Over the last few decades, for example, political scientists, sociologists, and scholars of the American Founding have all pointed out that a smidgen of religious belief seems necessary to prevent
modern liberalism from devouring its own political and economic gains.
Not exact matches
What defines this line is the way in which all positions on it,
from one end to the other, are committed to a form of
modern liberalism which, as we noted above, prioritizes the individual and the present.
Precisely because the inspirations of
modern religious
liberalism now come
from all quarters, the person in the pulpit is as likely to quote Erich Fromm as Theodore Parker, and more likely to quote either than Augustine or Aquinas.
Still, such theorists also continue, as did Kant himself, the
modern natural law tradition, at least in the following way: The duties prescribed by nonteleological
liberalism are defined in terms of rights that are prior to any inclusive good; that is, these rights are separated
from, and respect for them overrides, any inclusive telos humans might pursue.
Earlier
liberalism saw in the proclamation of the Kerygma itself a stumbling block to
modern man, and thus sidled away
from its eschatological message, preferring to center upon the ethical dimension of Christian faith as this was expressed in the life and teaching of Jesus.
Reform and reappropriation are always on the agenda, but to believe that there is some neutral ground
from which we can rearrange the defining symbols and commitments of a living community is simply a mistake - a common mistake of
modern liberalism.
Those who write
from a Christian perspective while respecting the good things about
modern liberalism must be careful to avoid various pitfalls along the way.
Among them were pantheism and the positions that human reason is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood and good and evil; that Christian faith contradicts reason; that Christ is a myth; that philosophy must be treated without reference to supernatural revelation; that every man is free to embrace the religion which, guided by the light of reason, he believes to be true; that Protestantism is another form of the Christian religion in which it is possible to be as pleasing to God as in the Catholic Church; that the civil power can determine the limits within which the Catholic Church may exercise authority; that Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have erred in defining matters of faith and morals; that the Church does not have direct or indirect temporal power or the right to invoke force; that in a conflict between Church and State the civil law should prevail; that the civil power has the right to appoint and depose bishops; that the entire direction of public schools in which the youth of Christian states are educated must be by the civil power; that the Church should be separated
from the State and the State
from the Church; that moral laws do not need divine sanction; that it is permissible to rebel against legitimate princes; that a civil contract may among Christians constitute true marriage; that the Catholic religion should no longer be the religion of the State to the exclusion of all other forms of worship; and «that the Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile himself to and agree with progress,
liberalism and
modern civilization.»
This era includes everything
from modern liberalism, libertarianism, Marxism, anarchism, environmentalism... et cet.
But once again, it might be argued that this merely attempts to reduce
modern conservatism — encompassing UKIP — to free - market
liberalism, when in fact it can be clearly distinguished
from liberalism in other crucial respects.
For one thing, what we call «libertarianism» in USA today was originally called «classical
liberalism» - and AFAIK is still called that in Europe (don't tell any of the
modern liberals in America who get allergic reaction
from a mention of Mises or Ayn Rand:) If you mean «
modern...
Multiple political and economic forces paved
liberalism's path away
from its mid-century optimism and toward an aristocratic outlook reminiscent of the Tory Radicalism of nineteenth - century Britain; but one of the most powerful was the rise of the
modern environmental movement and its recurrent hysterias.