The Raconteur Bible

This is where we get serious.

Take a moment to try and read up on the various schools of thought out there on what really is 'Liberalism', and you'll end up with more information than you could ingest in ten weekends and a lifetime supply of doritos.

One could pour out the water tank and write an epic post about what everyone that came before wrote and thought about Liberalism. One could cross reference and make sure one's own perceptions fit into the prescription.

I'm not going to do that.


I'm going to cut out the history lesson and dive straight into my conclusions, which are as simple as it gets. Even George Bush might 'get' it on a first read.

First off, unlike many others, my primary concern lies in social issues, and I'll leave others to debate out whether big government or small government holds the greater merit (for now, anyway).

Within that context of social issues, then, here we go.

The founding principle of my ideology, in typically paradoxical fashion, is a vocal rant on beliefs. Simply stated:

Belief, faith, and tradition must not be allowed to become the basis for discrimination against groups (minority or majority).

In our very confused and self aggrandized modern world, the principles of freedom and liberty have been brutally mauled, some might even go so far as to say they have been damaged beyond repair.

We have come to accept, as a generality, the idea that freedom implies that the world should be as we would like to see it. It is a closed world view, it is an exclusive one, and it is detrimental to those over which we have no right, but may have authority, or power.

Beliefs on ethics, morality, and what is right, or wrong, have served an essential purpose in the development of human society. I would not be writing this today if our forefathers had not derived (divinely or otherwise, whatever you happen to believe) systems of ethics and beliefs.

This very post is in itself a system of ethics and beliefs. So why am I railing against myself? A paradox, as I said at the outset? No.

The defining point is that our differences, that our values and beliefs, often conflicting more than they coincide, should not be imposed in any way or form on peoples that do not share in those beliefs, as far as is possible while still maintaining a society that regulates itself under the rule of rational law.

Consider, for a moment, that people like Osama bin Laden, people like Adolph Hitler and all the grand villains from the rogues gallery of humanity's past and present, were all acting upon their beliefs, were (and in the case of the present villains, are) acting with the sincere conviction that what they do is right.

Oh, but we do nothing, we do not act, one might protest.

But you do. Actions are not limited to despots, rebels, and terrorists. All societies act, even democratic ones. Every single time you vote to put people in office, every time you use that political voice, that power, to support one view or the other, you act.

Action is unavoidable. Action is necessary.

The point being argued here is that all action must have a rational basis, that all actions must be justified by rationality above and beyond the unassailable fortress of faith and the impregnable bastion that is belief.

All beliefs, all ideologies, without some rationalization, are inherently equal. The belief of Gandhi, without the buttresses of reason, is as valid as the belief of the South African administration responsible for Apartheid and it's legacy.

Beliefs, specifically religious beliefs, are born equal, are ideas that cannot be proven externally, without relying on some element of belief itself, and are thus all equally valid. All of us are entitled to our beliefs, and I challenge any man of cloth to prove his faith to be more 'true' than that of the opposing camp.

And therefore, no belief should be used as the basis of law, in a society, in a world, where such a belief may not be shared by all.

You may believe that Whites/Men/Straights are religiously or morally more valid in their nature than Blacks/Women/Gays. You have that right. You are entitled.

But do you, I ask, have the right to impose your beliefs on those others, by instituting laws and policies that are inequitable?

Faith is a shield, someone once said to me, with the grandest of intentions. Much alas... it is also a weapon, one that has been and continues to be used.

If justice and equity are to be served, then we must, if we are to be fair, put aside our differences. We must be able to say, Yes, the Catholic has a right to his beliefs. Yes, the Muslim has a right to his beliefs. Yes, the Atheist has a right to his beliefs. Yes.

It is the acceptance and regard that we have for our differences that builds our strength as a community. It is the dogma and disregard that splinters it.

So we must, as a society, and as a world, while basking in our respective faiths, leave behind our beliefs, when it comes to the voting booth, or the policy room, or the Senate floor.

That is the essence of the Raconteur Bible, which, returning to a word much used in this essay, is the core of my beliefs. Full Post.