A Different Kind of Blog

news and things sacred and irreverent put together by opinionated people.

A CHRISTIAN LIBERAL’s View

Those who actually know what the Bible says about the life and teaching of Jesus recognize that far from being like Jesus of Nazareth, today’s “Religious Right” are much more like the kind of clerics who battled this revolutionary prophet from the day he opened his mouth until the day they had him nailed to a cross.  Although these people claim to represent Jesus Christ, they rarely quote his teaching or follow his example.  What they do instead is use his name (“in vain”)  to promote their ideas, ideas which Jesus himself did not teach, and might well have opposed.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”  – Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhichoiceright

“Liberal” doesn’t equal “Licentious”
Many people, including both liberals and conservatives, confuse the terms “liberal”, “libertine”, and “licentious”.
Many conservatives have been led to believe that the word “liberal” is a synonym for some or all of the following : “abandoned, corrupt, debauched, degenerate, depraved, dissipated, hell-bent, lax, lewd, loose, playboy, profligate, reprobate, slack, unconstrained, unprincipled, unrestrained, vicious, wanton, wayward, and wicked”        those are all synonyms for the words “libertine” and “licentious”, not “liberal”. To be libertine, or licentious, is not a way of thinking but a way of acting, a way which most serious people view as immoral. To be liberal, on the other hand, is a way of thinking, a philosophy, an ideology. Now people who think liberally may also act licentiously, but so can conservatives. In fact, I document a great many examples of conservatives in positions of leadership in the Republican Party who have shown themselves to be more licentious and immoral than their counterparts in the Democratic Party. Liberalism isn’t the opposite of Religion
Another misconception is that liberalism is the antithesis of religion
Many liberals have problems with religion as practiced in many times and places. But it’s a misrepresentation to say that “liberals” are by their nature against morality, against responsibility, against religion.  Liberals are indeed against traditional morality and / or religion, because of the way “conservatives” have taken over and contaminated those moral and religious values and institutions.  In just about every revolutionary movement in which the weak have tried to liberate themselves from the yoke of their oppressors, established religions have most often ignored the dictates of their own religion and instead of identifying with and supporting the oppressed, they have sided with the oppressors.  By identifying so often with the rich and the powerful, the church has persuaded the liberal friends and allies of the poor to oppose some religious institutions. What’s so bad about being “Liberal”?

Noun:
  1. “A person with liberal ideas or opinions,” or
  2. “A member of a liberal political party.”

Roots (i.e. etymological history) =c.1375, from Old French libéral “befitting free men, noble, generous,” from Latin liberalis “noble, generous,” lit. “pertaining to a free man,” from liber “free,” . Earliest reference in Eng. is to the liberal arts (Latin artes liberales, the seven attainments directed to intellectual enlargement, not immediate practical purpose, and thus deemed worthy of a free man (the word in this sense was opposed to servile or mechanical). Sense of “free in bestowing” is from 1387. With a meaning “free from restraint in speech or action” (1490) liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning “free from prejudice, tolerant,” which emerged 1776-88. Purely in ref. to political opinion, “tending in favor of freedom and democracy”, it dates from c. 1801, from French. libéral, originally applied in Eng. by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean “favorable to government action to effect social change,” which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of “free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions” (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.

liber·al·ly adverb; liber·al·ness noun.

Synonyms : liberal, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, generous, munificent, openhanded, broadminded.
These adjectives mean willing or marked by a willingness to give unstintingly: a liberal backer of the arts; a bounteous feast; bountiful compliments; a freehanded host; a generous donation; a handsome offer; a munificent gift; fond and openhanded grandparents.
Antonyms: stingy, narrow-minded, intolerant, niggardly, selfish

The word “conservative“,  on the other hand,  is defined as:
Adjective:

  1. “Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.”
  2. “Traditional or restrained in style”: “a conservative dark suit”.
  3. “Moderate; cautious”: “a conservative estimate”.
  4. “Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.”
  5. “Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.”
  6. “Tending to conserve; preservative”: “the conservative use of natural resources.”

Archaic:  “A preservative agent or principle”.

Is the BIBLE an authoritative source for you?

Did you know that until the rich the powerful succeeded in turning “liberal” into a “four letter word”, that word meant “generous”, “righteous” or “noble”, as you can still read in the King James version of the Bible :

“The liberal (i.e. generous) soul shall be made fat ( i.e. “prosperous”}: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.  He that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him: but blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth it.  He that diligently seeketh good procureth favour: but he that seeketh mischief, it shall come unto him.  He that trusteth in his riches shall fall: but the righteous shall flourish as a branch.  { Proverbs 11: 25-28}
“The vile person shall be no more called liberal ( i.e. “noble” in the NRSV ), nor the churl said to be bountiful.  For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.  The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.  But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.”  { Isaiah 32: 5-8 }
“they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men” ( which the NSRV renders as “; the generosity of your sharing with them”)  { 2 Corinthians 9:13 }

You won’t find the word “conservative” used in a good way in the Bible, because it’s not there.  What you will find, however, in the writings of “Christian conservatives” is the twisting of Bible verses to justify their beliefs.  To give you but a few examples,

  • Despite everything the bible teaches against reliance on weapons “Christian conservatives” will quote Luke 22: 36 “he who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.” to support their NRA theology.  They count on people not knowing the context of that verse, which makes it clear that Jesus abhors weapons of violence, that this is nothing but a symbolic gesture, “For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’ (for apart from the military, only the lawless would be likely to carry weapons). They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough.’ ” Later Jesus reprimanded Peter for using his sword, saying In Matt.26:52 “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
  • Despite everything the bible teaches about helping the needy, “Christian conservatives” will quote Jesus’ words, “You always have the poor with you,” as though liberal efforts to alleviate poverty is a sin against God, when it is clear from the context that all Jesus was saying is “Don’t use helping the poor – which I recommend all the time — as a justification for condemning a good-hearted woman. (John 12:4-8)
  • Despite everything the bible teaches about promoting justice for people of all kinds, see how “Christian conservatives” use “the Word of God” to justify even slavery and segregation at www.JesusWouldBeFurious.org/BibleBeltChristianity.html.
    • The REAL difference between
    “Liberals” and “Conservatives”
    We believe it is far more insightful and useful to view “Conservatism” not just as an abstract ideology, but as an ideology at the service of a passion, namely the passion of those who already have or who strive to achieve some advantage over others, i.e. in terms of what its adherents are really intent on conserving (and/or acquiring in the future).  And that is power, wealth, advantage and/or privilege, all of which are intertwined.  Over the course of history, we view the “conservatives” as the people who defended the privileges of the few, over against the efforts of the “liberals” to distribute society’s wealth and power more fairly and evenly among all of society’s members.  While “Communism” has been considered “leftist” and “liberal”, it was only liberal to the extent that it claimed to redistribute wealth and power among the population.  In actual fact, to the extent that the policies of those who took charge of “Communist” countries were designed to preserve the advantages of the few in power over the masses, those countries were no more “liberal” than professedly “conservative” ones.  Cuba is “liberal” to the extent that it guarantees public education and health care to all of its citizens, just as the U.S.  is “liberal” to the extent that it guarantees public education and “social security” to all of its citizens.  But to the extent that both countries protect unfair advantages of some citizens over others, they are “conservative”
    An interesting question is whether the effort of Marxist countries to suppress religion is a manifestation of their conservatism or their liberalism. The latter is what many have assumed, but I would argue that it depends on the religion.  If the religion in question was conservative and an ally of the former oppressive aristocracy, then I understand why Communism’s liberal side would have opposed it, but if a any government has a problem with a religion that has a record of being liberal and an ally of the oppressed, then that is evidence of that government’s conservativism, regardless of its reputation of being “left” or”right”.
    Long, long ago, Plato observed, “For every city (or state), however small, is, in fact, divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another.”
    It might be more accurate to contrast the “haves” to the “have-nots”, and to include political power and influence, rather than just wealth, in that contrast, since some communities may not have much wealth, but still tend to be divided between those who have power over others, and those who are dominated by those in power. More on this below.

