36 other Christian individuals registered so far for the GodBlogCon 05 conference are looking forward to the opportunity to meet bloggers who share the same faith. While I can understand that the group may seem limiting from a religious perspective outside of the Christian faith, as a Christian I am excited that it is NOT a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Assembly of God, Catholic, etc. conference, but a Christian one. That alone is a major accomplishment for us Christians to come together. Since this is the first convention of its type that I am aware of, I think it is fitting that we meet together in communion as fellow believers (I am not talking about the sacrament of communion).
However, I strongly agree that bloggers of shared religious beliefs should band together, much as the Jewish and Christian communities have increasingly done over topics of mutual importance. Judeo-Christian principles unite us strongly, and we have far more in common than divides us.
I would be excited to see a Jewish version of GodBlogCon (I know that there is controversy over Christians using the name GodBlogCon for their conference, but IMO it wasn't an intentional slight) and hopefully in the future a cross type convention as you suggest.
Thank you for your thoughtful post to both sides of the spectrum. It is important for us to all respect each other's viewpoints and values and look for common ground regardless of our religious views. That doesn't mean we water down what anyone holds dear, but where there is common ground, much progress can be made and all can benefit.
Kind regards,
Bill Rice
I've been thinking this over, and while it's not doing JK justice, I have to say that those of us who never rejected their religion, and find that its principles are played out in liberal activism, are most put off from the evangelicals because of the unchristian behavior they exhibit. 'Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall see God' (Beatitudes) doesn't equate with congressional unethical behavior which calls itself christian and embodies might makes right schema. And proclaims that this country is being returned by them to its christian heritage. Some of us actually believe Christ's teachings and their embrace of all mankind.
Okay, I'll think it over some more.
But I have a dear friend who has twice now been provisionally given a position in a government agency where he found himself surrounded by uber right wing - and the provisional turned into a firm hiring only when the position was filled by a likeminded hiree. (He isn't going to turn into a devotee, isn't attracted at all by this hypocrisy.)
While I cannot take issue with the general thesis of this post, I sincerely question it's practicality. I believe that the initial precept, reaching out to the secular left on the basis of shared values, is an impossible condition.
I will grant you that there are people who consider themselves to be moderate leftists, people who habitually vote Democratic, and who, if they think about issues at all, agree with the interpretations of the MSM, who are not necessarily secular and who may be persuaded to enter into some form of dialogue.
On the other hand, the ideological foundations of modern leftism reside in the Communist teachings of the 1960s. Academia, particularly the academia of liberal arts, has been the stronghold of Communist thought since before WWII. Communist ideology CANNOT coexist with a religious environment, of any stripe. Moral relativism is a central tenet of Communism, which makes a mockery of any hope of shared values with the religious community. And please remember that Communism is the end state of Socialism, which is what some 60% of the elected members of the Democratic Party adhere to.
As I suggested above, it may be possible to reach out to people who habitually (and probably unthinkingly) vote Democratic and perhaps forge some sort of shared relationship. I do not believe that it will be possible to establish any meaningful dialogue with the ideological center of the left any more than with militant Islam.
As ye do unto the least of these my little ones so do ye also unto me ... sounds like Karl Marx to some ears.
not promising grounds for a dialogue, is it.
"I do not believe that it will be possible to establish any meaningful dialogue with the ideological center of the left any more than with militant Islam."
congratulations on your voter.
Ruth, you might consider that hypocrisy is not solely a conservative trait, and that we are a lot more sensitive to hypocrisy in those we disagree with.
(I could bring up examples, but I doubt they would bring more light than heat. But if you want them, just ask; I'm sure some people could provide a long list.)
I could decide to hold liberal activist hypocrisy against you, just as you hold conservative activist hypocrisy against the "evangelicals". Instead, I'm trying to encourage you to not demonize those you disagree with, as is JK.
Ruth: "As ye do unto the least of these my little ones so do ye also unto me ... sounds like Karl Marx to some ears."
I can imagine the look on Marx's face at this unscientific expression of utopian socialism. He might have thrown a teapot at your head.
One of the problems of approaching a dialogue with the left about religion is that the left has an immediate instinct to confound Church and State. (Two great things that taste great separately.) And then to confound State with quasi-Marxism.
OK Robin I'll bite. Why should we teach either?
As for science I agree that it is not to be ignored. I've heard and read it before and it does bear repeating. Science seeks neither to prove or disprove the existence of God. That is not the role of science and I think many are challenged by the perception that it undermines their faith and religion. This in fact couldn't be farther from the truth. Listen to what science tells us about the origins of life and the universe. It has no strong hold in what it preaches other than faith in what people will believe. For all we know it is all fabrication.
Glen excellent point. Robin pointed to Thomas Paine's Common Sense in some earlier posts. It would do well to read some of the other publications located at the bottom of the page as they deal with this subject as well. Debate Space has an ongoing discussion Moral Frameworks and Where They Come From that gets to this debate in a round about manner.
USMC,
Because creationism is not science. Science requires a falsifiable hypothesis. Creationism doesn't have that. QED.
If you teach it, therefore, it needs to be taught as religion.
You can't bring a baseball bat onto the basketball court... and read the link about scientific values again, carefully, in order to understand just how much damage is done by trying.
Joe
So your point is because evolution has a falsifiable hypothesis it should be taught? Please explain. I for one fail to see the logic. Were I to argue creationism in the light as evolution would you buy it?
Hi, all. Sorry for taking so long to reply - it's graduation weekend for us.
USMC, IMO what should be taught is the theory of evolution as a theory, ie. what it is intended to explain, how it has matured and what the open questions are. Plus - what it doesn't attempt to explain.
As to WHY teach it - because it's science's best way so far to explain what we see around us, which is what science does. And because the habits of thinking scientifically are useful to citizens in a democracy, both at a practical level (we prosoper economically when we have a well-educated workforce) and politically, as citizens think carefully about what the evidence for an opinion might be and whether there is counter evidence etc.
USMC,
You can teach creationism, as far as I'm concerned. Just tell the truth - teach it as religion. What I object to is lying about it and calling it science, in order to lend it science's credibility without earning that credibility through the scientific method. To be false in that way is not only unscientific - I believe it's also un-Christian (and un-Jewish, and...).
To understand WHY that would be a knowing falsehood, you may need to upgrade your understanding of what science is and how it works. Creationism has an hypothesis that cannot be falsified. It is not going to come back and say: "shucks, sorry, we've looked at the evidence. We can't prove G-d exists, and there's no evidence that he created the world directly. We were all wrong. Our bad."
But if it can't imagine itself doing that, it isn't science. No buts.
Evolution is an incredibly useful theory with a lot of evidence behind it, but so was Newton's mechanics, and parts of it have been replaced.
