The Liberal Moment?
by Steve Watters on 06/25/2008 at 4:33 PM
Journalists are falling all over each other to write obituaries for the "religious right." Liberals are getting the court wins, they have the best prospects for elected office this November and popular culture continues to elevate their causes as the ones that matter most. And as we see surveys about the beliefs of younger generations on various issues, it's easy to think America is destined to grow more and more liberal.
But what if liberalism is close to peaking? What if a mixture of favorable political timing and selective media coverage are aligning with a demographic high point for liberals? That's the question I've been contemplating since reading an article called "The Liberal Baby Bust" that ran in USA Today before the current upswing for liberalism.
The article starts out with the observation that in liberal Seattle, dogs outnumber children. That's far from true in conservative Salt Lake City -- where they still like dogs, but also have lots of kids. Longman explains what this means for the years ahead:
It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.
It's Longman's analysis of baby boomers that makes me wonder if the liberal moment may be closer to peaking than it is to building momentum for a prosperous future:
This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.
Phillip Longman writes as a warning to people who share his liberal views. He's convinced that liberalism will wane if it's not coupled with reproduction. He worries about a world that will be increasingly conservative. This is the last thing you would imagine if you've been keeping up with the news and commentary these days.
I often hear the comment, "Elections have consequences." Longman seems to be saying that family formation has consequences too. And while Longman may be enjoying the current surge in liberalism, it's obvious he thinks that surge could be short-lived.
1. JB said the following at 6:36 PM on Jun 25
I don't think Longman's argument really matches the data very well. We know that the current generation of young people are much more progressive than their parents. There are a lot of surveys showing that they overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage, for example. And Boundless has even discussed some data showing that young evangelicals are more interested in progressive causes and are starting to pull back from political movements which have thus far been based mostly around abortion and same-sex marriage.
These people's parents lived through the 60s and 70s. If Longman's argument is correct, then one would think that the current generation of young people would skew more conservative, which they clearly do not. When is this political shift supposed to kick in and why?
Furthermore, I don't think that the different rate of reproduction between progressives and conservatives is a new phenomenon. Progressives were much faster to adopt methods of contraception that become popular in the last century, so one would expect that Longman's conservative trend should have been in the works now for decades. I don't think, however, that many people would argue that Western society has gotten more conservative since, say, 1900.
I do wonder, though, why Longman's prediction hasn't already come to pass when the demographic data would suggest that it should have. It seems that progressives make converts more effectively than conservatives, even when conservatives have the advantage of years of parental instruction. I wonder if this difference is due to some intrinsically attractive quality of progressive thought or to some more mundane social or economic effect.
2. Brendan said the following at 6:45 PM on Jun 25
Interesting perspective. I think the only thing I'd say is that my dad's a very conservative guy and I live in a very conservative part of Western Pennsylvania, but I ended up being a bit of a liberal, at least on the economic side of things.
I guess my point is that having 8 Mormon kids in Utah doesn't guarantee that they'll all pull the red lever instead of the blue one when they turn 18.
Brendan
http://www.zamagazine.org
3. DannieA said the following at 7:58 PM on Jun 25
interesting.
a thought to ponder. Predictions are just that...predictions....they don't take into account freedom of choice.
Watching, waiting, wondering...
4. Chris said the following at 8:37 PM on Jun 25
We often hear that the past was more conservative than the present. Where, then, did all these liberals come from? Didn't the rebels of the 60's come from a more conservative generation?
This reminds of the argument that gays want to convert young people. One has to wonder where gays came from when such behavior was not only not tolerated, but also illegal in the past.
In short, move along, there's nothing to see here.
5. Ryan said the following at 9:56 PM on Jun 25
My concern with these sorts of insights (there have been about three articels this year printed on this very trend) is that it allows conservatives to breathe a sigh of relief and rest on their laurels. Breeding out a philosophy has never worked, since "there is nothing new under the sun" and the very same aversion to biblical principles has been around since the Garden.
Liberalism WOULD be attractive to the unsaved, JB (1), hence the "conversions" to liberalism outpacing conservatism, but this doesn't explain younger evangelicals being attracted to it. I have met three people this week that, though anecdotal, tell me we're headed for trouble. They were raised in a Christian home and turned out to be a hippie that doesn't think we have a right to police in our country, a hurting homosexual that is trying to reconcile his views on God with his lifestyle, and an athiest who was a pastor's kid.
On the blog, "From the Ashes," makes the observation that the Church is at a crossroads after the not-so-startling findnig in a recent Time magazine article: “The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life last year surveyed 35,000 Americans, and found that 70% of respondents agreed with the statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life." Even more remarkable was the fact that 57% of Evangelical Christians were willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to salvation."
Our teachers and pastors, as well as us peons of the Church, have become so afraid of offending people that we either become too permissive over biblical authority (the Anglican Communion is being torn apart by this) or over compensate by proclaiming the truth almost delighting that the wicked will perish in the end.
When will my generation re-discover the fact that tolerance is not saying all ideas and perspectives are the same and there is no absolute truth, but realize that tolerance is what someone does when they vehmently disagree with your perspective yet defend your right to hold that view regardless.
Just because i disagree with liberalism as a philosophy doesn't mean i can't be friends with liberals. But when someone demeans the Bible as outdated or deride TRUE evangelicals as unsophisticated-- well, sparks fly. And they better. Otherwise i get desensitized in a politically correct world that oppresses my thoughts and offends my sensibilities.
