godless liberals

ah, yes, it's going to be one of those posts again.

so, i think zk and i will readily admit that we are godless liberals. yeah, zk is especially worked up now abt prof thio (i know this is super late. but this is triggered by something else. it's due to the the article i sent him about some pastor from US comparing McCain to Jesus.) ah well, i am a lot less worked up than he is, partly because i skipped most of what (very distasteful and demeaning) things she said. surprisingly for a professed liberal, i have no real reverence for science and scientific facts, so i am not too bothered by her distortions. i tend to think that things can be construed as subjective fact, oxymoronic as that might sound.

but anyway, godless liberals. yes i was thinking how worrying it is that private morality is increasingly becoming public morality, and how morality is increasingly taking a religious undertone. it's the classic worry about the state encroaching on the private sphere - so in that respect, poor bill, and in more ways than one. but i digress. i do think that on issues on private morality the state should not interfere, but that's not understanding the whole issue. the whole point is that the distinction between private and public is eroding, because what one can tolerate the other cannot. issues like abortion we always cite in political theory tutes as issues in which there are fundamentally different views on life that simply cannot be reconciled. a state that has provisions for abortion seems, to critics, to simply be anathema, and vice versa. even if the state has no provisions, so it's neither legal nor illegal, some hardliners (on both sides) will want action to be taken. liberal neutrality is just a smokescreen - the real support is for the status quo.

i don't really think this is a fair assessment of the liberal position though. now, i won't go so far to say that liberalism is the only value, or that it is the value (i am a lot more egalitarian than i am liberal) but i do think that if you agree that there is intrinsic value in the ability to frame, design and carry out one's conception of the good life, and if it important for yourself, then it is inherently inconsistent not to extend the same respect to others. which is why i found thio li ann's position so intriguing. as an academic she publishes papers on human rights and all that, so how is it that some people are less than others? how is that consistent?

while we are at that topic, is it possible for there to be a thoroughgoing god-fearing/god-loving liberal? i think it's logically possible, but then i suspect i might be open to the accusation that i don't understand what religion really means.

actually i am thinking about my own views on things now. i wonder if they are consistent at all. i think after exams, i will have a good think. need to reconcile pornography with feminism (if possible), egalitarianism and liberalism, and of course, at the end of it, with the fine city i live in.