People's World: Series- '100 Years of The Communist Party USA'

Source:CPUSA- Communist Party of America.

"The world is on the verge of a new era. Europe is in revolt. The masses of Asia are stirring uneasily. Capitalism is in collapse. The workers of the world are seeing a new life and securing new courage. Out of the night of war is coming a new day… The class war rages fiercely in all nations. Everywhere the workers are in a desperate struggle against their capitalist masters. The call to action has come. The workers must answer the call!” — Manifesto of the Communist Party of America, 1919"

Source:People's World

"Despite the challenges of working for socialism, peace and social justice in the world's leading imperialist power, the Communist Party USA has played a dynamic role  for 100 years in the growth and struggles of our country's labor movement."

Source: Marxist Classes.

I sort of got into this last year on this blog about what exactly is communism as a political philosophy and what does it mean to be a Communist. And one of the biggest reactions and answers to that were that Communists are essentially Anarchists who believe in a stateless society: which anyone who is familiar with communism and how its portrayed at least ( if not accurately ) sounds like the opposite of what communism is supposed to be and what it means to be a Communists.

When people think of big, centralized government and that individualism and materialism two things that Americans tend to love, that those things are somehow dangerous, ( at least according to Communists and Socialists ) they think of Communists and Socialists as people who believe in that. And that you need a central government big enough with the resources to guarantee that everyone is taken care of and that people don't have the freedom to make big mistakes with their lives.

When you hear Communists talk today whether they're in America or outside of this country, they tend to talk about and push the same things as let's say the Democratic Socialists of America.

Whether you're talking about a big, centralized welfare state, or that individual wealth is somehow selfish and unfair and you need big, centralize government welfare state to sort of equalize things ( to use a soccer term ) and make sure there's enough resources for people who aren't wealthy. Rarely if ever today ( anywhere outside of North Korea, at least ) do you hear Socialists talking about the need of nationalizing this industry or that one. Except as it relates to private sector services that tend to be covered by a welfare state: like health care, health insurance, pension, education, etc. But not food, restaurants, technology, even airlines, etc.

If Communists actually do believed in a stateless society, ( which I gotta admit is a struggle to try to believe ) then how are they different from Anarchists? If Communists, essentially believe in the same things as Democratic Socialists of America and let's say U.K. Labour Leader Jermey Corbyn, how are they different from Democratic Socialists?

If Communists, are just what they believe they are and are people who believe that individual freedom both personal and economic are bad things and there shouldn't be any right to privacy at least, because there's no such thing as private or privacy in a true Communist State ( like North Korea ) and what you need instead if a big central government there with the resources to make sure that everyone is taken care of in society and that individualism is not even wanted, let alone needed because the Communist State is always there to tell people what to do and what to think, ( like in North Korea ) then its easy to see why they you would need to socialist factions: a Communist-Authoritarian faction and a Democratic Socialist faction.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Thinking Atheist: Andrew Torrez: 'Donald Trump, The Courts & The Evangelical Right'

Source:The Thinking Atheist: Andrew Torrez: on The Thinking Atheist

"Andrew Torrez is an attorney and co-host of the Opening Arguments podcast. In this short profile, Andrew talks Trump, the law, impeachment(?), and the Supreme Court."

Source:The Thinking Atheist

Source:United Church of God- "Ten Commandments List: Where in the Bible does it talk about the Ten ..."

I guess that I have a different take from Andrew Torrez on this, even though I agree with most of what he's saying here. My point here is about Donald Trump and what's called the Christian-Right and when we talk about these two movements ( which is exactly what they are ) we need to be careful when doing this and not put every Christian-Conservative in the same camp or say that everyone on the Christian-Right is a Christian-Conservative. And instead separate the people who truly are Christian-Fundamentalists and live by those values and if anything think Donald Trump and a lot of what he stands for in many ways is anti-Christian and an insult to Christianity, separate those people from the Christian-Nationalists and the hyper-partisan people on the Christian-Right in America.

I think it's also dangerous to try to get into someone's mind and try to label say this is exactly what they think and believe in. We shouldn't do that when it comes to politics or religion, but what we can do is go by people's actions and talk about how they act and their politics and believes based on what they say and what they do. And then see if their actions match up with what they claim to believe in. So I'm not going to try to argue that Donald Trump is not a Christian. He might truly believe he is ( even if his personal lifestyle and character makes it clear that he isn't ) but what I am going to do is make the case that Trump doesn't act like a Christian and a lot of what he believes in and how he presents himself, his lack of morality and character is very anti-Christian and I'm going to use The Ten Commandments and his personal behavior as my reference for that.

