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.
If we allow only those who don't believe in a God to rule and prevent those who do believe in God from ruling, then we get a toxic mixture. That mixture has already been seen in practice in several countries. One of those countries tried to exterminate his people. But since he approves of the toxic mixture, it seems reasonable to assume that he approves of the results as well. An amoral monster. Good thing there is only 3/4 of one of him.
What the author senses is the lefts targeting of conservatives under the guise of 'separation of church and state'.
I have also seen the lefts frustration of losing the presidency in 2000. They have no respect for conservative politicians and are now slashing at anything valued by conservatives in general... traditional family, pro-life, religion, the private sector and even the military.
Should we be surprised? No... this is not surprising behavior for American socialists and the Democrat party is now full of them. Kerry and Edwards are already eying wealthier Americans to be the beasts of burden in the lefts 'Great Society II: The Destruction of Capitalism.'
Jeepers... Thanks for the ping!
People tend to use the word faith as if its a good thing and it often is. If youre talking about it in terms of loyalty and in terms of your friends, then its a beautiful thing. If youre talking about it in terms of optimism and of being happy about life and things will turn out okay, then, its also okay. If youre talking about it in terms of Allah taking care of me in the next life for being a martyr and, therefore, I will fly the planes into the Twin Towers, I dont know how you can justify that as a good thing.
There is no difference between Mel Gibsons faith and the terrorists faith. We have no evidence that there was a historic Jesus, we have no evidence that he died for our sins. We have no evidence, that we can agree on, for any of that. If you look at the distribution of religion, it tends to be geographical and not intellectual, which is a another discussion.
"Reich, and the terrorists are on the same side."
I am, as usual, in complete agreement with you gentlemen on this, but how is this 'news?'
We've known this for over a decade, have we not?
_______________________________
_______________________________
Indeed, but we need to keep repeating it for the sheeple.
Hey, all you "religious" folks. Make sure you get 'a loadda' this. A full on Taliban cleric of the religion of Secular Humanism.
If you'd like to be on or off this
Christian Supporters of Israel ping list,
please FR mail me. ~
MikeFromFR ~
There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had
spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:45)
Letter To The President In Support Of Israel ~
'Final Solution,' Phase 2 ~
Warnings ~
Man. I NEVER DID like this jerk.
He's the LAST one getting outta this car:
I, for one am sick to death of these leftist defining fundamentalism to suit their agenda. Christian Fundamentalism has zero to do with imposing a religious view on anyone.
"Beware of little men.."
If the left is to achieve its final goal, it must destroy G-d even as a concept. As long as G-d remains the final arbiter, they can never win. Since they cannot murder G-d, they must dim our memory of Him, erase Him, to cause the end of all that is left of morality. It ain't gonna happen, even if it comes to a reckoning.
"An amoral monster."
IMO, an accurate description of the left.
Consider those who call God "Allah" and believe that everyone who does not call Allah "God" must be killed. Your level of alarm is biased by believing Reich's comment only pertains to God from the Judeo/Christian perspective. Frankly, I'm tired of people using religious beliefs as justification for killing other people whose beliefs are different.
I support the right of every individual to choose their notion of God and worship. So long as such worship does not infringe upon the rights of any other individual to pursue life, liberty and a state of happiness.
I believe you need to reread the above from Reich.
I cannot agree with that. Early New Testament Christians sold their possessions and goods to help the needy (Acts 2:42-47), but it was done freely and wasn't imposed by anyone, least of all the government. The Apostle Paul exhorted the able-bodied to work (Eph. 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:10-12).
Frightening. Not surprising, but frightening.
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.