Religious Liberalism and Theology: June 2006 Archives

I wrote about the St. Louis arch celebrating Westward expansion and the Louisiana Purchase as a "symbol of genocide."  In a comment to that same piece Fausto writes "I'm sure our own "famous UU" TJ didn't have genocide in mind when he bought Louisiana or commissioned Lewis and Clark, but the fact remains that in the way things came to pass, genocide became an integral element of the whole package."

When governor of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson stated: "If we are to wage a campaign against these Indians the end proposed should be their extermination, or their removal beyond the lakes of the Illinois River. The same world would scarcely do for them and us." When he became President he had a standing army to wage his campaign of extermination and during his administration many of the nations were eliminated on the Atlantic side of the Eastern Mountains.  His administration then waged war against the people indigenous to the "near West" beyond the Appalachians.  Then he "bought" the West from France (whose claim to the land was based on the theology of the Christians Crusades (non Christians have no rights a Christian is bound to recognize.)

350px-Frank_bond_1912_louisiana_and_the_louisiana_purchase

Did Jefferson mean it?  His whole life reveals an Enlightenment gentleman, curious about the new science, opinionated about the project of a propertied persons' democratic republic, who was openly racist, genocidal,  grandiose, and patriarchal.  The Louisiana Purchase was intended as a way to provide opportunities to his people (White People) and "extermination" of the same final solution to the native people west of the Illinois River.  The word genocide didn't exist in his vocabulary, but his "extermination" policy was very real, very intentional, and very calculated.  The West he envisioned would include slavery.  His writings make this clear, and when the senators and representatives in congress representing the Northern states tried to restrict slavery in the West he was alarmed and spoke of dissolving the United States.

Did Jefferson mean genocide?  He didn't consider Africans and Native Americans to be fully human, so enslaving them and exterminating them did not bother his conscience.  At least he does not share any self criticism for his words or actions in his writings, or any agonizing that as a result of his policies and practices hundreds of thousands of people were burned to death, shoot to death and starved to death, and hundreds of thousands were held in degrading slavery with their families ripped from them and all the fruits of their labor taken for the enrichment of generations of white people.

Unitarian Universalists speak of our continuing work against our own institutionalized racism.  We insist that racism is not just bad attitudes held by bigots (who are of course are not Unitarian Universalists) but built into the way this nation was built on conquest, plunder, and slavery and has subsequently evolved its institutional arrangements of power.  We see an example of this in our own practice.  Jefferson is sanitized and served up as a "famous UU" by Unitarian Universalist religious educators and clergy rather than presented as a morally questionable and politically contradictory example of Unitarian origins in the Enlightenment elite.  By doing this and allowing this to be done in our name we are perpetuating racism and contributing to holocaust denial.

Here is an example of what we must do more often.

Evil

| | Comments (0)
Evil? Evil acts are directly experienced and directly intuited as outrageous. 

A woman is beaten and robbed by some men who follow her home 
because she won some money at a bingo game. 
An older couple is mugged in a shopping mall 
on their way out of a movie and beaten so badly 
that they lose their health, 
they can not walk and enjoy the same activity 
that they once had. 
Some fanatics highjack airplanes and crash them into a sky scraper 
to make a political point. 
A child is kidnapped and killed 
after ransom is paid, because the criminals want to cover up their crime. 
A super power bombs a civilian population 
to make a political point. 

We know evil when we see it. 

 Human beings 
whose consciences are still alive 
and not jaded too much with compromise and rationalizations 
respond to such actions with revulsion, 
and justifiable anger. 

Most people do not make abstract calculations in ethical philosophy 
when a baby is killed 
when they look at pictures of victims of Buchenwald or the Gulag, 
when they see contemplate the televised face of a mass murderer 
whose crimes are being detailed on your nightly news. 

We have a direct intuition. Evil. 
Even if we use other words.... 
more scientifically sounding words, 
words like sociopath, psychopath, peripheral damage, 
we search for a word that expresses moral outrage 

and that word is evil. 

