Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...

Jeff,

Again, I don't think you can take any manner of aetheism as a liberal principle. I know you have your issues with Unitarian Universalism, but as a very simple counter argument to your notion that aetheism is a principle, I offer you Channing's Baltimore Sermon - of which you are no doubt aware, but available at http://www.channingmc.org/channingspeech.html in case you aren't - which is considered to be the foundation of the "liberal faith". I think there's much there with which you could agree. As I've said before, many of the "liberal bent" derive their principles from their faith explicitly. We do not even need to look at UU for it though, we can look into our own past, especially when the matter of human rights are concerned. The abolishionnist movement was started by Protestants. The labor movement in this country started in the pulpit. I could go on. The point is that the liberal tradition of universal human rights activists is as much a Christian tradition in this country as it is a political one.

I think you misunderstand the nature of "liberal thought" completely if you think that aetheism is even remotely required to be a liberal. Sure, liberals have tolerance for all manner of silliness, but tolerance is all it is.

I think you are mistaking a practical notion for a fundamental one. The reason liberals tend to be against having religion and politics mixed up is because liberals believe in fairness. If we are to accept that Christian principles must guide our lawmaking, then we also must accept that Buddhist ones and Hindu ones and Islamic ones and Aetheist ones all should as well in equal proportion to the population. Instead, we say it's better to represent none of them explicitly, but tolerate all equally. Since we are a republic, people will express their faith through voting if they so desire in any event, and thus instead of having it written into law, it will come out in the process.

If you're searching for liberal principles, at least as I understand them, you could do far worse than the following:

1) Liberty for all
2) Justice for all
3) Engagement in Rational Inquiry as the manner to agree upon practical truth.
(Practical truth is a loaded term, I know. What the above means is that if you need to discover how something works and "God made it that way" doesn't help with the exploration - atomic power for example - then rational inquiry should be used to settle the question).

By the way, I find it terrifying that you think the government ought to be in the business of enforcing the truth as you see it. That sounds like a rather ominous thing for a government to be doing. Remember, that's how the USSR ran till it ran down.

UNIFIED by editor:
I see jayinbaltimore and I are on the same page here. I was going to post this comment a couple of hours ago, but apparently Baltiblogs became unreachable when I went to post. But now I'm back and now it's up, so here's the comment I was trying to post.

...........................

?!?!

Please correct me if I have misinterpreted you, but...

What you have done here is essentially defined liberals as those who don't believe in the God of the Bible that you describe. You say that "a liberals answer to questions of faith" is one of the following:
a) deny the existence of God or gods altogether AND/OR
b) deny the plan & purpose behind creation AND/OR
c) deny the ongoing relationship between the creator and the created

What are you actually describing is a subset of liberals, i.e., those liberals who deny these things. And it seems vacuously true that the liberals who don't believe in God don't actively promote including God in public life and government.

If that's all you're saying, then, fine, I agree with it. But I don't really see what's interesting about it.

However, if you are indeed trying to say something more than just that atheists don't tend to enforce God's word (!), then I'm not sure I know what it is...

The only thing I can think is that you are actually trying to suggest the nonexistence of religious liberals (that in fact, these notions are incompatible), and then use that to "explain" the "liberal bend towards removing God from public life and government altogether."

(Incidentally, this gets back to one of my previous comments on this site that it's not that liberals want to remove God from public life or government per se, but that they don't want to enforce certain morals that only a subset of people take to be truth.)

But if that's what you're trying to say, that true religiousity and liberalism are incompatible, well, that's just not true and I have to imagine you know this. I'll mention Jesse Jackson as an example, but I'm sure you can think of many others...

I just don't see a necessary conflict between being liberal and being religious, unless you believe that the government SHOULD be enforcing the interpretations of the Bible that many people have upon others who do not have these same interpretations/values/morals/beliefs. And that to me is a scary thought. That some subset of people claim to have access to the truth and, believing it to be truth, they attempt to prohibit various things that do not accord with their understanding of truth.

