The subject is the title of an essay I wrote (http://www.dkroemer.com/page84/page84.html) on the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses in Kentucky, an issue that may again come before the Supreme Court. It is takeoff on the title of Norman Podhoretz’s new book Why Are Jews Liberals? In this book there is a chapter titled, “The ‘Torah’ of Liberalism.” It is a reference to Das Kapital, and an allusion to the large number of Jewish intellectuals who became Marxists after losing their faith in God.
My theory is that defining liberalism and conservatism in terms of concern for property rights is no longer relevant. This is my definition of liberalism: According to the Bible and the Koran, our purpose in life is to serve God in this world and be with him in the world to come. There are many who don’t believe this, but they keep their negative response to revelation to themselves and give religion to their children. They have the maturity to realize they are deprived of the gift of faith and a meaningful life. A liberal, however, thinks that believing in the Bible is “unenlightened.” Liberals think of themselves as being intellectually superior to people of faith. This lack of integrity and immaturity makes them prone to political fanaticism.
Two examples of liberals in this mode are Herbert Spencer and Karl Marx. Marx was obsessed with the injustice of private ownership of factories. Herbert Spencer was obsessed with human progress. it was Spencer, not Darwin, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest.” Spencer was referring to the early deaths of less productive human beings and their children. Spencer thought this was a good thing.
Many liberals, such as John Dewey, say they believe in God, but what they really believe in is being good and being concerned with the welfare of their fellow man. Liberal Christianity is a form of such humanism. They believe in following Jesus because Jesus preached “peace and good will.” They do not accept or believe in Jesus’ teaching that there is life after death. What makes them liberals is that they make a point of saying that we do not have to fear going to hell.
I don’t think you can define liberalism in terms of ideology. A liberal will say, “Human beings have natural rights.” This is analogous to saying, “Our purpose in life is self-realization.” Both of these statements are empty of meaning.
Well I’d say that Marxism is more of a philosophy that entails both ideology and religion. In order to be a “true Marxist” you must be atheist. Or at least that’s what self-proclaimed “true Marxists” claim.
Similarly, Objectivism is a philosophy that entails both ideology and religion. In order to be an Objectivist, you must be an atheist.
But liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism are all just ideologies. You could make the argument that there are also philosophical versions of each of these, but it doesn’t follow that every person who is, say, an ideological liberal is also a philosophical liberal. But I also feel like a philosophical liberal is completely different from what Americans consider “liberals” on the political scene today. A philosophical liberal is a classical liberal.
It just seems absurd how the OP attempts to link an ideology with no coherent philosophical foundation with religious beliefs. And how do you classify an atheist who believes in free enterprise, is pro-life, and wants an active foreign policy? Such a person would easily classify as a political/ideological conservative, according to modern political terminology at least.
What you’re saying is just straight up silly. Is Roman Catholicism “Liberal Christianity?” Catholicism, unlike certain forms of Protestantism and Calvinism, focuses on doing good as a way to reach salvation as opposed to just pure faith (e.g. Calvinism). Yet there are many devout Catholics who are conservatives, and even more who cannot be classified as liberals. Tom Woods, for example, is a devout Catholic who is definitely not a liberal. And Catholics definitely do believe in “life after death.”
And what’s this about a liberal believing in natural rights? Most liberals don’t even believe in natural rights, period. Furthermore, natural rights don’t have a thing to do with one’s purpose in life being self-realization. Natural rights are often understood as rights given by a creator. Many religious people have pushed the idea of God-given natural rights. They certainly believe in life after death.
You’re confounding many different ideas about politics, ideology, philosophy, and religion.
I do agree with you in a way, and the correlation certainly seems like that to me. However, Anton LaVey and the CoS seem to be pretty anti-government from what I’ve read. He contradicts himself sometimes, but his type of atheism is quite individualistic.
It is true that Herbert Spencer was a liberal, but Karl Marx was never a liberal. Also, provide a quote of Herbert Spencer making that claim or else admit that you have libeled him and retract your statement.
