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 is easy to understand. SWhen he wasa growing up, he prayed to God to make him tall. He isn't, therefore, God doesn't exist....and now li'l Robbie's getting even.
Thats laughable. The secularist are all about conformity for the...what was the word Mrs Clinton used....oh yes...."the common good"....yep lots of individualism there! Whereas the christian faith that Reich's criticizing is about transforming individual lives more then they could ever do themselves.
You bet the Buckeyes Rule!!!!!
As for Mr. Reich....his name is very very close to the Third Reich and I dont know...hmmmm....name association?
:) Go Bucks!!!
LOL!
But his thinking is right in line with John & John. We use to think this was ratical, now it is mainstream Democratic thinking. The really sad thing is the rank and file Democrats don't seem to realize this.
That is the ultimate understatement.
Everytime I see this man's name I always think of the breed of dog pictured on FR that this man favors. Tickles me.
In way, Robert "Reisha" may be closer to being correct than Ponnuru. We MAY need to fight the Godless socialists first, in order to defeat the Mohammedans. If so, may the Roundheads win! Again.
"Some liberals go further, saying that they are religious progressives who advocate a bigger welfare state as an outgrowth of their religious values"
Well if you look at Christianity from a political perspective it is predominantly socialist. It certainly does not have a capitalist bent to it.
And let's not forget it was the Christians who started introducing socialism into this country in the late 1800's
Well if you look at Christianity from a political perspective it is predominantly socialist. It certainly does not have a capitalist bent to it.
And let's not forget it was the Christians who started introducing socialism into this country in the late 1800's
12 Kerberos
______________________________________
Well said bump..
[Don't forget they introduced both socialism AND prohibitionism into this countries politics in the late 1800's.]
Yup. He's like Rutger Hauer's android character Roy in Blade Runner. Roy seeks and finds his creator, Tyrell, to ask for more life, but when Tyrell says "We made you the best we could", Roy doesn't like the answer, so he kills his creator.
As for Christians being socialist, good luck brandishing that super-wide brush your using. Make sure you don't miss any spots, now, you hear?
"...the liberals hatred of Bush is not just for Bush but it extends to the people that vote for and support Bush. They truly hate conservative christians..." (program but through his faith in Christ
Exactly. President Bush is a symbol for them. It is you and I and our beliefs they hate. At its very root this Bush bashing is not political it is anti-Christian bigotry.
Let me also add that the notion of the West's characterization as the primacy of the individual is simplistic at best, as well as at worst. Western Civilization has a long history colored by the tension of the individual's thought and actions in relations to a higher authority, along with a varied and colorful Christian ethic toward family and work. At least that's my 2 cents on that part.
Yes, the worldwide socialist movement grew out of Christian impulse to "immanentize the eschaton." See Dostoevsky, though, for sociological evidence that it was those who rejected Christianity (yet still acted on the Christian impulse) who were the worst perpetrators of that.
Anyway, what is the point relative to this article? I am guessing you have an Ayn Randian take on atheism, and you accept Reich's primacy of the individual.
(was that... uhhh... over the top? I can't tell anymore.)
(steely)
(with apologies to Jim Carrey)
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.