That was an evil act. That was person is evil. 
Horrid, cruel, bullying, violating all standards of human decency. 
Evil. 

We know evil when we see it, experience it. 
 But does Evil really exist? 

And if evil exists, is it simply an Abstract Principle? 
You know Abstractions, 
like Truth, Freedom, Good and Beauty. 

Evil as abstraction? An intellectual category? 

Or is Evil a force? 
Many people have imagined that 
In fact the majority of our fellow Americans, 
United States, North and South America, 
believe that evil is a force, a intentional conscious force, 
that seeks to disorder the known universe, 
and thwart all that is good. 



When we put it that way, 
Evil as a force, 
a conscious force that has the power to destroy, 
tempt innocent souls, 
and corrupt the way ward mortal, 
then we realize that we are talking about something divine. 

Evil as the Bad God, 
Evil as the Destructive Force, 
The Dark Side of the Force for Star Wars fans. 

 The idea of that evil transcends the evil act is found in many cultures, 
and takes many forms. 

Native Americans generally assume that everything inherently 
has a good side and a bad side. 

The Chinese have similar ideas. 

Thus for Native Americans and the Chinese 
evil does not contend with the good, for they are flip sides of the same coin, 
but we choose ------ choose good over evil. 
wisdom over stupidity, prudence over waste. 
 
Yes, the people of this world have many ideas of good and evil. 
But today I am taking up one very special idea of Evil, 
Evil personified, Evil incarnate in the Devil. 
I will tell the story of Satan. 

Three religions 
Zorasterianism, Christianity and Islam have a doctrine of the Evil One. 
All the other world religions repudiate this idea. 

What about Judaism? The story of Satan originates in Hebrew Scriptures, 
but medieval and modern Judaism have rejected the idea of a Devil, 
and regard the mention of Satan in their own Bible 
as an ancient story that has nothing to do with a Devil. 

And the Jews are right. 
There is mention of an angel named Satan in the Hebrew Scriptures 
the Satan mentioned is one of God's angels, not a rival deity. 

Satan's job description is the prosecutor. 

For example, in the Book of Job, 
we read "One day the divine beings presented themselves to the Lord. 
God asks Satan where has he been, 
and he reports that he has been wandering up and down on earth, 
and God asks Satan, have you noticed by servant Job 
There is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man 
who respects God and shuns evil. 

The Satan challenged God, 
this job has good reason to respect God, 
you have protected him, and his household, 
you have blessed him and he is prosperous. 

But says Satan, if you took his privileges from him, 
then Job will blaspheme you to your face. 


And God gave Satan permission to test Job. 

Not a nice angel, 
but not a Rival to God intent on Evil either. 
 In other books of the Hebrew Bible we find a similar story. Satan the accuser undermines a rebellion against the Jerusalem priests, 
Satan the accuser meets a man on the road 
with the intent to kill him for his misdeeds, 
Satan always plays the role of the prosecutor, trickster, 
making trouble for human beings but under authority of God. 

That is in the Hebrew Scriptures, 
there are writings written by Jews 
that did not make it into what we call the Old Testament, 
the Rabbi's rejected these books 
because they taught lessons the Rabbi's didn't like, 
and told stories that the Rabbi's did not want told. 

One of these rejected books is the book of Enoch, 
which details a rebellion of the heathen against God, 
which is joined by some of his angels, 
according to the stories in Enoch these angels are defeated 
and kicked out of heaven, sent to hell. 

These stories are not in the Bible, 
but they are very much a part of myth of the Apocalypse. 
that is reflected in some of the writings of the New Testament. 

The New Testament gospel of John accuses the Jews 
of being seduced by Satan, and being enemies of God. 
thus they reject Jesus, the Christ 
because he is good, 
and they are evil. 