Read Bronowski - and Feynman - again from the links above, to clarify this point... because it's a big part of the civilization you live in and defend, and what makes it great. Its effects also extend wayyy beyond just science.
Messing with that is like playing with a UNIX root folder - you can't undermine that without consequences. Just as science, economics, and governance all rest on a public moral foundation that is largely a religious inheritance, and can't be undermined without consequences, either.
P.S. FWIW, I believe G-d created the universe, and that the universe remains G-d's creation. G-d didn't just push the "start" button and walk away. I also accept and would teach evolution, for all the reasons above - and more. I'm going to spare you my theological rant about why I think creationism is also borderline blashphemy/ idolatry and a roadblock to spiritual progress... it probably wouldn't be productive. But you should grok that my beef with creationism as espoused straddles both sides of my soul, and goes deep on both sides.
[JK: Raymond, note comment #9]
Scientifically in regard to morality ?
Ahh yes the commies are always so scientific when practicing their religion of mass murder.
Back to ..
The quote above smacks of the postmodern brain dysfunction,, that objective truth dont exist, facts are reduced to mere opinion, right and wrong dont exist,, and so presto the left is no longer guilty of 100+ Million murders. and can get on with creating their blood stained dystopia without having to take the blame for their damnable horrific works.
No, there is right and wrong, Objective truth and facts are those things unaffected by opinion or emotion .. the opinion, emotion and virdict of the truth borne out by fact, comes after the facts, truth is a discovery, not an invention.
To ask a good man to accept evil in part is not asking for "fairness".
Speed and Mass are often relative, but the virdict self evident about the lefts mountain of skulls is an absolute. The world of reality is full of absolutes.
The "r/c"s are right about some things, those things, are correct regardless of the number of,, or the total non existence of, those that accept them as objective truth.
Considering "repugnant and offensive", a demand that reality be accepted, is simply the denial of reality.
And anyone that says they have not seen the left reject self evident objective reality, either hasnt been watching or is doing that very thing.
And untill they do, they are not part of a real conversation, but are living in an imaginary world with no fixed point to support a debate.
They are windborne, adrift, where fact is a fabrication and opinion is meritless.
The reason they do this is they must dodge the inferior to horrific results of their actions, they escape what they did in reality by escape into unreality.
Murder mountain is an automatic side effect of their scientific socialism, holocaust repeated itself among the entire spectrum of peoples geographies and cultures, science itself rarely offers such damning proof among such a wide spectrum of conditions.
Leftism requires the all powerfull state, it creates the all powerfull state, and once you have the all powerfull state, you are one despot or need of a scapegoat away from holocaust.
The left are not the only creator of the all powerfull state, but they are the most deadly and horrific form of it. Of all of the examples of inhumanity to man, theirs is the par exemplar.
So this fellow who sees a demand to accept objective truth as "repugnant and offensive" ..... isnt even half way to reality.
He is a galaxy away from accepting what the r/c's get right, because he has not yet even looked at what the left got wrong, even with their 100+ Million skulls they see no problem.
They cant admit the very thing resposible for the 100+ Million murders because correcting that evil removes the very enforcing mechanism that subugates the Socialist slave. The power to commit holocaust is a mandantory component of the leftist religion or it will not function.
And since they cannot fix it, they must deny it, and the virdict of history, and that leaves no room for the left to stand in this reality.
So they live in a manufactured reality unhindered by objective truth or facts the lessons of history and its moral virdicts of right and wrong.
So welcome to the postmodern leftist neverland, a domain of denial, delusion, and words with no meaning.
Filled with those that find us "repugnant and offensive",,, because we refuse to let go of objective truth. refuse to pull up our anchors, refuse to blur our distinctions, we refuse to accept evil by half.
Because for us, there is a here and no further, and that line will be the same tomorrow, as it was yesterday. Those that crossed, We refuse to follow.
This conflict isnt about accepting creationism vs evolution. and it isnt about the lefts rejection of theistic religion.
No, its because we refuse to accept the leftist religion, a religion damned by history. a religion as anti-freedom as Fanatical Islam.
And its Freedom and liberty that is actual focus of all this contention, there are those that want to reclaim what was lost, and those that want to take away that which we have left.
Behold the Leftist crusade.
Can the leftist religion be reformed ?
Perhaps, but the Hitler/Den Xao Peng "Third Way" isnt it. All it does is enable the leftist all powerfull state to get all the more all powerfull.
Its state power increasing and the Right of the Individual decreasing, that is the danger. its the key factor, the critical enabler, of state evil, of Death by Government.
The Superior American principle of a limited goverment and the Soverien individual, is just that, Superior, in every way you can measure.
While the left is proven by famine misery decline opression failure and holocaust to be the most inferior, of all the inferiors.
The American Individualist Liberty proven the best of the best, and the left the worst of the worst.
Thats why the left live in their unreality and why the pious among them look on us as "repugnant and offensive".
As to: "One of the problems of approaching a dialogue with the left about religion is that the left has an immediate instinct to confound Church and State. (Two great things that taste great separately.) And then to confound State with quasi-Marxism."
Interesting convolution, responding to my response to John F's response to my response to JK's thesis, John f then denominating liberalism as communism via socialism. The teapot would have to hit another head or two first before mine, in the 'dialogue' entered. The original confounding of Church and State in this particular thread started with the basis stated.
What has developed in an in-depth discussion of teaching of evolution points to another aspect of this confusion of C&S, that the schools should teach what the party in power prefers. Shouldn't the schools then teach that that (POLITICS) is why it is being taught? perish the thought. Sounds like traditional communism to me. Yep, both sides can throw darts and insults about the others' beliefs. Not dialogue, is it?
The "Inteligent Design" observations are quite scientific however, and remains so as long as you allow the designer to be "Little Green men" as well as a diety.
As for me, I can see Gods hand in the universe, and the nature of the work thereof, its the nature of God himself that seems out of science reach.
But it isnt the origin of the earth and man that the left is in contention for, its the destruction of the foundation of the western freedom culture, and with its defeat the capture and capitivity of man, that is the object they seek.
Its the reason the moral is condemed and the perverse is exalted, and all the other inversions pushed by them at the public.
Immoral man incompetent with his freedom will beg for his own enslavement, and that is the goal.
Ruth -
Actually I had more in mind your earlier statement "'Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall see God' (Beatitudes) doesn't equate with congressional unethical behavior which calls itself christian and embodies might makes right schema."
I don't know which congress you're referring to, but the one we have in my country is not supposed to call itself Christian, or make pretense of representing Christianity, or force some idea of Christianity (hopefully not Karl Marx's) on everybody else. That's why we have the Establishment Clause.
You talk about Christian principles being played out in liberal activism. That's fine for you, but not everyone sees it that way - even if we did, it is not constitutional to make public policy that way. Furthermore, I don't often see liberals making positive use of Christian principles in this fashion. Instead, I see them using some partial interpretation of Christianity to accuse other people of being unchristian and hypocritical. As you demonstrated.
