Redstate

I admire your courage.

You have expressed a very interesting philosophy, though I would say that we are all looking for the same self-preservation.  We just don't agree on the means to such.

The internal longing for Utopia is something, I believe, beheld within all of us because God has set Eternity in the hearts of men.  The difference, from my Christian view, is as you say, either reliance upon one's own best effort to follow the Law - whether Torah, Islamic or Humanistic - and the Christian's sober realization that he is quite incapable of it and hence must place his entire hope upon a Savior.

It is the faith of Abraham that indeed separates the means by which we seek our hopeful end.  

is that liberalism is not eschatological: it does not look forward to some sort of utopian conclusion. To be sure there are extreme forms of leftist idelogy that are uitopian (Communsim obviously but the sort of low-brow, bourgeiios let's-just-muddle-through liberalism that is prevalent in the US is not.

If the Liberal's desired end is not the utopia of perfect socialism, pray tell what is it?

Or are you suggesting American liberalism seeks something less idealogically perfect than an actual attainable socialist society, such as the temporal rest that comes from his own moral relativism?

have a rather utopian view of the world, and in general have a poor understanding of human nature (I think the lack of understanding is why communism fails-while it looks good on paper, human nature in general tends towards selfishness).

for themselves and its "Your Fault Living" for everyone else.

liberalism has an overly optimistic view of human nature. Liberals seem to see humankind only at its best. It ignores the reality of Original Sin. And there's a topic for this thread, since Judaism an dislam also have no concept of Original Sin.

with the first response, in that you are asking for it, but I like your analysis, and it asks the tough, (and I think) relevant questions.

I tend to think that it is the prism through which we view the world (worldview) that dictates the extent to which we hold to one view over the other.  What I mean is that within Christianity there is a perception that humanity is at it's core - evil. Secular humanism takes the diametrically opposed view that man is inherently good.

I agree that humanity is inherently evil - but let's define evil.  At its absolute worst evil is the worst of atrocities, it is the murder in the dark of night, the indiscriminate or the pathological behavior that destroys that with which it comes into contact.  But the core of these actions can universally be summed up as selfishness, and I submit that the core of evil is acting upon our own selfishness.  Oh, we have made a huge paper-tiger of distinctions between petty selfishness and the more diabolically depraved type that we see acted out on the evening news, but are they really any more than just degrees of separation?

Well, you don't really define liberalism (and defining conservativism created enough problems recently) and I can't just let the idea that communists and liberals are the same simply go by without challenge, so try this:

Liberalism is a political theory that emerges from Christianity. It is no accident that liberalism emerges in the Christian world, and is strongest there. You can trace certain elements of Augustinianism (two swords) and Lutheranism to liberalism.

This is because the liberal, like the Christian, recognizes that the state cannot transform man. Good laws do not make good men--laws need to take man's sinful nature into account. (Madison's famous "if men were angels..." comes to mind. Even Thomas Paine, no Christian himself, makes reference to this element of Christianity in his writings.) This is squarely at odds with totalitarian ideas like communism and fascism, as liberals like Isaiah Berlin and George Orwell went to great pains to point out. Communism and fascism, like the ideas of Rousseau are perfectionist in nature--they believe that the right set of institutions can somehow transform man into something he is not.

In fact, one persistant criticism of liberalism is that it denies the legitimacy of collective accounts of the good--Mill's idea of individuals pursuing their own good in the own way finds critics all over the spectrum from people like Santorum and from people like the late Andrea Dworkin.

I have no idea what to make of Freud and the subconscious, since I have a hard time taking that claptrap seriously. There is no such thing as a subconscious--Freud simply made it up.

from believing the government is the savior of all, and they tend to ignore or excuse human nature.  They also like to say the reasons people do bad things, is because there aren't enough programs out there to help them.

You got it right about Freud.  Claptrap.

You provide a good description of classical liberalism.  Modern liberalism, however, has veered off course and has become tangled up in projects that do aspire to perfect mankind through the power of the state, albeit by "soft power."  Modern conservativism, which owes a considerable debt to classical liberalism, is in danger of running off the rails in the same way.

that the government shouldn't just try to solve problems at hand but should instead try to reinvent human beings in some way or another so the problems at hand won't even occur, then they off in la-la land territory (and apt to do far more harm than good if allowed to proceed with their scheme). The Left certainly don't have a monopoly on this sort of thing. I've tussled with some social conservatives on this site who also think it's a fabulous idea to use the state to make people virtuous and sinless. Also: certain extreme libertarians to the extent that they think getting rid of government will make people any better than they are.

Seems that a lot of people try to equate everyone who is on the Left to being a Liberal.  That is no more accurate than saying that everyone on the Right is Libertarian or even Conservative.  

Liberalism, IMO, is the belief we can always improve ourselves and our lot.  Liberals believe that there is an ideal, even if we can never attain it.  

It is flawed thinking to suggest that Liberals have animosity for Christianity.  Many Liberals have animosity for the self-righteousness of SOME Christians.  They have animosity for those Christians that wish to impose their religous beliefs on others.  But they hold that same animosity towards Muslims or Jews or Hindi.  