Several weeks ago I preached a sermon contrasting the gospel of John 
to the gospel of Thomas. 
I pointed out that John is the favorite Gospel of Orthodoxy 
In this latter day narrative 
Christ is portrayed as the Living God come to earth 

The subtext of John is the root source of Christian anti semitism. 
According to John's Gospel the Jews killed Jesus, 
Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ 
put John's attack on the Jews on the big scene. 

Gibson protests that he isn't anti Jewish 
No but the completely false story Gibson presented was a slander of Jews 
and it was based on a book written 1900 years ago. 

According to John the Jews were under the sway of Satan 
the Pharisees had made it rough on Jesus 
from the beginning of his ministry, 
had plotted to kill him, 
and finally had him executed 
because he was Good and they were Evil. 

That the Pharisees themselves were victims of the Romans 
and many of them were executed is conventionally left out of the story. 
John is a political manifesto, the Christians were declaring themselves good, 
and the Jewish religion that had rejected them evil. 



 Later the same tactic was used by the early Christians against other rival religions, 
worshippers of the ancient Greek gods, 
were labeled Satan worshippers, 
worshippers of the ancient Italian gods, were called pagans, 
and worshippers of the devil. 
and on and on it went. 

The ancient Jews told a story of human origins, 
human beings discover the tree of knowledge, 
and loss their primordial innocence, 
they are sent out into the real world of work and pain, 
and that is what made Adam and Eve human. 

 That is way Judaism still understands the story found in Genesis 2. 
it is the story of how we learned to tell the difference between good and evil, 
and that is a good thing. 

But in time, the Christians re interpreted this story. 
In the new story the Good God had created a good earth, 
but Adam and Eve listened to the serpent 
who we are now told is really Satan tempting our first parents. 
although their is nothing in the text 
to prompt such a fanciful interpretation 

Adam and Eve sin, which Christians tell us means to choose Evil, 
and are expelled from the Garden. 
They go to Hell, 
and all descendants of Adam and Eve will go to Hell 
unless they become Christians, 

Christ according to the stories, 
was crucified and was resurrected on the third day 
in the time between his death and his rising, 
he went to hell to rescue all who had died 
before he was born. 

 So, Christianity weaved a new story, 
it isn't plan old Judaism, 
it is Judaism reinterpreted with a New Deity Added. 

God is opposed in by a divinity who is immortal, 
can read your mind, and tempt your most inner thoughts, 
is the ruler of this world, as well as Hell, 
and who, these devil affirming Christians tell me, 
has most of the world's people under his thrall. 

 
Liberal Christianity which arose about the time of the American Revolution 
was a radical break with this old story of Damnation. 

when we think of these religious liberals 
who affirmed the Jewish humanity of Jesus, 
the ethic of love and community renewal, 
the importance of covenants, that is 
promise making communities like this congregation. 

and emphasized deeds not creeds 

We might forget that all of these affirmations 
were based on a rejection of Hell, 
and Satan, 
and Evil as a force transcendent of human will. 

The liberals preached that we humans made our own societies, 
shaped our own histories 
and we were responsible for the evils there in, 

and we were called to clean up our own mess, 
before we enjoyed the pleasures of a good life, 
and a just society. 

The religious liberals also asserted the unitary nature of reality. 
God was good, and reality was good said the liberals. 

Evil existed not as an independent force, 
opposed to God, 
but as a turning away from goodness, 

evil was a perversion of an essentially good thing. 

The liberal instinct underlies the American experiment. 


While the Calvinist and Catholic 
united in assuming that people needed to be supervised by their betters 
the democratic ideal assumes that people of good will, 
and with the right information can reason together 
and arrive at profitable solutions. 

That a republic based on balance of power, 
will be able to root out corruption and liars, 
and maximize commonwealth. 


Based on this world view the liberals worked hard to create public schools, 
worked long to eliminate poverty, 
worked to overcome ancient prejudices against women, 
and to overcome racism and homophobia. 

Unitarian Universalists have long rejected the notion of an Evil One, 
and divine principle opposed eternally to the Good. 

