  Somewhere along the line liberal has become a four-letter word. I believe it started with Rush, but the real blame lies with liberals themselves. When political hacks such as Rush or O’Reilly point the finger and apply the liberal tag, liberals do their best to cloak themselves in a moderate, if not conservative robe. It’s almost comical to watch our politicians distancing themselves from the left while providing justification after justification for any vote they made which might be interpreted as liberal. Why is that exactly? Liberal.
Last time I checked, a liberal politician is one who is progressive, open-minded, willing to change. It is also associated with politicians who place more importance on social programs than on the military. Taking this even further, it’s been a label put upon those who are willing to negotiate with adversaries and try peaceful means to solve problems instead of relying on force. So, to Rush, O’Reilly, and others of their ilk, I ask “what’s your point?” Since when have these characteristics become bad? On the contrary, these are characteristics of which one should be proud. They are traits attributed to those who have learned from the past and realized violence is used only as a last and extreme resort.
They are traits shared by those who place more value on humanity and peace than they do on monetary wealth and power. They are traits of people who understand that we are not blessed with an even playing field and that many people can use a leg up. And they are traits of people who have learned from life that compassion is more important than preservation of capital. So instead of running from this label I say to everyone else, you’re damn right I’m a liberal, and why the hell aren’t you? Boileryard and I go back a few years and he has had the unfortunate experience of hearing this rant of mine before. Even though I personally am not a Christian, this nation prides itself on being founded on Christian principles.
Many make the argument that this nation is in fact a Christian nation and that’s what our founding fathers intended. Regardless of my own personal religious affiliation (Buddhism) I throw my hat in with Christians in stating that the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5 through 7) is probably one of the finest pieces of pure theological teachings we have today. Here are some of the finer points. Blessed are the meek. Blessed are the peacemakers. Agree with your adversary quickly.
Turn the other cheek. Give to him who asks you and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. Love your enemies. Judge not. Now call me crazy, but those sound like liberal teachings to me. Am I bringing religion into politics and breaking down the imaginary wall of separation?
Perhaps. But I’m trying to do the opposite of what I see being done in this country today. I’m basing my political beliefs on what I’ve learned to be morally correct principles instead of re-defining my religious beliefs to fit into my political box. So that said, at long last here comes my point. When you read this do you find yourself thinking that this sounds great but that these teachings are not very realistic in today’s political climate? Do you believe that these teachings only work if everyone participates?
If so, you are not alone. I’m suspicious myself. So here are my questions: if being a liberal and following the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha are not doable and practical today, then why keep up the premise of being a Christian nation? Are we not guilty of the same behavior of those who have hijacked the Muslim religion? Why go to the bother of changing our religious teachings to fit our political beliefs when they so obviously contradict each other? I know I run the risk of offending many, but after reading the teachings of the Buddha and reading the Sermon on the Mount, the only way I can justify supporting the Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian parties would be to judge these teachings as either impractical or secondary, and choose to follow political dogma instead.
urlLink MORE… 