Liberals empathize with Arabs because they are a downtrodden people.  They don't empathize with Islam.  They view groups like the Taliban to the most pernicious evil we face, evil men using religion to commit evil.  But they do empathize with groups like the Palestinians because they are a people that has been oppressed by various groups  for centuries.  It is part of the fabric of Liberalism to want to end that oppression.

The difficult figure for my account is Mill--who can be credited (or blamed) with importing some of these ideas that some describe as socialistic into liberalism. Equality is an important element in liberal theory, the question for liberals is first, what do we mean by equality, and second, to what extent should we interfere with individual liberty in order to provide that equality.

I do think that liberalism can stay true to its roots and still advocate things like public education that can increase equalities of opportunity.

of liberals on every one they don't consider PC.

Re: What I mean is that within Christianity there is a perception that humanity is at it's

core - evil.

This may be true of hardcore Calvinists with their Total Depravity therory, but I doubt it is true of Christianity in general. Certainly it is not true of my Church. "Evil" is far too strong a word here. "Flawed" or "imperfect" might be better.

Aleks, we obviously have different interpretations of what "evil" consists of or how to define it.

I appreciate that you chose to ignore the expounded perspective that I offered below, and that you have taken my quote out of context.

I am certainly no Calvinist, but I'm not in the least enamored with some "we're basically good people... except for them... they're evil." arguments <points the finger at others>  

Humor me for a bit, if you will, and see selfishness, or evil (as this is my argument, I'll argue it this way) as a sliding scale.  I'll use as an example "little Billy" hits his sister over the head with her doll because she wanted him to play with her. - We'd say that Billy is a bit selfish and that his behavior needed a bit of adjustment.  At its core, his behavior is wrong, but you'd say it's not evil, but your argument presupposes a certain level of wrongness before you quantify it as evil.  I disagree with such a subjective standard, as it allows us each to let ourselves off the hook when we do something that is selfish, as a means to authenticating that "we're basically just a good person."

What about this, "Little Billy" enjoys telling racist jokes to his friends and when he gets angry he is not above hurting them.  But he's just a kid, he'll grow out of it - But he's basically a good kid.  I submit that his selfish behavior has slid up a notch on the evil scale.  I could escalate his behavior, but I'm sure that you can see the point I'm making in that when you make an arbitrary line at what point selfish behavior crosses over to evil, that it allows us to escuse our own behavior, because after all, we, each and everyone of us wants to see ourselves as a good and decent person, even when our behavior misses that mark, because we have rendered the idea of evil as a subjective line in the sand that is always one or two marks away from where we are.

Using words that allow for redefining definitions in such a way as to excuse behavior, such as "flawed" or "imperfect" is a much worse way to quantify our behavior, as it lends itself to a permissive state of being.

Re: I am certainly no Calvinist, but I'm not in the least enamored with some "we're basically good people... except for them... they're evil." Arguments

I also do not think much of "We're OK, they're not..." arguments, which are conducive to scapegoating, hypocrisy and other such sins. And you're right that we see "evil" rather differently. To me, "evil" is a nuclear weapon word in the vocabulary of theology and naming anything made by God (as humankind plainly was) as "evil" is very much in error. "Sinful" might be better here; that's something I can agree with, that humankind is by nature sinful.

Re: Using words that allow for redefining definitions in such a way as to excuse behavior, such as "flawed" or "imperfect" is a much worse way to quantify our behavior, as it lends itself to a permissive state of being.

Huh? I don't see "flawed" or "imperfect" as being excuse words at all. They express exactly what I see as being true about human nature--"flawed" perhaps somewhat better than "imperfect" since the latter was always true of humankind: only God can be truly perfect; even unfallen humans would be imperfect, which is why the Fall was possible to begin with. But "flawed" tells us that something happened once upon a time to spoil the broth so it no longer tastes right. St. Athanasius (a very key Church Father in the 4th century for those who have never heard of him) compared human nature to a mural which had been stained and partially defaced, which again, I think is a very good analogy. "Evil" however would suggest that the mural is beyond repair.

At times I think we are talking past each other, Aleks...  I understand your arguments and I believe that you understand my arguments, we just have different ways of viewing the concept of the word and the interpretation and application of the word.

One caveat that I would add to my previous statement is that as a preference I would rather ascribe terms such as evil or sinful or (for you Aleks) flawed or imperfect to the behavior of the person moreso than to the person.

I have to play with this one.  The trap inherent in your question illustrates one of the points of the "man centric" view.  To recognize that each individual has an equal opportunity and the right to pursue happiness is quite different from deciding the level of 'equality' that should be promoted.  In reference to:

"...the question for liberals is first, what do we mean by equality..."

I not addressing the second part about interference, as that is a tangled web.  The first part though is close to my contention.  How does the concept of equality emerge?  As a concept of man, or as a reality of mans experience?  Arguably the Reformation simply revealed the personal liberty of faith that each individual already possessed but did not excessive.  The founding fathers recognized the rights of the individual, they did not create them.  The modern liberal viewpoint has shifted to a humanistic definition of what constitutes freedom, and in the process begins to darken the reality.  Anyhow, this does get to some of our fundamental differences in political philosophy.  