But we know that evil exists, 
there are evil acts, there are evil people, 
there are evil results. 

If we reject Evil as a force 
if we say that Evil does not exist as a Cosmic Force, 
independent of the Creative and Sustaining force of the Universe 
we are not denying that evil acts are committed. 
and that some people are devoid of human goodness. 


Just as death is part of life, 
and pain is a necessary function of feeling. 

and lovers eventually suffer the loss of the beloved, 
and sorrow punctuates all lives worth living. 

and just as when a tree is bathed in sunlight, 
it casts a shadow. 

evil is part of the same reality as the good. 
it is deformation, a corrupt and decayed form of the good, 
but not a separate spirit, 
an opposing Divinity. 

Philosophers define evil as acts in which an intelligent being 
intentionally inflicts suffering on another sentient being. 

We need to put forward that definition, 
because so much of our problem 
when we think about evil flows from lack of clarity. 
we hate evil acts and we are repulsed by evil people 
and so our definitions are formed in that fear and loathing. 

But we need clarity to over come evil. 

the mosquito who bites you isn't evil, 
it is doing what it was designed to do. 
Even the virus that makes you ill isn't evil. 
Its by products are stuff of life, 
even if they are toxins to you. 

Evil is an intentional act of cruelty. 



The medical worker often inflicts pain, 
but that pain is necessary for the healing process 
the intention is not to cause suffering. 

We could say the same for the judge, or clergy person, 
the social worker, or counselor, 
the teacher, and even the parent. 

often they must say things that do not please others. 
but if the intention is do justice, 
or create understanding, 
or set necessary boundaries 
so that a good result might occur. 

We declare their acts to righteous, and them to be leaders. 

 An act is evil when it has as its intention controlling the other, diminishing the other, 
humiliating the other, violating the other, 
to cause suffering. 




It arises from a breakdown in human community, 
it manifests itself in damaged people 
and it in turn damages others, 
abused people have often been abused. 

Evil people are people who have committed evil acts 
over and over and over again, 
until acting in an evil way becomes their nature 
until bullying, brutalizing, uncaring conduct, 
overwhelms their human goodness, 

and they are defined by their evil. 

 Do I believe in the Devil? in a divinity called Satan. 
It is an ancient story, it informs our literature and art 
the Fallen Angel, 
the Dark Prince, the Polar Opposite of God, 

But it isn't a very good story, and it limits our ability to do something about evil.

This post was prepared to be released on the beginning of Minister's Days, the annual in gathering of Unitarian Universalist ministers. What could be more appropriate than to republish Jack Mendelsohn's, "Who Is A Unitarian Universalist Minster." This piece is has been repeatedly quoted, and misquoted for more than a generation, which I think is the mark of classic.

A Unitarian Universalist minister is a person never completely satisfied or satisfiable, never completely adjusted or adjustable - a person who walks in tow worlds: one of things as they are, the other of things as they ought to be-and loves them both.

Ministers are persons with pincushion souls and elastic hearts, who sit with happy and the sad in a chaotic pattern of laugh, cry, laugh, cry - and know deep down that the first time their laughter is false or their tears are make-believe, their days as real ministers are over.

Ministers are people with dreams they can never fully share, partly because they have some doubts about them, and partly because they are unable to explain adequately what it is they they think they see and understand.

A minister is a person who continually runs out of time, out of wisdom, out of courage, and out of money; a person whose tasks involve great responsibility and little power, who must learn to accept people where hey are are and go from there; a person who must never try to exercise influence that has not been earned.

The minister who is worthy knows all this and is still thankful every day of life for the privilege of being-a minister.

The future of the liberal church is almost totally dependent of two factors: great congregations (whether large or small) and effective, dedicated ministers. The strangest feature of their relationship is that they create one another.