Our arguments must be better. I would rather win people over with winsome reasoning than by having 2.5 more children than they do.
6. Mike Toreno said the following at 11:16 PM on Jun 25
I think that what the article fails to recognize is that liberalism and conservatism aren't the result of birth, they are the result of observation of public policies and their effects, and of contemplation of which public policies might produce better or worse effects.
The reason, therefore, for the recent upswing of relative liberalism is that conservative policies have held sway for the last 7 years and have produced a disaster the like of which has seldom been seen in the history of the United States. The banking system is on the brink of collapse, over 4000 American soldiers have died in a war that was based on lies, the constitutional foundations of American democracy have been undermimed, the currency has collapsed, and America's respect in the world has been lost. Americans, whether they were born into conservative or liberal families, can see what has happened as a result of conservatism.
And really, this is no surprise. From the time that America was founded, liberal policies have produced greater freedom and prosperity, and a stronger country. Conservatives attain power through appeals to fear and xenophobia. But xenophobia loses its appeal when a family can't meet the mortgage. Somehow, trying to keep one's home becomes more important than hating the gay family down the street.
7. Rich said the following at 11:41 PM on Jun 25
Longman's argument has *a bit* of weight to it, but it strikes me as a sort of "all things being equal" argument. That is, all other things being equal, reproduction is a decent predictor of worldview popularity. However, all things aren't equal: right now, revisionists/liberals,etc control the pillars of our society, and its these pillars that control the plausibility structure of our culture: the university (public ed. included), Hollywood (screenwriters, producers, directors, not necessarily the actors), and the media. And, to a large extent, these pillars educate our young, whether they come from conservative or liberal homes.
That is why you see the phenomenon of kids who grow up in very conservative Christian homes, who are an active part of youth groups in church, end up card-carrying relativists...its a simple matter of where the kid spends the most time. Parents have their kids for 3-4 hours a day, at most. The youth pastor has these kids for 2-3 hours a week, max. These same kids spend 6-7 hours a day in a social setting that is very antithetical to the worldview of the conservative parents.
And when you take into consideration the fact that many, if not most, conservative parents don't do a good job of innoculating their kids against these influences (notice I said "innoculate" not "shelter." Deep, regular dialogue about school, friends, society, etc, at the dinner table, as opposed to getting dinner on the run and/or everyone eating dinner separately or around the TV is an example.), it becomes clear the liberal worldview will win virtually every time.
8. Louise said the following at 5:17 AM on Jun 26
Children do not necessarily share the parents religous and political ideology.
For evidence of this, just read the "Daughter of Feminism" post.
This may be off-topic, but I have heard a theory that the human race is becoming less intelligent because the most intelligent women are having smaller families.
Louise
9. rob said the following at 6:00 AM on Jun 26
Well, in my circle it is the "liberal" couples who are having three or more children, plus adopting children in need, not the "conservatives." The conservative folks seem to be busy tending to their social "issues." Just an anecdotal observation to ponder.
10. obewan said the following at 7:41 AM on Jun 26
The Blog said:
“>>Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.<<”
What is “progressive” or “secular” about birth control? I suppose the Roman Catholic Church might have an answer. For sure we see an abundance of large families in third world countries – more than enough to make up for any feared population decline in the world today. Personally, I think Malthusian economics makes sense. Were I able to have kids, I would be convicted to leave only enough behind to replace myself.
11. Stephen Cathers said the following at 8:05 AM on Jun 26
While parents are certainly the most important factor, I think this fails to take into account the fact that liberals dominate the culture. Given that almost every bit of the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of hours that kids spend watching television (not to mention studying liberal curriculum in public schools and college) is controlled by the self-centered, "tolerant," "if it feels good do it" liberal worldview, kids should essentially default to liberalism. To go with the flow in our culture is definitely to be a liberal. So we'd expect liberals to have an impact disproportionate to the amount of kids they have.
12. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:16 AM on Jun 26
I'd credit a swing back towards conservatism to a different societal phenomenon rather than reproduction.
Fringe tends to be one of the main changers of societal norms. As liberalism becomes more norm, conservatism becomes more fringe. It'll go back and forth like that for a long time.
OR, to take a lesson from history, an increase in liberalism could lead to the downfall of a government.
I'd probably believe the latter over the former or what this Longman fellow is getting at.
13. James said the following at 8:19 AM on Jun 26
JB (#1), that is because either the data is skewed to be taken in highly liberal areas or young people are calling themselves progressive when they aren't even near as progressive as the outspoken liberals would like to think they are.
I say this because of what I've seen, and that is that more and more young people are abandoning the liberal causes of their parents after getting a taste of reality and seeing the stability and reasonableness of the conservative side. Many of us USED to be flaming liberals, but now are very conservative (my story). Others of us were raised conservative and when we got into the real world realized our parents were right and kept those views. Others of us were only slightly liberal, but still, saw reality and became conservatives. The ones who stay liberal, I've found, are generally those who stay under the influential thumb of liberal academia. Those of us who graduate and get real jobs....we become conservative pretty quickly if we weren't already.
I also find that no matter what one's political agenda is, GENERALLY (I've found honest exceptions, though), when one comes to Christ, a realization that liberalism has most of it dead wrong comes with it. And thus comes the natural shift to the Christian conservative.