    The conservative vs.  liberal struggle will always exist so long as there is an unjust distribution of power, wealth and/or privilege.  But it manifests itself in different times and places in slightly different ways, depending on how those benefits are distributed among the various parties of a particular equation.  In America at the moment white, Christian, heterosexual, middle-income, English-speaking, native born, European heritage, male who is in good health, well-educated and employed and living in a decent neighborhood is very likely to be “conservative”, as I’ve just listed a dozen major advantages he has over others.  , When people who have such advantages are concerned about those who don’t and show a willingness to see that such advantages are shared more equitably in society, we call them “liberals“.  While the victims of discrimination or oppression are naturally viewed as liberals, some of these demonstrate when they have succeeded in getting power, wealth and/or privilege which they never had before that they can be just as conservative as their oppressors.
    Whenever there is a chance to make progress in the perpetual struggle between those who control power and/or wealth and “the disadvantaged” of any kind, “conservatives” are the one’s who identify with the “haves” and “liberals” are the ones who identify with the “have-nots”.

      In summary,
    Long, long ago, Plato observed, “For every city (or state), however small, is, in fact, divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another.”
    It might be more accurate to contrast the “haves” to the “have-nots”, and to include political power and influence, rather than just wealth, in that contrast, since some communities may not have much wealth, but still tend to be divided between those who have power over others, and those who are dominated by those in power. More on this below.

    The conservative vs.  liberal struggle will always exist so long as there is an unjust distribution of power, wealth and/or privilege.  But it manifests itself in different times and places in slightly different ways, depending on how those benefits are distributed among the various parties of a particular equation.  In America at the moment white, Christian, heterosexual, middle-income, English-speaking, native born, European heritage, male who is in good health, well-educated and employed and living in a decent neighborhood is very likely to be “conservative”, as I’ve just listed a dozen major advantages he has over others.  , When people who have such advantages are concerned about those who don’t and show a willingness to see that such advantages are shared more equitably in society, we call them “liberals“.  While the victims of discrimination or oppression are naturally viewed as liberals, some of these demonstrate when they have succeeded in getting power, wealth and/or privilege which they never had before that they can be just as conservative as their oppressors.
    Whenever there is a chance to make progress in the perpetual struggle between those who control power and/or wealth and “the disadvantaged” of any kind, “conservatives” are the one’s who identify with the “haves” and “liberals” are the ones who identify with the “have-nots”.

      In summary,
  • The true essence of Conservatism is the emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the policy of acquiring and protecting (or conserving) as much power, wealth and/or privilege for oneself and one’s group as possible (and keeping others out), while
  • The true essence of liberalism is the opposite, the emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the policy of achieving as great a balance of power, wealth and/or privilege as possible among the individuals, groups and nations of the world.
  • The true essence of Conservatism is the emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the policy of acquiring and protecting (or conserving) as much power, wealth and/or privilege for oneself and one’s group as possible (and keeping others out), while
  • The true essence of liberalism is the opposite, the emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the policy of achieving as great a balance of power, wealth and/or privilege as possible among the individuals, groups and nations of the world.

    • Material gathered from  http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/

    The terms “liberal” vs. “Conservative” have meant various things over the years, but if you could boil them down to their essence, I think you would find the contrast below.  There may be few people who are totally liberal, or totally conservative, but the more liberal they are, the more they will exhibit the traits in the Left hand column below, while the more conservative they are, the more they will exhibit the traits in the Right hand column :
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Forward looking,
    with confidence in the future,
    and dissatisfaction with the past.     		Backward looking
    with satisfaction over the past
    and suspicion over the future.
    Tending to identify with
    and have concern for
    whole classes of people
    “society”, or “mankind”     		Tending to identify with
    and have concern for
    one’s immediate family,
    one’s neighborhood,
    or one’s race.
    Tend to see
    people in need as
    a challenge to find
    make permanent system-
    wide improvements    		 Tend to see
    people in need as
    a business opportunities
    to enrich themselves. (see my whole page entitled defendersofwealth.html and the “Acre of Diamonds” section in particular.)
    Favoring socializing Public programs) Favoring privatizing
    for Public programs)
    Drawn to Public-service endeavors Drawn to Profit-making endeavors
    Preference for powerful
    government (public) over
    powerful corporations (private)    		 Preference for powerful
    corporations (private) over
    powerful government (public)
    Favoring
    Distribution of wealth
    and power to
    as many as possible    		 Favoring
    Concentration of wealth
    and power in the hands
    of an elite few
    Emphasis on
    a sense of responsibility
    for the whole community’s
    past & future     		Emphasis on
    a sense of responsibility
    for oneself, and
    focus on the present
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Belief in supporting
    the United Nations
    & a World Court    		 Distrust of
    United Nations &
    a World Court
    Promotion of Unions
    & Collective Bargaining    		 Promotion of
    individualistic private enterprise
    & “Freedom to Work”
    Union of States
    { National interests }
    (opposition to slavery)    		 Dissolution of States
    { State interests }
    (defense of slavery
    Every human being is entitled to many basic human rights just because they have been born into the human family. We are born with nothing but the hair on our heads and no right to anything unless and until we or our parents can earn it for us.
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Inclusive of All (i.e. those not of the dominant or majority race, religion, class, gender, age, immigration status, sexual orientation, etc.) Inclusive only of those of one’s own class, group, neighborhood, religion, country, etc.,
    The instinct of liberals
    is to defend the rights
    of their opponents to differ.     		The instinct of conservatives
    is to suppress dissent, to oppose
    “right to know” policies.
    Liberals invite and welcome diversity,
    complexity and subtlety.    		 Conservatives tend to view situations as either black or white, good or evil, guilty or innocent, for or against us, right or wrong, patriotic or treasonous, simple rather than complex, etc., etc.,
    Elevate the powerless Exploit the powerless
    promotion of higher
    minimum wage and
    even “a liveable wage”     		keep wages as
    “minimum” as possible
    ( whatever “the market”
    allows or even “dictates”)
    The public should
    insure just wages
    for all its citizens, by law    		 Nothing but “market forces”
    should determine what employers
    have to pay employees
    promotion of Health Care
    for all who need it :
    (Universal Public plan).    		 Health Care Insurance
    only for those who
    “earn” it.
    (for–Profit Private plans).
    Both sides view themselves as champions fighting for liberty, freedom and justice, but they have very different ideas as to whom to protect and from whom :
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Liberals think that what causes many people to be poor is injustice in the principal transactions of life, i.e. unfair wages for the labor they provide, unfair prices for the goods and services they have to purchase, unfair policies regarding health care, law enforcement, working conditions, discrimination, etc., Conservatives think that “successful people” become prosperous by working hard and they need to be defended from the injustice of politicians stealing from the rich to support the lazy.
    Promotion of Progressive Taxation of Income
    (to finance public services).    		 Opposition to most forms of taxation (and to public services).
    as much Equality as possible
    (e.g. support for taxation of huge estates)     		Unlimited INequality
    (opposition to taxation of huge estates)
    Affirmative Action
    on behalf of minorities    		 Negative INaction benefiting the majority
    Freedom for ALL :
    (requiring restraint of
    the rich and powerful)     		Freedom for the Rich and Powerful : ( with as much “deregulation” as possible)
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Inclination to prosecute
    When conservatives are in control, the laws passed and/or enforced tend to fall on “little people”, rather than on the rich and the powerful. When liberals are in control, the laws passed and/or enforced tend to fall on the rich and the powerful, rather than on “little people”
    Favor strong Religious condemnation of
    immorality affecting the Public : like greed, political corruption, injustice against whole groups, business malpractice, etc. immorality affecting only Individuals ( or a few) : like masturbation, birth control, abortion, petty theft, etc. (“faith of our genitals”)
    Tend to favor the Gospels of Jesus of Nazareth. Tend to favor the Epistles of Paul, the “Old Testament” & the Book of Revelation.
    Oppose the proliferation of guns, because they end up so often killing innocent people. Embrace guns, because they enable even weak people the ability to threaten and overpower large numbers of other people.
    War is a Last Resort War is their First Thought
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    O K with paying taxes,
    if money is used to care
    for the needs of others,
    i.e. the young, old, sick,
    handicapped, minorities, etc., etc.     		O K with paying taxes,
    if money is used for
    their own security, i.e.
    law-enforcement, prisons,
    and national “defense”.
    Creativity & New ideas:     Liberals respect the ability of all men to think for themselves and welcome and respect new and different insights and discoveries by thinkers in every field.
    Reason is supreme.         		Tradition & Orthodoxy :   Conservatives are insecure in their own ability to find the truth and need to have “orthodox” doctrine handed down to them from supernatural and/or political authority figures.
    Faith and blind obedience are supreme.
    One of the best ways of seeing the contrast is to look at “Poster Boys” for both sides:
    “Poster Boys & Girls”
    of the Left     :
    Presidents & candidates:  F.D.R., J.F.K., Hubert Humphrey, L.B.J., McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Clinton
    Senators:  Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Paul Wellstone, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer,
    Congressmen:  Dick Gephardt, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney
    Commentators:  Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Alan Colmes, James Carville, Mike Malloy     		“Poster Boys & Girls”
    of the Right     :
    Presidents & candidates:  Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes
    Senators“:  Bill Frist, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott , Mitch McConnell, Ron Nickles.
    Congressmen:  Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Sensenbrenner,
    Commentators:  Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Bob Novak, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Mary Matlin, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck.
    Leading Role in the movie classic
    “It’s a Wonderful Life”:
    Populist George Bailey Capitalist Mr. Potter
    Examples of the contrast between liberals & Consevatives:

