It is the position of LiveLiberal that the majority of Americans are in agreement with liberal perspectives based on a liberal ideology. At the same time, we liberals can be timid or unprepared to respond especially to the more verbal ideological right. What follows are the first eight (Poverty and Wealth, Civics, How Did “Liberal” Become a Dirty Word?, Abortion, Environment, Homosexuality, War, and Patriotism) in a series of basic and easily remembered “talking points” to aid in informed conversation with those holding an opposite point of view. Please help us to improve these by sharing your thoughts at info@LiveLiberal.org
POVERTY AND WEALTH - As this is being written, 37 million people - - 12.7 percent of the United States population - - live in poverty in what is the richest country in the world. The number of people living in extreme poverty, that is, with incomes below half the poverty line, is 15.6 million people. That number of Americans living in extreme poverty remains the highest level on record, since data first became available in 1975.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, poverty once again was thrust into the American consciousness - - and hopefully the American conscience as well - - as we expressed shock and dismay at the images of people too poor or weak to escape. They’d been there all along; we just didn’t see them. Now that we have been reminded of their presence, we really have only two choices: we can either continue looking the other way, or we can make this a teachable moment and act accordingly. For even while the economy as a whole prospers, poverty is getting worse, and the harm it inflicts on our entire nation continues to grow. The fact that so many are being left behind is a reminder that that something in our social and economic systems is seriously broken. For example, most of the poor are working and almost half of all Americans will have experienced poverty for a year or more at some point in their lives by the time they reach age 60. In summary, here are some talking points:
1) Wealth, of itself, is not a bad thing. Wealth, as the Judeo-Christian Scriptures point out, can be a blessing as long as it is recognized that everything we have ultimately belongs to God. Thus we should be good stewards of what we have received. Wealth should not be accumulated in ways that are unjust. In our country there is a huge disparity between the resources of the rich and those of the poor.
2) Poverty should be addressed as a moral issue. We address the issue of poverty from the standpoint of how it relates to common standards of goodness and decency. The Old Testament prophets advocated for the poor, and early Christians organized their lives around elimination of poverty barriers. Today, concerns about private morality seem to take precedence over the social welfare of the poor. Ignoring the needs of the economically vulnerable is immoral and not in the best interest of the future of our country.
3) When people fall into poverty, numerous barriers keep them there. Most people living in poverty are decent people who are committed to American values. Among the barriers that keep people from climbing out of poverty are isolation, the perception that poverty is an individual rather than a social problem, the second-class status of women, racism, inadequate economic support structures, and lack of political muscle.
4) Poverty is a justice issue. Addressing poverty means working for justice, the standard by which the benefits and penalties of living in society are distributed. Three approaches, used in combination, offer a just and wholistic approach to poverty: charity, empowerment, and systemic change. Religious and private organizations can’t fight poverty alone. Governmental involvement is essential.
5) Poverty is a family values issue. Universal family policies, rather than “welfare” programs should be available to all families, not just the poor. Such policies ensure that all people receive a solid educational foundation, a sustainable living wage, adequate health insurance, and adequate shelter.
6) Poverty can be addressed effectively if there is the moral and political will to do so. The United States, of all countries in the world, has the necessary resources to combat poverty. Morally, we know that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, and politically we have the power to set national policies and priorities. We just need to do so.
CIVICS - Learning and interpreting the major ideas found in the U.S. Constitution and other related documents.
Most of us learned in high school, or before, that the study of civics included learning about the founding principles of our country and state. More specifically, civics speaks about our relationships with what used to be called our civil government. Many well-intentioned people, predominantly a group of conservative Christians, still argue and believe that the United States was founded by Christians and based upon Christian principles. It is true that in the writings of our founders, references to God and Christianity can be found. It is also the case generally that the writers of our founding documents believed in God, but not the God of Christianity. It would be much more correct to say that they were deists, believing in a “natural” religion based on human reason instead of divine revelation. The reason some of the conservative Christians want our founders to be Christian is so they can use that perspective to support their political agenda. The essence of that agenda is trying to restore something they think has been lost – a nation based on Christian principles. In reality it has not been lost because it was never there from the beginning.
