Posted on 07/06/2004 5:18:34 PM PDT by buckeyesrule
Robert Reich’s 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.
Reich makes the mistake even most Christians make, thinking of a dualism "between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma."
We have historical, eyewitness, independent sources internally and externally validating the truth claims of Christianity. It's easy, for anyone willing to study, to objectively find the errors in false claims, false religions.
But Christianity's claims have never been disproven. Jesus really rose, He really is God, therefore what He says is true. Being God, what He has to say about how to deal with people should be accurate, eh?! Precisely because Christianity is not just "faith", but "faith founded on facts", it provides a great way for dealing with people individually and governmentally.
Christianity teaches that BOTH now and the future are important. It is a false dichotomy Reich makes between those who value the here and now, vs those who hold the future life as more important. God is always to be served. And, we are always to love our neighbor. It's not either/or, but BOTH!
Reich standing is still beneath contempt reclining.
Yep, they had the exact same vitriol for President Reagan as well.
The little fella reminds me of the guy Benny Hill used to pat on the head (rapidly).
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.
Reich has just said that the ultimate enemies are: those who believe in God.
Spread this wide. To TV, radio, print, churches, etc.
It is the MOST sinister comment EVER made for a former national level secretary.
Roughly translated Reich could've said "religion is the opiate of the masses"...
Make no mistake, this is a battle between good and evil. Reich, and the terrorists are on the same side.
xzins,Here's a bump.
Quotes are missing so I don't know which are Reich's words and which are interpretive. But one can see that Reich's attack is based on marginalizing and demonizing his opponents, a revered and often-used liberal tactic.
It's worse than that. What he is saying is that "belief in God is the root of all evil."
It is a truly chilling opinion piece by Reich...
.
NEVER FORGET
When student REICH was at Oxford University with CLINTON he stated that his group of Rhodes Scholars were so upwardly purposeful that...
...they were ABOVE Fighting Terrorism on behalf of the Freedom of Others in Vietnam.
REICH hasn't changed for our new World War against Terrorism on behalf of the Freedom of Others...
...even though it's now our own Freedom that's at
stake here at home.
.
Praise GOD that...
LOVE is the Only Reality and that...
GOD is LOVE.
.
Andrew, I checked on the quotes problem. In the original National Review piece it is offset in a "blockquote" as I have done. The poster of this thread just did a "copy/paste" and did not include the "blockquote."
So...it is a quote.
And sinister.
Oh we don't have an axe to grind, do we?
It was theologians that pushed evolution, before it was accepted by the mainstream scientific community, ...so what does that prove?
It was also the pilgrims that tried the commune approach, which almost wiped them out. They then switched to private ownership, and became very successful. This lesson was not lost on our founding fathers, which were also Christians. Seems to me that you are painting with too broad a brush.
Thanks for the ping.
Many think this, RR was 'brave' enough to publicly state it. Others just live it and seek to implement policy in support of these views.
"It is the MOST sinister comment EVER made for a former national level secretary."
Bump!
I think we might be reading too much into Reich's statement.
The only religion the uses terrorism as a core belief, that wants to roll back civilization 700-1000 years does not worship the God of Abraham, the God of primary glory and truth.
It worships a moon god, the god of reflected glory and lies.
That, and a rock that "fell from Heaven like lightning"...
Although, now that the caffine is kicking in, maybe not...
"But the liberals hatred of Bush is not just for Bush but it extends to the people that vote for and support Bush. "
...and, (OF COURSE) that hatred is really a hatred of God and Jesus, to whom GWB gives all credit due....
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.