  • “The Canadian government not only supported but was a leader of the process toward drafting the declaration (the 2007 United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People) before the liberals were defeated in January 2006. . .   The liberals pushed for clarifications – especially on land and resource issues – but were clear proponents. Ottawa’s position (i.e. Canada’s seat of government) under the conservatives changed so drastically that by June 2006, only Canada and Russia voted against the declaration at the UN Human Rights Council.” [ from http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2007/09/united-nations-set-to-adopt-native.html ].

    		•
    Conservative self-expression (from “wwww.thoseshirts.com”):
    How do YOU view them ?

    Since the vast majority of mankind are either unaware of Jesus, undecided about him or indifferent, for those who believe in Jesus, the contrast between what Jesus said about all of these people is very important, especially for those who want to know WWJD (i.e. “What would Jesus do?”.  While Matthew has Jesus saying that the vast majority of mankind “are against him“, Mark and Luke has Jesus saying the very opposite, that the vast majority of mankind, who have not taken a position against Jesus, “are for him“.
    Conservative Christians act as though Luke & Mark don’t exist in preference for:
    Matthew 12:30
    Jesus says “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.    		 Liberal Christians,on the other hand, dismiss Matthew in preference for:
    Mark 9:40
    Jesus says that those who are not against him are for him,  and
    Luke 9:49-50.  (When John reported to Jesus), “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” (Jesus reprimanded John, saying:) “Do not stop him; for whoever is not against you is for you.”
    Don’t take our word for it !
    It’s rather foolish to imagine that you can really find out what liberals believe, by going only to conservative sources;  just as it would be foolish to go only to liberal sources, to find out what conservatives believe.
    That is why I was so pleased to discover a web site where a Southern conservative Christian does an outstanding job of laying out the Theology of conservative Christianity in America’s Bible Belt, from which most of the beliefs of Christian conservatives in America are derived.
    The article below is another example of conservatives spelling out what they believe.

    How the Republicans Stole Religion
    a book review :

    In early 2007 the famous liberal pundit, Bill Press, published a little paperback dealing with many of the issues that we have been dealing with for a dozen years on the www, and he does a truly outstanding job of it. Every liberal in America ought to have his or her copy of “How the Republicans Stole Religion” (i. e. Christianity), and to recommend it to others every day. It’s the book I would have liked to have written; but I’m glad that someone as famous and well-regarded as Bill Press got to it first.

    Conservatives think that they have the power to define words any way they like.  So they don’t care what Dictionaries, or any other authoritative source says, and make “liberal” out to be a dirty word.  But for the sake of those who do believe that dictionaries — not conservatives — are the authorities on the correct spelling, pronunciation and meaning of words, this is the what Roget’s Thesaurus and what dictionaries like ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=liberal or http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0148700.html : ) say the word “liberal” means :Adjective:

    1. “A person with liberal ideas or opinions,” or
    2. “A member of a liberal political party.”

    Roots (i.e. etymological history) =c.1375, from Old French libéral “befitting free men, noble, generous,” from Latin liberalis “noble, generous,” lit. “pertaining to a free man,” from liber “free,” . Earliest reference in Eng. is to the liberal arts (Latin artes liberales, the seven attainments directed to intellectual enlargement, not immediate practical purpose, and thus deemed worthy of a free man (the word in this sense was opposed to servile or mechanical). Sense of “free in bestowing” is from 1387. With a meaning “free from restraint in speech or action” (1490) liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning “free from prejudice, tolerant,” which emerged 1776-88. Purely in ref. to political opinion, “tending in favor of freedom and democracy”, it dates from c. 1801, from French. libéral, originally applied in Eng. by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean “favorable to government action to effect social change,” which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of “free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions” (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.

    liber·al·ly adverb; liber·al·ness noun.

    Synonyms : liberal, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, generous, munificent, openhanded, broadminded.
    These adjectives mean willing or marked by a willingness to give unstintingly: a liberal backer of the arts; a bounteous feast; bountiful compliments; a freehanded host; a generous donation; a handsome offer; a munificent gift; fond and openhanded grandparents.
    Antonyms: stingy, narrow-minded, intolerant, niggardly, selfish

    The word “conservative“,  on the other hand,  is defined as:
    Adjective:

    1. “Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.”
    2. “Traditional or restrained in style”: “a conservative dark suit”.
    3. “Moderate; cautious”: “a conservative estimate”.
    4. “Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.”
    5. “Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.”
    6. “Tending to conserve; preservative”: “the conservative use of natural resources.”

    Archaic:  “A preservative agent or principle”.

    Is the BIBLE an authoritative source for you?

