[open]Why are you liberal?

[Rebekka]

I have often heard it said, by Mike Savage and others, that liberalism is a mental disorder. I understood him to be speaking of political liberalism. But for some of you, your religious and political liberalism are linked? And you caught them by being bitten by a liberalism carrying tick? I sure hope I can't catch political liberalism from hanging out with my religious liberal friends!

Izzy,
who values her identity
as a religious liberal and
political neolibertarian

Hm, what is political liberalism? I'm asking as a Dutch woman who is confused by American words for things she sees as right-wing. I think most Americans don't use the word "liberal" for right wing. Then what is it? And what is the difference between liberal and libertarian? They both have the word "liber", free, in it. Enlighten me please!

To give you an idea of my own political ideas, they are a mixture of religious social conservatism (we have religious political parties here and I sympathize with one of them - they are slightly socialist and pretty conservative, and christian), environmentalism and socialism, so pretty left wing, but actually conservative in the literal sense: not fond of changes.

 

[Toney]

I think most Americans probably regard The Netherlands as a very liberal country. The U.S., on the other hand, suffers from its Puritan heritage and is, both politically and religiously, conservative.

I recently read some statistics on the number of Christians leaving mainstream Protestant churches (Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) for fundamentalist, evangelistic congregations. It is huge.

The very staid mainstream American churches don't offer the needed certainty, I guess. Plus, the music ministries are mostly dull. There is very little entertainment value.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Hm, what is political liberalism? I'm asking as a Dutch woman who is confused by American words for things she sees as right-wing. I think most Americans don't use the word "liberal" for right wing. Then what is it? And what is the difference between liberal and libertarian? They both have the word "liber", free, in it. Enlighten me please!

To give you an idea of my own political ideas, they are a mixture of religious social conservatism (we have religious political parties here and I sympathize with one of them - they are slightly socialist and pretty conservative, and christian), environmentalism and socialism, so pretty left wing, but actually conservative in the literal sense: not fond of changes.

I understand that could be confusing, as European usage is different. I used "political liberalism" to distinguish the politics from liberal Christianity, which to varying degrees, all of us in WWMC support.

This'll be a lot of reading, if you care to do it, but it should dispel all the ambiguities for you:

• Classical liberalism

What liberalism used to be, and IMO should still be.

• Social liberalism

What liberalism has become.

• Modern liberalism in the United States

What liberalism has become in the USA.

• Libertarianism

The modern (but IMO too doctrinaire and impractical) form of classical liberalism.

• Neolibertarianism

A more practical (IMO) form of libertarianism.

The political liberalism I want to avoid catching would be under the second and third definitions. I am myself a neolibertarian, and very right-wing in a hawkish, consequentialist libertarian kind of way, so it sounds as though your politics and mine are about as close to opposite as it's possible to get while both being Christians and supporters of liberal democracy, though I'm sure there's still much we'd agree on. And I try never to be illiberal (definitions a through d).

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I recently read some statistics on the number of Christians leaving mainstream Protestant churches (Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) for fundamentalist, evangelistic congregations. It is huge.

The very staid mainstream American churches don't offer the needed certainty, I guess. Plus, the music ministries are mostly dull. There is very little entertainment value.

All too true. Thus the growing popularity of the emerging church movement with their postmodern, missional approach to Christianity. They offer Christianity that appeals to more than just fundamentalists and is much more inclusive, but isn't boring like the mainstream churches. Good music too, from what I've heard so far. My new church home will surely be "emerging church", though in what denominational flavor I'm not yet sure.

In my area, I can have "emerging church" in Vineyard, Mars Hill, Church of Christ and Lutheran flavors. Of those, Mars Hill is the only one I won't consider, since they're essentially hardcore fundamentalist, but with rock music and tattoos. Interesting combo though.

 

[Rebekka]

Thanks for your answer and links Izdaari. I think that basically our liberal party is indeed liberal in the classical sense. We also have a social liberal party, they are more central while our classical liberal party is right-wing. The classical liberals still don't want to abolish the welfare state so that means that they're not libertarian I guess.

As far as liberal theology is concerned, I don't think I'm liberal per se, but my disagreement with a few minor catholic teachings (not dogmas - I agree with all the dogmas) makes me a liberal catholic in conservative catholics' eyes (or worse, a "cafetaria catholic"). And I like liberal christians for their tolerance - I'm pretty tolerant myself. I think.