There are approximately as many important liberal thinkers throughout history that were Christian (John Locke, Adam Smith, etc…) than weren’t (Hebert Spencer, J. S. Mill, etc…).
Mr. Roemer, to address your OP directly, it’s clear that your distinction between liberals and conservatives hinges upon the alleged facts of the Judeo-Christian God’s existence and (presumably) the literal truth of the Bible. However, why should any of us agree with you about those premises?
My definition of liberalism explains the flip-flop that occurred in both America and England. Democrats in the U.S used to believe in small government, just like Liberals in England. Then they became pro-government. What happened? Why? My theory is that advocating laissez faire stopped satisfying their emotional needs, so they started advocating communism. A stopped clock is right two times a day.
“Should” is too strong a word. I gave my reasons for believing in my essay, and I am summoning you to believe. It is not a demand. I am not criticizing anyone who doesn’t believe in the “literal truth” of the Bible. However, I consider it irrational to deny that God exists. We know God exists just like we know human beings have free will, the sky is blue, England is an island, and Santa Claus does not exist.
In my essay, there is a quote showing that Spencer was against private charity. Crackpots say different things at different times. They are like children.
Should" is too strong a word. I gave my reasons for believing in my essay, and I am summoning you to believe. It is not a demand. I am not criticizing anyone who doesn’t believe in the “literal truth” of the Bible. However, I consider it irrational to deny that God exists. We know God exists just like we know human beings have free will, the sky is blue, England is an island, and Santa Claus does not exist.
A fine conversation starter for a more theologicaly oriented website, but probably well outside the scope of any productive dialogue that Mises.org is capable of.
Liberals have a need to give meaning to their lives. They also have a need to persuade themselves that they are intellectually superior to people who believe in the Bible. Their irrationality about evolution is particularly striking. I refer you to my YouTube video titled, “The Truth About Evolution and Religion.” In the video I prove by quoting mainstream Darwinist biologists that: 1) Evolution only applies to the bodies of humans, not their souls. 2) Natural selection only explains adaptation, not common descent.
Liberals get emotionally upset at the idea that human beings did not evolve from animals.
Herbert Spencer was not a liberal or a communist. He and the ‘social darwinism’ are usually associated with right-wing Thatcherism/Reaganomics or libertarianism. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is not something liberals are going around saying as it pertains to their ideal society. If they believe in evolution, it is in the realm of natural history as a fact of that history.
You are basically saying that Christians are not overly concerned with anything on Earth, since they have heaven. So they can remain selfish. While people who care about matters on Earth are ‘obsessed’.
The argument from ‘obsession’ really makes little sense. On the one hand, Spencer and Marx have little in common besides your disagreement. On the other hand, one could easily say you are ‘obsessed’ with Liberals for making such a comment. But neither of these things hold weight intellectually.
It seems you are just justifying anti-liberalism based on a selfish stoicism/solipsism that you think religion entitles you to. Which is not really a refutation against Marx or Spencer. Nor a real understanding of those persons’ ideologies. But merely your own preferences as projected onto them.
In reality, all political ideologies can be concerned or dedicated to some cause. Or else why even think at all? You are saying that any thinking or action is useless because there is heaven to go to.
It could be said that the Mises institute is ‘obsessed’ with economics, freedom, anarchism, peace, philosophy, ‘progress’, etc. And/or many of the same things that apply to Marx or Spencer. At the same time, there is really no religious or anti-religious reason for this. They are causes that justify themselves.
Furthermore, for the most part I think libertarians believe in evolution. I am not a liberal, I support evolution and am not a Christian. You are thinking in the dichotomy of religious conservative vs. secular liberal.
On the nitpick he is a liberal in the same way that Mises, Bastiat, Burke, Hayek or perhaps you or I would be. Pet peeve of mine, because I like the word and there is no real reason to have much association with the word “conservative” that I can think of (minus a pehaps somewhat “anti- radical revolutionary” sentiment)