    Did you know that until the rich the powerful succeeded in turning “liberal” into a “four letter word”, that word meant “generous”, “righteous” or “noble”, as you can still read in the King James version of the Bible :

    “The liberal (i.e. generous) soul shall be made fat ( i.e. “prosperous”}: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.  He that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him: but blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth it.  He that diligently seeketh good procureth favour: but he that seeketh mischief, it shall come unto him.  He that trusteth in his riches shall fall: but the righteous shall flourish as a branch.  { Proverbs 11: 25-28}
    “The vile person shall be no more called liberal ( i.e. “noble” in the NRSV ), nor the churl said to be bountiful.  For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.  The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.  But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.”  { Isaiah 32: 5-8 }
    “they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men” ( which the NSRV renders as “; the generosity of your sharing with them”)  { 2 Corinthians 9:13 }

    You won’t find the word “conservative” used in a good way in the Bible, because it’s not there.  What you will find, however, in the writings of “Christian conservatives” is the twisting of Bible verses to justify their beliefs.  To give you but a few examples,

  • Despite everything the bible teaches against reliance on weapons “Christian conservatives” will quote Luke 22: 36 “he who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.” to support their NRA theology.  They count on people not knowing the context of that verse, which makes it clear that Jesus abhors weapons of violence, that this is nothing but a symbolic gesture, “For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’ (for apart from the military, only the lawless would be likely to carry weapons). They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough.’ ” Later Jesus reprimanded Peter for using his sword, saying In Matt.26:52 “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
  • Despite everything the bible teaches about helping the needy, “Christian conservatives” will quote Jesus’ words, “You always have the poor with you,” as though liberal efforts to alleviate poverty is a sin against God, when it is clear from the context that all Jesus was saying is “Don’t use helping the poor – which I recommend all the time — as a justification for condemning a good-hearted woman. (John 12:4-8)
  • Despite everything the bible teaches about promoting justice for people of all kinds, see how “Christian conservatives” use “the Word of God” to justify even slavery and segregation at www.JesusWouldBeFurious.org/BibleBeltChristianity.html.
    • The REAL difference between
    “Liberals” and “Conservatives”
    We believe it is far more insightful and useful to view “Conservatism” not just as an abstract ideology, but as an ideology at the service of a passion, namely the passion of those who already have or who strive to achieve some advantage over others, i.e. in terms of what its adherents are really intent on conserving (and/or acquiring in the future).  And that is power, wealth, advantage and/or privilege, all of which are intertwined.  Over the course of history, we view the “conservatives” as the people who defended the privileges of the few, over against the efforts of the “liberals” to distribute society’s wealth and power more fairly and evenly among all of society’s members.  While “Communism” has been considered “leftist” and “liberal”, it was only liberal to the extent that it claimed to redistribute wealth and power among the population.  In actual fact, to the extent that the policies of those who took charge of “Communist” countries were designed to preserve the advantages of the few in power over the masses, those countries were no more “liberal” than professedly “conservative” ones.  Cuba is “liberal” to the extent that it guarantees public education and health care to all of its citizens, just as the U.S.  is “liberal” to the extent that it guarantees public education and “social security” to all of its citizens.  But to the extent that both countries protect unfair advantages of some citizens over others, they are “conservative”
    An interesting question is whether the effort of Marxist countries to suppress religion is a manifestation of their conservatism or their liberalism. The latter is what many have assumed, but I would argue that it depends on the religion.  If the religion in question was conservative and an ally of the former oppressive aristocracy, then I understand why Communism’s liberal side would have opposed it, but if a any government has a problem with a religion that has a record of being liberal and an ally of the oppressed, then that is evidence of that government’s conservativism, regardless of its reputation of being “left” or”right”.
    Long, long ago, Plato observed, “For every city (or state), however small, is, in fact, divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another.”
    It might be more accurate to contrast the “haves” to the “have-nots”, and to include political power and influence, rather than just wealth, in that contrast, since some communities may not have much wealth, but still tend to be divided between those who have power over others, and those who are dominated by those in power. More on this below.

    The conservative vs.  liberal struggle will always exist so long as there is an unjust distribution of power, wealth and/or privilege.  But it manifests itself in different times and places in slightly different ways, depending on how those benefits are distributed among the various parties of a particular equation.  In America at the moment white, Christian, heterosexual, middle-income, English-speaking, native born, European heritage, male who is in good health, well-educated and employed and living in a decent neighborhood is very likely to be “conservative”, as I’ve just listed a dozen major advantages he has over others.  , When people who have such advantages are concerned about those who don’t and show a willingness to see that such advantages are shared more equitably in society, we call them “liberals“.  While the victims of discrimination or oppression are naturally viewed as liberals, some of these demonstrate when they have succeeded in getting power, wealth and/or privilege which they never had before that they can be just as conservative as their oppressors.
    Whenever there is a chance to make progress in the perpetual struggle between those who control power and/or wealth and “the disadvantaged” of any kind, “conservatives” are the one’s who identify with the “haves” and “liberals” are the ones who identify with the “have-nots”.

      In summary,
    Long, long ago, Plato observed, “For every city (or state), however small, is, in fact, divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another.”
    It might be more accurate to contrast the “haves” to the “have-nots”, and to include political power and influence, rather than just wealth, in that contrast, since some communities may not have much wealth, but still tend to be divided between those who have power over others, and those who are dominated by those in power. More on this below.

    The conservative vs.  liberal struggle will always exist so long as there is an unjust distribution of power, wealth and/or privilege.  But it manifests itself in different times and places in slightly different ways, depending on how those benefits are distributed among the various parties of a particular equation.  In America at the moment white, Christian, heterosexual, middle-income, English-speaking, native born, European heritage, male who is in good health, well-educated and employed and living in a decent neighborhood is very likely to be “conservative”, as I’ve just listed a dozen major advantages he has over others.  , When people who have such advantages are concerned about those who don’t and show a willingness to see that such advantages are shared more equitably in society, we call them “liberals“.  While the victims of discrimination or oppression are naturally viewed as liberals, some of these demonstrate when they have succeeded in getting power, wealth and/or privilege which they never had before that they can be just as conservative as their oppressors.
    Whenever there is a chance to make progress in the perpetual struggle between those who control power and/or wealth and “the disadvantaged” of any kind, “conservatives” are the one’s who identify with the “haves” and “liberals” are the ones who identify with the “have-nots”.

      In summary,
  • The true essence of Conservatism is the emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the policy of acquiring and protecting (or conserving) as much power, wealth and/or privilege for oneself and one’s group as possible (and keeping others out), while
  • The true essence of liberalism is the opposite, the emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the policy of achieving as great a balance of power, wealth and/or privilege as possible among the individuals, groups and nations of the world.
  • The true essence of Conservatism is the emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the policy of acquiring and protecting (or conserving) as much power, wealth and/or privilege for oneself and one’s group as possible (and keeping others out), while
  • The true essence of liberalism is the opposite, the emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the policy of achieving as great a balance of power, wealth and/or privilege as possible among the individuals, groups and nations of the world.

    • Material gathered from  http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/