The idea of being post christian assumes the institutionalized form that the Christian church took after being adopted as the official cult of the Roman empire can properly be considered to be Christian. My working assumption (along with the early Unitarians and the rest of the radical wing of the Reformation) is that institutionalized mainstream Christianity with its worship of domination and violence constitutes a departure from the gospel of Jesus.

Post christendom? I claim that stance enthusiastically.

I am with Tolstoy, Christianity is not a failure, it has never been tried. (Except for among dissenting intentional communities.)

In yesterday's posting I discussed my notion of the Church as being gathered when ever two or more are joined for healing in a broken world.

What is the Unitarian Universalist congregation?  The theology of gathered congregation springs to mind, but that notion of a people committed and living a covenant does not describe most of real and existing congregations.

I have found the old Puritan distinction between Church and Parish helpful here,  the Parish constituted all the people served by a particular congregation.  While there was a Parish roll (membership list) of those who paid the Parish levees, the Parish was larger than those who supported the congregation and its ministries financially.  The Church for the Puritans was those who had had a original experience of transformation (in the deformed variation of Puritanism known as Evangelical Christianity they refer to the "saved."    The members of the church were the inner core of the Parish, and its assumed leaders.  Like all institutional arrangements in human history this Church and Parish distinction became corrupt and politicized,  and that corruption could not stand the stress of the Unitarian Controversy, let alone the Great Awakening.    But that is a longer story.

But I like the idea of the Church being those members who were spiritually motivated and committed, and there being a clear understanding that the purpose of the congregation was to minister to a much larger group.  I think that such a distinction, if creatively applied would help religiously pluralistic Unitarian Universalist congregations as they seek to clarify the meaning of covenant and mission,  as well as governance and ministry.

But there are people who do ministry free of such complications.  (They have their own complications but not the headache of political power over ministry being exercised by people of no discernible religion.)

Yes I love chaplains,  who constitute the Church of healing and witness over and over and over again in the most unlikely places with out the divisions of denominationalism.  Most of the chaplains in our military services, hospitals, prisons and other institutional settings have a denomination endorsement, but the ministry they do is without regard to sectarian divisions.

While I have felt called to congregational ministry,  and I maintain the distinction between Church and Parish,  I find the politics of the parishioners (as distinct from the spiritually motivated congregants) a test of my always very nascent sainthood.

Gertrude Edge of Columbia, South Carolina writes in response to "UU Bookstore has Christian Voices:

"We are looking for a book to use for a book discussion on Liberal Christianity. I am thinking about using "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Any other suggesitons?"

Asking a UU minister to recommend one book is cruel,  I have lots of titles in mind.  I recommend Christian Voices in Unitarian Universalism: Contemporary Essays for example.  I especially recommend

"Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time : The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith" (Marcus J. Borg) and that will be my one "liberal Christian" book.

C.S. Lewis is no liberal.  I think he is worth reading, but he is a conservative Christian.

I should note by way of disclaimer that I am a radical in my Christianity, a liberationist.  Liberal Christianity as I understand the movement teaches that Jesus is Christ as Teacher of Individual Moral Virtue.  That is what I was taught in Unitarian Sunday School.

For me fifty years later,  Jesus is Christ the Liberator.  I believe we live in a world ruled by "the powers and principalities" of domination and violence and the resurrected Jesus is embodied in the intentional communities that witness justice to the oppressed, inclusive love to all, and non violence in their collective lives and in the lives of their members.  Some of my best friends are liberal Christians, but I have found that we have different priorities.  I can preach the liberal's Jesus when I have a bunch of liberals in the congregation, but I try to talk about how Jesus pushed the limits of propriety, and challenged the way things were (and are.)  So I preach a radicalized liberal Jesus.