Let's start with the third commandment thou shalt not take God's name in vain: do you know of another President or American politician at any level that swears more in public more than Donald Trump? Within his first days as President he gives a speech at a church in Washington and of course he was joking here, but he was talking about Senate Chaplin and he said that he knows he can't appoint the Chaplin for life and then he says: "the hell with it, I'm appointing the Chaplin for life." And it got a big laugh, but the President of the United States literally not just swearing in public, but doing it at a church. And I realize the hell with anything is very mild when it comes to swearing in America today, but we're talking about a President who can't even keep his dirty mouth shut at a church.

How about though shalt not speak ill of the dead: I realize this might not be an official member of The Ten Commandments, but what's Christian and moral about speaking ill of people who can't defend themself and in Senator John McCain's case who was a POW and war hero in Vietnam, because he wouldn't rat on his fellow Naval officers: where'e the morality and Christianity about speaking ill of man like Senator John McCain who is dead?

Though shalt not commit adultery: Donald Trump, has been married three times and is a three-time adulterer. His personal life is exactly that and I'm not ready to says he's a bad man because he's a three-time adulterer, ( God knows there's so much more and better evidence to lay out that he's bad man without his adultery ) but it's not just that he's a serial adulterer, but take up to the points where he's cheating on his wife while she's carrying his third son with two porn actresses. And then pays off both women so his family never knows about that and it doesn't hurt him during the 2016 presidential election.

Here's a good one: though shalt not bear false witness: again, do you know of an American politician at nay level that lies more than Donald Trump? I wrote a piece a few weeks ago talking about liars and bullshitters ( and no, I'm not Christian myself ) and differentiating between the two: Donald Trump, qualifies both as a liar and a bullshitter. Which is a remarkable accomplishment in itself and its not that he just lies or lies so much is really bad by itself, because you're talking about a President where maybe 3-5 Americans simply don't believe the man every time he speaks. Whoever said that credibility and character is everything, knows what they're talking about.

But it's not just the lying and bullshit that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth or that he's President when he does that. The real problem here is that he simply doesn't give a damn ( to put it mildly ) and doesn't seem to care if others knows when he's lying and bullshitting and does it anyway. And that he's so bad as a liar that a 10 year old kid could think to themself and say: "wait, that's not true and does he even believe what he's saying here." I mean the man even lies about his own height: his official New York drivers license has him at 6'2 while he tells everyone else that he's 6'3 and everyone already knows that he's a big tall man and yet he has to give himself and extra inch. He even lies about his own father and ancestry saying that his father Fred Trump was from Germany, when the fact was his father was born in America to German-American parents who were from Germany.

Why the so-called Christian-Right thinks it's Christian to loyally back a man who isn't even aware of The Ten Commandments, let alone follows them or believes in them you'll have to bring that up with them if you want to know the answer to that. And while you're at it you might want to ask them if it is worth sacrificing their own character, morality, and credibility to get fewer abortions performed in America. But again its important not to put every member of the Christian-Right in the same box and instead separate the political partisans from the true Christians who actually live up to the values that they say they believe in.  

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Wiley Studios: 'Wisdom of Vince Lombardi- Famous Quotes'

Source:Wiley Studios- Vince Lombardi's commonsense

"Vince Lombardi quotes and sayings.

Vince Lombardi, at the age of 45, when most pro football luminaries have made their mark and passed from the scene of a young man's game, was embarking on the dual adventure of being head coach and general manager of the Green Bay Packers.

His previous NFL experience consisted of five years as an assistant coach with the New York Giants. Amazingly, Vince basked in the limelight for only one decade. Cancer struck him down just as he seemingly was about to create a "second miracle," the rejuvenation of the Washington Redskins. In remarkably few years, Lombardi became the symbol of excellence for an entire sport. Vince Lombardi quotes and speeches are considered the holy grail of motivation and life purpose.

Vincent Thomas "Vince" Lombardi (June 11, 1913 – September 3, 1970) was an American football player, coach, and executive in the National Football League (NFL). He is best known as the head coach of the Green Bay Packers during the 1960s, where he led the team to three straight and five total NFL Championships in seven years, in addition to winning the first two Super Bowls following the 1966 and 1967 NFL seasons. The NFL's Super Bowl trophy is named in his honor. He was enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1971, the year after his death. Lombardi, while considered by many to be the greatest coach in football history, is more significantly recognized as one of the greatest coaches and leaders in the history of any sport.