This is not talking about democrats and republicans, as there are both Dinos and Rinos (Democrats In Name Only, and Republicans In Name Only) abound in each party (like the current Republican presidential nominee). And not that each party's agenda is more righteous than the other. This is not about political parties, but rather about political worldviews. And I've found that the liberal political worldview is too rose-colored and Christ-absent (that is, absent of Christ who Is, Was, and Forever will be, though plenty of imitation versions exist in this worldview) for most Christians to stomach with good conscience. And we see that the conservative worldview, though not perfect, has room and space for those who worship Christ for who He is. The liberal worldview does not.
That's why I hold that if anyone says they're a liberal, but also professes (and lives it out) Christ, then they are not a true liberal at all. They may have some liberal leanings, but they cannot hold to the liberal worldview simply because they follow Christ, and thus follow Truth. And that Truth they follow is simply not tolerated by the liberal worldview.
14. Ashley said the following at 8:28 AM on Jun 26
I disagree with Longman - children do not always hold the same views of their parents. Typically, they will through childhood, but from what I am noticing from my generation (a young 20-something) and from the dominantly "liberal" state of Washington, young adults from conservative families are going towards the liberal side of things. However,many don't see things so clear cut, and among my peers there are those that are conservative, many that are liberal, and even more that claim they are "in between" (which is where I fall). I think my generation is noticing flaws in looking at issues with black & white (liberal or conservative) lenses. Even looking through a biblical lens depicts a more moderate stance on political issues for those discerning what opinion to have - but it all varies.
So say, someone could be conservative when it comes to abortion, but liberal when it comes to education or environment, and that is how many of my peers are thinking these days. Issues are not usually black and white, as much as people think or say they are, and I'm glad that young adults are learning this and developing minds of their own rather than simply mimicking their parents decisions out of ignorance.
15. Adam said the following at 8:49 AM on Jun 26
I believe that the line between what is very liberal and what is very conservative is often extremely thin.
Take for instance, the raid on the FLDS ranch. As a conservative, I can argue that the government grossly overstepped its bounds, trampling on religious freedom. Or as a good conservative who believes that we are to protect human life; the raid was totally justified and probably should have been done sooner. Who cares about the minor inconvenience if it protects one child from being abused?
To take a liberal side; a government who protects us and will not stand for a church-state such as the one at the ranch is a good thing. So the raid is justified. It flies in the face of free speech though, so maybe not.
The ideologies may be drastically different, but the way they actually play out are often the same.
Is it liberal or conservative if Supreme Court Justices who stick to the constitution say that embryonic stem cell research does not violate the constitution?
_________________________
My guess is that the liberal-conservative pendulum is swinging in the liberal direction. It's nothing that hasn't happened before, just look at the history books.
An article like this can potentially do one thing though. It can spur liberals towards action - because their time may be limited. It's a classic tactic that has been used for years - including by Focus on the Family.
16. Steve Watters said the following at 9:21 AM on Jun 26
Two things:
The liberal moment will be longer than I may have implied. It is going to be especially strong as Baby Boomers reach their peak years of influence--but if Longman's analysis is correct, there will be a downturn if the coalition focusing on abortion, gay marriage and feminism doesn't find a good way to send ambassadors of their view into the future.
Secondly, on the issue of conservatives having children who become liberals, consider Longman's take on that hope:
Why couldn't tomorrow's Americans and Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of '68? The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of society married and had children. Some had more than others, but there was much more conformity in family size between the religious and the secular. Meanwhile, thanks mostly to improvements in social conditions, there is no longer much difference in survival rates for children born into large families and those who have few if any siblings.
Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.
17. Adam said the following at 9:42 AM on Jun 26
James (#13),
I'd be very interested in what your definition of a liberal or a liberal worldview is.
What specifically about being a liberal is fundamentally opposed to Christianity?
18. Amber said the following at 10:13 AM on Jun 26
#8---While I can agree somewhat about highly educated women ("more intelligent") having fewer children and certainly see the logic behind that assumption, I also think we have to realize that alot of women who stay home with children are probably just as intelligent--or possibly more so, as the women out in the working world. They just aren't as public about it, since they've chosen to stay at home with their kids. I know several women who I consider to be some of the most intelligent, innovative, and creative women I know who have large families. One of my closest friends has 7 (!) children. Before they were born she was a nurse and an artist. Now that they are growing up and not needing as much care, she has begun to work as an events coordinator and an interior decorator. Another friend turned down a high-paying career at a prestigious law firm, (She was 17 and had yet to begin college when offered this job) because she felt that she was called to be a stay-at-home mom and didn't want to get caught up in a fast-paced career that would make that difficult.
Please know I'm not trying to knock working women, I'm just trying to make the point that there are "highly intelligent" women out there who are still chosing to have lots of kids.
19. Carrie (the original) said the following at 10:22 AM on Jun 26
Louise - "I have heard a theory that the human race is becoming less intelligent because the most intelligent women are having smaller families."
This is b*^&#slap to many mothers of this blog's readers. Be prepared for backlash on that statement. I'm kind of amazed it hasn't come about already.
(FWIW: My mother had only 2 children. Most mothers I've met are far more intelligent than she. They, almost always, have more children.)
20. Sarah P. said the following at 11:05 AM on Jun 26
Personally, as someone intrigued with history and its movements, I shy away from all attempts to predict the future. There are far too many factors to possibly imagine what may happen. Who could have guessed that 9/11 would occur, for example? Still, that said, it is fascinating to project trends and imagine possibilities.