Paramount in my view is the welfare state.  What constitutes a acceptable level of taxation?  What is the benefit of disabling the competitive nature of a whole subgroup of the population?  How is any part of it equal?  Does it further the concept of equality?

Dang, there is another whole rant in this one.....

Since I am immersed in the pointy headed ivory tower world of the modern university, I have probably picked up a bias.  But most every liberal I know, when asked "Are you a global citizen?" answers in the affirmative.  Now what does that imply?  There is no global government, but they have in there mind citizenship in a higher government.  If that doesn't illustrate a Utopian goal....  

some blather on that

The Inflamitory: The Global Citizen is a Socialist Liberal

What always raises a flag for me is the context the term evil is used in.  From the illustration in the Garden of Eden the 'evil' was apparently the motivation of temptation, not the wrong fruit itself or the act of disobedience.  The modern connotations of the term sometimes drift towards the Victorian definitions of Dante and Milton.  

Conversely I would interject that the question is simply what is not evil.  The antithesis would apparently be the desire to pursue life, the preservation of life, the propagation of life.  I think this measure never fails and it avoids it bottomless pitfalls (pun).  And in this we can recover our discussion of political philosophies and the differences.  Applying the above metric, its clear what camps are not in support of life, do not wish to protect life, and are for limiting the spread of life (and taxing our livelihood as well).  Now I'm getting dangerously close to preaching again, sorry.  Trying to keep these things in the context of our conservative political activities and discussions.

I won't go into an argument about 'right' or 'left' or the attitudes and actions of liberals.  Except for the obvious:

"It is flawed thinking to suggest that Liberals have animosity for Christianity."

What planet are you on?  The attack on the traditions and expressions of Christians in this country is enormous.  We are not a secular Republic by the way, much as liberals would want.  Anyhow, what I am replying to is your statement:

"Liberalism, IMO, is the belief we can always improve ourselves and our lot"

Wasn't that the point?  That within the underlying motivations of the individual who is a liberal is the concept that mans own efforts will improve his 'lot' as you say.  Take those motivations collectively and you have a impetuous driving the "follow the rules to Utopia" type of philosophy.  Am I missing something or did you just make my point?  And I am not out to denigrate anyones set of 'rules' or 'moral code' or 'religious laws', so we can have those fun discussions in other threads.

One of my claims is that liberalism emerges from Christianity, especially reformation Christianity. In an important way, it is liberal equality, not liberal liberty that is central to that story. Now, few liberals believe in absolute equality--not even Rawls. But at a minimum, there must be at least procedural equality--equal justice under law, and this does find justification in Christianity.

Equality of opportunity can theoretically be easily squared with procedural equality. But the real world makes squaring those things impossible. That is, to actually try to promote equality of opportunity would result in unacceptable invasions of individual liberty. So, while we may be willing to pay tax to ensure everyone receive some education, we will not prevent parents from enhancing their children's education even though that gives those children an advantage.

One can, from a liberal perspective criticize the welfare state, or policies of the welfare state for promoting dependency. This too is compatible with the Christian value of all life. On the other hand, the value of the individual life does make demands on society.

I want to repeat that totalitarianism, whether that of Marx or Fascism, or Islamo-fascism, or Rousseau is anti-liberal and anti-Christian.

Do people really use that phrase? Do you tell them it's an oxymoron? Or do you teach them to sing and buy them a coke?

This liberal likes the nation state.

Jesus was tempted after all, but we don't have to speculate, as the text,

Gen. 3 is clear. Rejecting God's will and deciding to be our own God caused the fall.

Your phrase: "motivation of temptation" is a non sequitur and makes no sense.

See text. It leaves no doubt. Of course many dont like to hear that we must answer to God, but the creation doesnt get to set the rules of the creator.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=3&version=31

P.S. Why put evil in quotes?

I actually have asked more than one 'hard science' colleagues, full professors, and gotten the affirmative.  Very scary.  Big brother of the mind. I am in your camp on this one.  Competition in a favorable environment is healthy.  And the Nation State is the 'organic' competitive entity among modern man.  But it would be nice to avoid the end result of some competitions, i.e. genocide, world wars, famine.  I just don't think 'one world' government is going to be the answer to those problems.

The motivation implies using the will to decide in favor of the object of the temptation.  Sorry wrap the intent in obscurity, the scurrilous secular Oxford has in close second:

    b. orig. Psychol. The (conscious or unconscious) stimulus for action towards a desired goal, esp. as resulting from psychological or social factors; the factors giving purpose or direction to human or animal behaviour.

How about that 'unconscious' reference?  As per the temptation, I infer the fact of being tempted.  Hope this clarifies?

As for the the evil in quotes, there is a wealth of literature in the Western world were the term is used in vary different contexts, not to mention the popular context of our national foreign policy.  I use quotes to emphasize the differing context of the term as discussed, not in the sense of exegesis.

the Forward to "Witness" and Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah?"

I think your self-preservation dichotomy would be very interesting to consider in conjunction with the concepts contained in those books.