In summary, here are some additional talking points:
1) Some of the other current arguments center around the contention that our founders did not have the concept of the separation of church and state in mind when they were writing the Constitution. The contention is that it was really in the 1950’s and 1960’s that the concept came to fore through some decisions of the Supreme Court concerning prayer in the public schools. In fact, from the writings of Roger Williams in 1644 through Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to President Ulysses Grant in 1875 to the present, the concept of separating church and state has been part and parcel of our history as a country. A far better case could be made, from the perspective of the Christian Scriptures, that the founding of our country violated the very Christian principles that these conservative Christians want us to believe that our founders held. Given the pacifism of New Testament Christians, it is very difficult to justify an armed revolution against any ruler, including the King of England. Civil disobedience and passive resistance can be justified, but not violent revolution.
2) In other cultures where churches are dependent upon the government for help and support, such help and support comes at the price of religious liberty. History, indeed, seems to show that as governments try to enforce a particular brand of religion on the people, repression is the result. Conversely, the kind of church-state separation that we have provides for an open and free society where Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and others live in relative religious harmony. We all can freely proclaim our beliefs and views and worship or not worship without interference by any government officials. Under our system of laws, all religions are considered equal. It was a great experiment by our founders and it is a continuing gift today.
3) The conservative Christians about whom we speak are working diligently to establish their “ideal” Christian culture. They seem to define such a culture as one where everyone believes in creationism, in eliminating the role of government in our lives as much as possible, in practicing laissez-faire capitalism, in biblical inerrancy, and essentially in only supporting the role of government in our lives to control homosexuality, abortion, and school prayer. To be more specific, they desire a society where creationism has equal billing with evolution until evolution can be totally removed from the classroom. They want to outlaw abortion, homosexuality, and welfare for the poor. They seek to eliminate liberals and humanists from the media, the schools, and the government. They want prayers and Bible reading in the public classrooms and want public funding for parochial and private schools. Finally, they want defense spending to be increased.
4) Another assertion of the conservative Christians is that they have become victims of stereotypes promulgated by liberals and the media. A part of this “victimization” is their contention that freedom of religion applies to all other religions in America except Christianity. They suggest that current policies that are intended to protect homosexuals and other groups from discrimination, end up discriminating against conservative Christians. They also contend that while Christians can speak freely about their faith within the context of churches, they are not allowed to speak about it outside those walls. To many Christians of this variety, religious liberty means the right of others to harass Christians. At root, these folks seek to intrude into our most dearly held civil and religious experiences and into our health decisions and family life. They threaten our personal liberties by using Jesus Christ inappropriately to support their own political agenda and to work toward a merging of church and state.
5) To help counter the claims and assertions of the conservative Christians, it is important to challenge and confront them and their revisions and distortions of history and the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. It is important for the rest of us to assert the lack of their ethics in providing biased guides for voting and distributing them in churches, in surreptitiously placing candidates who conceal their extreme religious views up for election as school board members and other offices, and in intimidating and browbeating public officials. It is also important that we communicate our values and views to our leaders, that we vote for leaders who stand with courage for our historic religious liberty, and that we morally and financially support those who seek to remind Americans of this exceptional liberty.
6) In short, as “religious” organizations move into an open political partisanship in the electoral processes, they lose their proper focus. It is proper for such organizations to appropriately share and defend their religious beliefs about all aspects of our daily lives, but not within the context of a partisan political perspective. It is improper for them to abdicate their moral authority by seeking to use the electoral processes to inflict their partisan beliefs on others. Concurrently, should they be successful, and should those who are elected begin to feel that they owe their election to a particular religious group or organization, everyone's religious liberty is in the process of being threatened.
7) Finally, neither the religious left nor the religious right has a monopoly on theological truth. What either perspective wants to believe as Christians is their business. But none of us have the right, through the coercion of power, to foist these beliefs on civil society. We certainly operate out of our religious beliefs in the public arena, but within that arena our main focus should be on upholding the vision of our founders and our founding documents, which were informed by reason, justice, and what was perceived to be natural law, as for example, "we hold these truths to be self-evident." Our role should be to restore civil debate, and the way to do that is through a re-emphasis on civics, civility, and cooperation.
We close, then, with this reminder from Wendell Phillips (1811-1884): “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty – power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The hand entrusted with power becomes…the enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted agitation can people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.” (Boston, Massachusetts, January 28, 1852)
HOW DID “LIBERAL” BECOME A DIRTY WORD?” - Barry Goldwater. 1964. An embarrassing defeat for the Republican Party. Was the base too narrow, made up primarily of the wealthy and the segregationists of the south? Probably so. The solution developed by a group of strategists, calling themselves the New Right, was to expand the base. A young Paul Weyrich founded the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council to aid in this task. Conservative corporations, foundations, and industries provided easy funding as the ALEC focused on abortion, stopping the ERA, providing prewritten bills for state legislatures, and beginning the process of redefining “liberals” as enemies of our culture. In 1979, Weyrich coined the term “Moral Majority” and Jerry Falwell became president and provided us with the most recent iteration of a conservative movement.
