|
EMAIL from Ron Lyster to various lists....
How could a Christian - liberal or not - use
a term such as "the Christian right" or "Christian conservative" in a
derogatory manner - as a "put down" or ridicule? And why is it that these
terms are so often joined in close proximity?
Consider what I believe to be true – that an American who considers himself
"left wing" is more likely to be an atheist or agnostic than is an American
who considers himself to be "right wing." I have no statistical or
demographic proof at hand for this proposition, but I would be very
surprised if it isn't true. If it is true, why is that the case? I'll try to
propose an answer to that question (and others) here.
How could a Christian develop a rabid and irrational hatred for another
Christian - a Methodist no less - who -
-
When
asked which philosopher most influenced his life, will
unhesitatingly and confidently respond, "Jesus Christ."
(And he is ridiculed for this response, believe it or not - and
I'll bet that many of those doing the ridiculing consider themselves to
be Christians.)
-
When
told that one of the world's most evil beings, Yasser Arafat, was either
dead or dying, said "May God bless his soul."
-
Praised
his opponent - a man who used every deceitful and below the belt tactic
in the book to slander and defame him - as having run a campaign of
which he and his running mate could be proud.
-
Has
consistently turned his cheek, just as the Bible would have him do.
How could a Christian have a terrible and
festering hatred - a hatred that the person probably won't even admit to
having - for a good and honorable man like that? How can this be?
Let us define two terms here, and those are the political directions of
"left" and "right." While the
terms "liberal" and "conservative" can mean different things at different
times, the terms "left" and "right" may be defined in a bit more permanent
manner. (Note that these terms are not always defined thus - but, in my
humble opinion, they should be.)
-
The ultimate "leftist" is the totalitarian who elevates and glorifies
government over the individual. The ultimate "leftist" looks to
government for his very existence; government provides food, clothing,
shelter, transportation, recreation, jobs, health care, education,
worship - everything.
-
The ultimate "rightist" is the anarchist who elevates the individual
over the government. The ultimate rightist ignores both the human need
for order and structure in the world and those human faults and failings
which need to be addressed, resolved, and remedied uniformly and
sometimes coercively.
So the spectrum lies between these points.
On any given matter of importance, idea, or philosophy an individual may be
more left or more right – in favor of more or less government; one need not
be uniformly right or left on every given topic, but most typically a person
will be either more right or more left on most issues. Thus one may be
called, more or less, "left wing" or "right wing."
(I don't know any sane individuals who are completely right or
completely left.) I have no
definition of the absolute center, so the term "centrist" holds little
meaning, it being determined by a swath of unknown width at an undefined
location. Therefore, for purposes of this short argument, a person is either
"left wing" or "right wing."
One point becomes clear from the outset using these definitions and that is
that fascism, Nazism, Marxism, communism, and socialism are all "left
wing." So often repeated that many
believe it to be true, but it is not and it never has been true,
is that fascism is a demon of the far right. Fascism, being totalitarian, is
part of the far left. Think of
communism as "Coke" or "Ajax" and fascism as "Pepsi" or "Comet."
In either event you have competitors but pretty much the very same
product - totalitarianism. Calling a "right-winger" a "fascist" is simply
ridiculous - completely laughable.
"Islamo-fascism" is a strange concoction due to its utter confusion of
government and religion. It does not fit neatly into my definitions. It is a
"third wing" in a three-dimensional system. I will not address it further
here, although you do not have to be Muslim to confuse religion with
government. (Confusing government and religion need not necessarily be a
"bad" thing or a "good" thing, either. Much of our law is based upon
"equity," for example, which came straight from the Church of England.)
Now let me submit that human beings need to believe that there is something
more powerful than they are. They need to believe that there is something
"above" them. This "higher authority" can be seen in several layers, in
fact. A person who truly believes that he or she is at the very top of the
"pecking order" is not only rare but, I submit, insane.
Having said that, it isn't difficult to see why an American who considers
himself "left wing" is more likely to be an atheist or agnostic than is an
American who considers himself to be "right wing." Why? The "left winger"
has the government above, and may or may not need God as an additional
layer, whereas the "right winger" cannot be without God because the
government is subservient to him. Why is it that communist countries are so
often atheist? Why is it that religion is generally less important in the
lives of socialists? Why are so many so-called "liberal" (actually
left-wing) churches losing members? Could it be that left-wingers see
government as a panacea, and that many "left wingers" now think that they
have no further need for God or that if there is a God then He will act
through government whether or not they believe in Him?
I'm a Christian, but I believe the same analysis applies to Jews as well.
(I don't know enough about other religions to have an opinion on whether
this analysis applies to them too.)
Communism is an evil which includes crimes against humanity, terror, and
repression. Before their fall, communists developed propaganda as a high art
form. That art form lingers on in the left-most fringes of the political
spectrum. Say something boldly enough, often enough and you may get a
following who will believe you and who will themselves repeat it boldly and
often. Truly insane ideas can become main-stream in this manner. Don't
believe it? Just remember (if you can) Nazi Germany. An entire nation became
insane and it almost infected the remainder of the world.