If you have detected a trace of impugning liberalism with actual support of the fascist, I'll repent.  In my hypothesis the underlying motivation of the individual is similar for the related philosophy, not the actual implementation or global goal of such.  However, in your camp are many socialists who overtly or inadvertently are Fascist Apologists.  You seem to have the more refined definition of classic liberal to the exclusion of many who are liberal in regards to the modern label.  I understand your stance, as my favorite sparring partner is the same, to the extent that he will not call modern liberals liberals as he views them as a blight on his more pure philosophy.  And if you can reform the philosophy, this conservative will be all the more pleased.  I like labels that have clear meanings.

Who defines the equal justice?  I agree with collectively consented procedural equality, but can justice be meted out equally?  And the 'squaring' of equality of opportunity needs interpretation.  I do not believe that opportunity is something to be distributed.  It is a variable that depends on context.  We can strive to increase opportunity by our respective philosophies.  And maybe after seeing whether opportunity increases or decreases adjust what we do.  But many liberals are blind to the past of the welfare state (you could just replace liberal in that statement with politician).  Has it increased opportunity after some 60 trillion dollars in 40 years?  Ok, maybe we should debate this in a different thread as well!

Its way up at the top, and your not the first to recommend, so I'll bump it up another notch on the stack.  Witch never seems to shrink...  Unfortunately (for my edification time), we are being blessed with the third go round of genetic propagation and time has, well, begun to disappeared.

You make many great pooints and have correctly identified the two inherently conflicting ideals that our country and much of the west has struggled with since at least the American and French revolutions.

I quite agree that both ideals emerged from judeo-christian thought in classic liberalism. I think that the crucial differences in the developpment of modern day conservatism and liberalism can be traced to the emphasis each places on the concepts as well as to the role of government in the acheivement of same.

Modern day conservatism has incorporated many if not most of the major precepts of classic liberalism with equality restricted to fairness before the law and has accepted a safety net floor in soc sec and destitution releif by govt.

Liberalism is guilty of not declaring victory.

Modern liberalism evolved into both radical egalitarianism and radical individualism but, in different areas of the culture, mainly due to the rejection of moral absolutes for personal behavior and the insistence of absolutely equal economic status, with envy being the key to the latter, coupled with the utopian ideal.

The dichotomy is also interesting when one considers that it is the elites, mostly academics that are the main evangelists for radical changes in traditional society.

In areas of competition/merit the libs demand equality. In areas of personal behavior they demand complete freedom.

I was a liberal dem county chair and a dem for 20 years. And a Christian. But, as a Christian, I want the system that produces the best results possible in a fallen world.

So I had to leave the dem party.

than not, you just don't agree on the words to use.

I always liked the verse in Romans I think where Paul writes about how when we measure ourselves to ourselves (ie we define what is or isn't evil) we will always measure out right.

Our measure should be to God's standards, not our own or man's standards.

It is God we answer to in the end.

created by and of human beings, really be as moral as the liberals seem to think (this is what you're saying, isn't it... that man is evil and needs the government to say "no-no"?)?

Seems fairly arrogant to me.

that I keep liberal in my name.

On bad days, Hobbes is always there to provide comfort and satisfaction. I don't think a real liberal sees the state as a moral agent at all. It is, alas, necessary. This is, of course, a source of criticism of liberalism, that it denies the possibility of a collective morality. Of course, these criticisms come from the left as well as the right.

a "moral agent" in the sense that it protects its citizens from being robbed and murdered. It shouldn't tell me to quit smoking, or wear a seatbelt, or who I can talk about, or who I can hire/fire, and for what reasons. The state does not exist, in short, to inject its (questionable) morality into the lives of others.

Do you really believe that it is "necessary" for the state to imbue citizens with its (dubious) morality? And who decides on what morals those will be? It seems to me that most of the Islamic Middle East is already trying a similar experiment and, while I know there are those who will take issue with my saying it, they are merely succeeding in tyranny.

Re: Modern liberalism evolved into both radical egalitarianism and radical individualism but, in different areas of the culture, mainly due to the rejection of moral absolutes for personal behavior

Liberalism has not rejected moral absolutes at all. It has simply adopted a different set of absolutes. Liberalism may not care much about who is sleeping with whom-- and quite frankly the obsession some moralists have with sex is way over-blown IMO: there are seven deadly sins and only one of them is lust. But make a mildly racist or homophobic joke in a liberal's hearing, or perhaps just express support for the Iraq War, and you will find the liberal every bit as censorious as Cotton Mather on a bad day.

re: The attack on the traditions and expressions of Christians in this country is enormous.  

Perhaps, but this comes not from liberalism per se but from a radical few, the heirs of Madelyn Murray O'Hair (and of Ayn Rand too). It has not been so long a time after all since this country had a politically active (indeed, politically ferocious) Religious Left-- MLK Jr., the Berrigans, Dorothy Day etc.

Re: We are not a secular Republic by the way, much as liberals would want.

Are you using "secular" as a synonym for "atheist"? If so, I would agree with your statement. But if you are using the oowrd in its older sense of "temporal" or "non-ecclesiastical" then I have to disagree very much. There is no formal role in our nation's governance for the Church at all.

Where from any of my posts you could have derived the idea that I think the state should imbue its citizens with morality. Nevertheless, I do like the fact that we've got cops and jails.

of cops and jails as well. where I got the idea re: state and morality is from your quote:

"I don't think a real liberal sees the state as a moral agent at all. It is, alas, necessary."

the context suggests to me that while you may not "like" the idea of state-as-moral-agent, you're willing to go along with it because you view it as a necessary evil. I disagree.