In summary, here are some talking points:
1) We assume conservatives and liberals each have their role to play. Our society, indeed, we think every society, is best served with a balance between those citizens predisposed to resist change (conservatives) and those citizens predisposed toward change (liberals). On whole, there are generally more people resistant to change than those eager to engage change. It has always been the primary difficulty of social reformers to find followers to engage in change. The current type of fundamentalistic conversatives wants to go back to an idealistic past which never existed.
2) The last few decades have brought significant change. During the last thirty years, a subgroup of fundamentalist conservatives has been working together to acquire control of all aspects of American life. While the roots can be traced to the late 19th century, it was in the early 20th century that their beliefs became more focused. The primary social institution they used and are using to accomplish this is control of our culture is religion. The use of propaganda and other communication strategies have been effective tools for them.
3) What broad world view do fundamentalist conservatives share? The basic concepts that provide understanding to the views of the fundamental conservatives include: 1) their belief that Christ will only initiate His second coming when the world has prepared a proper place for Him, namely, the USA when it is Christianized; 2) the belief in a new world order which they labeled Pax Americana, or “the American peace,” where the influence of the USA, coerced or otherwise, is predominant throughout the world; 3) the conviction that our society is involved in a cultural war, the cornerstone of which is a major offensive against Christianity; and 4) the assumption that the Western Judeo-Christian traditions have worked well for several centuries, so why change or revise them now?
It is the perspective of LiveLiberal that neither the liberals nor the conservatives have a monopoly on ideological truth. What either perspective wants to believe is their business. But none of us have the right, through the coercion of power, to foist these beliefs on civil society. We certainly operate out of our beliefs in the public arena, but within that arena our main focus should be on upholding the vision of our founders and our founding documents, which were informed by reason, justice, and what was perceived to be natural law, as for example, "we hold these truths to be self-evident." Our role should be to restore civil debate, and the way to do that is through a re-emphasis on civics, civility, and cooperation.
ABORTION - Technical definitions of abortion (the premature termination of pregnancy ending in the death of the embryo or fetus) always seem to make it seem so matter-of-fact. Then real people and real lives and real situations get involved. The precise becomes imprecise, the simple becomes complex, the decisions are blended with indecision. Different groups define pregnancy and abortion-related terms differently. This often makes even the most elementary communication very difficult. In spite of all the possibilities for disagreement on this important issue, the one thing that virtually all agree upon is that abortion is a moral issue. It speaks to issues of what is good and bad, right and wrong, and that makes it a moral issue.
Of all the issues that are of concern in the current political-religious climate, abortion is one of the most contentious. It has literally polarized our society, torn between the right of the fetus and the woman’s right to choose to bear or not to bear a child. Choices of life or death are made every day, however. For example, our government has chosen to legalize capital punishment, although the case of the State of Illinois indicates that many innocent people have been on death row and only the recent science of DNA testing has kept a number of them from execution. War is another example. It is so commonplace in today’s world that the morality of it is hardly brought into question, at least by those who consider themselves “patriots.” It seems that it is simply enough to claim that war is in the national interest without even bothering to question its morality. Our government chooses not to inform us of the number of innocent civilians in Iraq who have been killed as a result of the fighting, preferring to refer to them simply as “collateral damage.” The irony is that many people who are avidly anti-abortion are also heartily pro-war and pro-death penalty. Indeed, making decisions about who lives and who dies are a part of our daily lives.
Because abortion is a moral issue, many Christians turn to their Bibles for ethical guidance, but biblical interpretation can be a highly subjective and culture-bound enterprise. The ancient Mediterranean culture, for example, operated with different world understandings than we do today. Life in ancient Israel was patriarchal, with women playing a subservient role. Life was fragile and short and the propagation of family and people was paramount. Families wanted and prayed for many children, particularly for male heirs. It is no wonder, then, that neither the Old nor the New Testament specifically addresses the matter of abortion. It simply wasn’t an issue, even though it apparently was widely practiced during those times.