But there's no guarantee that your religious faith is truth. That's why they call it faith.

Liberals aren't trying to take these things away from you; they are just trying to allow other people to believe and follow OTHER faiths (or no faith at all).

Like you, I also "suggest we embrace our differences, our common ground and the opportunity for each to change". However, I don't suggest this at the peril of (your understanding of) truth. What you consider to be truth is NOT AT PERIL. What is at peril, however, under a government that enforces one and only one version of truth is freedom for all. Let's not put freedom at peril.

Jeff,

Thought you be interested to know that a certain uber-liberal former Governor Moonbeam had something interesting to say on the subject of God in the pledge of allegience:

http://www.jerrybrown.org/archives/pledgeallegiance.htm

It's a little out-dated since the Supreme Court already decided on it, but do take note of Brown's position on the matter. It may enlighten you on what we are saying about liberals and faith.

I hope I can address at the very least the main points of what you two are saying. There is definitely a common thread of fear or disdain for the notion that my version of truth is what I feel the government should enforce.

Let me say up front that I am not interested in living in a theocracy. I do not think it should be illegal to not practice Christianity. I also do not seek the endorsement and enforcement of Christian doctrine on anyone. In fact, this would indeed be contrary to the freedom that is found in the Gospel message.

I also want it to be clear that when I speak of liberal principles, I am speaking of modern liberal principles as they exist today. This is where the ideas of universal human rights that may have sprung from Christian tradition have diverged from that tradition to a message that is antithetical to biblical teaching. The universalness has trumped the origin.

Basically, what I see from both of you is a statement of “You can not lay claim to an absolute truth of Christianity because there are no absolute truths when it comes to religion.” This is a circular argument, as laying claim to there being no absolute truth is an absolute truth itself. Therefore you admit your argument to false, yet affirm its truth. This is the danger of universalness or the complete tolerance of all belief systems. I do not wish to condemn others for not believing in the truths of the Bible, they condemn themselves. What I do have a problem with is the hypocrisy of affirming an absolute truth against the idea of an absolute truth and enforcing that false truth which is what modern liberalism seeks to do.

I do believe that modern liberalism stands in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ. I would not lay claim to liberty and justice for all as solely conservative ideals, nor would they be solely liberal ideals. They are American ideals, which our old European allies have had a great deal of trouble supporting.

“Engagement in Rational Inquiry as the manner to agree upon practical truth”, at least as I believe you to view this statement, I will give wholly over to the liberal thinker. As William Ellery Channing believes “the spirit of intolerance has checked free inquiry”. This gives the power of revelation and the individual interpretation more significance than the power of the Holy Spirit spoken of directly in 1 Thessalonians 5: 21. Paul also encourages the church of the Thessalonians to avoid every kind of evil in verse 22.

Channing denies the sinful nature of man and thus elevates man to a level of understanding of the world that he is incapable of grasping. This dulling of the Spirit, elevation of man on par with God himself is an evil to be avoided and warned against in the very next verse. Peter warns of such teaching as well, “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1) I don’t condemn nor seek to condemn anyone. I seek to keep my whole spirit, soul and body blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 5: 23).

In response to your response... :)

"There is definitely a common thread of fear or disdain for the notion that my version of truth is what I feel the government should enforce." -- Naturally. Just as you have a fear or disdain for our "version of truth". (Though that's stretching it because the liberal perspective isn't about enforcing any particular version of "truth", but allowing equal freedom to pursue what you believe to be truth.)

"I do not think it should be illegal to not practice Christianity." -- I didn't think you thought that. :)

"Basically, what I see from both of you is a statement of “You can not lay claim to an absolute truth of Christianity because there are no absolute truths when it comes to religion.” This is a circular argument, as laying claim to there being no absolute truth is an absolute truth itself. Therefore you admit your argument to false, yet affirm its truth." -- This doesn't seem hypocritical to me. Notice the way you have phrased the statement: “You can not lay claim to an absolute truth of Christianity because there are no absolute truths WHEN IT COMES TO RELIGION.” Notice that this is not denying absolute truth in general, but specifically in the case of religion, which in the traditional sense is based on faith and not on logical or scientific principles of reason. Scientific methodology of inferring truth and having a religious faith in truth are just completely different endeavors.