Oh, there are many things I agree on with Dutch classical liberals, and libertarianism isn't that far from liberalism so I'm sure we'd agree on lots of things! I'm an individualist myself - not so much in politics or religion, but in character and taste.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Thanks for your answer and links Izdaari. I think that basically our liberal party is indeed liberal in the classical sense. We also have a social liberal party, they are more central while our classical liberal party is right-wing. The classical liberals still don't want to abolish the welfare state so that means that they're not libertarian I guess.

As far as liberal theology is concerned, I don't think I'm liberal per se, but my disagreement with a few minor catholic teachings (not dogmas - I agree with all the dogmas) makes me a liberal catholic in conservative catholics' eyes (or worse, a "cafetaria catholic"). And I like liberal christians for their tolerance - I'm pretty tolerant myself. I think.

Oh, there are many things I agree on with Dutch classical liberals, and libertarianism isn't that far from liberalism so I'm sure we'd agree on lots of things! I'm an individualist myself - not so much in politics or religion, but in character and taste.

Good, glad I could help!

Yes, I'm sure there's much we'd agree on.

 

[non-religious]

[Toney]
I recently read some statistics on the number of Christians leaving mainstream Protestant churches (Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) for fundamentalist, evangelistic congregations. It is huge.

Reminds me of an interesting documentary I watched on tv over here a while ago. It was about Christians in Texas who were so fundamental that they actually decided to convert to Islam because Christianity just wasn't fundamental enough

You can catch it here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9184353144432289069

 

[Toney]

Reminds me of an interesting documentary I watched on tv over here a while ago. It was about Christians in Texas who were so fundamental that they actually decided to convert to Islam because Christianity just wasn't fundamental enough

Well, I might not call that video a true documentary. More like propaganda, at best a muslim info-mercial. A number of the assertions were false, others lacked attribution.

But it was amusing. Having lived in Texas for a time (Houston), I can say that two bubbas converting to Islam is significant of absolutely nothing.

Thanks for posting the video link. It is always interesting to see how the media in other countries (U.K. Channel 4?) portrays the U.S. After 911, the Islamic community in the U.S. embarked upon an extensive PR campaign to repair its image. For whatever reasons, announcers with British accents enhance credibility.

There are no pockets of radical muslim populations in the U.S. like the intolerable situation in Leeds with Pakistani immigrants.

 

[Im_A]

the whole mentality of that video from what i've seen thus far (it's on pause right now so i can write down my thoughts thus far) is the reason my faith has changed. i just don't know if i want to believe in something, or in some greater being, for my own needs anymore. ie to sanctify myself, or to have a certain way setup to how i see the world.

changing this way and that way because of my insecurities, or my struggles with the faith seems to be a pointless road to go down on.

ironically enough tho, here i am, a liberal Christian. go figure.

i wish i could say i chose my liberalness, but i can't. the security is gone of where i go in the afterlife, or how God is defined, because the only way i can define it, is in a simplistic/humanistic definition, and that's what i know of Jesus through the Gospels and that understanding coming from me is very finite and that remains because that's the only religious figure that means anything to me.

and thus the effect is no opinion on judgement on where me, anyone goes, a more critical analysis of the scriptures, and more emphasis on the here and now the interaction with my fellow human beings.

hope i stayed on topic with my own thread, and sorry if i was rambling. back to watch some more of the video if anymore thoughts come my way i'll send them here.

 

[Im_A]

speak of the devil just a few seconds more into it, and more thoughts coming out to ramble about.

the whole idea of believeing in something cause we come to a point in our lives where we find no meaning, and then to judge it as the way as everyone else should find meaning sounds like selfish, fleshly enlightenment to me. i'm not meaning to step on anyone's toes here, but something doesn't seem right there, and again to tie it into the topic, another reason why i'm the liberal your pastors warned you to stay away from

 

[Toney]

Well, Joe, you seem to be enjoying the video.

 

[Im_A]

Well, Joe, you seem to be enjoying the video.

ha yea i suppose. it caught my attention for awhile there to say the least. gave me a lot to think about with the whole topic.

but i stopped after i finished half of it tho to be honest. my sleep is screwy and time was ticking down and hoping to get some other stuff done on the pc.