I have to ask what you think of Jefferson's contention that preserving a republic in vigour depends upon the manners and spirit of a people?  I view this as the individual who gives his consent to governance is inextricable from the health of that government.  And hence, the individual of character inspired by faith is what creates the more perfect Union.

Anyhow, where are you on Jefferson?  Were having fun now.

on the question of racism, I think they have become what they once hated. In fact the main reason I called myself a lib and was a dem so long was due to my hatred of racism and its effect on my beloved South.

The purest racism in any significant numbers I see is on the left with their condescention to blacks they claim can't make it on the merits in America. To presume that people are so disabled by events more than 40-300 years ago implies a deeply held belief of the inferiority of blacks with the remedy being that these inferior beings can openly make it with the left's superior help.

I know of course that many are simply poverty pimps and that they also blame white racism and so called institutional racism.

But I want to explore this white liberal racism problem because I have seen it, caught people in it and watched them stutter for an explanation as I saw the confusion in their eyes.

The best examples are their revulsion at generalizations that highlight black SUPERIORITY in sports, artistic caricatures, jokes and indian team nicknames.

They PROJECT their own sick prejudices very often especially in their criticism of art and indian sports team nicknames.

I played trick on one of these racist libs one time when I saw her get mad about a cartoon drawn by a BLACK cartoonist (she didnt know this) in which she said the facial features were exagerrated.

They weren't. Case closed.

I've seen this numerous times from libs, even BLACKS!. I feel especially sorry for such self loathing blacks, but with  libs that purport to see all people as beautiful serving as masters of the lib plantation, one can see why, in 2005, one might develop such a pathology.

One more example for now.

I think they hate the indian team nicknames that whites and blacks choose to HONOR the dignity and courage of native americans because it blows away the myth of widespread middle class racism as well as the myth that our conflicts were between evil whites and pure peaceful indians.

They also hate to see warriors admired.

BUT, there is more invidious aspect that no one ever mentions, and that is that they see themselves superior have revulsion for the clothing of the natives.

They like to imagine that man has "evolved" into a higher being and hate to be reminded of their limitations. And they hate to face the contradiction with their own WHITE self loathing.

They openly call pictures pictures of blacks and Indians OFFENSIVE.

Im continually amused at the effect of the last 30 years of PC so that so many cant't recognize racism in themselves or others today. Much as many bigots didnt long ago. See Archie Bunker.

These modern day liberal white bigots are way more screwed up than any Dixiecrat ever was!

also not only from a few.

I watched the slow change since 1968 (which is  37 years ago and your more recent cited example of an approved accomplishment of the religous left) from inside the dem party in Bible Belt SC, even.

Even most of the church going folks in the dem party join in with the secularists in the ridicule of appeals to traditional judeo-christian values (even when they themselves are one of those!) at party meetings. Its a sad sight, especially when its one of the few evangelicals in the dem party.

The "mainstream" "christians" long ago bought into the idea of keeping their religion in the church or closet so as not to offend anyone and that free speech doesnt include religious sopeech in the public square. But they pull jesus out when they want poverty pimp taxes.

Its funny how they dont pull Jesus out with regard to the muslims that were suffering under Saddam.

There is much greater percentage of the left and dem party that are hostile to traditional christian values than you suppose.

The best estimates, I think, can be found in state referendums on gay marriage. Usually the supporters of gay marriage get fropm 25-35% of the vote which is from 40-60 % of the dem party vote.

The evolution of the label 'Liberal' now encompasses those who view the 'separation of church and state' as open warfare on Christianity.  Even the ecclesiastical liberal group you speak of, from forty years hence, would not have any problem with opening the session of Congress with prayer, or hanging the Ten Commandments on a courtroom wall.  But look where we are now!  The ACLU hates Christmas.  The Supreme Court rejects the founding document of our laws.  Atheists in Las Cruxes NM want to change the name.  Anyone can see its open season on Christianity.  An interesting point is that I personally have no problem with this conflict.  It brings to the forefront the real positions of the participants, instead of lurking in the shadows.  And to my personal faith, symbology and religiosity is a poor substitute for reality.  But again, I feel preachy, so let's keep things in the political.  

You are right, for instance, in bringing to the forefront some very potent intellects from classic liberalism.  But is the group of people whom are now labeled Liberal colorblind for instance?  That was MLK's principal thrust into the community.  That personal excellence can be achieved regardless of skin color.  Do you hear that message from the left?  

It is label confusion, and I enjoy the debate in philosophical terms, of the conservative vs. liberal, so long as you really mean the post-modern liberal of the early to mid twentieth century.  Otherwise it descends into simian mindless rhetoric of unsubstantiated special interest, and we would need to switch from philosophical mode to topical mode, which we can do in a separate thread.

The term secular is funny isn't it?  We use it in mathematics to descrobe terms in non-linear equations that don't behave well over time.  Yet it can have the meaning of 'without the church', or separate from the world of faith.  I wonder if secular governments don't behave well over time?