Besides, the "Social Gospel" has zero credibility, because its infinitely elastic logic is abused beyond belief. Anybody who doesn't vote for massive tax hikes, or Senator Gump's Highway Bill, is told they have no right to call themselves Christian. And so on and so on.
There is a bloke who has a tag-line of I am relgious conservative; just not the religion you think it is... he's on the Pagan Conservative yahoo list Remember there are Pagans as well who find the secularisation and extreme left thrust against them not to their liking. Of course, instead of embraching them many Christians seem to like to have a good bash at them at any opportunity. It really should not matter what religion you are if are on-side; but it does seem to matter a lot.
I agree that creationism can be taught...as long as its taught as religion not science. Its clearly not a science at all.
Raymond... #26 was tight (in the musical sense of the term). #24, not so good.
Aside from length and veering into an off-topic subject I had requested we avoid, you misread the quote. Note: "Even when we agree with the r/c over a particular issue..." - so a lot of your criticism doesn't apply to what he said.
Good point from Rummel on Marxism, though, which should indeed be taught as religion. Nothing scientific about it - it's a cargo-cult version of "science" in the same way creationism is. Indeed, nothng exposes Marxism's "scientific" claims as the lie they are more clearly than Marxists' reactions to the results of the experiment (denial, the pleading of exception every time, and finally an assault on the notion of Truth itself).
Incidentally, USMC, this is also a good example of why it's important to maintain those scientific foundations I was talking about. Once the foundations of The Habit of Truth, falsifiability, et. al. are compromised or discarded, that society is much more open to exploitation by other faiths that may be far less beign.... for society as a whole, and for practicing Christians in particular.
AID,
Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about. In the realm of faith, a guy like this is anathema to an ethical monotheist.
In the political realm of shared values and works, he's an ally. An uneasy ally, granted... but an ally.
To see why, substitute the specific word "Hindu" for "Pagan", and consider the Desi community and the issues many of its members have with modern "anything goes" culture. Hindus are, by ethical monotheist standards, pagans. But ignoring them isn't smart when the foundations are under attack and every hand is needed in the realm of works. If that foundation goes - I mean really goes - we are all of us screwed, and so is the world. Works now, common values now, and if we succeed we'll have all the space and time in the world for debates.
Just Ben Franklin common sense here:
"We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately."
Joe / Robin
Thanks for your observations and explanations. My intended point was to bring out on the table the elephant in the room. [R/C] Creationism versus Evolution analysis and the faults of each. As you and Robin have indicated both should be taught within the parameters of their highlighted faults. Neither should be taught as a dictatorial concerning the origins of the universe and all living things within. This I am not averse to. Never have been and never will be. It makes no difference to me if one is taught under religion and the other under science. All points of view must be exposed.
Robin makes the most compelling argument as to why both should be taught and not one over the other. In a society where it is imperative for all to understand one another, especially the fringes, it requires we look at the parameters that define them. A major stumbling block of the fringe (Creationism / Evolution) is they view each other as enemies that seek to undermine and destroy their personal beliefs. Given this view each fringe seeks to destroy the foundations of the other, be it physically or by fiat is of little difference to each. Whether or not evolutionist is an appropriate word to describe the opposition of [R/C] creationism is debatable.
I personally don't want either side of the fringes holding the reins of government. IMO one doesn't have to look far to see the results of each. The core question for those squarely in the middle is how to address the issue. For those in the middle it isn't difficult to be labeled a creationist / evolutionist by the fringe when you agree with part or partial of either side of the equation. It is the center that becomes the objective or target of the fringe. Are their those with creationist / evolutionist beliefs in the center? IMO absolutely and the center is where I tend to reside.
I Reject the notion that there is a pair of opposite equals,
It sullys one polarity with a smear they dont deserve, and denies the evil blackness of the other.
And i dont need to state which is which, as everyone already knows.
The Christian ethic created the most just and benevolent society that has ever existed, and provided the moral foundation on which all stood to address its own remaining inequities.
The other has wrought the more horrible hell on earth that has ever existed, and imposed conversion to the leftist orthadoxy on pain of death.
Beware the leftist perverion that has labeled the foundation of our freedom as "fringe".
Raymond, USMC isn't using leftism as one of his poles because he's talking about something else.
Sometimes, it really doesn't boil down to right vs. left... there are other dichotomies too in the world, and some of them matter.
Glen: okay, you confused me by quoting from the later post if you were actually refering to the earlier one.
As to which congress, the one that just reconvened to pass an extreme r/c right-to-life measure and then got pretty ugly - or a good number of leadership did - about the courts and judges. Then said that wasn't a good thing. That one.
as to:
"I don't often see liberals making positive use of Christian principles in this fashion [make public policy]. Instead, I see them using some partial interpretation of Christianity to accuse other people of being unchristian and hypocritical. As you demonstrated.
Besides, the "Social Gospel" has zero credibility, because its infinitely elastic logic is abused beyond belief. Anybody who doesn't vote for massive tax hikes, or Senator Gump's Highway Bill, is told they have no right to call themselves Christian.'
?????Don't know where you're coming from there.
But As JK and JL have given a bit of a wishful guidance here, will avoid using what seems somewhat unfounded accusations from Glen W. to personify all thinkers of his stripe.
And agree with JK, that sometimes it doesn't all boil down to right v. left. Or particular race, creed, color, educational background, level of affluence, and mental/or habits. It happens that issues can have their own values on occasion.
He certainly dont think he does, as for me, I always look at motive, its just as important to know why as well as what.
The left didnt push Christian morality out of and sexual peversion and hedonism into,,, schools because they was concerned about the progress of science in america.
The History books was replaced by indoctrinaton manuals of self hatered and glorification of backward cultures for a reason.
What the r/c's want, if you listen to them, is to get the fed out of the schools, to turn back and disrupt this program
Of course Ill admit I still might be getting, what he is getting at wrong, look how I fudged the meaning a bit of the quote above, and on that, mea culpa.
But I would also ask that we look at the motivator for this demand that the majority accede to the "sensitivities" of a minority to the extent that the minority control how the majority lives.
You have no right of freedom from offense from others in the exersize of the same rights that you have, the remedy is the freedom to vote with your feet. not to dictate a majority has no right to the rule of themselves (and not you).
If some town in Kansas wants to teach their kids the Eqyptian creation myth then thats their business. The fed inserted itself into the schools and now to controls them. now that a minority has discovered the federal encrochment, they are using this invasion to assert a control that should not exist.
This federal takeover must be reversed, the dictate of the fringe thrown off, and the Liberty of peoples to decide how they want to live restored.