In summary, the Bible and the tradition hold to a deep reverence for all human life, but there is hardly unanimity of opinion within the Bible and among church fathers about the humanity of the fetus, or even for reasons why abortion is not accepted. (Please consider ordering “Toxic Faith: Liberal Cure” from our merchandise page for a thorough and complete analysis of this whole issue.) Yet, the religious fundamentalists of today continue to insist that their tunnel-vision version of what God thinks on this issue is what the laws of this country should reflect. It would seem to be the height of arrogance for people to assume that only they are privy to what is really in the mind of God.
In summary, here are some talking points:
1) The Bible and the tradition hold to a deep reverence for all human life, but there is hardly unanimity of opinion within the Bible and among church fathers about the humanity of the fetus, or even for reasons why abortion is not accepted. Yet, the religious fundamentalists of today continue to insist that their tunnel-vision version of what God thinks on this issue is what the laws of this country should reflect. It would seem to be the height of arrogance for people to assume that only they are privy to what is really in the mind of God.
2) Decisions relating to abortion, therefore, will be informed in the public arena by basic principles of human reason, love, and justice. There must be equal justice under the law and that makes for ambiguity. The rights of the fetus must be emphasized. Equally, however, the mother has not sacrificed her right to free personhood, and the circumstances will play a significant role in the ethical decision either to abort or bring the infant to full term.
3) Ethical decision-making is hard work. We recognize that our moral deliberations must address complex questions such as, how does the issue of equal justice under law impact the situation? In other words, how do we balance the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus? What are the ambiguities involved? What are the possible alternatives? What might be the consequences of each alternative? How might your own experience affect you deliberation? Does Scripture offer guidance? What can we learn from science? What is reasonable and just? What is merciful? What is the role of grace and forgiveness for healing in otherwise seemingly untenable circumstances? It is easy to make theoretical value judgments, but when anguished people are overwhelmed with the knotty, often painful events in life, a sense of humility on our part denies easy answers.
4) If a person of faith feels personally bound to his/her set of values, do we have the right to coerce the rest of a diverse democratic society to comply with those positions? Christian realists say no.
ENVIRONMENT - The world seemed to be a gentler place when “tree hugger” was about the most pejorative descriptor applied to those who expressed concern about the environment. In more recent years, as nightmares about global warming, high fuel prices, ineffective fuel economy standards, and increasing destruction of the environment have come into public debate, the terms used to describe environmentalists have risen in decibel and toxicity too. Into this mix of the sometimes competing interests between preservationists and consumerists come the ideologies of the conservative religionists. That added ingredient is the primary subject of these talking points.
1) Some fundamentalist Christian conservatives are deeply suspicious about environmentalists. Some believe that they should only worship God and not creation. Some believe that the end of the world and the return of Jesus are near, so worrying about ruining the environment is time wasted.
2) There is a misunderstanding of the Bible phrase that God gave “dominion” over the earth to humankind. The proper understanding of “dominion” is that humans are given use of the earth as a trust or as something we are borrowing. God owns the earth. Humans are not entitled to exploit it or destroy it but to use it for human benefit as God intended.
3) There is a Judeo-Christian ethic for the environment. The Judeo-Christian ethic defines God as Creator of all things and humans as the caretakers of that creation. God told our first parents to cultivate and care for the garden. The gifts of nature can be used for the benefit of humans, but not in a manner that pollutes, wastes, or spoils the planet’s ability to regenerate and give glory to God.
4) Christian and non-Christian alike have a responsibility to the earth. We are not to be destroyers of the environment. God’s purpose for the environment is to provide sustenance for us and pleasure for God and humans. Profit from the sustenance of the earth is not wrong but is always secondary to the protection of the environment.
5) Christian churches, particularly, have rarely been involved in or effective at proclaiming the environment as a critical part of personal and corporate stewardship. Much of the Christian Church has spoken against materialism, genetic engineering, evolution, and abortion, as examples. But in the area of the materialism of science, demonstrated by a technological orientation toward nature, it has been largely silent. In short, using science to despoil the environment in the interest of profit is not generally addressed.
6) Awareness of the need for an improved environment is growing again. Perhaps most of those seeking a better environment think that most Christians do not care about ecological issues. It is true that most local church congregations do not provide opportunities for involvement in projects providing for ecological improvement. The witness of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures reminds its followers that even though the heavens and earth will eventually be destroyed, they are to still keep working for healing, including environmental healing, in the here and now.