The state is necessary. It is not a moral agent.

This is the problem.

The "battle" is being fought over minor peripheral issues.  Who cares if Congress says a prayer before Congress?  Does it materially affect your spirituality?  Do you feel you need your beliefs affirmed by our government?

Certainly there is a very small minority of people that hostile to religion.  There is a larger group of people who are hostile to those who wish to impose their religous beliefs on others.  

I also think this makes you a minority among democrats. (unless the majority are, as is often the case, simply soft-spoken compared to the rest).

Among the Founding Fathers, I prefer Madison to Jefferson, and in some ways like Franklin best of all.

And Franklin raises interesting issues in all this. He clearly believed in some kind of public virtue (though he was at best ambivalent about private virtue) and he thought that churches could be instrumental in inculcating this virtue, but worried that too many did not--they were too interested in creating good Presbyterians rather than good citizens.

I think it is almost too obvious to be beyond dispute that a free society depends on the bulk of its citizens being responsible with their liberty. And to a large extent, that requires some kind of public morality. However, like many classical republicans such as Machiavelli (and Franklin), I wonder if Christianity is well suited to this, and issue St. Augustine addresses at length in City of God.

So, in addition to any faith based morality, there needs to be an equally powerful morality of public service. And if there really is a moral crisis in our country today, that is where I find it--the utter lack of any call to sacrifice and serve the public.

Yesterday, we remembered our fathers and grandfathers who fought to defend this country, and we should also remember the sacrifices ordinary citizens were expected to make to defeat our enemies. We'll fly the flag, but since the 60s, calls to sacrifice just aren't made. This to me is the biggest failure of the Bush Presidency--he had an opportunity to bring Americans out of their self-centeredness and return prestige to the idea of public service--many were ready and willing to serve their country and simply required a bit of leadership to do so. He could have told us to strike a blow against terrorism by driving less, by working in our communities, to consider joining the military or becoming a fire fighter or police officer. Instead he cut taxes and told us to go shopping.

Imagine what would happen to public support for the war in Iraq if a draft began. We can barely tolerate $3 a gallon gasoline. OK, I'll stop rambling and preaching now.  

Do you think forcing the removal of the Commandments from a courthouse is the imposition of secular humanist religion?  Is it not the secular humanist that wants their beliefs affirmed by government?  Look at the sterilization of public school curricula in the last thirty years.  They don't even want the pilgrims to be Christians, the founding fathers to be Christians, or virtually any historical event or person to relate to Christianity.  Is an objective history of the US that includes God an imposition of religious beliefs?  

There may be a very few who are actively hostile, but there is a growing majority of liberals (modern) who agree.  It seems they a more willing to impose the secular humanist religion at every turn.

I don't need affirmation of my faith by government, but a government constructed of people of faith should be free to exercise it.  And I will personally have more trust in that government, but that is subjective, eh?

Yes Ark, keep the last name for now my brother if you still wonder about the suitability of Christianity for a democratic republic in light of our history and the history of the world. And the results!

Not only is the Bible the main source for our inalienable individual rights and freedoms, but Christians have led most of the movements to correct our sins.

See link

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/308

more on "need for sacrifice" in later post, but first,

why do you think we need to sacrifice? Are you for sacrifice for its own sake even if we don't need it to win?

Who was the last president to ask for sacrifice?

I think what we have needed are a rational loyal opposition party and press, and a more vocal leader to rally us even if it requires calling the dems and the press out for their unpatriotic behavior. We have needed fireside chats, I grant you, IF ANY NETWORK WOULD CARRY THEM!!!

I think liberals to see "original sin" and "salvation" in the terms of we are are all helpless to help ourselves and we need government to keep us from drowning in a rainstorm.

Where communism does have an ideal, the dictatorship of the proletariat, I don't think liberals want an ideal because that would contradict their view of salvation, above.

but as I sat in a German class at a Calfirnian univerity, the professor (for what reason I don't remember) decided to ask the students in what way they identified themselves.  The older fellow (a math professor) identified himself as an American.  The younger folk (the majority of the class) identified themselves as Californians.  I didn't hear anything about world citizenship.

Yes, Christianity has proven itself to be compatible with democratic republic. I don't think fundamentalism of any stripe is, however, for reasons would begin with Machiavelli and Augustine but go well beyond that. Though the religiosity of the founding fathers is an interesting historical subject, not one of them could be said to be anything close to a fundamentalist.  

Probably the last President to really ask for a sacrifce was Roosevelt, unless you think JFK was serious when he said "Ask not what your country can do for you." Certainly, no one seems to have listened. As to whether we need sacrifice or not, some people are making the ultimate sacrifice. Why does the very suggestion of sacrifice not even entertained seriously? Would our foreign policy be different if sacrifice were part of the fight?

Sacrifice is an important part of a free society because only a deep commitment to our country can ensure its survival through periods of difficulty. We've had it easy lately, but the price is that not a politician of either side dares ask us for anything. They trip all over themselves telling how much free stuff we can get. Bob Dole (a truly great American who dedicated his life to public service, worth 20 GWBs) may have come closest, but he lost to perhaps our most self-indulgent President ever.  