    The terms “liberal” vs. “Conservative” have meant various things over the years, but if you could boil them down to their essence, I think you would find the contrast below.  There may be few people who are totally liberal, or totally conservative, but the more liberal they are, the more they will exhibit the traits in the Left hand column below, while the more conservative they are, the more they will exhibit the traits in the Right hand column :
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Forward looking,
    with confidence in the future,
    and dissatisfaction with the past.     		Backward looking
    with satisfaction over the past
    and suspicion over the future.
    Tending to identify with
    and have concern for
    whole classes of people
    “society”, or “mankind”     		Tending to identify with
    and have concern for
    one’s immediate family,
    one’s neighborhood,
    or one’s race.
    Tend to see
    people in need as
    a challenge to find
    make permanent system-
    wide improvements    		 Tend to see
    people in need as
    a business opportunities
    to enrich themselves. (see my whole page entitled defendersofwealth.html and the “Acre of Diamonds” section in particular.)
    Favoring socializing Public programs) Favoring privatizing
    for Public programs)
    Drawn to Public-service endeavors Drawn to Profit-making endeavors
    Preference for powerful
    government (public) over
    powerful corporations (private)    		 Preference for powerful
    corporations (private) over
    powerful government (public)
    Favoring
    Distribution of wealth
    and power to
    as many as possible    		 Favoring
    Concentration of wealth
    and power in the hands
    of an elite few
    Emphasis on
    a sense of responsibility
    for the whole community’s
    past & future     		Emphasis on
    a sense of responsibility
    for oneself, and
    focus on the present
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Belief in supporting
    the United Nations
    & a World Court    		 Distrust of
    United Nations &
    a World Court
    Promotion of Unions
    & Collective Bargaining    		 Promotion of
    individualistic private enterprise
    & “Freedom to Work”
    Union of States
    { National interests }
    (opposition to slavery)    		 Dissolution of States
    { State interests }
    (defense of slavery
    Every human being is entitled to many basic human rights just because they have been born into the human family. We are born with nothing but the hair on our heads and no right to anything unless and until we or our parents can earn it for us.
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Inclusive of All (i.e. those not of the dominant or majority race, religion, class, gender, age, immigration status, sexual orientation, etc.) Inclusive only of those of one’s own class, group, neighborhood, religion, country, etc.,
    The instinct of liberals
    is to defend the rights
    of their opponents to differ.     		The instinct of conservatives
    is to suppress dissent, to oppose
    “right to know” policies.
    Liberals invite and welcome diversity,
    complexity and subtlety.    		 Conservatives tend to view situations as either black or white, good or evil, guilty or innocent, for or against us, right or wrong, patriotic or treasonous, simple rather than complex, etc., etc.,
    Elevate the powerless Exploit the powerless
    promotion of higher
    minimum wage and
    even “a liveable wage”     		keep wages as
    “minimum” as possible
    ( whatever “the market”
    allows or even “dictates”)
    The public should
    insure just wages
    for all its citizens, by law    		 Nothing but “market forces”
    should determine what employers
    have to pay employees
    promotion of Health Care
    for all who need it :
    (Universal Public plan).    		 Health Care Insurance
    only for those who
    “earn” it.
    (for–Profit Private plans).
    Both sides view themselves as champions fighting for liberty, freedom and justice, but they have very different ideas as to whom to protect and from whom :
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Liberals think that what causes many people to be poor is injustice in the principal transactions of life, i.e. unfair wages for the labor they provide, unfair prices for the goods and services they have to purchase, unfair policies regarding health care, law enforcement, working conditions, discrimination, etc., Conservatives think that “successful people” become prosperous by working hard and they need to be defended from the injustice of politicians stealing from the rich to support the lazy.
    Promotion of Progressive Taxation of Income
    (to finance public services).    		 Opposition to most forms of taxation (and to public services).
    as much Equality as possible
    (e.g. support for taxation of huge estates)     		Unlimited INequality
    (opposition to taxation of huge estates)
    Affirmative Action
    on behalf of minorities    		 Negative INaction benefiting the majority
    Freedom for ALL :
    (requiring restraint of
    the rich and powerful)     		Freedom for the Rich and Powerful : ( with as much “deregulation” as possible)
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Inclination to prosecute
    When conservatives are in control, the laws passed and/or enforced tend to fall on “little people”, rather than on the rich and the powerful. When liberals are in control, the laws passed and/or enforced tend to fall on the rich and the powerful, rather than on “little people”
    Favor strong Religious condemnation of
    immorality affecting the Public : like greed, political corruption, injustice against whole groups, business malpractice, etc. immorality affecting only Individuals ( or a few) : like masturbation, birth control, abortion, petty theft, etc. (“faith of our genitals”)
    Tend to favor the Gospels of Jesus of Nazareth. Tend to favor the Epistles of Paul, the “Old Testament” & the Book of Revelation.
    Oppose the proliferation of guns, because they end up so often killing innocent people. Embrace guns, because they enable even weak people the ability to threaten and overpower large numbers of other people.
    War is a Last Resort War is their First Thought
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    O K with paying taxes,
    if money is used to care
    for the needs of others,
    i.e. the young, old, sick,
    handicapped, minorities, etc., etc.     		O K with paying taxes,
    if money is used for
    their own security, i.e.
    law-enforcement, prisons,
    and national “defense”.
    Creativity & New ideas:     Liberals respect the ability of all men to think for themselves and welcome and respect new and different insights and discoveries by thinkers in every field.
    Reason is supreme.         		Tradition & Orthodoxy :   Conservatives are insecure in their own ability to find the truth and need to have “orthodox” doctrine handed down to them from supernatural and/or political authority figures.
    Faith and blind obedience are supreme.
    One of the best ways of seeing the contrast is to look at “Poster Boys” for both sides:
    “Poster Boys & Girls”
    of the Left     :
    Presidents & candidates:  F.D.R., J.F.K., Hubert Humphrey, L.B.J., McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Clinton
    Senators:  Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Paul Wellstone, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer,
    Congressmen:  Dick Gephardt, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney
    Commentators:  Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Alan Colmes, James Carville, Mike Malloy     		“Poster Boys & Girls”
    of the Right     :
    Presidents & candidates:  Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes
    Senators“:  Bill Frist, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott , Mitch McConnell, Ron Nickles.
    Congressmen:  Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Sensenbrenner,
    Commentators:  Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Bob Novak, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Mary Matlin, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck.
    Leading Role in the movie classic
    “It’s a Wonderful Life”:
    Populist George Bailey Capitalist Mr. Potter
    Examples of the contrast between liberals & Consevatives:

  • “The Canadian government not only supported but was a leader of the process toward drafting the declaration (the 2007 United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People) before the liberals were defeated in January 2006. . .   The liberals pushed for clarifications – especially on land and resource issues – but were clear proponents. Ottawa’s position (i.e. Canada’s seat of government) under the conservatives changed so drastically that by June 2006, only Canada and Russia voted against the declaration at the UN Human Rights Council.” [ from http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2007/09/united-nations-set-to-adopt-native.html ].

    		•
    Conservative self-expression (from “wwww.thoseshirts.com”):
    How do YOU view them ?

    Since the vast majority of mankind are either unaware of Jesus, undecided about him or indifferent, for those who believe in Jesus, the contrast between what Jesus said about all of these people is very important, especially for those who want to know WWJD (i.e. “What would Jesus do?”.  While Matthew has Jesus saying that the vast majority of mankind “are against him“, Mark and Luke has Jesus saying the very opposite, that the vast majority of mankind, who have not taken a position against Jesus, “are for him“.
    Conservative Christians act as though Luke & Mark don’t exist in preference for:
    Matthew 12:30
    Jesus says “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.    		 Liberal Christians,on the other hand, dismiss Matthew in preference for:
    Mark 9:40
    Jesus says that those who are not against him are for him,  and
    Luke 9:49-50.  (When John reported to Jesus), “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” (Jesus reprimanded John, saying:) “Do not stop him; for whoever is not against you is for you.”
    Don’t take our word for it !
    It’s rather foolish to imagine that you can really find out what liberals believe, by going only to conservative sources;  just as it would be foolish to go only to liberal sources, to find out what conservatives believe.
    That is why I was so pleased to discover a web site where a Southern conservative Christian does an outstanding job of laying out the Theology of conservative Christianity in America’s Bible Belt, from which most of the beliefs of Christian conservatives in America are derived.
    The article below is another example of conservatives spelling out what they believe.

    How the Republicans Stole Religion
    a book review :

    In early 2007 the famous liberal pundit, Bill Press, published a little paperback dealing with many of the issues that we have been dealing with for a dozen years on the www, and he does a truly outstanding job of it. Every liberal in America ought to have his or her copy of “How the Republicans Stole Religion” (i. e. Christianity), and to recommend it to others every day. It’s the book I would have liked to have written; but I’m glad that someone as famous and well-regarded as Bill Press got to it first.

    Conservatives think that they have the power to define words any way they like.  So they don’t care what Dictionaries, or any other authoritative source says, and make “liberal” out to be a dirty word.  But for the sake of those who do believe that dictionaries — not conservatives — are the authorities on the correct spelling, pronunciation and meaning of words, this is the what Roget’s Thesaurus and what dictionaries like ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=liberal or http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0148700.html : ) say the word “liberal” means :Adjective:

  • “Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry”.
  • “Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded”.
  • “Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism”.
  • “Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States”.
  • “Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor”.
  • “Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes”.
  • “Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation”.
  • “Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.”
  • Archaic: “Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.”

