Cliff, you raise some interesting issues. I'd like to explore them a little.
Well, maybe I'm a BAD liberal, because I know God exists, but my pilot friends that know me think I'm a very left wing liberal.
Heh, heh, maybe you are a "bad" liberal. I don't know of any liberals who have any concept of God beyond Unitarianism. I'm always open to an exception. For purposes of this discussion, let's use the contemporary ideas about "liberal" or "conservative."
TB, I know as well as U do that God exists, and that he has a purpose for everyone of us he sent here to earth, and, in fact, our whole universe is God's creation.
A liberal who believes in Creation? Stop the presses!!! What a breath of fresh air.
I also KNOW that mixing church and state is VERY bad. U end up with a political/social situation similar to that in Iran or Afghanistan.
I'm a little unsure of what you might mean by "mixing" church and state. Here's what I think: the founders clearly expected the first amendment to defend our ability to freely practice religion. There was no notion whatever of barring teachers or government employees from expressing religious views, or preventing a religious symbol from being set up by believers during holidays. The founders were very specific, not general, about the prohibition against having an "official" religion of the United States, as had England. Such a specific act is for Congress to pass “a law respecting an establishment of religion.” Clearly, the "establishment" clause left nothing in the way of interpretation, so attempts to do so amount to
tyranny.
No one wants an official religion of the US, unless you count secular humanism as a religion, and I certainly do count it that way. It is a religion where government replaces God.
Jesus believed in helping and protecting everyone, especially the people who are minorities because of race, belief, infirmity, or something else. When U allow religious stuff in the government, the government starts saying he is good and he is bad, and it gets ugly very fast.
Jesus believed that the helping and protecting to which you refer be a private sector matter, not one for “Ceasar.” Christ observed that "the poor will be with you always." He also realized that we should be compassionate to our brothers as
individuals. In the Jewish tradition, the widows, those who had lost their husbands and who were not subsequently remarried, were cared for by the temple congregation.
Government programs cannot wipe out poverty, AIDS, or teen pregnancy. Only the changed hearts and cultural beliefs of
people can do that. This starts from a moral framework that liberalism has steadily eroded in my lifetime. Remember "do your own thing!" as a moral (?) imperative? In other words, we are to construct our own variable morality as we see fit. As Pacino said in
Scarface "Look at you now, you all f***ed up." As we have slouched toward Gomorrah, we have taken our entire American culture along for the ride.
So much for "do your own thing."
To all those people who want the ten commandments posted or displayed in public schools or government facilities, I tell them to move to Iran, where they would appreciate the government's attempt to make everyone conform to a specific holy book.
That's based on a false premise. Posting the commandments showed the basis for our laws. In the case of Alabama, acknowledgment of the commandments was a requirement of the state's constitution. According to the US constitution, the US government should have nothing to do with whether or not there are granite or marble, or bronze or any other kind of a list of rules, commandments, or suggestions in any public building. In order for the government to decide that such things cannot be displayed, it has entered into an area that the founders thought should be specifically prohibited: the decision of when and how a religious symbol, text, or speech should be permitted. They thought it would be permitted EVERYWHERE, but never by result of a law of the United States.
By deciding that the commandments cannot be displayed, the government has now become more like Iran than they would by insisting that they
be displayed.
Ironic, isn't it?
I am very spiritual, so does that mean I'm not allowed to be liberal? I know a ton of liberals, and almost every one of them believes in God and tries to live in a manner that he would applaud.
That's great. It has not been my experience, though. I'd call that a "beginning."
I believe that conservatives want to keep the current system, or return to an older system, such as the Amish, who believe that if something isn't in the bible, they shouldn't do/use it.
I like horses, and I live near the Amish, but I don't want to live like them. I don't know of anyone who considers this to be a conservative principle.
I believe that liberals want to change things to improve them, and make living conditions better for all humanity.
That's a very laudable idea, to a point. Most of the responsibility lies with individuals. People acting to help themselves, and others acting as individuals to help them to have better lives. Government is not good at this at all. What we end up with is entitlement programs, scare tactics, and people who take office in order to specialize in the redistribution of wealth.
That is not the "American way."
I think that if Jesus were a conservative, we would not be talking about him now. He would have gone to temple, and followed the teachings of the corrupt rabbis, and probably would have ended up a corrupt rabbi himself.
Sorry. This would only work if Jesus were just a Man. He wasn't. All of His ideas are conservative, just as I listed. Family, moral values, rugged individualism, faith in God.
The Priests of the temple, on the other hand, are like a liberal government: seeking power, personal enrichment, and fearing the Truth that walked among them.
He fought against the established religion of the time, and it's corrupt leaders, and gave his life to changing the system so it would be more "Fair". That sounds like a liberal to me.
No, a liberal would have lobbied for new laws to mandate a new "fairness." Christ knew that hearts must be changed, not laws. That's the reason He came and made that sacrifice, so that we could gain the grace from His act that we are unable to gain by our own acts, because we are unable to follow The Law.
PS-I know of a bunch of conservatives that hate Bush because they say he isn't conservative at all, and some Republicans I know don't like Bush because they say he's not really a Republican either.
I can understand their view, but he is far better than any candidate from the opposition.
