Recently, I debated Ben Berwick at his blog. Here is the post, OPPOSING EVIL. Berwick seems to be the UK’s equivalent of a Liberal Democrat.
Did I “win” the debate? No. To win the debate, I would have to persuade Berwick to change his mind. That is not likely to happen anytime soon, but who knows. So, why did I bother?
There are various articles out there about how to debate Liberals.
- How to Debate a Liberal and Win (Avoiding anger and using facts)
20 Questions Liberals Can’t Answer
- Here’s How To Successfully Debate A Democratic Socialist and Here Are The Top 10 Questions To Ask A Liberal
- Democrats Are Afraid to Debate GOP Opponents
Is debating a Liberal Democrat a good idea? Depends. As the first article above indicates, if you cannot control your temper, then debating a Liberal Democrat not a good idea.
Another consideration is the subject of the debate. Note that there are, supposedly, questions that are guaranteed to stump Liberal Democrats, but that is not actually true. Liberal Democrats don’t answer questions. Instead, they insist you answer questions. Of course, their questions are loaded questions. Why does it work that way?
What are the differences between Christian Conservatives and Liberal Democrats? Is there a stereotypical Christian Conservative or a stereotypical Liberal Democrat? Well, when we take stereotypes too seriously, that is a form of bigotry. Still, we use labels because they do mean something.
- We start with different philosophies about our existence.
- We build our worldview based upon different assumptions.
- We define truth differently.
- We have differing beliefs about right and wrong.
Different Philosophies. Whereas Conservative Christians take the Bible seriously, Liberal Democrats uphold secular values. What are secular values? Secular Humanists probably comes closest to defining secular values.
Secular Humanism begins with denial or doubt concerning the existence of anything supernatural—including God—but then goes well beyond that secular stance by positively affirming and valuing the potential of human beings to be kind, enact justice, solve problems, and make the world a better, safer, greener, and more humane place.
Secular Humanism rests firmly upon the recognition that humanity’s ability to be cruel, selfish, deceitful, and violent is far outweighed by our more pervasive and dominant capacities to be humane, altruistic, cooperative, sensible, fair, and peaceful.https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/202002/what-is-secular-humanism
Different Worldviews. Different attitudes about God leads to differing worldviews. Whereas the Christian Conservative looks to God for hope and guidance, the Liberal Democrat looks to humanity for hope and guidance. Christians know that by comparison to God no man is good. Liberal Democrats, however, do trust mankind, at least those they deem part of their tribe.
God is not fickle. Humanity, however, is quite fickle. We can call what is good evil and what is evil good and then change our minds just because we want to do so. That is why Christians tend to be Conservative. When we are doing something wrong, we understand that is because we have disobeyed God. So that we might be welcomed into Heaven by a merciful and gracious God, Christians seek repentance and reform.
Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, look to those who can convincingly project a vision of a perfect world. Liberal Democrats seek someone who or something that can transform the world into heaven.
To the Christian, God is God, a God who has commanded us to love Him and each other. Whereas the Liberal Democrat looks for someone or something in this world to save him.
What is Truth? To the Christian, God is Truth. God created everything, and He sustains what He has Created. The Liberal Democrat, however, defines truth in accordance with what he wants to believe. Therefore, Christians and Liberal Democrats have fundamental disagreements about the definition of words and the concepts they represent.
- Human rights and the purpose of government.
- Marriage and the family.
- Love and friendship.
Whereas Christians try to live in accord with God’s Truth, each Liberal Democrat seeks to mold the truth so that it accords with his or her desires.
What is Right and Wrong? We each determine what is right and what is wrong based upon who or what we expect to save us. The Christian proceeds with the prospect of Eternity in sight and day-by-day seeks the wisdom of God to find his way. Each Liberal Democrat seeks happiness in this life, and each defines that happiness accord to his own Truth.
So, Why Debate a Liberal Democrat? Jesus told us to spread His Gospel and to share His Grace and His Truth and His Love.
When we talk to Liberal Democrats, the Holy Spirit may or may not intercede. In any case, we will probably spend a lot of time talking pass each other, but sometimes we may connect. Pray for those moments.
One Last Thought. A question. How close do you think these stereotypes are to the truth?
Are not these sorts of debates intended to use the opponent’s presence to help impress a target audience? And of course, we do enjoy listening to our own voices in public …
Those are showmanship aspects of a debate. They especially apply when politicians running for office debate and to bloggers with visions of grandeur.
