Charles H. Buchholtz wrote:What the Democrats need to do is to get this message into the "heartland". It might be a good idea to start a left-wing religious values campaign now, in a gentle way, so that in four years it's an accepted part of the political dialogue.
I disagree!
why are we being asked to 'talk to each other' in terms of religious values? when we live in a secular democracy?
This is actually the heart of the matter. And it is why the "left" cannot dialog with the "right."
The idea that we live in a "secular democracy" is not only a new idea, but one, quite literally, limited to the "blue states."
The Constitutional prohibition is against the formation of a State Religion -- which is very different from espousing religious or moral values. A "secular democracy" is as much a State Religion as is the Anglican church.
The fact of the matter is that America, and later the United States was created by, and as, a very Religious society. They were of many religions, and that was the Key. They believed in Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion.
Start with the Puritans in New England who landed at Plymouth Rock.
William Penn, a Quaker, recommended that the Jesuits build Old Saint Joseph's Church in a defensible location in Philadelphia because there were many in the community who opposed the Church of England and saw little difference between the Catholics and the Anglicans.
Look at the Oath of Office for any Federal, State or Local official.
In poll after poll today, the United Sates shows up by a large margin as the most religious country in the world, far surpassing even the Muslim countries. These polls define religion as being practiced willingly by the individuals in the population, not as defined or mandated by the state.
While, for most of its history, the population of the United States practiced the "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward religion, "the media" in recent years has begun to make an issue of a person's religion -- especially if that person is a candidate for elective office.
One has only to look to the Black Clergy United in Philadelphia to see the extent that religion plays an important part in Politics.
For many years, the Jesuits answered only to the head of their order, often called the "Black Pope" because his power and authority was virtually autonomous. And, as such, the Jesuits were world-wide advocates for revolutionary, political change. Only in recent years has the Pope called the head of the Jesuits to task for advocating the political involvement of the order, often at the expense of their religious duties.
This has always been the problem of Israel, Americans visiting Israel expected to find a "Jewish State" -- and were shocked to discover that Israel was no different than any other country in the world. It was populated by many different kinds of Jews, and many non-Jews as well. But they expected to find a Jewish Theocracy. This expectation has changed in recent years, but was still quite common as recently as the 1980s.
"Values" and "morals" by their very nature are based in some kind of "religion." Even the "Ethical Society" is a religion, it is based in some set of beliefs. Don't try to tell any Wiccan, Druid or "New Ager" that they do not practice a religion. They might call it "a way of life," but then that is exactly what a religion is.
I am aware of only one international organization existent today which is in fact multi-Religious, which preaches and practices morals and values common to all Religions. That fact alone has caused virtually all Religions to oppose it; many others believe that it does not exist. But it does exist. Today, in the United States and some parts of the world, institutionally. it claims to be apolitical, but in truth it is probably the most radical organization, responsible for more social change, some say even the very existence of the United States, than any other organization in the history of the world. It is dedicated to the individual and to individual Freedom. It has no need to act as an organization. It trains individuals to act for themselves, on their beliefs. And collectively, its goals will prevail. [No, I'm not talking about Skull and Bones, even though both Bush and Kerry were members.]
"Secular Humanism," "Secular Democracy" it doesn't matter what moniker you wish to hang on your beliefs, the fact is, that is exactly what they are, your beliefs, your values, just as much a Religion as any "brick and mortar" church. That you can't talk about your beliefs as "religious values" is a linguistic and deficiency of rhetoric on your part; not a failure of the process.
As was pointed out by Captain Picard, you can't have a discussion if you can't speak the language.
T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
