Barnette's essay is also a healthy corrective to the social darwinism that underlies Amit Ghate's appeal for liberals to join libertarians in making an individualistic economic argument to defend separation of church and state. Ghate and other libertarians would do well to reflect on these words from Barnette:
I am a liberal because I know what it is like to work under a conservative and an oppressive economic system. In the "good old days" (1925-1935) I worked in a cotton mill ten hours per day, five and one-half days per week. Beginning pay was eighteen cents per hour. There was no medical care, no retirement program, no minimum working hours, and no minimum wage. A worker could be fired for no reason at all. All members of the family had to work to survive. This was so-called "free enterprise." Progressive liberals changed the system and we now have legislation that provides a quality of life more in harmony with the principles of The Constitution, the Declaration, and the Bible. Practice of these principles saved us from revolution that plagues other nations.
Neo-cons denounce economic and social progress led by liberals: minimum wages and working hours, Medicare, social security, and welfare for the poor. (Conservatives oppose welfare for the poor, but not for the corporate welfare.) Ironically, they gladly accept these government services for their retired parents and grandparents and will for themselves when they become older. Too, they argue for less big government and fiscal responsibility. But that is changing with the Bush administration. Government control of all areas of our lives is occurring and we have the largest US debt in history.
Posts
4 comments:
I can clearly see why the fundamentalists beat us every time on the national level and most times in the states. They bait us with their gloating and overt partisanship about the President, and we fall into their trap by rushing to the liberal side.
Moderate Baptists come in all secular political stripes: conservative, middle-of-road, or liberal. Since when is someone who votes conservative not "following Christ's teachings at the Sermon on the Mount?" Since when are Bush voters a "right-wing cabal that is methodically pushing our nation toward theocracy?"
Such inflammatory statements are nothing than the broad-brush "guilt-by-association" tricks just like those used by Roger Moran. When we fall into these traps, Moran and his crowd wins. They've tried for years to paint mainstream Baptists as liberals, and now we're proving them right.
I agree with Ken Hall of the BGCT when he said, "not all conservatives are fundamentalists." Dr. Prescott, with all due respect, you would be wise to remember that. By bashing those who voted conservative in the secular elections, you're probably alienating 70% of the folks in the mainstream pews. Funny, I thought it was fundamentalists who did the alienating.
Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for your comments. I would probably give them more credence if you signed your name.
There are a number of people who respond to the words "conservative" and "liberal" with knee jerk responses. Any moderate worth his salt has learned to ignore the labels and weigh the issues.
Dr. Prescott:
Please rest assured that I am not attempting to shirk responsibility for my remarks by making an anonymous post. The fact is I work in a public position that forbids me to speak openly about secular political affairs. However, that doesn't erase my opinions about such things or our ongoing struggle against the fundamentalists in our Baptist midst. In fact, I'll email you name, hometown, and home church name to hopefully establish some credibility and to assure you I'm not some rabble-rouser.
I was in no way attempting to bash Henlee Barnette on the article you referenced. I read it entirely, and a good many valid points were made.
My disappointment stems from your branding all of us who vote conservative as not "following Christ's teachings at the Sermon on the Mount," or (in an earlier post), as being a "right-wing cabal that is methodically pushing our nation toward theocracy." Those are pretty harsh stereotypes to brand upon 52% of Americans.
You see, I've spent much time trying to convince fellow Baptists that folks like Roger Moran are wrong when they say all mainstream Baptists or CBF'ers "don't believe the Bible", "are pro-homosexual and pro-abortion", etc. For one thing, that's guilt by association, and for another thing, it's simply untrue. When mainstream leaders try to paint all those who vote conservative with that very same broad stereotypical brush (being used in your quotes), I see little difference between that and the actions of the Moran-types.
To me, moderate Baptists are just that: moderate. I would surmise that their political opinions probably fall in with the rest of moderate America: divided, but generally favoring Bush. We should be careful not to lump all the Bush voters and supporters into the same boat as the Richard Land's of the world and the Jerry Falwell's (and their outrageous comments). We weren't voting for them. We were voting on a wide variety of issues.
I read your blog daily because I appreciate your insights and your intellect (and I agree with about 90% of everything you write!). I simply wish to object to the broad condemnation of Bush supporters.
Dr. Prescott,
I sometimes agree with you but that's not why I visit your site--I like to read intelligent arguments for and against those things I believe. Your site provides those.
You state that: "There are a number of people who respond to the words "conservative" and "liberal" with knee jerk responses. Any moderate worth his salt has learned to ignore the labels and weigh the issues."
I quite agree.
Your web site is called "Mainstream" and you claim (please correct me if I am wrong) to be a moderate. Within the context of the Baptist faith (a word also featured in your website)I'm curious--what liberal Baptist viewpoints would you disagree with? Do you include any repudiation of liberal views and causes on your site? I apologize, perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but I didn't find these articles.
Is your cause so just that it vindicates posing as a moderate because your liberal message will be better received from that position? Or have I missed all the articles that would indicate you take a balanced, centrist position?
Brian
Post a Comment