  • Obsolete: “Morally unrestrained; licentious.”

    • http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/

    1. “A person with liberal ideas or opinions,” or
    2. “A member of a liberal political party.”

    Roots (i.e. etymological history) =c.1375, from Old French libéral “befitting free men, noble, generous,” from Latin liberalis “noble, generous,” lit. “pertaining to a free man,” from liber “free,” . Earliest reference in Eng. is to the liberal arts (Latin artes liberales, the seven attainments directed to intellectual enlargement, not immediate practical purpose, and thus deemed worthy of a free man (the word in this sense was opposed to servile or mechanical). Sense of “free in bestowing” is from 1387. With a meaning “free from restraint in speech or action” (1490) liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning “free from prejudice, tolerant,” which emerged 1776-88. Purely in ref. to political opinion, “tending in favor of freedom and democracy”, it dates from c. 1801, from French. libéral, originally applied in Eng. by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean “favorable to government action to effect social change,” which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of “free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions” (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.

    liber·al·ly adverb; liber·al·ness noun.

    Synonyms : liberal, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, generous, munificent, openhanded, broadminded.
    These adjectives mean willing or marked by a willingness to give unstintingly: a liberal backer of the arts; a bounteous feast; bountiful compliments; a freehanded host; a generous donation; a handsome offer; a munificent gift; fond and openhanded grandparents.
    Antonyms: stingy, narrow-minded, intolerant, niggardly, selfish

    The word “conservative“,  on the other hand,  is defined as:
    Adjective:

    1. “Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.”
    2. “Traditional or restrained in style”: “a conservative dark suit”.
    3. “Moderate; cautious”: “a conservative estimate”.
    4. “Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.”
    5. “Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.”
    6. “Tending to conserve; preservative”: “the conservative use of natural resources.”

    Archaic:  “A preservative agent or principle”.

    Is the BIBLE an authoritative source for you?

    Did you know that until the rich the powerful succeeded in turning “liberal” into a “four letter word”, that word meant “generous”, “righteous” or “noble”, as you can still read in the King James version of the Bible :

    “The liberal (i.e. generous) soul shall be made fat ( i.e. “prosperous”}: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.  He that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him: but blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth it.  He that diligently seeketh good procureth favour: but he that seeketh mischief, it shall come unto him.  He that trusteth in his riches shall fall: but the righteous shall flourish as a branch.  { Proverbs 11: 25-28}
    “The vile person shall be no more called liberal ( i.e. “noble” in the NRSV ), nor the churl said to be bountiful.  For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.  The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.  But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.”  { Isaiah 32: 5-8 }
    “they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men” ( which the NSRV renders as “; the generosity of your sharing with them”)  { 2 Corinthians 9:13 }

    You won’t find the word “conservative” used in a good way in the Bible, because it’s not there.  What you will find, however, in the writings of “Christian conservatives” is the twisting of Bible verses to justify their beliefs.  To give you but a few examples,

  • Despite everything the bible teaches against reliance on weapons “Christian conservatives” will quote Luke 22: 36 “he who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.” to support their NRA theology.  They count on people not knowing the context of that verse, which makes it clear that Jesus abhors weapons of violence, that this is nothing but a symbolic gesture, “For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’ (for apart from the military, only the lawless would be likely to carry weapons). They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough.’ ” Later Jesus reprimanded Peter for using his sword, saying In Matt.26:52 “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
  • Despite everything the bible teaches about helping the needy, “Christian conservatives” will quote Jesus’ words, “You always have the poor with you,” as though liberal efforts to alleviate poverty is a sin against God, when it is clear from the context that all Jesus was saying is “Don’t use helping the poor – which I recommend all the time — as a justification for condemning a good-hearted woman. (John 12:4-8)
  • Despite everything the bible teaches about promoting justice for people of all kinds, see how “Christian conservatives” use “the Word of God” to justify even slavery and segregation at www.JesusWouldBeFurious.org/BibleBeltChristianity.html.
    • The REAL difference between
    “Liberals” and “Conservatives”
    We believe it is far more insightful and useful to view “Conservatism” not just as an abstract ideology, but as an ideology at the service of a passion, namely the passion of those who already have or who strive to achieve some advantage over others, i.e. in terms of what its adherents are really intent on conserving (and/or acquiring in the future).  And that is power, wealth, advantage and/or privilege, all of which are intertwined.  Over the course of history, we view the “conservatives” as the people who defended the privileges of the few, over against the efforts of the “liberals” to distribute society’s wealth and power more fairly and evenly among all of society’s members.  While “Communism” has been considered “leftist” and “liberal”, it was only liberal to the extent that it claimed to redistribute wealth and power among the population.  In actual fact, to the extent that the policies of those who took charge of “Communist” countries were designed to preserve the advantages of the few in power over the masses, those countries were no more “liberal” than professedly “conservative” ones.  Cuba is “liberal” to the extent that it guarantees public education and health care to all of its citizens, just as the U.S.  is “liberal” to the extent that it guarantees public education and “social security” to all of its citizens.  But to the extent that both countries protect unfair advantages of some citizens over others, they are “conservative”
    An interesting question is whether the effort of Marxist countries to suppress religion is a manifestation of their conservatism or their liberalism. The latter is what many have assumed, but I would argue that it depends on the religion.  If the religion in question was conservative and an ally of the former oppressive aristocracy, then I understand why Communism’s liberal side would have opposed it, but if a any government has a problem with a religion that has a record of being liberal and an ally of the oppressed, then that is evidence of that government’s conservativism, regardless of its reputation of being “left” or”right”.
    Long, long ago, Plato observed, “For every city (or state), however small, is, in fact, divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another.”
    It might be more accurate to contrast the “haves” to the “have-nots”, and to include political power and influence, rather than just wealth, in that contrast, since some communities may not have much wealth, but still tend to be divided between those who have power over others, and those who are dominated by those in power. More on this below.

    The conservative vs.  liberal struggle will always exist so long as there is an unjust distribution of power, wealth and/or privilege.  But it manifests itself in different times and places in slightly different ways, depending on how those benefits are distributed among the various parties of a particular equation.  In America at the moment white, Christian, heterosexual, middle-income, English-speaking, native born, European heritage, male who is in good health, well-educated and employed and living in a decent neighborhood is very likely to be “conservative”, as I’ve just listed a dozen major advantages he has over others.  , When people who have such advantages are concerned about those who don’t and show a willingness to see that such advantages are shared more equitably in society, we call them “liberals“.  While the victims of discrimination or oppression are naturally viewed as liberals, some of these demonstrate when they have succeeded in getting power, wealth and/or privilege which they never had before that they can be just as conservative as their oppressors.
    Whenever there is a chance to make progress in the perpetual struggle between those who control power and/or wealth and “the disadvantaged” of any kind, “conservatives” are the one’s who identify with the “haves” and “liberals” are the ones who identify with the “have-nots”.

      In summary,
    Long, long ago, Plato observed, “For every city (or state), however small, is, in fact, divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another.”
    It might be more accurate to contrast the “haves” to the “have-nots”, and to include political power and influence, rather than just wealth, in that contrast, since some communities may not have much wealth, but still tend to be divided between those who have power over others, and those who are dominated by those in power. More on this below.