In general, as we talk about my generation becoming more conservative, it really depends on the issues. Socially, I see the largest group getting more and more liberal - "tolerant," acting as though traditional structures like the family are absolutely irrelevant to daily living. The other, smaller side operates in reaction to the first - trying to enumerate strict structures of patriarchy that smack to me of well-meant legalism (Vision Forum, et. al.). The more these two continue to diverge, the more irrelevant Christianity will appear. The hardest effort of all will be articulating a well-balanced, Scriptural line.
Another social issue headed toward explosion is that of education. One of the most common rants of my smart liberal friends is how they were mistreated and kept from actual learning in the public school system. Now, again, many Christian conservatives are for skipping out entirely. I know I intend to homeschool someday. But what do we have for everyone else? Again, we render ourselves irrelevant to the issues that most people deal with, leaving liberals to pick up the slack.
Traditional conservatism means that the government keeps its hands off unless necessary. I don't see that trend at all, from anyone. Conservatism in the more general sense just means the maintenance of the current societal order. I do see young people grasping desperately for some kind of order and meaning in this more general sense. They don't often know the principles that get there, however - principles that are traditionally rooted in faith in and obedience to the Christian God.
I do have to add, Mike Toreno (#6): Many of these disastrous policies you mention were enacted by Republicans, but that doesn't make them essentially conservative. Sending off soldiers to Iraq in a hasty manner wasn't something either conservative or liberal - rather, it was a bad idea that looked good at the time. I would say that most Republicans and Democrats want to use governmental power in inappropriate ways, only for different issues.
Now this is all just my opinion. I don't pretend to actually know very much, but this is what I see.
21. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:41 AM on Jun 26
Adam (#17)
Via Dictionary.com :)
There are two definitions of liberalism that apply to this discussion. The first is the ACTUAL political movement:
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
This would be what the Democrats, in a governmental philosophy, would hold to.
However, there's a societal definition of liberalism as well:
a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.
Now, to break this down into why a Christian with biblical beliefs "should"/would be against this type of worldview:
emphasizes freedom from tradition
We believe in a God that has commanded us to REMEMBER by upholding certain traditions. From the Passover Exodus 12) to the Lord's Supper (Luke 22)..."Do this in remembrance of me..."
and authority
Obviously, as Christians, we are called to submit to Authority. Which implies we believe in being subject to authority...God, government, husbands, parents...
the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions
As Christians, the ultimate authority is scripture. Science can agree with scripture, but never should science dictate our lives.
development of spiritual capacities
I'm not quite certain what that one means, but from what I know of liberal philosophy, I'd take an educated guess in that its the recognition of validity of all spiritual beliefs. As Christians, we believe Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life."
Yeah, as Christians, there are certain liberal philosophical ideals that are in direct opposition to our claimed beliefs. Politically, maybe not so much. And when James says that Christians can claim to be "liberals" when really they are conservative believers with liberal leanings, he is not too far off base.
Conservatism: the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.
What is established and traditional to the Christian is God. And the world revolves around him. Our beliefs claim that no matter what anyone else believes, does, says, that truth will NEVER change, never go away, and never be inapplicable. If you don't believe that, than you *logically* can not be a Christian, as Christians accept the truth that Jesus is the way, truth, and life. If someone claims to believe that and still believe that other people that don't believe that could be right, they are living a contradiction. It doesn't work that way.
The two definitions go hand in hand, though. One is more general than the other, but they are consistent.
22. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:55 AM on Jun 26
Louise (#8)
Its interesting that you say that...but isn't the trend also that the "more intelligent" women who have kids are also the ones still working and putting their kids in systems where they are educated by others?
The more intelligent women who have many kids are actually the ones that are raising smarter children because they don't leave it to a disintegrating education system to do.
I'd say our less intelligent population isn't so much the fault of who's having kids and who's not.
23. Sarah22 said the following at 11:58 AM on Jun 26
"The reason, therefore, for the recent upswing of relative liberalism is that conservative policies have held sway for the last 7 years and have produced a disaster the like of which has seldom been seen in the history of the United States. The banking system is on the brink of collapse, over 4000 American soldiers have died in a war that was based on lies, the constitutional foundations of American democracy have been undermimed, the currency has collapsed, and America's respect in the world has been lost. Americans, whether they were born into conservative or liberal families, can see what has happened as a result of conservatism."
--- The above propaganda is exactly why I plan on no longer reading or participating in the commentary of the Boundless blogs. I see enough of that kind of junk on the news, I don't need to hear it on a Christian site that is supposed to be full of like-minded people...I wish you all would find your own site where you can read articles THAT YOU ACTUALLY AGREE WITH. Why do you insist on ruining this site for the people who DO agree with what Boundless/FOCTF has to say.
24. Samuel PG said the following at 12:42 PM on Jun 26
While this is a fascinating social phenomenon to discuss, I worry that we may all read this as meaning that conservative causes are all the good ones and liberal causes all the bad ones. I generally would be classified as a moderate conservative, but I think the most important thing for us is not that conservatives or liberals hold sway in the culture, but that people see things as God sees them. I believe many conservative policies align well with God: the abhorrence of abortion; the desire to see old values (remember that biblical values are quite old) passed on; the the recognition of the importance of marriage, procreation, and family life; etc. On the other hand, there are quite a few liberal causes that I believe align themselves with the Bible: the concern for the poor and oppressed of the world; the general abhorrence of war (not that war is never necessary, just that war itself should always be hated); the acceptance of immigrants; the desire to see a social safety net for those who are unable to support themselves (e.g. welfare, medical insurance for children); the concern for good stewardship of the environment; etc. I realize that these are broad generalizations, but they are the same generalizations made by most people. What I have seen among the young Christians at my university is a growing merger of "conservative" and "liberal" views that develop people who are against abortion, deeply concerned for the poor and oppressed, desire to have families of their own, who want to steward the earth's resources well, etc.
