Liberals should never surrender religious banner to conservatives
(December 15, 2004) ?
By Lynn Parsons
As we liberals emerge from the setback of the recent presidential election, we are being pelted with advice. On one hand, jubilant Republicans and conservatives advise us to give up or move to Canada. On the other, many are calling for a wholesale watering down of our commitment to social justice.
As an unrepentant (albeit somewhat chastened) liberal, I reject both expatriation and surrender. But I do think some self-examination is in order.
Put simply, liberals have let the opposition capture both the flag and the Bible. Capturing the flag ? posing as more patriotic than their opponents ? is an old GOP trick. It often works, in spite of the fact that since 1960 the Democrats have nominated for president more combat veterans (John F. Kennedy, George McGovern and John Kerry) than the Republicans (the first Bush and Robert Dole).
But the more recent development is the conservative capture of the Bible, or indeed religion in general. It was not always this way, and herein I think lies one of the reasons for the current state of liberal decline.
Most liberals I know are theological illiterates. Because they are more secular-minded than most conservatives, they are uncomfortable with or dismissive of religious phraseology. This is a pity because there is much in traditional religious thought that not only aids our cause, but (if I may use biblical terminology) smites the enemy as well.
Many of the president's conservative supporters proclaim themselves to be Christians. And while a candidate in 2000, Mr. Bush was asked what political philosopher had influenced him most. He replied that it was Jesus Christ. It was a clear ? and successful ? attempt to appeal to Christian fundamentalists.
Fair enough. But have we liberals reminded the president and his followers of who said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"?
Or who drove the money-changers from the temple?
Or who it was, when asked what one must do to become his follower, said to give up all he had to the poor? Or who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers"?
Would the man who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers," approve of torturing one's enemies? Would the man who spoke about the difficulties of the rich getting to heaven applaud the widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots?
Theologians would no doubt have more than one opinion on these matters, but we liberals, uncomfortable in the presence of religion, choose not to take on the conservatives at all. We avoid religious rhetoric, when in fact we should use it.
Most liberals revere the memory of Franklin Roosevelt. On D-Day in 1944, this liberal Democratic president announced that the invasion of Normandy was under way and that men were undoubtedly dying, even as he spoke. He concluded by leading the nation in prayer. No secular-minded liberal objected.
Nearly 20 years later, I stood before the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, a participant in the historic March on Washington. The program (I still have a copy) began with an invocation by the (Catholic) archbishop of Washington, followed later by a prayer from the (Jewish) president of the Synagogue Council of America, and ended with a benediction from the (Protestant) president of Atlanta's Morehouse College. All of us would remember the magnificent oration by Martin Luther King Jr., rich in the biblical rhetoric of both Testaments, as only the Rev. King could deliver it.
No one then objected to linking religion with liberalism.
Contrary to Karl Marx, who famously claimed that "religion was the opiate of the masses," religious faith in America has often been at the foundation of social change. From the abolitionist movement preached here in Rochester in the 1830s, to the social gospel preached in the slums of our great cities in the 1890s, to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, religion has often "comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable." Liberals should remember this. Then we, too, may drive the modern-day money-changers from the temple.
Parsons is a professor in the history department at the State University College at Brockport.
Link
(December 15, 2004) ?
By Lynn Parsons
As we liberals emerge from the setback of the recent presidential election, we are being pelted with advice. On one hand, jubilant Republicans and conservatives advise us to give up or move to Canada. On the other, many are calling for a wholesale watering down of our commitment to social justice.
As an unrepentant (albeit somewhat chastened) liberal, I reject both expatriation and surrender. But I do think some self-examination is in order.
Put simply, liberals have let the opposition capture both the flag and the Bible. Capturing the flag ? posing as more patriotic than their opponents ? is an old GOP trick. It often works, in spite of the fact that since 1960 the Democrats have nominated for president more combat veterans (John F. Kennedy, George McGovern and John Kerry) than the Republicans (the first Bush and Robert Dole).
But the more recent development is the conservative capture of the Bible, or indeed religion in general. It was not always this way, and herein I think lies one of the reasons for the current state of liberal decline.
Most liberals I know are theological illiterates. Because they are more secular-minded than most conservatives, they are uncomfortable with or dismissive of religious phraseology. This is a pity because there is much in traditional religious thought that not only aids our cause, but (if I may use biblical terminology) smites the enemy as well.
Many of the president's conservative supporters proclaim themselves to be Christians. And while a candidate in 2000, Mr. Bush was asked what political philosopher had influenced him most. He replied that it was Jesus Christ. It was a clear ? and successful ? attempt to appeal to Christian fundamentalists.
Fair enough. But have we liberals reminded the president and his followers of who said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"?
Or who drove the money-changers from the temple?
Or who it was, when asked what one must do to become his follower, said to give up all he had to the poor? Or who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers"?
Would the man who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers," approve of torturing one's enemies? Would the man who spoke about the difficulties of the rich getting to heaven applaud the widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots?
Theologians would no doubt have more than one opinion on these matters, but we liberals, uncomfortable in the presence of religion, choose not to take on the conservatives at all. We avoid religious rhetoric, when in fact we should use it.
Most liberals revere the memory of Franklin Roosevelt. On D-Day in 1944, this liberal Democratic president announced that the invasion of Normandy was under way and that men were undoubtedly dying, even as he spoke. He concluded by leading the nation in prayer. No secular-minded liberal objected.
Nearly 20 years later, I stood before the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, a participant in the historic March on Washington. The program (I still have a copy) began with an invocation by the (Catholic) archbishop of Washington, followed later by a prayer from the (Jewish) president of the Synagogue Council of America, and ended with a benediction from the (Protestant) president of Atlanta's Morehouse College. All of us would remember the magnificent oration by Martin Luther King Jr., rich in the biblical rhetoric of both Testaments, as only the Rev. King could deliver it.
No one then objected to linking religion with liberalism.
Contrary to Karl Marx, who famously claimed that "religion was the opiate of the masses," religious faith in America has often been at the foundation of social change. From the abolitionist movement preached here in Rochester in the 1830s, to the social gospel preached in the slums of our great cities in the 1890s, to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, religion has often "comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable." Liberals should remember this. Then we, too, may drive the modern-day money-changers from the temple.
Parsons is a professor in the history department at the State University College at Brockport.
Link