The Christian ethic that underpins American Freedom and western Liberty threw off control of religion by the state, and the states restriction of it is equally offensive as the states imposition of it.
It is a prohibition of "the free exercise thereof"
The bribe of federal money and then the assertion of federal control is used to impose the cultural marxist brainwash program,, to destroy the core foundation of our freedom, and the entire project must be reversed.
We went from school shooting ranges to school shootings, from prayer to forced accepence of perversion and hedonism, from order and displine to what we have today.
And we intend to dismantle of of it, schools will be returned to direct local control, vouchers will be passed, a private system will emerge with parent choice determining whos schools fail and whos succeeds, and the federal system will be allowed to dry up till it is no more.
Ruth: the one that just reconvened to pass an extreme r/c right-to-life measure and then got pretty ugly
This sort of characterization is exactly what I'm talking about. That "extreme" measure was supported by a large number of Democrats, including a large number of black liberal Christians (in and out of congress). The unsuccessful Florida measure was likewise supported by many Democrats and black Christians - and was foiled by a bloc of Republicans, incidentally.
Obviously not every Christian feels obligated to play off your sheet music. And yet you feel free to pronounce "unchristian behavior" on all of them. But is that according to Jesus Christ, or Harry Reid?
You say that "issues can have their own values on occasion." I really have to disagree with that, because I regard it as an expression of dogmatism. People have values, which they follow according to their own character - not always wisely and never perfectly. In this manner we have all fallen short of the Glory of God.
I'm not so interested in the government teaching religion, whether it be creationism or comparative studies. I take my religion a little too seriously for that and the public schools have a difficult enough time with more objective studies. But mainly I believe that if my kids grow up to equate religion with creationism and science with evolution, there will probably be a 50/50 chance that when they are bright enough to start making their own choices they will reject religion altogether.
glenw: you claim I am accusing all of 'unchristian behavior', from the statement: "I have to say that those of us who never rejected their religion, and find that its principles are played out in liberal activism, are most put off from the evangelicals because of the unchristian behavior they exhibit" - so I guess you're defining evangelicals who display uncristian behavior as 'all'?
We have gone back a forth a couple of times, and while I am willing to speak to specific events, issues, whatever, I have been unable to see what you are talking about - you have shown a tendency to take a statement I have not made, or a generality that as far as I can tell comes out of the blue (e.g. "I don't often see liberals making positive use of Christian principles in this fashion [make public policy]. Instead, I see them using some partial interpretation of Christianity to accuse other people of being unchristian and hypocritical. As you demonstrated.
Besides, the "Social Gospel" has zero credibility, because its infinitely elastic logic is abused beyond belief. Anybody who doesn't vote for massive tax hikes, or Senator Gump's Highway Bill, is told they have no right to call themselves Christian.') and use it as a basis for answering me.
Obviously, you are working from some preconceived notion about what I think or say, and I am not familiar with it. Should I meet some one/ones who display/s the notions you seem to be reacting to, I will certainly refer them to you for your discussion.
Ruth: I guess you're defining evangelicals who display uncristian behavior as 'all'?
Of course it was you yourself who defined specific people in a specific instance as displaying unchristian behavior.
"I don't often see liberals making positive use of Christian principles in this fashion"
And no, I still don't see this. Give me a recent example. Give me an example that makes no reference to Republicans, George Bush, or religious conservatives - one that is affirming, not negating.
Yes affirming a persons right to his life is depicted as "extreme" by the extreme death cultists.
If Roe is overturned, putting the issue back in front of the voters to decide, I wonder how they would describe the majority ballot, that at the very least, would ban late term abortion in most states, that which the public already views as infanticide, baby killing.
We would certainly see who was really outside the majority, and extreme.
The extremists who call the normals extremists, expose their own lie, because they do not want the public to have its say in the matter.
Thats why they depend so much on leftist wackjob judges like Ruth Ginsburg
To get forced on the public, what would never have support, if the voters was allowed to decide.
Joe
Thank you - at least you seem to understand where I am coming from and what I'm talking about. I don't want a legislative, judicial, executive branch full of Pat Robertson's any more than I want Andy Rooney's. I think we can all understand why. To suggest the [R/C] or the left (what should we call the comparable? [NR/NC] non-religious non-conservative) wants our government to be stacked in their favor leaves out the core of the middle (which I believe is substantially larger than what is given credit). This is why politicians play to their core then scramble to the middle to obtain a vote come election time.
To suggest that either fringe holds the right answer and is always the keeper of such is pure folly. I hope Raymond misunderstood and I have clarified to some extent what I see as the key issue. A pair of opposite equals they are not in fact they are in the same boat and don't realize it. The misnomer is the right has been unjustly tagged as being totally [R/C]. One substitutes the almighty God as an means to an end and the other substitutes the state as a stand in for almighty God.
As long as we in the middle [independent] let ourselves be defined by the fringes we are likely to suffer the ills of both sides. My issue is not against religion it is against religious zealots. It is not against non-religion it is against the non-religious zealots.
PD Shaw
I don't want the government teaching religion and I don't want the government teaching science either. The government will twist either one or the other to suit their wants and needs. The government that governs best is one that governs least and leaves peoples communities to decide for themselves.
As for the 50/50 shot that pits creationism against evolution you're absolutely right. I have not rejected religion nor have I rejected my God whom I consider the creator of all the universe.
The Christian ethic created the most just and benevolent society that has ever existed, and provided the moral foundation on which all stood to address its own remaining inequities.
Huh, what the hell do you mean with this?
Based on what .. if what virtue, and what reason is this so called middle.
Half slave ? half right ? half evil ?
On what basis is there an assumption of virtue for this so called middle ?
Explain the merit of this so called middle.
So between good and evil, virtue is to be evil by half ?
to be correct by half ? to be free but only by half ?
Wrong is superior as long as your only half wrong ?
Of what merit is this so called middle.
I ask for a reason ... the so called middle is nothing more but an excuse for half commie, half slave half half wrong.
In other words you have already swallowed the leftist postmodern relativist crap.
Im no Roberts fan, but how different from GWB do you think he would be ? ... I bet there woulnt be a dime worth of difference, well except he might actually try to secure the border.
Explain the nature of this so called folly.
American principles sir, are not to be violated by half, our laws by half, or freedom taken by half.
And frankly, I got a problem with your idea of "fringe".
As an example of leftist unreality David observes
Bzzt, reality check. it wasnt so bloodless
Davids Medienkritik
And in the comments
In the Baltics and Poland there was an underground war. It started right after the Soviets took over. It was 1944/45. The war and resistance continued until 1953 at least.
Pick up the links and read about the Forest Brothers of the Baltics
Its true that leftist holocaust is usually front loaded, as the peoples sprit is broken, as their memory of Liberty fades, after the population is crushed into acceptance of their slavery, the extermination rate tapers off.