I hope to see Christians increasingly ignoring the labels of liberal and conservative and looking at each issue as it relates to the teaching of Scripture. That might reveal that conservatives are, in fact, better aligned with God's view of the world, but it may not. The important thing is that we align ourselves with God.
25. Dan Gill said the following at 12:42 PM on Jun 26
USA Today printed "augers" instead of "augurs"? I weep for the state of our journalism.
26. Vel Holman said the following at 12:45 PM on Jun 26
The current administration has had a stranglehold on the media for the past 8 years, so to suggest that we're somehow being duped by liberal bias is a little absurd.
Conservative talk radio remains dominant and liberal radio like Air America is all but obsolete. Fox News continues to grow in popularity, all whilst Rupert Murdoch expands his ever growing empire. He's the major shareholder, chairman and managing editor of News Corp, which owns just about everything!
That's not to say the general population hasn't grown more left leaning. 5 years of war, a recession, countless foreign policy blunders and stagnant domestic policy reform, has soured people on the conservative brand. No? You, the "religious right", are a part of that conservative brand. Don't blame everyone else for your own shortcomings.
And, come on guys, let's try and be objective here; it's not like the "religious right" is free of blemishes. Jim and Tammy Bakker? Jimmy Swaggart? Ted Haggard? And,
IN ALL DUE RESPECT, Jerry Falwell made some pretty inflammatory statements in his time.
My point is this: No one is perfect. Times change, as do ideologies. The current "liberal fad", as you have suggested, is because of an unpopular president, period. If a democrat were in office and the country was is in the same state it's in now, there would be mass disdain for liberalism. The resentment towards the "religious right" can be exclusively attributed to a lame duck administration. Sorry folks, it comes with the territory!
27. Louise said the following at 1:09 PM on Jun 26
Comment 19, I merely repeated a theory I had heard.
I cannot cite the actual source of the theory since I cannot remember the actual source.
If this is offensive to anyone on this blog, rest assured that it was not my intention to insult anyone.
Louise
28. Louise said the following at 1:10 PM on Jun 26
One more thing the author of comment 19 all but insulted her own mother.
Nice!
29. Bonnie said the following at 1:16 PM on Jun 26
Just want to remark on Mike Toreno (#6). The Democrats won the last election, and only 18% of the country thinks America is on the right track...so people aren't dissatisfied with Republicans - they're dissatisfied with government altogether. Also, conservatives and Republicans are not one in the same, remember. Conservative principles have not reigned in government for a LONG time.
I'd also like to remark on the few comments here that have said kids don't necessarily believe the way their parents do. More often than not the parents, if they are closely involved with their kids, DO shape their kids' worldviews. Even if they rebel as teenagers and young people, often they wind up seeing the world just as their parents do later in life. If this wasn't so, liberalism would have caught on way before it did. But generation after generation held the same values in America until post WWII. Interestingly, it was after that time that America enjoyed increasing monetary prosperity and less conservative values started to take root. I wonder if we hadn't had such an abundance if we'd be so liberal today?
30. Louise said the following at 1:29 PM on Jun 26
Comment 22, if you are so opposed to the existence of a viewpoint that actually conficts with your own, maybe you shouldn't even surf the internet.
31. Jake said the following at 1:36 PM on Jun 26
This idea was explored in the movie, "Idiocracy". Their premise was that poorly educated people reproduce at a faster rate than others. This caused a "dumbing down" effect in their hypothetical world.
In the real world, if birthrates are a sign of the shape of the future, not only will the world become more conservative; It will become more Muslim. According to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Islam is the world's fastest growing religion while Christianity places sixth. Birth rate was cited as the number one cause for this growth.
32. Samuel PG said the following at 1:46 PM on Jun 26
Sarah22 (22),
Peace, sister. There is no need to be so quickly angered by hearing from someone who disagrees with you. What Mike wrote is strictly political and, while I disagree with much of it, I see nothing unChristian about it. Shouldn't we, as followers of Christ, be loving, kind, gentle, and patient with those whom we disagree? If we are to love our enemies, pray for those who persecute us, bless those who curse us, and offer our other cheek when our first cheek is slapped, shouldn't we be much more patient, loving, and kind with a brother in Christ who has different political opinions? Don't we have more to learn and gain in the long run by engaging in dialogue with people who think differently than by surrounding ourselves with people with beliefs identical to our own? I suspect that you must be going through some hard times right now to respond that way, and I am sorry for that, but I think you should consider apologizing to Mike.
Grace.
33. LG said the following at 1:59 PM on Jun 26
"--- The above propaganda is exactly why I plan on no longer reading or participating in the commentary of the Boundless blogs. I see enough of that kind of junk on the news, I don't need to hear it on a Christian site that is supposed to be full of like-minded people...I wish you all would find your own site where you can read articles THAT YOU ACTUALLY AGREE WITH. Why do you insist on ruining this site for the people who DO agree with what Boundless/FOCTF has to say."