Frankly, I've seen little patriotism from either side in our recent political debates. I see a lot of bellicosity here on this site, and I read a lot of statements about how me must not back down in the face of an enemy who is determined to wipe us off the face of the earth. I wonder what backs it up. If the threat is real, why aren't we, as individual Americans, supposed to do anything about it?

I'm no hand ringing Kossack. We have a determined enemy. Why aren't we determined to really fight back? Why not fight for real? Let's get people in uniform. Let's give up the tax cuts. Do this thing right. At the very least, why not boycott Saudi Oil? Bicycling would be good for us. I don't think the Democrats have an anwer for me either, by the way.

to take some time to fully respond because I do wonder if maybe we do need to greatly increase the size of the military to face the islamo-facists and prepare for a possible threat from china, and this is an issue I've had on my mind a long time.

Yes, FDR, not JFK, though I do respect his fervent anti-communism but don't you see the irony?

FDR didn't really have to ask after December 7th, 1941. The threat was self evident, esp after watching Hitler in Europe for a decade and Japan for many years.

But you see many of us see a similar threat after 911 that made the removal of saddam a no-brainer given the past 10 years.

But so many Americans don't get it. Don't see the ideological movement and the necessity of pre-empting attacks esp those that a wmd terror state could sponsor.

They are in denial; about saddams 1990'00s behavior and don't grasp the grave threat we face.

Now, I 'm no military expert, and don't know what level of troops we need.  I suspect we ought to have many more.

But, given that the dem party is willing to lose the war  to regain power, it seems obvious that they would not sacrice anything.

Also, in WWII we had not recovered fully from the depression and had to immediately build a massive military from almost scratch requiring a command economy, which is not as efficient as a healthy free economy. We learned after wwii that money supply was crucial, etc.

My point is that we dopnt want to abandon the goose that's laying the golden egg unless forced to. We do not face massive enemy military machines although china lurks.

Now, let's get real on taxes and spending.

The object of tax policy is to maximize revenue at the lowest possible rates. Agree? Because being a  nation that exalts freedom, keeping the fruits of ones labor is a positive good incl ones private prooerty, ie cash and stuff, which right is the fuel that runs the prosperity machine.

To raise rates does not guarantee more revenue at all;

Sacrifice would mean cuts in entitlements.

As to Saudi, we have to be smart. We dont have to go to war with every nation at once.

More later

Do you think forcing the removal of the Commandments from a courthouse is the imposition of secular humanist religion?

Of course not.  Why would I?  Are you suggesting that an absence of religion is the same as the promotion of atheism?  

It's not an "absence of religion." It's the forced removal of religion. Are you suggesting that the forced removal of religion is not equivalent to promoting atheism?

Right, I don't blame Bush for the basic self-indulgence that has swept this country really since the early sixties. Bush, and Clinton, and most successful politicians simply indulge this nearly pathological attitude in order to win elections. With the exception of Civil Rights, there has been little to inspire this American.

But you see many of us see a similar threat after 911 that made the removal of saddam a no-brainer given the past 10 years.

But so many Americans don't get it. Don't see the ideological movement and the necessity of pre-empting attacks esp those that a wmd terror state could sponsor.]

Except Iraq wasn't the real threat. And I know I'm not supposed to repeat talking points, but Bush himself has never made any connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Saddam is an evil man, and the world is better off without him, but he could have been contained. Iran was, and continues to be a threat. That would have been the logical place to pursue regime change. Not only that, Iran had a working civil society and opposition movement that could have been used as a lever--in effecting such a regime change. The problem is that Iran has a functioning military, while Iraq never did. So, Bush picks the soft target. FDR took on Germany and Japan at the same time. I fear our country just isn't up to the challenge.

North Korea is a threat as well, and what do we do? Pull troops out of S. Korea to deal with an insurgency.

I also think far too much is made of WMD--the 9/11 terrorists basically used stuff I've got in my kitchen drawer. Tim McVeign showed you could do a lot of damage with a U-Haul, some fertilizer and diesel fuel.

Now as far as Dems rooting for us to lose in Iraq for political advantage--obviously, I think that is disgusting, though I wonder how real that is.

I have mixed feelings about the anti-war movement. I think they're wrong to demand an immediate pull out, since I believe victory is essential. On the other hand, Bush has done a terrible job in how he made the case for war, and even worse, he failed to give the American people realistic expectations of what victory would take. The transition to democracy in Iraq will take 2 generations--about 40 years. I'm not saying we'll have 150k troops there fighting an insurgency all that time, but we will have to commit substantial resources to ensure that transition happens successfully.

Should we have religion in every aspect of our lives?  Does the fact that most businesses ignore religion mean that most businesses are atheistic and promoting atheism?

You seem to be stuck on this idea that ignoring something, and prohibiting it, are equivalent. Very well. Why do you think girls prohibit you?

Key in what I am identifying is something below the surface.  The difference in our observation is the leading question.  I ask, "Are you a Global Citizen?"  You point out primary self-identification in a relatively objective sense.  These are two different psychological tracks.  And I don't expect many people who have not had contact with environmentalist or global socialist groups to have a pre-conceived self-identity relating to the term Global Citizen.  But the global socialist identity is alive and well in Europe, and emerging here.