After that, only a few hundred or a few thousand people are butchered to maintain terror and fear.
Usually by a quota system.
America too has those that have become accepting of the dictate of the elite, their memory of old liberties forgotten, they have accepted their leash. the leash is not yet a chain, if you keep accepting more slavery by half.
I suppose, those, are the so called "Moderates".
And beware, no matter how far left into slavery you are taken, the instant you draw a line and say "here and no further" you will instantly become "fringe" why thats not moderate
Moderate is the drift to the left, every year more evil by half, more slavery by half, and less freedom by half.
If you ever dig in your heels, and refuse to go along any further, they will accuse you of being one of the unreasonable absolutist fringe.
And dont dare say that some marxist evil should be reversed, because as you know, the march into slavery is a ratchet, that only goes one direction.
To suggest we reclaim some of the freedom we had before the communist/socialist war on our liberty, why thats extreme.
To dare even think of reversing leftist slavery's advance, well that extreme and fringe and, well we cant have that.
So lets pick a new middle every year, it will be a bit further left every year, but dont dare object .. thats not moderate, thats being unreasonable.
Because as everyone knows, what freedom remaining today is negotiable, and what was lost yesterday is gone forever.
Thats the "moderate" way.
You wrote
as advice for religious conservatives. Yet, when I read that it appears more likely to be something that those on the Left could do better. Even secularists are getting used to the idea that religious should be talked about in the public sphere. In fact, they are more comfortable with it when it does exactly what you say in #2, to work on common values without focusing on belief sets or salvation. The longer tradition of the Left in America is to be much more tolerant and open to many faith traditions and to harness their concerns in a "values" packaging. This tradition slid during the 80s and 90s to embracing secularism, but the Left wouldn't have to work very hard to lean back and remind people of MLK, women's sufferage, slave trade, etc.
Yet the religious conservative of different faiths could have serious trouble banding together. Not that the BIG 3 religions don't have common values, but that each faith is firmly convinced they have the word from God and everyone else is wrong. It makes it difficult to work with somone if you are convinced that deep down they are just wrong and misguided. Your strategy is correct, but I think it might enable what you consider the wrong side to win.
Ahem, thats a bunch of bunkum.
In fact, America was founded with a critical idea that that is bunkem, listed as the first in the bill of rights, a bill of rights that some founders didnt think was needed, because the constitution does not grant that power, and power not granted does not exist.
They consensus became to have a list of enumerated rights anyway, with the addition of rights 9 and 10, that say directly that the enumerated rights are not all that exist
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And that all remaining powers are reserved to the states
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So when you talk about Americans, we get this, you might not get it any more in the cultural marxist brainwashing schools of self hate kids attend today, but adults that missed out on the commie brainwashing get this.
They grok the seperation of faith and goverment concept, and we have understood it for 200 years and all the more then than now, since the leftist schools these days teach hate of America instead of about America.
And at the very core of that central core American founding prinicple is the upfront, not knowlege of, but direct assertion, that religion is not the all knowing oracle that can be entrusted with power.
The Christians that founded America knew this and for 200 years there after, (untill the commies took over the schools,) taught that as one of our core freedoms.
Course, the left deny this self evident fact of reality, because it gets in the way of them smearing us as a bunch of knuckle draggers dreaming of resurrecting the inquisition and death by stoning for heresy.
But thats because they want to destroy Americas freedom culture, and a high value target are the Classical Liberal Christians that founded it.
Expat Teacher,
Hey, a good strategy is a good strategy. You're right that the Left could adopt it as easily as the right could. In theory.
In practice, its religious allies are shrinking denominations (as often happens when one starts believing that people who come to church want politics first - and let that stand as a warning) and this kind of engagement conflicts with too many existing beliefs among its activist set.
Ironically, what blocks the Left here is the very "rival religion" problem you cite - and they have a worse case of it.
On the right, the problems you mention are real. Raymond's allusion to the American system doesn't address the issue. The reason I have hope is that the religious are gradually coming to realize that they have more in common with each other, even given these differences, than they do with the worldview of the secular fundamentalists.
Nothing like a common enemy, and in its mad quest for the dominion of souls, the secular left is obligingly providing one.
JK: Frankly, I find this statement not exactly conducive to understanding among factions: "Nothing like a common enemy, and in its mad quest for the dominion of souls, the secular left is obligingly providing one."
As to glen W.: although so far you have been leaping from one accusation to another with little reflection of any actual answer I have attempted to give you, in reply to your following demand (which you seem to think something gives you a right to, which I don't see) but in brief out of respect to our hosts here: your rather impolite toned demand:
"I don't often see liberals making positive use of Christian principles in this fashion" (quoting yourself it seems):
And no, I still don't see this. Give me a recent example. Give me an example that makes no reference to Republicans, George Bush, or religious conservatives - one that is affirming, not negating."
For example the Cold War Bill of Rights, which gave educational benefits to soldiers who served during the Cold War and Vietnam, and gave this country educated patriots such as Sen McCain. Sen. Yarborough had to do a lot a vote trading for this, which as always includes holding his nose and voting for something like a museum for bubblegum wrap in Tennessee to get this vital underpinning of the nation's wellbeing and its economy.
Then there's the plant closing legislation which Del. Counihan introduced after a large store did not open one morning in Montgomery County, Md, leaving thousands of local employees instantly bereft of wages, health benefits, references; and which the company had known about well in advance but gave no clue about but walked away leaving its employees in the lurch. Sen Sarbanes could not get a package that included employers with less than 100 employees, but did include penalties for less than 30 days' notice.
The budget process includes a number of ethical/nonethical decisions, and it was through a lot of budget items that John Kenneth Galbraith through 3 administrations gave this country the most prosperous economy ever seen, through opening economic advantages to the broadest segment of society ever seen, with resulting spending power that enabled an "Age of Affluence".
As I say, out of respect to our hosts I will not go on ad infinitum.
Sorry, Ruth, but it's the truth as I see it. I do not propose to bridge the differences between left and right - that is impossible. I propose a way to bridge the differences between religious groups that share common values but different theologies, plus more secular individuals who also share those values and wish to be able to do so comfortably without feeling religion being imposed on them.
The politicist Left is a religion, with articles of faith immune to disproof, sought dominion over the thoughts/souls of humanity not just their actions, eschatological utopian goals, saints, the works. EXCEPT, it's undertaken without G-d. Hence its efforts to shape souls are undertaken, not as servants of G-d in whom the dominion of all souls rests, but in place of G-d.
The creepy totalitarianism of "political correctness" and slogans like "the personal is political" provide a vivid example of this tendency, but by no means the most consequential. That distinction is reserved for the Left's 150 million+ skulls over the last century, as it has found that the dominion of souls requires powers humans are not well-equipped to weild.