Indeed. And with nearly everyone blogging, who is listening?
In my opinion, The USA presently has so many issues that, in my opinion, it is impossible to obtain agreement in Congress how to solve all the issues.
What is needed to untangle the present divisiveness is for Congress to focus only one issue,
That is how to obtain funds to pay for the present government services instead of continual borrowing and printing dollars that adds to the National Debt.
Raising taxes on Businesses and Corporations will add to inflation and job elimination because private industry will do what is necessary to survive.
All the disciplines in private industry use every day to survive will occurs such as passing tax increased by charging more for their products or services.
Cutting expenses that are not profitable. Cutting jobs that are not profitable. etc. etc.
Far too many people are obtaining government subsidies without working. When more people lose their jobs, they will pay less taxes and add expenses, period.
The problem now is the rich and middle-class working class are paying 50 percent of all taxes and do not agree with the way government is spending and adding expenses by passing more government subsidized services and expenses.
The list of ideas how to balance the budget or find a way to add more people to work to pay taxes should include the same requirement for government as private business
In other words, begin by ending any debate, by freezing or adding any new non profitable government services or free rides paid for by borrowings or printing dollars.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
None of what you state is particular new to me, nor is particularly insightful Tom. It is straight from the bogeyman playbook, and to me, lacks validation. Everything you lay at the door of lefties, socialists etc, I can lay at the door of rampant, unchecked capitalism, which is the cause of so many problems, and your ‘solution’ doesn’t address any of that.
It is as absurd to expect charity from huge, greedy, faceless corporations as it is government.
Let’s rework what you just wrote.
We are talking about human beings. We are not gods. We are just as human as the people whose problem we want the human beings we elect to solve.
The only way charity works is for private citizens to help the needy. Will that work perfectly? No, but private citizens can ban together, and they do so all the time. Private organizations do tend to be chronically short of the resources they need (your complaint). Nevertheless, donors can hold them accountable, and that is critical. Sooner or latter, every organization loses sight of its mission. Then that organization either needs to be replaced or reformed. Reform is next to impossible with a government bureaucracy.
You want to solve the problem of funding private charity? The only person I control is “me.” My guess you have the same problem.
In your earlier post, you remarked that your ‘solution’ to the problems I listed was to get rid of *my* solutions, even though what I’ve suggested hasn’t actually been reasonably attempted (you may continue to conflate my position with socialism; that’s on you, not me).
Your ‘re-working’, whilst witty, is meaningless. You have yet to suggest a meaningful means of tackling the problems of poverty, save for the idea that we rely on the mercy of the very people hoarding imaginable sums of wealth! After *decades* of the current system creating an ever-widening divide between rich and poor, your answer is effectively ‘do nothing’, and hope the problem magically resolves itself, or worse, hope for some of reform that we both know is a desperate hope.
As of 2020, some 13% of Americans were below the poverty line. That’s over 40 million people. Do you think private charity can help of them? Half of them? A quarter?
Your solution doesn’t work and won’t work, but you won’t consider it reasonably attempted until it does work. So, it will never be reasonably attempted. That’s been the argument for Socialism in a nutshell for thousands of years.
And yes, Socialism predates Karl Marx. The word demagogue (https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=demagogue+) comes from the Greeks. There is nothing new about demogoging the redistribution the wealth of the “rich.” In practice, however, the rich trick the poor into tax middle income workers.
So, back to the subject. Since you cannot defend your solution, we have to discuss my solution which you won’t consider a meaningful means of tackling the problems of poverty unless it is your solution?
I would prefer to talk about getting rid of your solution. You say 13% of Americans were below the poverty line. So?
Maybe we should move those people below the poverty level to Mexico and South America where the cost of living is lower. That way the money our government gives would go further. Do you think they would object? So long as the tyrannical majority thinks it is a great idea, would the objection of the impoverished make any difference?
Is my solution to do nothing? No. My solution is for our government to stop wasting our money. Private charity is not doing nothing. Private charity is you, me, and anyone who can deciding what and how we want to do.
Social Security and Medicare together make up over half of the Federal budget. Because old people vote, these programs have grown like crazy. Here the wealth distribution involves parents taking money from their children and grandchildren and putting it into their own pockets. Note that because the Social Security tax is one of the most regressive the rich don’t pay it. Since most of the income of the rich comes from their investments, they don’t worry about the Medicare tax either.