For a good radical Christian book I like Walter Wink's  "Transforming the Powers: Peace, Justice, and the Domination System" (Fortress Press)

As a Unitarian Universalist I have a religious humanist understanding of the Christian "revelation" and tradition.  Jesus witnessed the "God of Justice and Love."  Those who experience his good news have a revelation of the divine.  I do not need any other "nature" than this one that is itself divine.  I believe that the arc of the universe bends toward peace, justice and love between all creatures.  So with the religious humanists, I am content with one miraculous cosmos and need no super nature.  Jesus was born a man, and he died as a man.  But he rose as a Church and that Church constantly needs people to come forward to witness the gospel that he embodied.  I do not believe any "Christian denomination" institutionalizes the Church,  the Witnessing Church exists wherever two or three are gathered together "in the name of Jesus."  (Jesus means Healer in Aramaic, to gather in his name is to gather "to heal.")

Any liberal Christians want to speak for liberal Christianity?  Got any books that you think a study group should read?

One of the ways our religious community has limited itself in recent decades is letting the anti christian prejudices of ex Christians become a Unitarian Universalist norm.  This has cut us off from our own liberal religious heritage, from profound Unitarians and Universalist thinkers and activists that created the defining characteristics of what we now call Unitarian Universalism.  Who are the Unitarian Universalist Christians?  Read this book and begin to understand the UU Christianity is not behind us,  rather the richness of our historic faith tradition continues to inform us today.

Christian Voices in Unitarian Universalism Contemporary Essays
Kathleen Rolenz, Editor

The bookstore says: "Fifteen personal stories from laity and clergy alike show what it means to be a Unitarian Universalist Christian today. These men and women arrive at their faith by many paths--influenced by the Bible, Jesus Christ Superstar and even the Bernstein Mass.

Here is a fresh and much-needed look at UU Christians, who, for decades, have kept the work and spirit of Christianity alive in our liberal religion. Rolenz is parish co-minister of West Shore UU Church with her husband, Wayne Arnason. Foreword by Carl Scovel. (Skinner House) 2006. 144 pp. ISBN: 1-55896-506-8

This looks like an important book.  How can our theology incorporate conquest, murder and mass exploitation by our own ruling elite?

"The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God: A Political, Economic, Religious Statement" (David Ray Griffin, John B., Jr. Cobb, Richard A. Falk, Catherine Keller)

From the publisher's statement.  "Four distinguished scholars here level a powerful critique of the rapid expansion of the emerging American empire and its oppressive and destructive political, military, and economic policies. Arguing that a global Pax Americana is internationally disastrous, the authors demonstrate how America's imperialism inevitably leads to rampant irreversible ecological devastation, expanding military force for imperialistic purposes, and a grossly inequitable distribution of goods--all leading to the diminished well-being of human communities. These four prophetic voices--three Christians, one Jew--persuasively indict the American empire as being diametrically opposed to divine values and powerful enough to threaten the purposes of God."

Harvey Cox writes:  "I am convinced that this is an enormously urgent and important book. It not only represents the best of current theology and political wisdom, and accurately interprets our present desperate situation, but it also provides the basis for an authentically religious response to the end-time Armageddon "Left Behind" insanity that seems to be capturing the popular religious imagination. It builds on the finest new biblical scholarship in viewing the scriptural setting the Reign of God against Empire, but also suggests how all the religious traditions can - and must - contribute to an unprecedented civilizational transformation. I plan to use this book in my own teaching and to commend it to everyone I know. I only wish it had appeared ten years ago."

Ministry is what a religious community does to fulfill its mission, and live its purpose. There is the ministry of prophecy and the ministry of healing in James Luther Adams words. In addition there is the ministry of spiritual and religious education, the ministry of pastoral care, the ministry of music, worship, and administration. People who do the ministry of the religious community are doing "ministry" and while doing that they are "ministers" but they are not "Ministers."

The capital "M" Ministers are people set aside and recognized and held accountable to do the ministry of the religious community. No one is a Minister who not accountable to a religious community, no matter how awakened their senses. On the other hand doing the ministry of the religious community does not make one a Minister. The religious community must designate that status.

The term clergy is a sociological term for religious functionary. Monks are clergy. The aren't necessarily ordained. Gurus are clergy. Unitarian Universalist ministers in fellowship are clergy, but that doesn't tell us anything about the theology of our religious calling.