"I do believe that modern liberalism stands in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ." -- That's fine. But our point is that we don't seek to LIMIT your following in the teachings of Christ. What we object to is limiting the direction of others' lives, allowing them only those freedoms that accord with the teachings of Christ and no more (e.g., not allowing gays to receive all the rights and benefits conferred by legal marriages by barring them from the right to marry). Modern liberalism doesn't seek to OPPOSE the teachings of Christ per se, but it does seek to make sure that the teachings of Christ aren't used as the sole basis of determining equality and freedom to people of all faiths and beliefs.

"As William Ellery Channing believes “the spirit of intolerance has checked free inquiry”. This gives the power of revelation and the individual interpretation more significance than the power of the Holy Spirit spoken of directly in 1 Thessalonians 5: 21. Paul also encourages the church of the Thessalonians to avoid every kind of evil in verse 22." -- Yes, this does give "individual interpretation more significance than the power of the Holy Spirit". Of course. The point is that if you believe in the Holy Spirit, then you have a reason to suppress your "individual interpretation" - namely because you don't believe your interpretation to be superior to "truth". Right? But if you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, and seriously... put yourself in my shoes for a sec... WHY would I give more significance to a faith I don't believe than in my own rational thought and scientific inquiry? The overall point is that while there may be absolute truth, we don't know it. I don't know it and you don't know it. We aren't in agreement about truth and we aren't even in agreement about how to pursue that truth, so why would either of us want our principles to guide the way the other lives? Wouldn't you just want a system that allows everyone to pursue their lives with equal freedom, and impose only those limits that appear to be necesssary for a stable society (e.g., no stealing, no murder, etc.)?

"I don’t condemn nor seek to condemn anyone. I seek to keep my whole spirit, soul and body blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 5: 23)." -- You say that you don't seek to condemn anyone. And earlier in your comment you say that "I do not wish to condemn others for not believing in the truths of the Bible, they condemn themselves." That's fine. Nice even. But is it true? You do seek to limit others' freedoms such that they are in accord with the teachings of Christ, right? It seems to me that your way of keeping YOUR "whole spirit, soul and body blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" involves doing so for others as well, enforcing it by law or public policy if you think it seems necessary.

It seems to me that modern liberalism says I'll let you practice your religion and pursue your understanding of truth, if you also allow me to have my beliefs and pursue my understanding of truth. We'll attempt to live peacefully, not imposing our views on each other, but hopefully even learning from the discrepencies that will naturally emerge from our different perspectives.

A couple quick points -

Jeff, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the definition of liberalism. The evangelical left comes to mind, with figures such as Tony Campolo and Ron Sider who are simultaneously solid theists and supporters of policies that would usually be considered "liberal." Atheism may seem to frequently coincide with liberalism, but I am not sure it counts as the essence of liberalism.

Seadragon - suppose I reject the "traditional" (i.e., post-Enlightenment) split between "religion" and "science" and say that it is actually impossible to truly separate them? If you say that I must keep my "religious" beliefs to myself and believe what I do not, how is that not an imposition on my own individual beliefs, a bizarre form of thought tyranny?

Maphet, you are too much for my little brain... I'm sorry I don't understand your question! I think what you're saying is that, let's suppose that really both "religion" and "science" are part of the same endeavor. (Maybe you might do this if you think that religon does involve a rational pursuit of truth and science is not as objective as it claims to be?) So yes, let's suppose this for the sake of your question.

Then I think what you're saying is that in essence what I'd be asking you to do is to keep your "religious" beliefs to yourself. (Is that what you're saying?)

I just wanted to clarify your question before trying to respond to it. :) If I did interpret you correctly here, can I ask what part of your "religious" beliefs I'd be asking you to keep to yourself? I'm confused...