When people are young, that is when they are raising children. That is when we need money to pay for food, clothing and shelter. So, it makes no sense for us to transfer a huge portion of our nation’s wealth from the young to the elderly, but political decisions are driven by votes. Since the old vote, the old can raid our nation’s treasury.
By now Tom, you have made it abundantly clear that you do not understand my solutions, because you keep conflating my position with socialism, betraying a lack of understanding of both socialism *and* my position.
It is not socialist to say ‘let there be billionaires and millionaires, whilst paying people more, and having them pay more tax’. Socialism actually involves complete public ownership of virtually everything, which I am not extolling, and you know that, so drop the misleading pretence please.
You want the government to not waste money, but how is it wasting money to have universal healthcare? Is it better to have people going bankrupt because they can’t afford medical bills? How are you going to help people who have to choose between insulin and food, via charity? For there to be a genuine, meaningful impact upon the problems of poverty in the USA *alone*, you’d need to berate, cajole, and corral people into donations, do you think that’s going to happen? Do you think there are enough people *willing* to do that (especially among the billionaires and millionaires) to make a tangible difference?
It seems you want to appeal to the better nature of people who have thus far shown virtually *zero* inclination to offer up enough charity to make a real change, rather than tax them. What do you think has a realistic chance of working, their kindness, or taxes?
By the way, you might be interested to know, when people are paid more, they work harder:
Click to access emanuel_jmp.pdf
I don’t understand your solutions? Why would that be? I commented on post about immigration and pointed out flaws in the video you featured. Did you try explain how I might be wrong? Nope!
Consider how you justify your solutions. Do you justify your solutions by explaining how they are supposed to work, or do you justify your solutions by attacking the people on your enemies list?
Instead staying on topic, you want to talk about everything at once. Effectively, you are trying to unload your argumentative cannons on me. You think I will be silenced by a flood of questions; I suppose.
Consider the silliness of this last comment of yours.
1. You are not a socialist? Effectively, you are. Your philosophy of government places no limits on the growth of government.
2. How is it wasting money to have universal healthcare? Government run healthcare is cost effective? Seriously? The more government gets involved in anything the more bureaucratic and costly it gets. Since the government doesn’t produce anything, it cannot resolve resource limitations. That leads to rationing, and people die waiting.
3. What makes it abundantly clear you are a Socialist? You believe people have to be coerced to help the poor, especially rich people. That is an argument against private property. That argument can be applied to all private property.
4. Raising the minimum wage. You throw up this weird argument; companies that pay their workers more, get more productive workers. Yes. That is true. When companies compete for workers, the most productive workers are more likely to get the higher paying jobs. So, the companies that pay their workers more get the most productive workers. That has nothing to do with the minimum wage.
Tom, all you are doing is demonstrating, once and for all, that you *don’t* understand my position, and don’t want to. You did not definitively demonstrate flaws in the original immigration video. You stated some opinions, which I don’t agree with, and that was all.
As far as your points go, they are wishy-washy. I’ve stuck to the topic of this post, and of my own, responding to the points you’ve raised, and making my own points where I saw fit. You both misunderstand my position, and misrepresent it. Socialism calls for public ownership of virtually everything, which I do not do. I do not advocate for the complete redistribution of wealth, and I don’t suggest, or imply, measures to ensure fair wages, dealing with homelessness, poverty etc, should be limitless, but then, you never sought to find that out, instead making spurious claims.
You think private healthcare is the best option? When healthcare works on a for profit basis, patient care suffers. The world’s best healthcare systems incorporate at least *some* form of universal healthcare, which rather defies your notion that it doesn’t work. https://www.expatriatehealthcare.com/the-top-10-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2022/
You think my position is that I would strip away private property? That’s an awfully leap, and a pretty disingenuous one Tom. It’s not even implied in my arguments. I have never suggested that we take property from people.
I do believe that to rely upon the altruistic nature of people like Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos etc, is woefully naïve. You think they and their businesses will undertaken any action that they cannot profit from? Give your head a shake.
You’re missing the point RE minimum wage. When companies raise it, those companies become more productive. The suggestion that wages can’t rise because of inflation is pretty much bunk. After all, the people at the top of a lot of companies have gotten a lot richer in the last couple of years, so why not their staff? Why not the ones on the front lines, so to speak?
You stuck to the topic of this post? But not your own post. You may wish to reconsider what that means.
Am I being wishy washy. Well, I do have an excuse. How many different subjects do you want to discuss? At least, we are lean towards actually discussing public policy instead of what is wrong with anyone who disagrees with you.
What about this statement?