Ouch. Whatever happened to agree to disagree?
It also occurred to me, that my children have grown up with the war, and that they really don't remember a pre-9/11 America. I think that has influenced a lot of the youth in our culture.
34. Rich said the following at 2:00 PM on Jun 26
Sarah22,
I see those commentators as a good presence...it gives folks like us the opportunity to contend for the truth with them in the hopes that we might persuade them.
After all, that is part of Kingdom work, not just huddling with those we agree with.
In case I'm misunderstood: I'm not advocating some soft, no-backbone, inclusivism, i.e., "I'm ok, their ok, isn't it nice that we can all come together and converse even though we have different perspectives?"
I simply urge you to rethink your position. The Boundlessline is about *influence.* This requires people who disagree with FOTF's worldview (or at least they start out like that) to come here and comment. Without that, they'd (FOTF, that is) only be preaching to the choir, not changing minds.
35. Ryan said the following at 2:49 PM on Jun 26
Samuel PG (31), Sarah22 (22), Adam (17), others--
There is no need for Sarah22 (22) to apologize to Mike. She has a right to her opinion, and to patronize her by saying "you must be going through a hard time" as an explanation for her views is pathetic... you may not have meant it that way, but I myself have been just as angered and frustrated as Sarah has been.
The fact that my generation has no love for the truth but believes propaganda--from both liberals as well as power-hungry pastors who care not to articulate the turh but only ferment personality cults--and the fact that the modern Christian Church in America is a perversion of the New Testament to be defending illegal aliens (Catholic Church), endorsing same-sex couples (Episcopal Church), complaining about a white establishment (Black Liberation Theology) that only enables racists to discriminate against caucasians, and overall a steady, shrill pecking at the foundation of absolute truth in favor of "tolerane," well, it grieves my heart whenever an evangelical Christian turns out to be a liberal.
Adam (17) liberalism is fundamentally opposed to Christianity in the following ways: it is moral relativism with a mask. How else can people justify killing babies, eroding the family, legalizing narcotics, making euthanasia altruistic, opposing tough penalties for child rapisits, trumping parental authority, beliving in "restorative justice" )making the criminal the victim), and calling anyone who doesn't agree with you racist, xenophobic, homophobic, mysoginist, etc. without relativism?
Liberalism elevates an individual to the point of having an infinite amount of "rights" to where now anyone who disagrees with anything has a "right" that was previously just a prefrence. With all the rights people have, an individual might as well BE God, and liberalism is okay with that, because "God is dead."
Tolerance and political correctness trumps free speech and free thought to where we're now living in Animal Farm. Christianity is consequently becoming vilified based on nothing more than liberal myths and whiners who don't like people telling the truth.
However I would encourage you, Sarah22, to stay. The reason why is burying our heads in the sand and not engaging people is what got us in this situation in the first place. Pushing people away because "we have our own little club here" isn't the way to go, since we are to be salt and light... in the world, but not of it.
Accept reality. Liberalism is here, and has bewitched the next generation of evangelicals to wheere if they're not a part of the card-carrying thought-police squad, they are afraid to say anythign about it.
Don't be. It's about time liberals got a taste of their own medicine.
36. John said the following at 4:04 PM on Jun 26
Amber,
You're confusing intelligence and education level.
There is an inverse correlation with a women's level of education and the number of children she has.
No one is saying that more intelligent women have fewer kids.
Toreno,
You might want to go some where else to espouse sophomoric talking points. You're only wasting blog space with your simplistic overgeneralizations that have no basis in reality.
Samuel PG,
Please, learn what liberalism and conservatism mean. You're confusing the two.
Conservative principles ARE the practical outworking of biblical ideals.
Liberal principles ARE the practical outworking of anti-Biblical ideals.
You should consider apologizing for exposing your ignorance to everyone who read your nonsense.
Vel,
Research what a recession is. We are most certainly NOT in a recession! Along with the rest of your trite, that perception is typical of a brainwashed liberal. It's not unusual for liberals to only be able to espouse talking points, unable to think and articulate for themselves. Sorry, but that's part of the territory.
Ryan,
Well put!
What a shame so many confused people.
That's why I actually like straight out liberals better than "christians" who try to wed biblical christianity with the lie that is liberalism. At least they know the two are in direct contradiction to one another.
37. DannieA said the following at 4:05 PM on Jun 26
First of all
Christina (in green), I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to hurt people with your comment, but as a speech therapist who gives of myself daily to teach good values and educate children with language disorders so they can have a chance in this world, it did irk me that you put all "educators" or "people in the public school system" as moronic educators who do no good to mold young minds. There are a LOT of good Christian hardworking, high level educators who do the public school system justice. So please, think before you accuse good people of being the problem.
Second point:
Sarah 22, Ryan....chill out guys. People disagree...it's a fact of life. Even in families people disagree. It's not something to be totally upset about.
38. Samuel PG said the following at 5:18 PM on Jun 26
Sarah22,
In re-reading my original post directed to you, I realize that my suggestion that you consider apologizing to Mike and my saying that you are probably going through a hard time right now probably sound pretty patronizing. I am sorry for that. I did not intend them to come across that way, but I do not doubt that they did. While I stand by my statement concerning how we should relate to those we disagree with, I wish that I had left off the last line. Please accept my apology.