When I paraphrased the statement, “You can not lay claim to an absolute truth of Christianity because there are no absolute truths when it comes to religion.” The qualifier, “when it comes to religion”, was added because I knew you would object to the statement completely if that wasn’t there and I wanted to accurately represent your point of view with my paraphrase. That being said, I did fail to realize the window of opportunity that would yield you in separating absolute truth from religion.

Perhaps this will help Seadragon a bit. As Maphet pointed out much more eloquently then I did or at least much more succinctly; religion, science, truth and faith are all intertwined. One relates to the other as closely has hydrogen relates to oxygen to create water. Without the relationship between these common elements we would not have any understanding of the world we live in. Asking someone to keep their “religious” beliefs to themselves is not possible in this way; like asking a bartender to give you a glass of hydrogen and hold the oxygen.

I do want to make it clear though that I was not trying to define liberalism with atheism. I would say it more aligns itself with deism or agnosticism, which is what I was trying to convey in my first Liberal Principle and the three subsequent qualifiers as liberals seek to define faith.

My entire argument here began with me saying that these principles may not be universal, but they do encapsulate what I have been observing. And that not everyone will fit neatly into this belief system. Having an over-arching view of liberalism does not mean that everyone who has ever had a liberal idea would ascribe to the 5 points I have observed.

The idea of separating truth from religion and making it all relative has lead for many to seek a liberal view of the world. And that is at the foundation of what I am trying to convey in this first liberal principle.

Seadragon - I apologize for the confusion, although I think you've got the gist of what I was driving at.

I would say that religion involves more than just personal beliefs that are unrelated to anything in real life. I see "religious" beliefs as trying to understand something fundamental and foundational about the world we live in and how we are to relate to each other. In that sense, even the most radical atheist has his/her "religous" beliefs.

And I would also say that science is not, as you said, as objective as it would like to be. Or, alternately, that when science is truly objective it says nothing at all. It may present a methodology for finding facts, but it gives no framework for then interpreting those facts. Take survival of the fittest, for example. We might all agree that, in nature, the fittest tend to live and the weakest tend to die, but what does that mean for us? Does that mean, for example, that we should kill off the weakest among us so as to ensure the survival of our species? Answers to this and other questions, I suggest, do not come from "science," but from the conceptual frameworks that we use to understand the world.

As to what "religous" beliefs I think you're going to force me to keep myself, it's not as much specific beliefs as a general problem. Say you have two presuppositions (as I understand them): if (a) individuals should be allowed freely to have their own individual beliefs and (b) society should be shaped in such a way that anything that might be "religous" about a person's individual beliefs should have no bearing on public discourse, then what do you do when an individual strongly believes that his/her own beliefs should impact public discourse? By telling such an individual that his/her personal beliefs should not impact public discourse, when his personal beliefs state that they should, how are you not violating (a) by telling that person that his/her belief system is wrong and that he/she needs to change, and violating (b) by imposing your own private belief system about the nature of religion onto public discourse?

Jeff,

Seadragon pointed out that by adding "when it comes to religion", you've undone your own argument. The statement "There are no absolute truths" is clearly false, as you point out. However, adding "when it comes to religion" adds a level of imprecision to your statment that would need quite a bit of clarification before one could go further with deducing it's truth or falsity.

I think what Seadragon meant in her comment about no guarantees was not that there are no truths, just that there are no ways we know of to emprirically verify that everything in the Bible is true. I would think you'd agree with this, since if we could empirically verify everything in the Bible, then we'd be giving more significance to the power of revelation than to the power of the Holy Spirit.

I find your comments on universality interesting. Are you saying that the notion of universal human rights is less important than where that notion came from? And if so, does this "principle of origins" apply in other contexts?

I'm also curious regarding your point on rational inquiry. It would seem to me that you're saying the scientific method is incompatible with a biblical world-view. If this is the case, how do you go about fixing your own computer? Do you pray for guidance and let God guide your hand? I'm not effin' kidding you when I ask this, so please don't think I'm being sarcastic.

This has really been enlightening. Thanks so much for the thread!

