SETBACK FOR REPUBLICANS

Liberalism is a Sin . CHAPTER 2 WHAT LIBERALISM IS
Protestantism naturally begets toleration of error. Rejecting the principle of authority in religion, it has neither criterion nor definition of faith. On the principle that every individual or sect may interpret the deposit of revelation according to the dictates of private judgement, it gives birth to endless differences and contradictions. Impelled by the law of its own impotence, through lack of any decisive voice of authority in matters of faith, it is forced to recognize as valid and orthodox any belief that springs from the exercise of private judgement. Therefore does it finally arrive, by force of its own premises, at the conclusion that one creed is as good as another; it then seeks to (16) shelter its inconsistency under the false plea of liberty of conscience. Belief is not imposed by a legitimately and divinely constituted authority, but springs directly and freely from the unrestricted exercise of the individual's reason or caprice upon the subjectmatter of revelation. The individual or sect interprets as it pleases, rejecting or accepting what it chooses. This is popularly called liberty of conscience. Accepting this principle, Infidelity on the same plea rejects all revelation, and Protestantism, which handed over the premise, is powerless to protest against the conclusion; for it is clear that one, who under the plea of rational liberty has the right to repudiate any part of revelation that may displease him, can not logically quarrel with one, who on the same ground repudiates the whole. If one creed is as good as another on the plea of rational liberty, on the same plea no creed is as good as any. Taking the field with this fatal weapon of Rationalism, Infidelity has stormed and taken the very citadel of Protestantism helpless against the foe of its own making.

Being a quote from an old book not written in the US, the reader has to understand that the author intends "liberalism" to mean First Amendment freedom. The quote above is, from the POV of an authoritarian, a nice critique of the First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States.

Accept the premise that the Catholic Church can't be wrong, and everything else follows. In the limit, in fact, an inquisition follows. Which is a nice explanation for the existence of pamplets such as one I remember seeing in my youth entitled, American Freedom and Catholic Power. And for the fact that JFK's religion was an issue in the 1960 election.

The bottom line is, IMHO, that our religious diversity precludes an actual Establishment of Religion in America. The biggest denomination has anti-First Amendment logic to it - but the smaller ones do too, and they understand that an Establishment of religion will not be Establishment of their religion. Indeed, the Catholics understand that too - and all Christians have reason to understand that the only Establishment with which any Christians are seriously threatened is the journalism Establishment.

Journalism is an establishment which claims that all of is members are objective - which implies the claim that all of its members are wise. It has been known since Socrates that claiming wisdom positions one as a tyrant (or tyrant wannabe) who does not accept the legitimacy of dissent from their uniquely "wise" perspective. Journalism has as a planted axiom not only an arrogant claim of wisdom but the fundamentally irreligious perspective that only the unusual and the novel (no ancient scripture neeed apply) are important.

The First Amendment is the codification of the Socratic concept that political and religious questions must be open to debate. And although everyone would like to have their own ideas made the Establishment in America and the world at large, everyone - Osamma bin Laden, Pope Benedict, you name it - must live with the fact that open debate is the rule of America. There can be no legitimate "establishment" in America.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

there are elements, and powerful elements in these movements that want a theocracy and a theocrcay that mirrors thier beliefs. These are Catholics as well as Protestants.

Elements there may be, and even powerful ones within their denominational spheres - but the secular and antireligious journalistic establishment compares in influence with all of them put together. That is a very stable situation, IMHO - and therefore the disunity among the denominations precludes the establishment of any of them (or of Islam, if OBL is reading). Indeed, as I said, there is little doubt that the trend has been not toward established religion but toward established irreligion.
If someone sneezes and the president says "God bless you!" the ACLU tries to make a court case of it. Recall the fatuous attempt to get the courts to enjoin the president not to refer to God in his second inaugural address. The court might have considered it, IMHO - if not for the fact that such an injunction could not possibly be enforced. The possibility of having a judgement flouted without consequence - very publicly and probably humorously - might tend to focus a jurist's mind . . .

I appreeciate your dialog. I at one time worried about the influence of the established media. They do not hold the sway they once did, and when they are legitimately needed, they are now more or less overlooked. Secondly, the ultra religious right has painted a scarry picture in the minds of many impressionable people. Sure you'd have pushback from liberals and progressives, but there is a class of concerned but uninformed and non politicals that will go with the flow.

Let's also not forget that early in our existance, there were communities that were largely one faith or the other and the institutions in those areas reflected that predominate faith. Jewish and Catholic come to mind, but I'm sure there were protestant situations also. And of course in Utah, prior to mass migration, if you weren't Mormon, you weren't anybody and had limited rights as the jobs, schools and courts had a decidedly Mormon bent. As I mentioned earlier, I remember back in the 80's when the Moonies tried to take over a region. I don't know what became of it.

America is soul searching now and it's not beyond the realm of possibility that there are those who could given the right tools and set of circumstances push forward a theocratic agenda. Frankly, even though he keeps getting soundly defeated, you would probably find such a person in Alan Keyes.

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.