Posted on 07/06/2004 5:18:34 PM PDT by buckeyesrule
Robert Reichs Religion Problem
Witless rhetorical oppositions.
Liberals tend to take umbrage when it is suggested that they are hostile to religion, or to religious people, or to some subset thereof. They have nothing against evangelical Christians, they respond, so long as they do not seek to use the state to impose their faith on others. Some liberals go further, saying that they are religious progressives who advocate a bigger welfare state as an outgrowth of their religious values. (A number of my fellow contributors to the new Brookings Institution book One Electorate Under God? take this approach, including Paul Begala.) I take all these liberals at their word. I do not think that most liberals who passionately dislike the Christian Right are hostile to Christians; they have some political and moral disagreements with conservative Christians. On most of the issues in question, I am inclined to agree with or at least lean toward the views of contemporary Christian conservatives, but there is plenty to debate.
But the phenomenon of liberal religion-bashing isn't imaginary, either. Robert Reich's latest column in The American Prospect is a case in point. It starts out pressing the case for the contemporary liberal understanding of church-state separation and its history in America, and uses this understanding to criticize the Bush administration. (The article is headlined "Bush's God.") He says that "the problem" with "religious zealots" is that "they confuse politics with private morality."
Now I disagree with much of what he has to say, and consider it uncivil to describe advocates of prayer in public schools, a ban on abortions, and other policies Reich dislikes as "religious zealots." (I don't consider myself a religious zealot, although I support several of those policies, and support some of them zealously.) But none of this is especially outrageous or even noteworthy.
But then comes Reich's conclusion:
The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face. This goes well beyond the common denunciation of "fundamentalism" where that term is meant to describe an ideology that seeks the imposition of religious views on non-believers. (That's what Andrew Sullivan means when he uses the term.) It is a denunciation as a graver threat than terrorists of people who believe that the world to come is more important than this world, or that all human beings owe their allegiance to God.
Many millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religious believers will reject Reich's witless rhetorical oppositions. One can believe in the political "primacy of the individual," the obligation of all people to answer to God, and the wrongness of any governmental attempt to make them answer to Him, all at the same time. But if our choice is between the primacy of individuals and the primacy of God if, that is, we are to choose between individual human beings and God then the vast majority of traditional religious believers would have to choose God. I certainly would. That would be the case for plenty of believers who are not sure what they think about abortion law, or want a higher minimum wage. All of us, for Reich, are the enemy.
I will not reciprocate the sentiment. Reich is not my enemy, although I certainly want most of what he stands for politically not to prevail. I don't think we have to have the battle he forecasts. I hope we don't. In fact, I pray we don't.
Christianity has been around as many millenia as America has centuries.
What happened here is not the be-all and end-all.
Terrorists commit many murders, terrorists believe in God and life after death, therefore supposedly those who believe in God and life after death are the ultimate enemy, worse than terrorists. Poor logic indeed.
Wonder how he explains his last name? (Just kidding, he didn't choose it.)
>> Quoting Reich: between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority
As the author of the article points out, this is a false dichotomy. Secular and atheistic socialists seek to avoid accountability before God and suppress the rights of the individual under a totalitarian dictatorship. We have seen many examples of this over the last century under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. Socialists need to admit that they are hostile to freedom and other American values and not try to persuade Americans to follow their lead.
On the other hand, those who champion the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness also stress our accountability before our Maker. The two go hand in hand. Without that accountability, individual rights tend to get trampled.
So you tend to find both liberty and accountability toward God, or neither.
"Oh we don't have an axe to grind, do we?"
Not at all, do you?
Liar
It tempts me to think of you as an idiot for admitting it. Is that your "fall-back" career? Or are you just a "wise guy" undecover?
Oh, bad form!
Capitalism sprang from Christianity, and not in any other culture.
Human rights sprang from Christianity, and not from any other culture.
And as for your statement "it certainly does not have a capitalist bent to it," I would, right off the top of my head, respond with the parable that Jesus taught about the morning workers and the workers hired later that afternoon--and the response he gave to those who argued that it was unfair they be paid the same amount. If that ain't CAPITALIST (hey, it's my money), then I don't know what is. It shows a great personal respect for individual right to dispose of property, of wealth.
So there! ;)
66 posted on 07/07/2004 12:19:25 PM MDT by sauron
Capitalism is a term coined by Marxists
to describe Freedom, Liberty and Free Market Enterprise
and it is pejorative.
a bondslave to the Christ
chuck
"Liar"
Ahhhh, Must be the refreshing air of that well know Christian love.
"Capitalism is a term coined by Marxists
to describe Freedom, Liberty and Free Market Enterprise
and it is pejorative."
Where I come from it is held in high regard. However that doesn't seem to true in today's GOP and many of it's minions.
I read your previous posts, your agenda is clear--you do have an axe to grind.
And that makes you a liar.
"A sarcastic statement about "Christian love" and you don't have an axe to grind?"
No don't have an ax to grind. Just pointing out the obvious, which is ever present on this board. That however, seems to bother you.
Furthermore, your claims of Christianity being responsible for the advent of Socialism are baseless. I notice you did not reply to any other posts on this board that set you in the direction of showing how it is not.
Ditto, ping to you since you had a case of mistaken ID earlier. The giant has awakened only to skirt the issues he raised.
Reich is a Marxist, let's move on.
"Furthermore, your claims of Christianity being responsible for the advent of Socialism are baseless. I notice you did not reply to any other posts on this board that set you in the direction of showing how it is not."
Yes you are correct I did not respond to those posts, partly because I don't respond to all post, but primarily in this instance because the post I received on this topic demonstrated such a lack of understanding of the issue that a reply would be an exercise in futility.
But don't ever think for a minute that I am ever afraid to bang those about the head who would threaten our freedoms, that is what little freedoms we have left.
That's OK,..those who hate us for that reason, do so because they hated Jesus Christ first, moreso. For every suffering their is a blessing for those who remain in fellowship with Him. We already know from Scripture that considerable suffering will still occur and even more judgment upon those who have rejected Him. The rewards for those who remain in fellowship with Him are great and eternal, while the Lake of Fire is everlasting for those who have never come to Him and reject Him. It's all in the good book.
Yeah, keep up the good fight. Us Christians are just out everywhere trying to take away your rights.
"Yeah, keep up the good fight. Us Christians are just out everywhere trying to take away your rights"
Well at least that's one thing you got right. But then again hasn't always been their modus operandi to assuage their fears of living life.
On what other subjects do you and Robert Reich agree on?
"Don't forget they introduced both socialism AND prohibitionism into this countries politics in the late 1800's"
Yeah, they got to stop all that sinning that's going on don't you know. The fate of the country depends on it. And they have no qualms with whose or what rights they have to trample on to get it done.
It's the same line they have been touting for hundreds of years, that and Armageddon is right around the corner. We all talk a lot about what a threat Al-Quida is to us, and I agree they are a threat, but the biggest threat to our hard won rights from inside our borders is the rise of the religious right in politics.
The GOP needs to purge themselves of them now, while there is still an opportunity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.