That is true. I never said you called for public ownership of virtually everything. I said you have a philosophical orientation which will lead to the public ownership of virtually everything. When government effectively controls our schools, healthcare, public utilities, R&D, financial institutions, and so forth, it becomes increasingly difficult to stop our rulers from taking over everything else. And what would you say in response? That is wrong? Why? Because they don’t understand your solutions?
In the United State it has become obvious that that our government is trying to censor that little bit of the mass media that remains outside its control and the control of crony capitalists. Hence, we are actually electing mentally impaired public officials. If our government controls all they information we have, our government controls us.
Is the UK different? I suspect it is similar.
Look at history. Slavery is the historical norm, and we are heading back in that direction. In fact, much of world’s population is led by authoritarian and even totalitarian regimes. Our world looks frighteningly similar to the world as it was just before WWII. And there is no guaranteed the good guys will win this time.
Do I think private healthcare the best option? Yes, but we don’t actually have private healthcare. We have both. I was raised as a military brat, and I was in the military. The military has to run its own medical care system. Required for effective warfighting. So, I saw how both government-run health care works and private healthcare. Because military personnel could compare military healthcare with private healthcare, it actually worked relatively well. In fact, there were some advantages. When I went to a military dentist, I did not worry the dentist would do work that wasn’t needed.
Private healthcare, on the other hand, tends to more responsive to what the patient wants. The problem is being able to pay the bill. Somebody has to do that, government or no government. Socialism doesn’t solve that problem. Socialism hides the cost problem and replaces it with another problem. Instead of the doctor working for the patient, the doctor now works for the people running the government.
Am I happy to rely upon the altruistic nature of millionaires and billionaires? As compared to the altruistic nature of politicians?
People contribute to charity for various reasons. What they don’t do is contribute to charitable causes they think the government is funding. In the United States charity use to be the concern of private organizations and local governments. In clear violation of our Constitution, the Federal government now has a major role in public “charity”. When public officials violate their oath of office, I think their motives are suspect. I think they want the power to buy votes, not to help anyone except themselves.
If companies that pay their employees more make more money, then what is the point of a minimum wage? If company wants to outdo its competitors, all it has to do is pay its employees more. Why does the government have to do anything?
If the minimum wage is such a great idea, why not make it a million dollars an hour?
The primary law of economics is the law of supply and demand. Wages should be set by the marketplace, not some politicians with their fingers in the wind.
Tom–your words are very truth filled as always—and yes, I have missed your wisdom and insight–especially throughout this past year of madness both in and outside of my own little world.
I wanted to reply to your comment to my post here rather than over on my site as yes, there are those who are vehemently angry and upset with me who are still reading my posts…albeit few and far between these days.
The divorce was ugly at best.
I have no contact with my beloved mayor and sheriff as I am being punished.
Not so much because I opted to leave my husband of 38 years—as I stayed much longer than I ever should and thus the timing seemed so out of character for me and who I was supposed to be in the eyes of all around me…and maybe it was so for me as well…But money also became involved following my father death and that added a very complex and ugly wrinkle.
Actions and timing were all misconstrued.
I do not claim to be a saint in any of this as I too could have and should have done things differently —
But besides the who’s and why’s and the faults at hand—my heart has broken. I know I have hurt others just as I have been hurt—physically and emotionally.
I moved away and I am finding solace deep in the mountains.
Yet there are former family and friends who read my posts—the blog is no place for any sort of feud or scolding or ugliness…there’s a great deal of grief I have very much wanted to write about as I find solace in writing…but I can’t…not for all sorts of reasons.
So there you go in a nutshell.
And I thought you lived in VA but was originally from Ohio—did you move back home?
I have had a little problem with family about my blog. Since I venture into politics and religion, I sort of expected that. But the Democrats in my family generally take the idea of tolerance seriously. So, they grin (grit their teeth) and bear it.
I have stayed away from discussing family on Internet. There are things that are appropriate to post in public, but I didn’t want to give the trolls information like that, not when I was discussing politics and religion.
My wife is ill, so we moved to Ohio where I could get the help of my daughters and their husbands to support my wife. We are both suffering, but in differing ways. The best thing we can do is to try to understand what God would have us learn.
There is a saying: “This too shall pass.” Both the good times and the bad times come to go. Only that which lasts for eternity comes to stay. So, the best thing we can do is to try to please our Maker.
I’m sorry to hear of your wife’s illness and of the journey your family is now traveling— please know my prayers are with you all!!!