    The conservative vs.  liberal struggle will always exist so long as there is an unjust distribution of power, wealth and/or privilege.  But it manifests itself in different times and places in slightly different ways, depending on how those benefits are distributed among the various parties of a particular equation.  In America at the moment white, Christian, heterosexual, middle-income, English-speaking, native born, European heritage, male who is in good health, well-educated and employed and living in a decent neighborhood is very likely to be “conservative”, as I’ve just listed a dozen major advantages he has over others.  , When people who have such advantages are concerned about those who don’t and show a willingness to see that such advantages are shared more equitably in society, we call them “liberals“.  While the victims of discrimination or oppression are naturally viewed as liberals, some of these demonstrate when they have succeeded in getting power, wealth and/or privilege which they never had before that they can be just as conservative as their oppressors.
    Whenever there is a chance to make progress in the perpetual struggle between those who control power and/or wealth and “the disadvantaged” of any kind, “conservatives” are the one’s who identify with the “haves” and “liberals” are the ones who identify with the “have-nots”.

      In summary,
  • The true essence of Conservatism is the emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the policy of acquiring and protecting (or conserving) as much power, wealth and/or privilege for oneself and one’s group as possible (and keeping others out), while
  • The true essence of liberalism is the opposite, the emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the policy of achieving as great a balance of power, wealth and/or privilege as possible among the individuals, groups and nations of the world.
  • The true essence of Conservatism is the emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the policy of acquiring and protecting (or conserving) as much power, wealth and/or privilege for oneself and one’s group as possible (and keeping others out), while
  • The true essence of liberalism is the opposite, the emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the policy of achieving as great a balance of power, wealth and/or privilege as possible among the individuals, groups and nations of the world.

    • Material gathered from  http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/

    The terms “liberal” vs. “Conservative” have meant various things over the years, but if you could boil them down to their essence, I think you would find the contrast below.  There may be few people who are totally liberal, or totally conservative, but the more liberal they are, the more they will exhibit the traits in the Left hand column below, while the more conservative they are, the more they will exhibit the traits in the Right hand column :
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Forward looking,
    with confidence in the future,
    and dissatisfaction with the past.     		Backward looking
    with satisfaction over the past
    and suspicion over the future.
    Tending to identify with
    and have concern for
    whole classes of people
    “society”, or “mankind”     		Tending to identify with
    and have concern for
    one’s immediate family,
    one’s neighborhood,
    or one’s race.
    Tend to see
    people in need as
    a challenge to find
    make permanent system-
    wide improvements    		 Tend to see
    people in need as
    a business opportunities
    to enrich themselves. (see my whole page entitled defendersofwealth.html and the “Acre of Diamonds” section in particular.)
    Favoring socializing Public programs) Favoring privatizing
    for Public programs)
    Drawn to Public-service endeavors Drawn to Profit-making endeavors
    Preference for powerful
    government (public) over
    powerful corporations (private)    		 Preference for powerful
    corporations (private) over
    powerful government (public)
    Favoring
    Distribution of wealth
    and power to
    as many as possible    		 Favoring
    Concentration of wealth
    and power in the hands
    of an elite few
    Emphasis on
    a sense of responsibility
    for the whole community’s
    past & future     		Emphasis on
    a sense of responsibility
    for oneself, and
    focus on the present
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Belief in supporting
    the United Nations
    & a World Court    		 Distrust of
    United Nations &
    a World Court
    Promotion of Unions
    & Collective Bargaining    		 Promotion of
    individualistic private enterprise
    & “Freedom to Work”
    Union of States
    { National interests }
    (opposition to slavery)    		 Dissolution of States
    { State interests }
    (defense of slavery
    Every human being is entitled to many basic human rights just because they have been born into the human family. We are born with nothing but the hair on our heads and no right to anything unless and until we or our parents can earn it for us.
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Inclusive of All (i.e. those not of the dominant or majority race, religion, class, gender, age, immigration status, sexual orientation, etc.) Inclusive only of those of one’s own class, group, neighborhood, religion, country, etc.,
    The instinct of liberals
    is to defend the rights
    of their opponents to differ.     		The instinct of conservatives
    is to suppress dissent, to oppose
    “right to know” policies.
    Liberals invite and welcome diversity,
    complexity and subtlety.    		 Conservatives tend to view situations as either black or white, good or evil, guilty or innocent, for or against us, right or wrong, patriotic or treasonous, simple rather than complex, etc., etc.,
    Elevate the powerless Exploit the powerless
    promotion of higher
    minimum wage and
    even “a liveable wage”     		keep wages as
    “minimum” as possible
    ( whatever “the market”
    allows or even “dictates”)
    The public should
    insure just wages
    for all its citizens, by law    		 Nothing but “market forces”
    should determine what employers
    have to pay employees
    promotion of Health Care
    for all who need it :
    (Universal Public plan).    		 Health Care Insurance
    only for those who
    “earn” it.
    (for–Profit Private plans).
    Both sides view themselves as champions fighting for liberty, freedom and justice, but they have very different ideas as to whom to protect and from whom :
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Liberals think that what causes many people to be poor is injustice in the principal transactions of life, i.e. unfair wages for the labor they provide, unfair prices for the goods and services they have to purchase, unfair policies regarding health care, law enforcement, working conditions, discrimination, etc., Conservatives think that “successful people” become prosperous by working hard and they need to be defended from the injustice of politicians stealing from the rich to support the lazy.
    Promotion of Progressive Taxation of Income
    (to finance public services).    		 Opposition to most forms of taxation (and to public services).
    as much Equality as possible
    (e.g. support for taxation of huge estates)     		Unlimited INequality
    (opposition to taxation of huge estates)
    Affirmative Action
    on behalf of minorities    		 Negative INaction benefiting the majority
    Freedom for ALL :
    (requiring restraint of
    the rich and powerful)     		Freedom for the Rich and Powerful : ( with as much “deregulation” as possible)
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    Inclination to prosecute
    When conservatives are in control, the laws passed and/or enforced tend to fall on “little people”, rather than on the rich and the powerful. When liberals are in control, the laws passed and/or enforced tend to fall on the rich and the powerful, rather than on “little people”
    Favor strong Religious condemnation of
    immorality affecting the Public : like greed, political corruption, injustice against whole groups, business malpractice, etc. immorality affecting only Individuals ( or a few) : like masturbation, birth control, abortion, petty theft, etc. (“faith of our genitals”)
    Tend to favor the Gospels of Jesus of Nazareth. Tend to favor the Epistles of Paul, the “Old Testament” & the Book of Revelation.
    Oppose the proliferation of guns, because they end up so often killing innocent people. Embrace guns, because they enable even weak people the ability to threaten and overpower large numbers of other people.
    War is a Last Resort War is their First Thought
    “Liberals”   (like Jesus) “Conservatives”   (like Paul)
    O K with paying taxes,
    if money is used to care
    for the needs of others,
    i.e. the young, old, sick,
    handicapped, minorities, etc., etc.     		O K with paying taxes,
    if money is used for
    their own security, i.e.
    law-enforcement, prisons,
    and national “defense”.
    Creativity & New ideas:     Liberals respect the ability of all men to think for themselves and welcome and respect new and different insights and discoveries by thinkers in every field.
    Reason is supreme.         		Tradition & Orthodoxy :   Conservatives are insecure in their own ability to find the truth and need to have “orthodox” doctrine handed down to them from supernatural and/or political authority figures.
    Faith and blind obedience are supreme.
    One of the best ways of seeing the contrast is to look at “Poster Boys” for both sides:
    “Poster Boys & Girls”
    of the Left     :
    Presidents & candidates:  F.D.R., J.F.K., Hubert Humphrey, L.B.J., McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Clinton
    Senators:  Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Paul Wellstone, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer,
    Congressmen:  Dick Gephardt, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney
    Commentators:  Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Alan Colmes, James Carville, Mike Malloy     		“Poster Boys & Girls”
    of the Right     :
    Presidents & candidates:  Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes
    Senators“:  Bill Frist, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott , Mitch McConnell, Ron Nickles.
    Congressmen:  Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Sensenbrenner,
    Commentators:  Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Bob Novak, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Mary Matlin, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck.
    Leading Role in the movie classic
    “It’s a Wonderful Life”:
    Populist George Bailey Capitalist Mr. Potter
    Examples of the contrast between liberals & Consevatives:

  • “The Canadian government not only supported but was a leader of the process toward drafting the declaration (the 2007 United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People) before the liberals were defeated in January 2006. . .   The liberals pushed for clarifications – especially on land and resource issues – but were clear proponents. Ottawa’s position (i.e. Canada’s seat of government) under the conservatives changed so drastically that by June 2006, only Canada and Russia voted against the declaration at the UN Human Rights Council.” [ from http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2007/09/united-nations-set-to-adopt-native.html ].