HOMOSEXUALITY - At the moment, we are living within a society where some members of the religious right, and others, claim that same-sex marriage will destroy family values. Campaigns are being launched on both federal and state levels to pass constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage. Apart from whipping up emotions among people to vote for right wing causes and candidates, this hate and fear mongering has nothing at all to do with protecting family values. We see these actions as being in the same category as our former anti-miscegenation laws which banned interracial marriages. In both cases, laws barring such behavior have proved to be and will prove again to be discriminatory and ultimately unconstitutional. If concern about strengthening marriage is so important as a family values issue to this segment of the population, we wonder if a constitutional amendment to ban divorce might not be a better approach for them? First, likely less than 1% of our population might be involved in same-sex marriage. Contrast that to about 60% who are involved in heterosexual marriage at any given time. About 45-50% of those marriages end in divorce. Interestingly enough, statistics show that the percentage of divorces among evangelicals is higher than in the general population ("Christians are more likely to experience divorce than are non-Christians," Barna Research Group, at: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/ ). Or why not also push for a constitutional ban against heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage, which some suggest includes more people than those who cohabit within marriage? How can same-sex marriage be destructive of family values when such a marriage discourages promiscuity and is a commitment for two people to together in a life-long covenantal relationship of monogamy and fidelity? Think about it! And as you think about it, here are a few talking points about the general topic of homosexuality:
1) Because most of the outrage about issues of homosexuality comes from fundamentalist Christians, this education segment deals with the issues in Christian categories. This requires dialogue between biblical texts, the sciences, and our human experiences.
2) There is an element of change within the Christian Scriptures. Scripture does not speak with a single voice. As time passed, one command was overruled by another. “Christian anthropology” uses ancient texts to subjugate people, including homosexuals. This approach reduces the divine will to absolute demands, refusing to recognize that God’s movement in history changes the nature of things.
3) Old Testament passages cited against homosexuality are not all applicable. An overview of the Old Testament passages referring to homosexual activity shows that some are mistranslations due to preconceived notions. Others are enmeshed among commands which obviously no longer apply. The Old Testament passage most often quoted (Genesis 19) to attack homosexual activity is in reality talking about gang rape as an attack on basic civility and hospitality.
4) New Testament passages also must be examined in their contexts. Some of the quoted New Testament passages are ambiguous. Analysis of other passages shows they may refer to pederasty (adults exploiting children) among other factors. The most important New Testament passage, Romans 1, shows that Paul puts all people under God’s judgment so that all might share in the grace of God in Jesus Christ. In the four Gospels, Jesus affirms monogamy and fidelity, but says nothing at all about homosexuality.
5) Dialogue with the sciences informs us about the nature of homosexuality. Scientific research gives support to the idea that sexual orientation may be shaped by innate factors and that a person may be homosexual “by nature.” Since 1973, the American Psychiatric Association no longer sees homosexuality as a treatable condition, but as a variable in the human sexual scheme of things.
6) A compassionate approach to the Gay and Lesbian experience is more than theoretical. When we relate with gays and lesbians in our personal relationships, the whole issue is taken out of the realm of the theoretical. We are dealing with real, hurting, sensitive and loving people.
WAR - One of the harsh realities of our human existence is war, usually defined as the using of armed conflict as a method of addressing disputes. War, for Christians, has been a matter of discussion and debate virtually since the beginning of the Christian era. Historically, and continuing into the present day, society has been conflicted about whether and how war should be waged. Throughout the Christian era, three approaches to war have developed in response to the changing social and political realities of the times - - pacifism, holy war, and the just, or justifiable, war. Within our current socio-political context, and especially in light of the conflicts in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East, it seems essential that there be careful deliberation on these various approaches to war, so that people of good will might thoughtfully assess our country’s involvement in current and potential situations of conflict.
1) America is divided over the issue of war in general and specifically over the Iraq war. Society has always been divided about whether and how war should be waged. American attitudes about the Iraq war range from opposition to uneasiness to measured acceptance to unquestioning support. Historically, three approaches to war have evolved: pacifism, holy war, and just war, all three of which are evident in contemporary society.
2) The early Christian Church practiced pacifism. Pacifism - -opposing war or violence as a means of settling disputes - - was the church’s position in the first three centuries of the Christian era. Pacifism, or “aggressive peace-making,” has been the stance of “peace churches” throughout their history and continues today.
3) The concept of “holy war” is exemplified in the medieval crusades. The medieval crusades were seen as “holy wars” by the Western church against the Muslim Turks, who occupied the Holy Land and its sacred sites. The crusades were largely a blot on Christian history, but the crusading spirit is still very evident today. Muslims have also been involved in jihad, or holy war.