Go back and look at the thread. When backed in a corner, you came out with the "ALL" word. Thats a shame. And the non sequitur business digression?

And "impose"? Minor?

Hearing a prayer is no more of an imposition any more than hearing anything else, like secular ideas. Free speech includes ALL speech, incl religious speech. I dont like a lot of speech I hear but would never presume to have it made illegal.

To allow all speech but religious speech is not a minor matter. What we say and do in public as a people matters, esp to children that need to be taught what we are as a people and what shaped us.

History shows the rights of non-christians are best ensured by a nation founded on judeo-christian values. Look it up and look at immigration of non-christians to the US.

And as to impose. Such a lame argument. This is a free country in which we all speak and vote. Super majorities of Christians have even ratified const rights for minorities thru amendment. Only the majority imposes, thru laws. Every law imposes someones values.  

By the way, how bout them Cocks!

What liberals are you hanging out with... I want to be there instead of where I am.

My SF Bay area liberals

1. Think the worst of most people (except those in groupthink with them). This qualifies as them thinking the worst of human nature.
   
   
2. Don't believe in god, most have a terrible bias against religions.
   
   
3. Would rather own pets than have children.
   
   
4. Would love to tell everyrone else how to live, but don't tell them how to live their own lives.

Before we fall off the rhetorical cliff, try this on in ref. to 'sacrifice'.  What do you guys think of the current cycle of overconsumerism?  It begins in the late fifties, and has not stopped.  Is this one of the pressures turning the collective will against making just the sacrifices mentioned?  The proverbial "fat and happy" and headed for the slaughterhouse?  Not that I am pessimistic about the future of our great country, it just seems that the public expression of the society is one of an ill-mannered and spiritually corrupt people.  I know that is not completely true, as every community I have had a chance to experience had at least a few of the best kind of citizen.  Even here in the Peoples Republic of Hawaii, there are many people of character and spirit.  But I fear further infection, in the sense that Jefferson didn't want the mobs of the urban centers of Europe in America.  And we clearly see where the urban centers fall out politically.  It seems they prefer consumption to ownership.  I'll leave you with this, since Franklin is your man:

"Most men, indeed, as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error."

Where I differ is in desire not to posses the truth, but to simply see and know the truth.

You are saying that prohibiting practicing religion is the same as promoting atheism.  Please provide an explanation for this.

of course not, and the US went to many countries on the way to Berlin and Tokyo.

I agree that Iran is the ultimate target. But Saddam was openly defying us in violation of a ceasefire, shooting at our planes, openly harbouring  terrorists including one of the conspirators in the FIRST 1993 WTC bombing. A 1998 indictment named Iraq and al qaida as responsible for Khobar. He tried to kill 41. And after 911 his open defiance was a threat to our credibility to not allow nations to harbour terrorists.

And, unlike Iran, Saddam was discovered to be 6 months from having a nuke in 1995 by the UN inspectors and had 1.5 tons of uranium that we found earlier this yea.

Iran does not yet have, we think nuke capacity.

Plus, we have hoped to foster a coup by the people in Iran.

Saddam was not contained and was about to get loose again.

more later

"Your puny human mind will never comprehend such mysteries." – G'narr, 2nd Epistle to Heaven's Gate

On a quick read, I find myself in agreement with much of this.

But don't single out cities. Living in a small town outside of metropolitan America, I see a great deal more overconsumerism than I did growing up in suburban NJ during the 80s. For instance, many 16 years olds have new cars at their disposal--our highschool parking lot is full of Silverados, Mustangs, and F-150s, but not a bike rack in sight. And divorce, out-of wedlock births, and other social pathologies are far more common here than anything else I've experienced.

I don't really see this as a political issue--no one is really talking about this. No one is asking or suggesting Americans really make do with less--that no one needs dozens of shoes, and that the pursuit of material goods is spiritually empty. I suppose there are fringe environmentalist, back to nature, and simple living type groups that do--and though some may have something of a hippie cast to them, many take notions of traditional religion and family life very seriously.

I wanted to make another point--when Pearl Harbor was bombed, young men stopped what they were doing to go to the nearest recruiting center. After 9/11, the military has had a difficult time meeting its enlistment quotas.

Original sin is in the Old Testament.  Which is a Jewish document.  Islam is an Abrahamic religion--which means they also believe in original sin.

And there are millions of Christian liberals--liberals who believe in original sin.

Yikes.

The nation-state is not the organic competitive entity.

There's a conservative named Samuel Huntington (clash of civilizations, Who We Are) who would violently disagree.  As would I.

you win the cupie doll!

i'll bet my family jewels if you put up a poll on Dailykos with the question "is the State (in general) a moral agent?" they answer would be a resounding NO.

Liberalism is far more complex than this.

Liberals believe that the State exists to level the playing field.

The difference between you and a Liberal is that you understand that the playing field should be leveled between you and a thug with a knife when you walk down the street.

A Liberal thinks that corporations, employers, and the majority race/culture/religion are like the thug with the knife--an entity that behaves like the thug with a knife.  A Liberal sees no difference between the State interfering with the free reign of a child molester, and the State interfering with the "free reign" of Wal-Mart.

good explaination.