And you and yours are in mine.
Thank you Tom
Wow, I haven’t seen such bold faced support for socialism in a long time, thought most people gave up on it by now. Still the same old failed talking points though, that never changes. Here’s an interesting article on the term “far right” and why lefties often resort to using it.
“Why would somebody do that rather than simply accept in good faith her opponent’s disagreement on the facts? Here, the idea of “projection” is relevant. Whereas sometimes people can respectfully agree to disagree on an issue, a person who has justified a policy of imposing upon, and even harming, some people for what she believes is a greater good is a person for whom an admission of error would also be an admission of having done something that, by her own argument, was morally bad. Such a thing can threaten a person’s entire sense of self and many other beliefs that she lives by. “
Thanks for the article. Good analysis.
Berwick actually wrote an entire post just to complain that you called him a Socialist.
You have heard of the proverb that relates to allowing “the camel’s nose under the tent” (https://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/22/messages/917.html)? I wonder if Berwick has.
Berwick wants us to believe he is a moderate, but there are radical problems with the Socialism he is willing to permit.
1. He has no moral justification for the Socialism that he is willing to permit that limits its expansion.
2. The Socialism Berwick is willing to permit so empowers our leaders that we must find it highly difficult to stop them from seizing more power.
Omg, I guess a nerve was triggered., I feel honored. Indeed I have heard of the camel’s nose proverb and it rings very much true. The thing about today’s left is they don’t pretend to just innocently stick their nose under the tent, they uproot the whole thing and when the predictable chaos ensures, they put their arms in the air and cry MAGA.
Interesting. Perhaps a nerve *was* triggered. That’s not an unreasonable response to a mis-framing of someone’s position/argument.
Tom speaks of morality in respect of what I have talked about (though I am unconvinced he has even attempted to address what I have talked about, as demonstrated by him twice ignoring questions posed to him), but tell me Tricia, is it moral to do nothing whilst people starve, especially when you have the means to do something?
Is it moral to let people sit on and squander enormous wealth (take Bezos and his space launches), when their employees are quite literally forced to be choose between heating their homes or putting food on the table?
I’ll put to you (and to Tom, for a third time) the questions I originally posed:
What better ways do you propose to eliminate poverty, homelessness and hunger? Doing things in exactly the same way as we are, which is achieving precisely nothing? What would you advocate for?
I wanted to talk about your post. You diverted with foolish questions that were not germane to YOUR topic.
So, what about Bezos and space launches? The answer is this. Bezos is better qualified to invest his money than you are. You would give it to a bunch of spendthrift politicians. Talk about fraud, waste, and abuse!
Did Bezos earn his money fair and square? Should one man have control over so much money? Can we trust one man to control so much wealth? Those are good questions. How do we regulate the marketplace so that we maximize constructive competition? Unfortunately, your alternative is replacing billionaires with Presidents and Prime Ministers. Why you think you have solved the problem with that solution is a mystery.
When it comes to managing money, Socialism has a far worse track record than greedy billionaires, Greedy billionaires generally want to make money with their money. That means they will invest in activities that they think will be profitable. Profitable activities produce products people want to buy and jobs producing those products.
Do all money-making activities benefit society? That depends on who we ask. In a free country, we try to let decide for themselves.
You don’t like Bezos space launches? So what? Why is it any of your or my business? If you want to save the planet, spend your own money. Don’t steal someone else’s.
My post referenced the idea of a smokescreen and distractions from serious problems, which I then elaborated upon in the comments. You ignored all of that, just as you have ignored what my position *actually* is, yet again.
Where did I say ‘replace billionaires’? If you had read my posts, you would know I have not advocated for that. I made that abundantly clear, yet you have chosen to ignore that, more than once.
You appear to genuinely believe in trick-down economics, even though this has never demonstrably improved any given situation. Tell me Tom, how many people in the USA are living on the bread-line right now, and do you genuinely believe that the existing economic situation is going to improve things for them?
It is apparent that you don’t have solutions to the problems of poverty, hence why you aren’t answering the questions I have thrice put to you. You speak of wastefulness, yet have no problem with it when it suits.
You say I have no solutions. That is not true. My solution is to get rid of your solutions.
Slavery is a welfare system. For thousands of years, we know best elites have told everyone else how they should live, and they did not give them much choice.
You say that is not the system you are trying to implement. You care so much, and the people who disagree are so greedy and evil. Nevertheless, you cannot defend your ideas, and you cannot explain how you would constrain — how a Socialist government could be constrained — from seizing more power. All you can do is condemn your opponents.