Need more convincing that communism is evil? Try The Black Book of
Communism (Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panne,
Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, and Jean-Louis Margolin). Think other
insane ideas cannot take root in the United States? Try Intellectual
Morons (Daniel J. Flynn). I have both of these books and would be
pleased to lend them out.
What do the terms "conservative" and "liberal"
mean today? The term "right-wing" is often used to describe "conservative"
thought, and "left-wing" for "liberal" thought. If that is now the case, these
terms have become redundant. I think that need not be the case. Many
"liberals" decry that the term "liberal" has become dirty. What happened? I
submit that the lock-step joinder of "liberal" with "left wing" has caused
this. Imagine a "right-wing liberal." Can you? I certainly can. A person
with charity in his heart and soul who strives to help his fellow man become
independent, not dependent; a person who champions that independent spirit and
proudly calls it "American." A person who can read our history and find the
good in it, while working to "right the wrongs" from our past. (The
"passionate conservative" would complement the right-wing liberal here -
advocating the preservation of our good and noble traditions.) A person
who unselfishly advocates the right of every person to become the best that he
or she can be without government intervention ("meddling"). Paradoxically,
"power to the people" means precisely that for a right-wing liberal - not "power
to the government over the people." Guess who comes to mind as a "right-wing
liberal"? Ronald Reagan.
You need not be a communist or a socialist to be
a liberal. That, I submit, is what caused the term "liberal" to become a dirty
word - the association of the term with
communism and socialism. It has also left a number of people who thought
that they were liberals thinking that their party has left them. The Democratic
Party has wandered into the left-wing of the political spectrum and is moving
farther and farther into the darkness. The communists and socialists have
usurped the term "liberal." Anyone from the right who dares to be "liberal" is
vilified and delegitimized - and recall that the majority of propaganda experts
are currently from the left-wing of the political spectrum. It has been a very
clever ploy that has almost worked. Many liberals may have been taken down this
track unwittingly.
As many of you know, our email lists
have been down. I've tried to post this several times, but it never went
through. I did share it with a couple of you on this list as a "preview," and I
did get some comments "off list." I responded to one of these comments with the
following, which I now share with everyone:
Our email lists are still down, or I
would have posted this on the Forum. If I were to expand it, I think I would go
more into what my concept of the roots of "conservativism" are. That will take
some more thinking on my part. (I actually enjoy thinking - like some enjoy
sweating and raising their heartbeats, which I do not.) The definitions of
"conservative" and "liberal" have become so bound up with ideology that "pure"
conservative thought isn't what folks think it is. I believe "conservatism" has
more to do with respect for and learning from history than it does love for or
hatred of big government. "Liberalism" has more to do with willingness to do
things differently - to try new things. At least that is the direction I would
take that topic. Then there is concern for self and concern for others - a
topic which is also independent from "conservative" vs "liberal" and
"left-wing" vs. "right wing." (Thus "limousine liberal" and "compassionate
conservative" are not only possible, they do exist.) And pessimism vs.
optimism; passivity vs. action; hope vs. despair; theism vs. atheism. Each of
these things can be seen as its own separate axis on a multi-dimensional view of
a person's belief system (which itself may move and change over time).
If you have a mess, the fist
thing you need to do is untangle it. Then you can put it in some order. So
I find these definitions to be very important. If we are to speak the same
language we need to agree on the definitions of the words and concepts we
are using. If you are to understand what somebody is saying you need to
understand the meaning of the terms he is using.
I brought up the issue of
Christianity for several reasons, and none of these reasons was to
say that my argument was correct because the bible says its so. Our
president, George W. Bush, is a Christian, and I wanted to make the point
that much of what he does may be explained by his beliefs - which I perceive
as being very strong. I wanted to make the point because one of my
audiences was so-called "liberal" Christians who have developed a strange
and sick hatred for one of their own - George W. Bush. I posted the
foregoing message on a Yahoogroup list to which I have subscribed for many
years but, believe it or not, to which I very, very rarely post anything - a
list of Methodists from Southern California (mostly clergy and
mostly "liberal"). One Methodist who is not on that list was also
targeted with my email, and you might know him (because he belonged to our
Rotary Club for awhile) - Clair Mitchell. Clair is about as liberal a
person as you can get, and he sends out emails quite often. I never
responded to any of his stuff, until he sent me one a few days ago in which
he led off by saying that George Bush was his president. Frankly, that
shocked me because I thought he would be another "whiner," wringing his
hands and saying we was going to pack up and move to Cuba or something. But
he said that George Bush was his president. Let's just say it got my
attention. I just had to send this to him. He may or may not have read it
in depth, but he acknowledged receiving it and said he agreed with parts of
it and disagreed with others. The Methodist Yahoogroups list had a few
comments - none directly addressing these issues, one congratulating me on
my work, and another calling it a "cheap shot."
So there you go. I wish folks
would discuss this on the Forum (when it comes back up) - but they won't.
|