Also, I'm quite happy to hear we're in agreement on basic principles outside of rational inquiry. I don't think that Liberty and Justice are exclusively liberal principles, I just know that the "liberal tradition" - such as it is - has placed those things paramount.

Jeff,

Sorry, I didn't finish typing my last till after you posted, so I think I get what you're saying wrt your qualification about religion.

Maphet,

You are absolutely correct that science doesn't provide us with moral insight, as it isn't designed to do so. As Richard Feinman has said, scientific discoveries don't come with an instruction manual. And you're correct that it's the purpose of metaphysics to help provide those instructions. No argument there.

However, the scientific method can still be used to evaluate the quality of implementation of a policy. For instance, if I were to say "I want a government program to give the poor a little bit of a leg up because I beleive the poor need help and using the government is the best way to do so", that is a statement of faith. However, we can use the scientific method to evalutate any policy implemented to determine if that policy is any good at giving the poor a leg up.

I think when people like me or seadragon object to the use of "faith" in public policy it's because often times faith is used to cover for lack of evidence.

Jay,

I don't think there's anything you said that I fundamentally disagree with. I'd even agree that "faith" in public discourse is sometimes used to cover for lack of evidence. Still, just because some have used faith that way does not mean that everyone coming from a "faith perspective" has tossed their brain into the trash.

Maphet -- I'm starting to discover that the more I read blogs written by people of faith who blog from Baltimore.

Hey, I don't have the brainpower right now to read everything and write a good response.
I just want to add one quick thought.
Jeff, you say:
"I do believe that modern liberalism stands in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ."

I'm not going argue that...I think some liberal views do go against the teachings of the bible.
However, wouldn't some practices of conservatives today, like poor environmental standards and encouraging war also go against the teachings of the bible?

Just a thought to ponder.

If the notion of universal human rights truly comes out of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ, then yes I do believe that the notion or Christ-less practice of such actions if far less important than the good news of the redemptive story of Jesus Christ. Losing this message leaves acts of good dead in their tracks.

One of John Kerry’s favorite verses to quote on the campaign trail of convincing America that he was spiritual was, James 2:26 “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” James says earlier in this chapter, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” We see here that both faith (belief in the Gospel message of Jesus Christ) and works (good deeds) are necessary, one flows out of the other. Without action the Gospel is dead in your heart and without the Gospel in your heart your actions are dead.

This doesn’t mean that you are incapable of doing good deeds, as Gods general revelation or common grace allows everyone of His creations to reflect his glory. But since it is faith in Christ that brings everlasting life and not all the good deeds in the world, I say the source is more important.

I have no problems with the scientific method and use it often. But in cases where science and theology clash, I see the science as being wrong; not the theology. Incidentally, I have paused to pray when a server is giving me a particularly hard time and I need to get it back up and running. Prayer is powerful!

As to Mo’s thought to ponder, I do not equate Christianity with conservative ideas but I do see them being more closely aligned than liberal ideas with Christianity. The specific charges of conservatives having poor environmental policies (bad stewardship of God’s creation) and encouraging war (unjust murder); I would not be so foolish as to think this hasn’t occurred to some degree in the conservative camp. I do not think however that it is accurate to say that these are ideas that encompass most conservatives nor are they mutually exclusive to conservatives. Furthermore, like charges of Republican racism, I do not think they hold up water to the majority. These are caricatures of Republicans and not over-arching principles. Thank you for calling me on that though!

Jeff,

Wow. When I have a particularly egregious bug to find and fix, I spend a lot of time cursing. Perhaps that's the problem in my approach, and I ought to try paryer instead.

Thanks so much for your explanation of the origins thing. I think using the faith/works interdependancy helped me understand where you're coming from.

Hello again. I just wanted to pop back in and apologize for not responding to your responses so far. I've been really swamped and just haven't had the time. Most likely I won't be able to get back to this until after the weekend, but I promise to read through it all carefully and if I have more to say, you can be sure I'll post it here! Thanks, as always, for the willing dialogue.