39. Craig said the following at 10:55 PM on Jun 26
Wow, what a discourse. Some good can come from this if people will stop and listen. As hard as that is, it is what our God tells us the wise will do. Be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.... (James 1:19). I don't think our Lord just meant that about things we like to hear. In fact, the Bible condemns people just getting what their itching ears want to hear.
As for the liberal/conservative labels, that is the big problem in our country today. So many Christians love to talk politics and slam each other, yet are so poor in actually following Jesus with their life. I guess it is easier to call oneself a conservative and claim to hold right beliefs, all while neglecting orphans and widows, and choosing not to display the fruits of the Spirit or display love (love is patient, love is kind, it is not self-seeking....).
As for me, I am pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-war, pro-adoption, pro-environment, pro-immigration (I have a hard time believing our heavenly Father wants us to close the doors to the needy in the world just so we can have more stuff to ourselves!), pro-death penalty, pro-universal healthcare (but also for requiring people to work for welfare). Where does that put me?
My conservative friends think I am a flaming liberal because I challenge many of their notions of buying bigger houses and question whether God is really leading them to buy a new sports car (yes, I am sure God wants you to buy a new sports car; don't worry about helping that orphan in India- surely God wants you to have a sports car more than helping that little child!). Also, my conservative friends can't believe that I am not die-hard "proud to be an American." (hmmm, I seem to recall my God teling me that I am an alien and stranger here in this world, so why would I identify so strongly with a country?)
On the other hand, my liberal friends think I am a right wing religious nut, and can't understand why I think homosexuality is sin and why I think that jesus is the only way to eternal life.
I think the best thing I read on here is from Samuel PG (#24). Let's drop the labels and start aligning ourselves with God. Peace and Grace to all!
40. Carrie (the original) said the following at 6:29 AM on Jun 27
Louise - rest assured, I don't say anything here that I wouldn't say in front of her.
She would say I am more intelligent than she is and if I were to point to the fact that most mothers I know have college degrees she would concede my point.
41. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:00 AM on Jun 27
John (#35),
I encourage you to look up the definitions of Liberalism and Conservatism in the dictionary.
Yes, by definition, liberalism upholds a relativistic ideal...which is anti-biblical.
However, Conservatism is not so innocent, either. Conservatism is, in fact, the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change. Though tradition is important to a christian world view, biblical tradition is what is important. And limiting change is not a biblical world-view, either.
DannieA (#36),
First of all, my intention wasn't to insult the PEOPLE who teach. My intention was to insult the system. There's a difference. My best friends are all teachers in the public school system, but several of them have little understanding of mathematics. One of them can't spell to save her life. She's a good teacher of social studies and history, but making her teach general education and math is a poor way to utilize her.
The trend, DannieA, and apparently the data show that elementary schools are not teaching students math effectively. Be that the fault of the teachers or the fault of the schools that taught the teachers is up for debate, but the consensus is looking to be the educators educating the teachers. That article stated as much.
And I have heard HORROR stories about how 8th grade students STILL don't know how to multiply and divide.
42. obewan said the following at 7:10 AM on Jun 27
#22. Sarah22 had the following to say on Jun 26 at 11:58 AM:
“>>--- The above propaganda is exactly why I plan on no longer reading or participating in the commentary of the Boundless blogs. I see enough of that kind of junk on the news, I don't need to hear it on a Christian site that is supposed to be full of like-minded people...<<”
What do you advocate as an alternative? You sound like you would prefer a totalitarian regime with no free press, no public accountability, and no dissent allowed.
Even conservatives need to be called to task by other conservatives for their bad policy decisions. I don’t think it is liberal to realize that something like 75% of Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake and that it was based upon misleading data. As for the banking industry, would you prefer that those who are criminally culpable in the savings and loan scandal not be called to task?
As for FOTF and boundless, I think they do a fairly good job of moderating debate. They do have their own interests to serve, but at the same time they have to think about their status as a tax-exempt organization. If they were non-tax exempt like most of the liberal press, then I am sure the bias (you desire) would be even more prevalent and evident in their postings.
43. Adam said the following at 8:02 AM on Jun 27
(Ryan #34) "liberalism is fundamentally opposed to Christianity in the following ways: it is moral relativism with a mask. How else can people justify killing babies, eroding the family, legalizing narcotics, making euthanasia altruistic, opposing tough penalties for child rapisits, trumping parental authority, beliving in "restorative justice" )making the criminal the victim), and calling anyone who doesn't agree with you racist, xenophobic, homophobic, mysoginist, etc. without relativism?"
And (John #35) Conservative principles ARE the practical outworking of biblical ideals.
Liberal principles ARE the practical outworking of anti-Biblical ideals.
--------------
Ryan, there is definitely some moral relativism in liberalism. There is some as well in conservatism. At the very least, there has been some evolution of thought. Look at the conservative view of women 150 years ago, 50 years ago, and today. There are very substantial differences.
Also, I dare you to find anyone who doesn't think there should be tough penalties for child rapists. Though some people draw the line at ending a life before natural death.
John, it seems like you are painting with a broad brush. You *may* be right, but let me ask you two things.
#1: What are these "biblical ideals" and "anti-biblical ideals?"
#2: Was it under the primary influence of conservatism or liberalism that we have come to a more Biblical ideal on racism?
---------------------------
There just seems to be a conservative=good, liberal=bad view. I believe that in many of the high-profile issues the conservative view more represents the Biblical view. The conservative view has very much ignored the Biblical view on other issues.