The lack of that simple one-step disintermediation has seismic consequences. In many ways, it's the mirror image of Islam's inability to separate mosque and state but from the other direction - not god as ruler, but ruler as god. In the end, the increasing collaboration between Islamists and the Left may owe to commonalities deeper than their mutual hatred of those who balked their gods' promise of inevitable supremacy. We shall see.
A religious Left may one day emerge that offers a thought-out philosophy without Marxism's rotten core, one that gives up the dominion of souls to its proper keeper. That empty core is currently at the root of many of the Left's troubles, and this must stimulate a reaction eventually. Probably when all other options have been exhausted.
Meanwhile, there is work to do.
Raymond
It is not just religion or Christianity that preaches the virtues of man. That is my basis for what I am talking about.
Do you believe that everyone of faith is virtuous? I certainly don't. Mr. Pat Robertson spewed the same vitriol as Mr. Ward Churchill and arrived at the same conclusion based on the mandates of divinity. A divinity that is just as harsh, unforgiving, and dispensing justice on scales untold due to mans rejection of divinities edicts? Religion vs. America comes as close to stating the position I am talking about.
I want freedom from any tyranny that may arise be it religious or not. I am not arguing the separation of state and religion. I am arguing that the constitution be upheld in that our government shall not proselytize period. To clarify, does placing the 10 commandments in a court house proselytize? Absolutely not. It does not have the animation to speak and argue the merits of religiosity.
As to the fringes your point is well taken in that those that don't follow the mainstream will always be fringe. The fringe is always a moving target and my choice of words concerning this observation may not be the appropriate choice. Maybe I should say the extremes of either of the beliefs be they religious or atheist (which may be a better choice in your description of the left). As to the middle I am referring to those that have arrived at the same conclusions concerning common sets of morals and ethics whether they got there through religion or other means is of little consequence.
Expat Teacher
Thank you. The road blocks are not that we can't agree on morals or ethics. The road blocks are the claims of ownership of such morals or ethics which in my opinion is nothing more than egoism. To advocate one can not have the same morals and ethics without the same belief systems or a particular religion is folly.
JK:
On your #49, I read it but it takes as basis for judgment of left wing some facts I am not familiar with. I get the impression, which is something I run across sometimes, that we draw information from different sources. I am a predominantly C-Span and reading public member, and sometimes run across views formed from internet contact that do not mesh with the realities I view/read. Your view that the left seeks 'dominion over thoughts/souls' just 'blows me away', it's not my experience.
Suggest you review the following (much meaty info)
USMC:
Very intelligent comment.
Ruth,
The problem is that you and Joe have in mind different supgroups on the left. "The left" is an imprecise term.
There is a part of the left that does want dominion of minds and souls. How else to explain political correctness, speech codes, and hate crimes?
All of these are attempts to put topics beyond debate. Control of the topics and the very language of debate leads directly to control of minds. It's all so very '1984'.
lurker:
Acute. My jaw drops open when I read remarks coming from an intelligent person that reek of incredible misapprehension.
From a synopsis of the article I refered JK to:
"in the face of risks with high emotional content, emotion plays a significant role in obscuring 'rational' choice. ....relatively minor risks can be overblown causing a high level of social anxiety, the expenditure or misallocation of significant resources, and the imposition of costly regulation in situations where other risks, of greater magnitude, are ignored."
Thanks, I think you've capsulized one of the perception problems for me.
Ruth,
Perhaps you're way smarter than me, as I can't honestly tell from your comment whether you are thanking me for filling in a missing piece of the puzzle by positive contribution or for being a negative example. I'll assume the positive until you say other wise.
Can you please clarify the point you wish to make with your referred document? I for one do not have the time to divine it.
I'm sorry i missed out on this terrific discussion. Umm, and i can't stay-- i have a 12:00 ride time for stadium jumping. ;)
But i want to weigh in on the Creationism vs. Evolution controversy.
Scienists and Academicians do reguard the teaching of Creationism in schools very negatively. Because Creationism is not Science. It is a very bad preparation for college, where you will find out that, say, gorilla beta-globulin differs in 4 out of 256 codons from human beta-globulin. For the non-statisticians among you, that means we are incontrovertably related.
Ditto "Intelligent Design".
Now, you guys know me. I am extremely "scient". I have no problem with the existance of G-d. But i am not entirely sure of what he/it is. Isn't knowing G-d the really big question? ;)
Jinnderella
I'll not argue the point of finding commonalities among species on the planet or the relationships one might infer from one or the other.
It is plain to me, that as best as we can identify the building blocks of the universe such commonalties would exist simply due to resource availability.
I'll not argue the point of whether man developed from ape or vice versa for that matter. I'll argue the point that commonalities should be found and should be expected. Now you can believe anything you want or draw a conclusion as to why the similarity all you want but until I see an ape turn into a man or vice versa it is conjecture.
lurker:
definitely positive. If you read my comments on a regular basis, you will note that I am not inclined to devalue anyone, even when they don't return the compliment.
Sorry, I really hoped you would have time to read the whole item, it's very enlightening. In very, very brief form, main point, by using fear, an interest [group] can create self-destructive behavior against its own interests in an object [group] which profits the interest [group].
Ruth, That sounds like a straight forward thesis. Do you think the principle is being employeed by some the left or some on the right?
I'd say both, but the left seems to have reached new zeniths. The recent Amnesty International report and comments to the press are particularly fine examples, right up there with the black UN helicopters that the militia movement used to carry on about. Except that the leftist rhetoric is not coming from the fringe.
Ruth: you have been leaping from one accusation to another with little reflection of any actual answer I have attempted to give you
I am not accusing you of anything, I am disagreeing with you about some things. As for reflecting on your answers ... give me a break, I'm doing my best here.
Here is a summary of the points I was trying to make (which are not directed at you personally):
- The contemporary left instinctively understands religion as politics. They cannot understand traditional religion as anything other than a hostile political force. They cannot conceive of any broad religious impulse of their own, except in political activist terms - imposing their "religion" on everyone else, in exactly the manner they accuse traditional religionists of doing.
- The contemporary left has no religious tradition of its own. They are not entitled to wear the religious mantle of Martin Luther King, nor do they show much interest in trying to wear it. Their religious forebears are the likes of William Sloan Coffin and the Berrigans, and for purely political reasons. Overwhelmingly, their culture is informed by politics and secularism, much of it militantly anti-religious.
- In short, the left is unserious about religion, and they regard people who are not unserious about it as idiots - and enemies. Their attempts to color their attack politics with Christianity are poorly-disguised mockery.
No doubt there are many exceptions to the above, which is why I asked you for examples. I think there are better examples than what you provided, but most of them would have little influence in the left as a whole. (Many of them actively oppose abortion, for example, which is politically unacceptable on the left.)
