----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 7:22 PM Subject: Re: Plato's Republic
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brad DeLong" <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU>
> >
> >Well and honestly said. And a big reason why many of the religious
have
> >turned against a host of related liberal values
>
> -The religious were never *for* liberal values. They agreed to live by
> -liberal values whenever they were too weak to impose their views on
> -others without massive and prolonged bloodshed--and sometimes it
> -required massive and prolonged bloodshed to demonstrate to them that
> -they were to weak to achieve victory.
>
> Most people, no the overwhelming super-majority, are religious in this
> country. The question is why the fanatic minority, which had
miniscule
> cultural and political power in general mid-century, has been able to
vault
> to the center of political power to the extent that the President
states
> that Jesus is his favorite philosopher and critical biological
research is
> disabled in the name of fighting cloning's assault on god's law.
>
> I appreciate Justin's argument against religious coercion in schools
and
> that is fairly fought in the name of free expression (I am far more
> favorable to that half of the religious clause of the First Amendment)
but
> banning all government support for voluntary religious activity,
especially
> when done in a multitude of diverse religious schools, does not seem
like a
> liberal value. Trying to suppress religion just seems to encourage a
> counter-reaction looking for similar coercive activity against liberal
> values. It just keeps the cycle going.
>
> There is a long liberal religious tradition in America that sought
balance
> between secular government and tolerance for religion as a vital part
of
> peoples lives. The hardline secular position just drives those folks
into
> the arms of the fanatic religious minority.
>
> --- Nathan Newman
>