blatham wrote:george
That is the good question.
I tried to make this point to another earlier, but it wasn't accepted.
'Democracy' is, if nothing else, inclusionary. If that is so, then one species of ideology becomes a threat to democracy itself - that species of ideology which excludes all but itself, which values only itself. Such a species of ideology is, prima facie, unique in a democracy.
The point is NOT that anyone believes in the resurrection or in an afterlife or that the bible is literally true. The point is that anyone, holding ANY belief set, becomes a threat to liberty and democracy when they ALSO hold that their believe set is the only possible TRUE belief set, and hense the only one upon which social arrangements ought to be founded.
You will, I'm sure, claim that 'liberalism' too holds that it is a superior ideology. But if you do argue that, then you are skimming past the most important element in this conversation....inclusion and exclusion.
A liberal, such as myself, seeks to limit only that which threatens liberty. There can be a church on every block, and I will not seek to close them. A parson can extoll any notion about biblical interpretation, and I won't ask him to shut up. People of any faith may pass on that faith to their children, and I won't insert myself into that family's dinner conversations. A fellow can retreat to a cave, and whip himself for ten hours a day, eating only ants and grubs, and I will not seek to have the police bring him into the sunlight.
As a liberal, I want whatever state institutions that exist to oversee all communitarian needs (highways, communications, schools, food production, etc) and to NOT involve themselves in the lives of individuals on the assumption that they have some superior knowledge as to what is good and bad for that individual (where others are not harmed, of course).
In this sense, liberalism means what Mill spoke of...freedom and liberty for the practical reasons of growth. But I also hold that such liberties of one's conscience and one's body and one's associations are rights intrisic to being a unique individual, a unique conscience entity.
Democracy is not threatened by freedom, it is threatened by the instantiation in social policy and laws of the beleifs of a single ideology which holds that is is the only valid social ideology.
Blatham and George: Please excuse the interruption but since Blatham has completely unmasked himself I would like to comment:
After reading your essay Blatham I had many mixed thoughts but the one thought that suddenly became evident was this:
You kept inferring that religion was an ideology and I kept saying to myself that religion is NOT an ideology-----it then suddenly dawned on me that this is why liberals are so frightened of fundamentalitst religion. Socialism and religion are NOT compatible. Liberalism is primarily a socialist ideology therefore religion must be prevented from becoming strong enough to become a competing ideology. Therefore those that advocate fundamentalist religion must be demonized at all costs which means the gloves are off---anything goes. Character assassination, lies, anything---all the above are utilized in the 17 current books which attempt to demonize Bush and the administration.
You say above that Democracy is inclusive and it allows for unlimited diversity---this is one of the most sacred elements of Democracy. What you DON'T say is that Socialism is EXCLUSIONARY---- all liberal elitists want to hide this fact with smoke and mirrors but I hope it doesn't succeed. Mainstream America has in the past and will always reject the expreme forms of religious fundamentalism just as we will always reject the exclusionary forms of socialism. Tolerance for religion has always been at the core of our democracy and must always be so IMO. In this regard I do personally favor placement of the symbols of religion in places relevant to only that religion because one religion should not be perceived to be superior to another.
Below is an essay on Socialism vs Religion which I'm certain your categorize as conservatively biased but I believe there is enough accurate historical perspective to prove my point.
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17291/article_detail.asp
In the event you can't be bothered to read the entire text let me post an excerpt which is applicable:
By investing history with a purpose, socialism evoked passions that other political philosophies could not stir. As the American socialist intellectual Irving Howe put it:
Not many people became socialists because they were persuaded of the correctness of Marxist economics, or supposed the movement served their ?'class interests.' They became socialists because they were moved to fervor by the call to brotherhood and sisterhood; because the world seemed aglow with the vision of a time in which humanity might live in justice and peace.
Most socialists would deny that their creed is religious in character. Did not Marx say that religion is an opiate? But many have given evidence of the religious quality of their belief. Michael Harrington, a fallen-away product of Jesuit education who became the preeminent American socialist of his generation, wrote: "I consider myself to be?-in Max Weber's phrase?-?'religiously musical' even though I do not believe in God
. I am
a ?'religious nature without religion,' a pious man of deep faith, but not in the supernatural." Harrington's disciple, sociologist Norman Birnbaum, is even more blunt. "Socialism in all its forms was itself a religion of redemption," he writes.
Despite the prophetic character of its claims, Marxism managed to establish the idea that it was somehow "scientific." The term "science" had only fully come into vogue in the early 1800s, and science was discovering explanations every day for things that had long seemed inexplicable. By applying the terminology of science to human behavior, Marx and Engels developed a powerful cachet. Part of the power of Marxism was thus its ability to feed religious hungers while flattering followers that they were wiser than those who gave themselves over to unearthly faiths.
In addition, the rewards offered by socialism are more immediate than those of the Bible. For one thing, you do not have to die to enjoy them. As British Marxist Ernest Belfort Bax wrote, "socialism brings back religion from heaven to earth [it looks not] to another world but to
a higher social life
whose ultimate possibilities are beyond the power of language to express."