Ordained once meant to be part of a ordered religious community, with accountability and standards. Most Protestants still refer to the order of ministry....once upon a time we did too. Making it into a graduation party without consequence is a recent deformation.

My major difference with some reflections on ministry that I read is that they start with the individual. Individuals are not self ordaining, one cannot do "ministry" outside of a relation that is accountable to religious community.

I believe we must start with the religious community. To use the language I was taught in Sunday School, the church does ministry, and it ordains and commissions ministers to do its ministry. It is a good thing when the ministers are spiritual, motivated, and alive to nature and all that, but it is essential that they are authorized.

Cultural appropriation is when the people of one culture find some activity or artifact of another culture useful and adopts that activity or artifact into their own culture. 

This may or may not be ethical.  For example, the Hopi consider their religious ceremonies to be sacred, and would prefer that others not appropriate them.  We "misappropriate"
when we take something that another people have stated is not available for appropriation,  even if we do not hear their protests.  Other Native American Nations believe that it is a good thing when European background Americans learn from Native peoples.  But they do not want to see what is borrowed misused, or distorted.

I found this quote that may guide our appropriations:

Our first task in approaching another people,
another culture is to take off our shoes,
for the place we are approaching is holy.
Else we find our ourselves treading on another's dream.
More serious still, we may forget that God was there before our arrival.

In Buddhist practice how one gains ones livelihood is important, a pillar of the 8 hold path.

Right Understanding
Right Thinking
Right Speech
Right Attitude
Right Livelihood
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Concentration

Unitarian Universalists have our principles and purposes and our notion of "deeds not creeds" but we do not articulate what the acceptable and unacceptable ways of making money.  Would we excommunicate this fellow for "death of goodness" in his soul?

Philocrites makes some important comments about "conservative liberals" and that got me thinking.

One of the principles of liberalism is the removal of economic restrictions.  For liberals of the left that means restrictions imposed by corporate power, and by economic inequality.  Freedom is enabling everyone to realize their full potential, and therefore we overcome discrimination through scholarships, laws establishing equal treatment and affirmative action program.  Empowerment is organizing counter-vailing power to the oligarchy of wealth with unions and cooperatives.  We need a government committed to equity.

For the conservative removing economic restrictions means removing government regulation.  Programs constructed to aid the poor are seen as fostering "dependency."  Affirmative action is seen as stigmatizing those who benefit as not worthy.

While Dobson may be a theocrat,  I doubt if his base embraces the dictatorship of church leaders.  They accept rather the populist heresy, that is that "the people's will" should be reflected in government policy without regard to the pluralist nature of "the people."  The discussion that unfolded in the Federalist Papers that was formative in creating the U.S. Constitution needs to be revisited by liberals of the left.  Only small homogenous communities are monocultures and have a singular community interest.  The larger the community the more complex the "interests."  Governance is creating structures, policies and procedures for that multitude of conflicting interests to work together as a community.  Populism motivates a minority to think of itself as if it were the majority, as if it's prejudices were "the viewpoint of people."  It uses liberal rhetoric about democracy being the will of the people, but abandons the liberal commitment to due process.  Due process is needed to create a community from many voices.  This is expressed in the slogan of the United States: e pluribus unum (out of many, one.)

In the United States the assumed majority of populism is white, Christian, property owning, English speaking and living in patriarchial families.  Demographically that is a fiction, we are a pluralistic nation with white, Christian, propertied, English speaking male dominated hetersexuals being a minority.

The "un-liberal" right is a revolt based on a liberal heresy that the left has never challenged.  "We the people" should have read "we the peoples."

Powered by Movable Type 4.1

About this Archive

This page is a archive of entries in the Religious Liberalism and Theology category from June 2006.

Religious Liberalism and Theology: May 2006 is the previous archive.

Religious Liberalism and Theology: July 2006 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.