4) The need to defend society and its institutions led to formation of a “just war” theory. The just, or justifiable, war theory was developed by St. Augustine and further expanded by Thomas Aquinas and other Christian scholars in response to the fact that there are occasions when, of necessity, war has to be waged. This concept became foundational to modern international law regulating war.
The principles of the “just war” offer a moral basis for judging the validity of war. The following criteria can offer guidance to Christians and all people of good will who are concerned about the morality of any given war: it must a) have a justifiable cause, b) be declared by a legitimate authority, c) not be initiated under false pretenses, d) be used as a last resort, e) have a reasonable prospect of victory, f) only be directed toward those who actively threaten the innocent, and g) involve no excessive destruction.
5) The Iraq war is inconsistent with the “just war” criteria or international law. A comparison of the realities of the Iraq war with these criteria reveals that the morality of this war is in question for the following reasons: a) no convincing case has been made for the invasion of Iraq, b) it did not receive consent from the United Nations, c) people in decisive foreign policy roles may have had hidden motives for the war, d) United Nations sanctions and inspections were not given adequate time to work, e) satisfactory settlement of the war is ambiguous at best, f) ten times more civilians have been killed than military personnel, and g) small scale injuries have been avenged by large scale devastation.
PATRIOTISM – Americans, no matter how their views might otherwise differ, can generally agree that a patriot is a person who has an ardent love for his/her country. Nevertheless, in spite of this common definition, there can be a great divide between conservatives and liberals over the issue of how this patriotic affection is to be expressed. These talking points are intended to clarify how and why many people seem to misunderstand the American vision and how this misunderstanding can also lead to a faulty understanding of patriotism. It may also help others to better understand how to live out their patriotism.
1) There is a difference between patriotism and chauvinism (misguided patriotism). Thoughtful patriots understand the complexities involved in our love relationship with our country. (Patriotism means love and care for one's own homeland, based on the Latin word “patria” meaning the land of one's fathers).Ongoing debate and differences of opinion are essential in the American system. To believe otherwise is to operate with a misguided understanding of patriotism, often referred to as chauvinism. Chauvinism is zealous and aggressive, believing that “God is on our side” and putting blind uncritical faith in one’s leaders. Chauvinist beliefs are once again gaining prominence in our society. In defense against this, thoughtful patriots must reclaim the vision on which America was founded.
2) Patriotism should not be based on the mistaken premise that America was founded as a Christian nation. Although there are those who believe that our founding fathers intended for America to be a Christian nation, these viewpoints do not reflect the spirit of the founding fathers who were fearful of religious interference in the rule of law. Instead, they reflect the spirit of Cotton Mather and later thinkers who believed that Americans were people of “chosenness” and destiny. In reality, the founding fathers were rationalists and deists.
3) Patriotism holds America to the ideals on which it was founded. Embodied in our country’s founding documents is the belief that our government is charged with the responsibility to serve the common good. These documents emphasize that all people are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Especially applicable to our situation today is the constitutional insistence on the separation of church and state. Although the vision of America enshrined in our founding documents is consistent with the biblical vision of peace and wholeness, it does not advocate a theocracy (a country ruled by God, or the people who say they speak for God) in America.
4) Patriotism is based on compassion rather than hatred. Compassion, not hatred, is the hallmark of true patriotism (love, devotion, and care). It is the foundation on which we build the just society envisioned by our country’s founders. The stark reality is that there are two classes of people in the United States - - the haves and the have-nots. True patriots will strive to pay the price so that the underclass and all those who are denied access to the American dream of liberty and justice for all will share in it.
5) Patriotism affirms the diversity that is inherent in our unity. America is a great experiment made up of diverse elements striving to live together in a reconciled and affirming manner. We are truly a pluralistic people, and we all add different gifts to the strengthening of our country. Yet we all share in a common underlying humanity and underlying dream. Sadly, this vision of a diverse yet unified America is not always reflected in reality. One measure of patriotism is a commitment to support the inclusion of all Americans in the promise of the American dream.
6) A true patriot has the courage to call our leaders to accountability. Patriotism is about keeping the focus on the vision. When that vision is defiled, patriots are willing to stand in opposition to policies that are unjust and do not reflect the high ideals on which this country was founded. They will object to policies that are destructive of the common good. They address the devastating realities of our times by such actions as becoming informed about the founding vision of our country, working to elect wise and compassionate leaders, being prepared to sacrifice so that others might share in America’s promise, and if necessary, being willing to die for a cause that is just and honorable.
© LiveLiberal Ltd.