    		•
    Conservative self-expression (from “wwww.thoseshirts.com”):
    How do YOU view them ?

    Since the vast majority of mankind are either unaware of Jesus, undecided about him or indifferent, for those who believe in Jesus, the contrast between what Jesus said about all of these people is very important, especially for those who want to know WWJD (i.e. “What would Jesus do?”.  While Matthew has Jesus saying that the vast majority of mankind “are against him“, Mark and Luke has Jesus saying the very opposite, that the vast majority of mankind, who have not taken a position against Jesus, “are for him“.
    Conservative Christians act as though Luke & Mark don’t exist in preference for:
    Matthew 12:30
    Jesus says “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.    		 Liberal Christians,on the other hand, dismiss Matthew in preference for:
    Mark 9:40
    Jesus says that those who are not against him are for him,  and
    Luke 9:49-50.  (When John reported to Jesus), “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” (Jesus reprimanded John, saying:) “Do not stop him; for whoever is not against you is for you.”
    Don’t take our word for it !
    It’s rather foolish to imagine that you can really find out what liberals believe, by going only to conservative sources;  just as it would be foolish to go only to liberal sources, to find out what conservatives believe.
    That is why I was so pleased to discover a web site where a Southern conservative Christian does an outstanding job of laying out the Theology of conservative Christianity in America’s Bible Belt, from which most of the beliefs of Christian conservatives in America are derived.
    The article below is another example of conservatives spelling out what they believe.

    How the Republicans Stole Religion
    a book review :

    In early 2007 the famous liberal pundit, Bill Press, published a little paperback dealing with many of the issues that we have been dealing with for a dozen years on the www, and he does a truly outstanding job of it. Every liberal in America ought to have his or her copy of “How the Republicans Stole Religion” (i. e. Christianity), and to recommend it to others every day. It’s the book I would have liked to have written; but I’m glad that someone as famous and well-regarded as Bill Press got to it first.

    Conservatives think that they have the power to define words any way they like.  So they don’t care what Dictionaries, or any other authoritative source says, and make “liberal” out to be a dirty word.  But for the sake of those who do believe that dictionaries — not conservatives — are the authorities on the correct spelling, pronunciation and meaning of words, this is the what Roget’s Thesaurus and what dictionaries like ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=liberal or http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0148700.html : ) say the word “liberal” means :Adjective:

    14 Responses to “A CHRISTIAN LIBERAL’s View”

    1. tothewire said

      November 29, 2008 at Saturday, November 29, 2008

      page back up…

      Like

    2. tothewire said

      December 21, 2008 at Sunday, December 21, 2008

      I forgot I posted this…

      Like

    3. Manning said

      January 15, 2009 at Thursday, January 15, 2009

      Stopped by to invite you to visit: http://christian-birthcontrol.angelcities.com/index.html

      Online look at the right to birth-control within the morality of God as presented within Biblical contextual teachings and the biological design of women regarding conception.

      Like

    4. dorian9 said

      January 15, 2009 at Thursday, January 15, 2009

      thanks for stopping by, manning, i went to the site- it’s a nice site, easy to read and informative.

      Like

    5. John Lloyd Scharf said

      July 17, 2009 at Friday, July 17, 2009

      You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

      Like

    6. Enkill_Eridos said

      July 17, 2009 at Friday, July 17, 2009

      Why just because a liberal posted this? You do know A.)This is not the 60’s and Liberals are no longer labeled as dissenters. B.) Liberal minded people minded cannot be Christians really? You should remember the 60’s when the term “Liberal Dissenters”, as Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon called them was used. Now look at the events in the bible and tell me that Jesus did not do as Liberals were known to do in the past. He challenged the then authority of the Jewish Temple several times. A man named phonetically Yeshua that did similar things if not the same things, at a much earlier time than the church teaches, went against the Jewish Temples and called them corrupt. He taught outside of the Temples through his actions he told the people of that time what God’s House really was. He showed people through his actions that outside is God’s Temple, that not just the Jews are God’s people. This was all against the gain at the time and considered blasphemy. He also claime to be the Son of God. This man in the Jewish histories was labeled a heretic and he was put to death. But this all happened reportedly 300 years before the Christian Church was even established. And 300 years earlier than the time the chuch teaches. I guess in the 60’s you thought of Liberals as dissenters but never once thought of Jesus as one who challenged authority. When he was human and alive he had no authority, the authority of that time didn’t recognize his claims.

      Like

    7. John Lloyd Scharf said

      July 17, 2009 at Friday, July 17, 2009

      USADegreePrograms.com

      Main Entry:1lib·er·al
      Pronunciation:\ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
      Function:adjective
      Etymology:Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
      Date:14th century
      1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
      2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample, full
      3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
      4: not literal or strict : loose
      5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
      6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

      Like

    8. Enkill_Eridos said

      July 17, 2009 at Friday, July 17, 2009

      I don’t see any problems with anyone whose ideals fit this definition.

      Like

    9. tothewire said

      July 28, 2009 at Tuesday, July 28, 2009

      Really? LOL I have to wonder if John can give us a definition of conservative… I can.

      Like

    10. tothewire said

      July 28, 2009 at Tuesday, July 28, 2009

      AND to think I thought we covered the “liberal” definition pretty good… LOL

      Like

    11. Danny said

      April 11, 2010 at Sunday, April 11, 2010

      You actually make a good case for liberal Christianity. My prejudices are that if you are a Christian you are Pat Robertson and James Dobson leaning. I’ve never read such a coherent and well argued defense of Liberal Christianity before.

      Like

    12. princessxxx said

      April 11, 2010 at Sunday, April 11, 2010

      we need more christian liberals, the conservative ones are ignorant.

      Like

    13. princessxxx said

      April 11, 2010 at Sunday, April 11, 2010

      MEANWHILE, BACK AT HUFFINGTON POST, PRINCESS BITCH SLAPS KAY WONCE AGAIN FOR HER IGNARANT ARROGANT CHRISTIAN VIEWS:

      Your comment perfectly illustrates the ignorance of your being able to read the article and understand what it says.
      You are another pro-lifer that seems to care about the precious life of the unborn, yet those lives aren’t so precious once they are born.
      Reading some of your other comments at the HP, the killing of innocents overseas is OK, as long as it keeps “you” safe.
      Kams, you are against the health care bill. Why would you not want children with pre-existing conditions to have health care? Oh, that’s right, you don’t like Obama because of his “socialist” ideals.

      And animal activist do fight against all forms of animal abuse, not just the kittens and the puppies.

      Kams, next time you sit down to write this…
      “I can’t believe I AM going to waste my time trying to explain this to ignorant thinking liberals. And surely, based on past experiences, it will end up being a waste of time.. but here goes anyway…” ,
      go with your gut, don’t waste your time……. or ours.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/special-forces-providing_b_526179.html?show_comment_id=44411985#comment_44411985

      Like

    14. Johnk290 said

      June 17, 2014 at Tuesday, June 17, 2014

      Some truly select blog posts on this web site , saved to fav. ddfcffbfeked

      Like

    Leave a comment