Nobody should ask for a solution to any of this, because it demonstrates the folly of politicized religion trying to impose itself on a free and open society, in a manner that corrupts politics and makes religion a cheap propaganda tool.
lurker: Use of fear, and your example:
"I'd say both, but the left seems to have reached new zeniths. The recent Amnesty International report and comments to the press are particularly fine examples" what? sorry doesn't relate. Please point out to me use of fear?
glen w.
The left actually doesn't use religion as any kind of tool. To your "Nobody should ask for a solution to any of this, because it demonstrates the folly of politicized religion trying to impose itself on a free and open society, in a manner that corrupts politics and makes religion a cheap propaganda tool." This doesn't relate to the left.
USMC:
Sorry, i was unclear-- the question i really want to ask is why does believing in evolution imply disbelief in G-d?
Look at Joe, Lewy, and David Boxenhorn for example. They are all "scient" types, and all pretty strong on the issue of faith.
Why does there have to be a dichotomy? I don't think those guys have a problem with it.
And I'll repeat, Creationism, Intelligent Design, they just aren't Science. While we have a separation of Church and State in this country, they don't belong in public school.
And this?
but until I see an ape turn into a man or vice versa it is conjecture.
We're closer than you think. Check out my posts on Chimeras and The Island of Dr. Moreau.
Yes it does, its why it does, and how it did, and the principle was adopted as one of the core Principles of the American idea here first.
What "virtues of man" ? Christian faiths look on man as a fallen creature, full of vices and dishonesty and often lacking in the area of self control and a propensity for evil. sounds just like the short form of the history of man dont it?
What Christian sect holds up man as some example of virtue ? Not A-man, as there are certainly the better examples among us, but the species.
IN other words, this is an invert assertion of yours, where did it come from ?
I addressed that already, you have embraced an inverted reality, and are running with it.
Another inversion, Christianity is based on the tennet of redemption. Where you learn about us, leftist talking points ?
Do I hear an echo ? and whats the declaration of independence, chopped liver ?
In NAZI Germany, the fringe was the only place any remaining light still existed, and it was rather dangerous for them.
Theres that extreme = undesirable meme again. Detached from any other value judgement, it itself has been labeled a value.
So extreme goodness is bad and extreme correctness is wrong. interesting, esp the way its used by the left, ie. anyone that dont agree with them is "extreme".
Glen: Nobody should ask for a solution to any of this, because it demonstrates the folly of politicized religion trying to impose itself on a free and open society, in a manner that corrupts politics and makes religion a cheap propaganda tool.
Yes, besides, the American founding ethic, and that promulgated since, Christians see faith as a personal posession of the individual.
Its as part of the American idea as Jesus is central to the Christian faith, and in America, they walk upholding both ideals.
So from where does this other worldly smears and snears and inverted perception come from.
I suppose for Catholics they look to the pope, for the rest of us, they should recall the Individualist principle that came From Martin Luther, grew as an idea untill it was used as a core principle in founding a country (limited govt too, both aspects of the same thing), and perhaps look sceptical at what the leftist media chooses as examples to depict the rest of us.
To me, this looks like leftist propaganda morphed into conventional wisdom.
The left actually doesn't use religion as any kind of tool
Oh, I don't know about that .... Jesse Jackson's use of religious language is rather selective IMO and John Kerry's open campaiging from black church pulpits was offensive to many Christians.
Stalin, after destroying the church in the USSR,
( those not destroyed was converted for other uses, all those old Byzantine buildings lost, what a shame)
He resurrected the church during WWII, to be used as a wartime tool, Nationalism came back too, "Mother Russia" was heard again, and WWI was "the great patrotic war"
Yes, those wanting to use faith as a tool of oppertunity, (of the same value of a mass grave of kids if they can find no atvantage in it) are probably not going to be accepted as any more genuine as the leftists seen in embrace of victimhood as opertunistic tools.
Stalin destroyed the church for the same reason the American commie-liberals attacked Christianity, to destroy the Individualist ethic of Martin Luther thats the root of Americas Freedom culture.
This principle of Limited Goverment and Individual Liberty the left must destroy to get what they want, and thats why they attacked the Faithful.
Ummm, Raymond ...
I grew up in the Orthodox church, specifically in a Ukrainian family. And I can say rather emphatically that Luther's sense of individual liberty is NOT the identifying characteristic of the eastern church.
Your argument is way overstated.
Jinnderella
I read your posts. The questions you pose yourself are also revealing concerning your ambitions for knowledge and what may or may not be the outcome of such labors. I don't deny you your science and I don't deny anyone their religion. When it come to science (biotech) what becomes of the morals and ethics of such dabbling is the bigger question. Isn't it? As sure as wood turns to ashes when it is burned I can not make it wood again. As sure as I can graft trees and produce seedless fruit that is appeasing to all I can not produce the fruit from seedless fruit I have created.
It is not an issue of science types being strong on faith. It is not an issue of religious morality pitted against the left or the left pitted against the religion. Neither group owns the issue of morality and ethics. As we dance around the subject it is my contention that we have more in common and can agree on that which is common without using religion or some other crutch to promote the hate and discontent based upon the perception of lost face or affiliations within one's group.
As to your question of believing in evolution and believing in God or one negating the other, in my book the answer is no. There is a never ending evolutional process going on within all forms of a life on this planet. Whether the changes are radical or not or whether they occur by some planned or freak accident is irrelevant. Surely by now man would have developed eyes in the back of his head, four arms, and various other senses Humans have had ages to evolve in such ways. God knows I need them when I'm dealing with four children or a kindergarten class.
Just as an aside why is it people when discussing religion or God for that matter have an issue with word and come up with G-d? To me these are the types of things we should avoid when discussing the issues. To me this only adds to the misunderstandings and misgivings on both sides of the fence.
USMC-- you read me? astonishment ;)
Ummm, i am studying Judaism-- the actual name of G-d is a word of power, and has to have special treatment-- Joe could explain it better than i.
Surely by now man would have developed eyes in the back of his head, four arms, and various other senses
no, not neccessarily-- evolution is parsimonious. If a mutation arose that conferred a specific selective advantage, sure. But it is sorta going the other way-- we have removed the selection gradient against peanut allergy and myopia, for example.
I guess i am reacting to how others perceive me-- for example, Raymond said recently that because i'm scient, i must not believe in souls. ;)
No it isnt.
In fact its so in your face in the historical record, how can you say such a thing with a straight face ?
And in fact, its why the eastern church was in its weak position, why the commies was able to get power.
The ideas of the Enlightment was running thru russia like a cancer, much to the horror of the church, that was much the backing of the power of the Tsar.
This revolution was far more advanced, and further along in western Europe. To say that russia lagged behind in all areas is an understament.
In the USSR, the bolsehvics was the winning faction in the overthrow of the old order.