Now perhaps I'm just promoting an Al Sharpton view of Christianity and Biblical ideals rather than a James Dobson view. I think all of us can agree that widows and orphans are brought up again and again in the Scriptures and that there is some level of responsibility there for us. Having said that, I challenge anyone that says that the conservative view does more practically towards the helping of widows and orphans than the liberal viewpoint.
44. Sarah P said the following at 9:41 AM on Jun 27
Craig (#38) said: I think the best thing I read on here is from Samuel PG (#24). Let's drop the labels and start aligning ourselves with God. Peace and Grace to all!
Amen! I think your post illustrates what I see from most of my friends, whether more liberal or more conservative. Our generation finds few leaders who we can trust, so we are forced to pick and choose from the issues and form individual collections of opinions. For non-Christians, this logically leads into "postmodernism," since they invent even their own basic principles into which to organize beliefs.
Meanwhile, we Christians are faced with a saddening, inward-looking family bickering about who is right and wrong. Look at how the "religious right" divided itself during Republican primaries!
Peace to all. Prayer for this country, anyone?
45. Sarah22 said the following at 9:17 AM on Jun 28
SamuelPG: Apology accepted.
I guess I did not state my feelings accurately...
I do not bury my head in the sand and pretend everyone agrees with my views and beliefs. I talk with people on a daily basis who don't agree with me and I don't attack them for it or blow up, I try to share in love what I believe is the truth in God's word. I watch the news and get a constant outlook on what the world thinks, I'm not in denial about anything.
However, in the context of this site alone, I would like to be able to enjoy the articles and resulting discussion with like minded people so that I could strengthen my beliefs and feel edified and supported in a world where everyone pretty much tells me I'm a fool.
Instead, I come here and feel the same amount of irritation I get from watching the news and hearing them attack everything I stand for. Only it's much less bearable because here it's under the cloak of Christianity.
I don't have any interest in speaking with other Christians who seem to have adopted a liberal world view on things and that's what these comments are mainly filled with. It doesn't mean I don't love them, it doesn't mean that I think they're not saved. However, it does mean that I don't need to hear their side because I've heard it before and I have no interest in it, especially when I know that they don't want to actually hear anything I would have to say. They know my "side"/beliefs and they've basically rejected it.
The main difference is that I'd rather talk all day long with a non believer and listen calmly to their opposing beliefs and try to in a loving attitude stand up for what I believe then I would a Christian who believes in gay marriage, abortion, etc. because they believe we're on the same playing field, so what is the point?
Think whatever you want about all that, but it's how I feel.
How can two walk together except they agree?
46. Gabrielle said the following at 8:29 PM on Jun 28
The problem I have with either of these viewpoints is that idea that your children will automatically have the same viewpoints as you do. What a ridiculous idea. Having a kid isn't poppping out a tiny version of yourself. As prolifers have been saying for decades, the child is a different entity from both parents.
47. Kevin said the following at 12:13 PM on Jun 29
Speaking as an evangelical who is politically liberal, I would argue that political conservatism is morally and spiritually bankrupt just as much as political liberalism. Why? Because they are both SECULAR worldviews containing views alternately hostile and consonant with the values of the gospel. Of course, the way many posters have defined liberalism (support for gay rights, abortion on demand, etc.) is not the essence of what I define as liberalism. These views are creatures of the New Left of the '60s and '70s. Before this time, such wacked-out views were held only by the lunatic fringe. Liberalism to me equals social justice for the poor and the oppressed, wisdom and restraint in using precious natural resources and so forth. I think one could plausibly argue (as at least one poster did) that the morally degenerate policies of the Bush Administration mark a radical departure from what is considered conservatism. Even still, within the pale of both political orthodoxies, both put too much trust in worldly forces (the government, the invisible hand of the market, etc.) to achieve righteousness and justice. Both worldviews contain the mark of godless secularism, just in different ways. Of course, I would argue that liberalism (at least as I define it) has at least one up on conservatism and then some, but still, I think any of us from either party would do well to be wary of our loyalties to any political party and its leaders, since they ultimately do NOT have the interests of God at heart, but rather their own. Witness the Republican Party's cynical manipulation of the evangelical vote over the last 30 years. They pretend to talk a good game in language that evangelicals understand in order to get their votes, but once they're in, they turn their backs on us. The Democrats are trying to do the same now, which gratifies me, but at the same time, makes me wary. Only the Spirit-led Body of Christ can achieve true justice and righteousness, not any political party or government!
48. Louise said the following at 10:29 AM on Jun 30
Comment 45,
My advice to you ma'am is to start your own blog.
Then you will have to option of promptly deleting any and all comments which you find to be personally objectionable or irritating.
49. DannieA said the following at 12:44 PM on Jun 30
Sarah22:
Since I'm more middle of the road....you and I may not agree on some things and agree on others.
For that reason...I was glad to see you commenting again :)
50. John said the following at 9:15 AM on Jul 2
Adam,
There is no moral relativism in conservativism.
51. Richard said the following at 8:44 PM on Jul 6
It is true that people who prefer to not have kids aren't going to reproduce themselves, and thier views will die with them.
However, many of those who came from larger families will change thier views and want fewer children. My girlfriend for example has 10 siblings, but she wants only 1 child. I think society will enter a state or equilibrium where those who have lots of kids will replace those who don't, but that many of these kids will themselves become childless (or have smaller families).