You know something? I agree the people you don’t like probably are not so great, but you and the people you support are not any better than they are.
We have Socialists in both our countries. Those Socialists do nothing but use our problems — racism, sexism, pollution, poverty, ignorance and so forth — as an excuse to seize more power. Then, when they make racism, sexism, pollution, poverty, ignorance, and so forth worse — because they engage in fraud, waste, and abuse to reward their cronies — they demand more power to fix the mess they have made worse.
My solution is to deprive the greedy vanguard of the proletariat — the pigs feeding at the public treasury — of the power they have abused.
Government exists to protect us from each other, including foreign threats. We also need government to peacefully resolve our disputes over public utilities. Beyond that it becomes very costly to use government to solve our problems. That is because the more power we give our leaders the harder it becomes for us to control them. Instead, they start controlling us.
Look at all the people you are demonizing. If all those people are greedy and evil, then what makes you think the people you support are better? Once you give the supposedly good people the power they want, how will you keep the greedy and evil people from seizing that power?
You have the evidence in front of you, but you still think government officials will do what you want just because you got the right people elected. How exactly did you decide who to vote for? From news media sources owned by and run by who?
Charity is a private matter. Charity is another word for love, and it is absurd to think that a government bureaucracy will ever love anybody.
Which five countries have the most stable economies, least poverty, and highest all round levels of contentment?
Also, have you considered the Nordic Model?
If you have an answer state it Please keep in mind that you are not the first to mention the Nordic Model. Those countries are not as Socialist as you seem to think.
I know full well they are not socialist in the way you and I would generally/ traditionally understand it.
The term is known as democratic socialism.
I don’t need to outline the thinking behind it, surely?
Are you opposed to this method of government?
And if so, why?
Unlimited government power? Majoritarian tyranny? Why would I oppose that?
Then you obviously don’t understand the Nordic method.
You asked about Democratic Socialism. You are welcome to explain how the Nordic differs from my understanding of Democratic Socialism.
Once the government controls all of a people’s property, that government controls the people. That is the logical consequence of Socialism.
When Socialism is implemented on a small scale — a small community — the results tend to be more humane, but people still don’t like it. On a large scale the results tend to be horrific.
Again, you do not understand the Nordic model.
Perhaps you should research it before you make any more silly, ill- informed comments?
It is a subject you brought up. If you have something to say about it, then stop beating around the bush and say it. I have better things to do than putting words in your mouth. Too icky, and you would likely just use the opportunity to bite.
Ben, I can appreciate you wanting to start a dialogue, but I’ve read the back and forth between you and Tom and frankly don’t feel it’s worth it. I’ve found debating with those who hold cement like narratives on the moral good of government spending/programs and the evilness of capitalism and right wing conservatives (whatever that even means nowadays) is a waste of time I don’t have to spare. Been there, done that many times! I would imagine the same is true for you in return.
Productive dialogue cannot be had if you cannot allow for good intentions behind a man’s idea, no matter how disagreeable it is to you. This article explains more.
Perhaps there is no point in a dialogue. You have your convictions, I have mine, so if that’s all there is to it, so be it. I wish you well.
As I agree with your description of Christians wholeheartedly, I also think on a basic level you’re comparing apples and oranges. If you described those with alternative views as “Secular Liberals”, the comparison would be fairer. IMHO… we must be vigilant to separate “political” inclinations from “religious ones”.
I politically affiliate myself as a Constitutional Conservative and alternately call myself, in addition to that, a Christian. (By being a Constitutional Conservative there’s no denying my belief in God because our inalienable rights are clearly described in the Constitution as coming from God. That Constitutional declaration also does not exclude any people who believe in God but who are not Christian OR even those who haven’t decided.)
I know some Christian Liberals and Secular Conservatives, so the melding of religious beliefs and political ones are IMHO not absolute (Yes, some even seem hypocritical.) If we wish to save our country, we must include everyone who loves it and holds the Constitution as the “law of the land” no matter their religious practices or reasons. ❤ [Seems to me, that approach I've described, is the most Christian one too.]
Well said . (Real) Christians are simply speaking a different language than the rest of the world, including liberal Democrats. Our worldview is totally different. It may seem like we both want the same thing, happiness, but ultimately we do not. Because our joy is not based on temporary conditions in this world like justice or prosperity. Those conditions come and go. Our hope is found in Jesus .