In America the revolt was against britain where the fuedal order was already long past, they already had those that saw themselves as a freeman, and its as important to note what we kept from the country we seperated from as much as what we threw off. and other than that, the Founding of America was as much as a creation from scratch.
Lenin and Stalin turned on the Children of Martin Luther, and exterminated them along with the church.
So the USSR got a horrific new form of slavery and America got freedom, who got the better deal ?
And now the USSR is no more, and we still have work to do to reverse abolish and discard the marxist stain that infected America, wrought by the american left that looked to the paradise ruled by Uncle Joe and wanted to emulate it, and still do. Look at the elections that get Carters blessing, and you see why M Moore was not out of place sitting next to him. and why John Kerry Glorified a criminal agaist humanity as "George Washington" why Bagdad Mc Dermot flew to the aid of Baath Socialist Iraq. and so on, ad infinaitem.
Sorry Robin, but im on firmer ground here than you thought, the fact that the Lutheran revolution failed in your old country because it was userped by the commies does not detract or refute what happened here.
And you need to look a bit closer at its rather important part it played in what happened there.
My answer would be that it does not imply disbelief in God as such, but it may imply severe problems for certain conceptions of God. Most particularly it can cause severe difficulties for certain forms of Bible-based Christianity.
Just consider the following questions:
Where does evil, death and suffering come from?
In Bible-based Christianity evil comes into a perfect, God-created world as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. - The Fall of Man. Note God did NOT create evil. He only created free will, which man misused, making the wrong choice.
For the evolutionist, every fossil is a dead organism, which proves that death and suffering were here millions of years before anything remotely human existed. In fact evolution teaches that death and suffering, far from being evil are the mechanism that drives evolution. For it is the struggle of every organism to survive, (far more being born than can possibly survive), and to pass on their genes to their descendents; and the fact that only the fittest succeed (and as a corrolary, the unfit die and disappear) that is the engine of evolution.
Thus, evolution and its associated geological and cosmological theories teach that evil, death and suffering are part of the irrevocable structure of the natural world. They are presumably part of creation. Does this mean God created evil?
Why did Jesus come into the world? Why did he have to suffer and die?
To the Bible-believing Christian, the role of Jesus is Saviour & Redeemer. In the substitutionary atonement version, he pays the price of sin (death) for all mankind, and thereby allows fallen man to be reconciled to God.
But to the evolutionist, man's evil is no evil. The drives, passions, etc of man are merely adaptations to an amoral natural world that was implicitly full of the potential for suffering, death and evil from the moment of its creation.
Biologically, the end (passing your genes on to your descendents) always justifies the means, and as a result, human nature has evolved in and adapted to this Hobbesian universe. The cruel amoral nature of man and all other living things, is simply an echo of the cruel amoral nature of Nature.
Since man is not evil or fallen in this picture - he is merely "built to survive" - From what does he need to be saved? - Only from the universe that the creator himeself (if any) created, as a Vale of Tears for all the living things that reside in it?
Hence movements like transhumanism which seek to do exactly that - to "save" man from his natural, evolved condition.
I guess my bottom line is: Do not underestimate the degree that evolution is incompatible with Bible-based Christianity. The fact that Catholicism and liberal Protestantism fudge these issues does not mean that they have solved them either.
Raymond
I don't how to put it in any other words or how to describe to you that I maintain many of the same conclusions that you have. The title of the subject is faith, freedom, and virtue. Practically all of the links bring religion into question. My contention is, it not religion that is the issue, religion is the side show that is advanced by both the left and those of religious faith. My example of Mr. Robertson had nothing to do with his religion. It had everything to do with his conclusion and his faculties at arriving there. It serves as an example to show that the same thought processes are in both camps.
If it's any consolation to you I didn't pull the lever for Bush based on his religious beliefs. I pulled the lever based on beliefs in how to go about preserving the American way of life. That of faith, freedom and virtue. To label conservatives as [R/C] that they need a moniker especially a touchy one is inane.
USMC
In your last I can find no falt or point contention therein.
I would only ask that you look at just who was and what was the people and the ideas that founded a country based in principles of freedom liberty and justice that was a radical departure from all the past experience of mans attempts to shape his world.
And contrast that with all the other inferior examples ranging from rule by kings and tsars to the commissars.
And what the results are in the failure of that leftist toxin we imported.
Even in Germany, they had the postwar German Miracle, the free market principles introduced by Wilhelm Roepke and Ludwig Erhard. And the American ideas of freedom imported by American troops and officers, who governed based on their own values they carried in their hearts from America.
But to the extent the left have trashed America far more damage they have done in Germany, the Germans forgot what gave them their confort and property and adopted the leftist program for failure and collapse. The birth rate along with the economy, optimism has been replaced by malase fatalism and anti-american envy and loathing of our properity and the power it projects, as well as our selfless sacrafices to being freedom to others.
In Germany and across europe, the churches and baby cribs are as empty as their souls, and they feel it, hope seems the luxury of the insane.
I appeal for us to remember from where our idea of freedom comes, what made our prosperity and power possible, and from where comes the willingness to sacrafice to provide hope to total strangers.
Those that emulate us have shared in our success to the extent that they followed our example, those that did not have found everything else from failure and misery to holocaust.
The left have attacked the foundations of our freedom prosperity and power since the creation of the NKVD and CPUSA, and live on in ANSWER, Moveon And Carters blessing to yet another fraud in Etheopia.
Its been a long road from the birth of Dr. Luther , born in the town of Eisleben, Germany, on November 10, 1483 to the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
But there are those that wanted to see our results undone, that saw the correct outcome should have been Lenin Mao and Ho Che Mihn (John Kerrys George Washington") and their hero the Eugenics Sterilisation and Euthenasia NAZI Salvador Allende (thank god for Pinochet) ... and not Paine, Jefferson and John Stewart Mill.
The cold war may be over, but we are still under attack here at home, they control the old MS media the universities and to a major extent the public school system.
And they hate every idea America was founded on, and hate even more the Classical Liberal Christian decendants of Martin Luthers Christian reformation that founded it.
We see who the left attack, Ive just laid out a few big reasons why.
So the next time you hear the moonbats barking the "thocons want to bring back the inqusition and stoning for heresy" perhaps you might entertain the motive for the Lie, as well as why the left consider Christian protestants such a high value target.
The real reason they tear down displays from the public square, why they go berzerk over a commandments display, and what the goal is, what the ends are to these displays of means, and the Classical Liberal Christian freedom culture, Individual Liberty and Limited goverment, that they are attacking.
And the American ideas of freedom imported by American troops and officers
What is so uniquely different between American and German freedom
a., the difference is major. Classical liberalism has never had lots of traction in Germany, and the conceptions are more collectivist by nature. A trend and tendency reflected in the history of the German state - and indeed, in continental Europe as a whole.