 

[non-religious]

[Toney]Well, I might not call that video a true documentary. More like propaganda, at best a muslim info-mercial. A number of the assertions were false, others lacked attribution.

But it was amusing. Having lived in Texas for a time (Houston), I can say that two bubbas converting to Islam is significant of absolutely nothing.

Thanks for posting the video link. It is always interesting to see how the media in other countries (U.K. Channel 4?) portrays the U.S. After 911, the Islamic community in the U.S. embarked upon an extensive PR campaign to repair its image. For whatever reasons, announcers with British accents enhance credibility.

There are no pockets of radical muslim populations in the U.S. like the intolerable situation in Leeds with Pakistani immigrants.

I think you need to calm down a bit.......

I posted it purely because it was so ridiculous, an extreme example if you will. I agree with what tatted said in regard to it being "fleshy enlightenment" as opposed to a sincere spiritual conversion.

I would also respectfully point out that there are many pockets of radical Muslims in North America, just like we have here in the UK

 

[Abiel]

I have often heard it said, by Mike Savage and others, that liberalism is a mental disorder. I understood him to be speaking of political liberalism

What type of politician do these people supports the USA in Iraq even as we speak? Mr. Bliar is the leader of a party which is not only liberal but also flirts, and in some cases totally is , socialist!

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

What type of politician do these people supports the USA in Iraq even as we speak?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Your sentence structure isn't clear.

Mr. Bliar is the leader of a party which is not only liberal but also flirts, and in some cases totally is , socialist!

Yes, Mr. Blair is the leader of the Labour Party, which is somewhat socialist, much more so than I'd be comfortable with. He has also been America's best ally in Iraq and elsewhere. I am grateful for his support. And your point is?

 

[Abiel]

Um- well it seems that the prevailing attitude in the USA towards liberals is somewhat negative, yet it's ok to have Mr. Blair on side in an illegal war, even though he's a liberal. Just seems a tad bizarre to me.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Um- well it seems that the prevailing attitude in the USA towards liberals is somewhat negative, yet it's ok to have Mr. Blair on side in an illegal war, even though he's a liberal. Just seems a tad bizarre to me.

Oh, ok.

Well, first of all I don't think the war is illegal, though I don't think it was a good idea. But now that we're there, IMO the only acceptable way out is victory. Anything less will leave us in too weak a position and the Islamic extremists too strong.

And second, I'm not somebody who hates liberals. In fact, in the older usage of the word, I am one: a classical liberal. But modern "progressive" liberals are something entirely different. I tend to regard their foreign policies as appeasement (I'm glad Blair has been an exception) and their domestic policies as at least tending toward socialism, so I wouldn't vote for one unless the alternatives were awful, but I have no problem accepting one as an ally.

 

[non-religious]

[Abiel]Mr. Bliar is the leader of a party which is not only liberal but also flirts, and in some cases totally is , socialist!

Tony Blair is not liberal....

He has taken the Labour party to the centre-right. He is considered the most conservative Labour politician ever. Liberal and especially socialist are not two labels I would pin on Blair..

 

[non-religious]

[Izdaari]
Well, first of all I don't think the war is illegal

It actually is an illegal war

IMO the only acceptable way out is victory.

Define victory?

(I'm glad Blair has been an exception) and their domestic policies as at least tending toward socialism

Blair is as far from socialism as our Conservative Party is. He supported a Republican President into going to war and many of his domestic policies are considered centre-right and definitely not left

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

It actually is an illegal war

Matter of opinion. I've heard it a thousand times as the standard leftist line, and it never made sense to me.

Define victory?

Victory. (<-- link)

Blair is as far from socialism as our Conservative Party is. He supported a Republican President into going to war and many of his domestic policies are considered centre-right and definitely not left

Liberal is a word with many definitions, which vary between countries. I'm a classical liberal myself, or perhaps a neolibertarian, so all of the UK parties, as well as the US major parties, are socialist ones from my perspective. (Yes, most Republicans are socialists compared to me. The only one in the field for '08 who isn't is Ron Paul.)

Blair is something of a political chameleon, though he is a member of a socialist party, and he describers himself as a social democrat. But it really doesn't matter: It was Abiel who called Blair a liberal, and it was Abiel I was replying to.