Lombardi began his coaching career as an assistant and later as a head coach at St. Cecilia High School in Englewood, New Jersey. He was an assistant coach at Fordham, at the United States Military Academy, and with the New York Giants before becoming a head coach for the Green Bay Packers from 1959 to 1967 and the Washington Redskins in 1969. He never had a losing season as a head coach in the NFL, compiling a regular season winning percentage of 72.8% (96–34–6), and 90% (9–1) in the postseason for an overall record of 105 wins, 35 losses, and 6 ties in the NFL.

Here are some of his famous and not so famous quotes and wisdom."

Source:AZ Quotes- "What you got to have is faith and discipline when you're not a winner. Vince Lombardi · Inspirational ..."

Source:Wiley Studios
When I think of Vince Lombardi and his quotes, I think of a couple of things: commonsense where a lot of what he says really is just basic commonsense, but he believed in what he said and acted on it. The reasons why I believe commonsense is called commonsense because you don't have to be a genius to understand it or to come up with it, but you have to believe in it and the use it.

And the reasons  why commonsense is repeated over and over, because we have so many people who don't believe in it, or don't actually understand it. It's seemed as old school and just doesn't fit in today's American culture, because it comes off a corny. There's no Hollywood pop culture flare to it and doesn't sound like something that today's so-called celebrities wouldn't believe in and certainly wouldn't quote themselves, because it sounds so corny and common.

And once something is put down as corny or old school in today's culture, its forgotten and pushed aside with people believing that it can't be true, because that's what people back in the day believed and that's how they talked and doesn't represent the modern culture.

The other thing that I think of when I think of Vince Lombardi is not really a thing, but a real man and human being in Richard Nixon: whatever you think of Richard Nixon and I have my own mixed feelings about him myself a lot of his own quotes and advice that he gave people in his speeches sound like things that Vince Lombardi could've written himself and as if Coach Lombardi was President Nixon's speechwriter or something. Not accusing Richard Nixon of plagiarizing, but he an Vince Lombardi did have similar speaking voices.

The whole Lombardi quote about its not a question of whether someone gets knocked down in life, but the question is whether you get back up or not: that sounds a lot like President Nixon's deepest valley quote when on the day he left the presidency in 1974: "that you'll never know what its like to be on the highest mountain, until you're in the deepest valley." That to reach the top, you have to pay the price for it even if that means getting knocked down in life.

The difference between Vince Lombardi and Dick Nixon when it came to commonsense is that Lombardi lived it and believed it. Nixon, learned the hard way to the point that it cost him his presidency about why you shouldn't be petty and hate others and how those flaws destroyed his presidency.

I'm going to give you my favorite quotes from Vince Lombardi and tell you what I thunk of them and you can do the same as well.

"Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all time thing."

What I take for that is that you can't take winning for granted and then expect to be successful. That just doesn't go for football, but in life in general. Once you become complacent and overconfident is when you're at you most vulnerable, because that's when you slack off. But the better you prepare, the better you execute, and the harder and better you work, the better you'll do not just in football, but in life in general.

"Its not whether you get knocked down, it's whether you get back up."

I could go back to Richard Nixon's deepest valley quote on that: since all of us are human, none of us are perfect and because of that we all make mistakes, or just get beat by better opponents and have to deal with the consequences of those losses. Or lose people in our lives that are very close to us, or just get screwed over by people who want things for themselves and don't care if they have to hurt people in order to accomplish those goals. The question is do we learn from our mistakes and losses and use them to make us better people and not repeat those mistakes again and not lose the same way again. Or do we stay down and claim that life is unfair.

"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection, we can achieve excellence."

This quote right here sounds more like Bill Walsh or Mike Holmgren ( two other NFL Hall of Fame head coaches ) than Richard Nixon: what Holmgren said about this, is that we should always strive for perfection knowing from the outset that we'll never accomplish that: which sort of sounds like a fools errand like a cat trying to catch his tail, or a man jumping from a bridge thinking he can fly by just flapping his arms. But what Coach Holmgren meant by that is what I believe Coach Lombardi meant by that as well: that we strive for perfection to make ourselves as good as we possibly can be. That you try to win every single football game that you play, not because you're going after a perfect season, ( necessarily ) but to win as many games as possible and to be as good as you can be. Which again is another good Lombardi life lesson as well.

In some ways I believe that Vince Lombardi could never be successful in the modern NFL, because the modern NFL is now more of an entertainment business than anything else and perhaps more like a Hollywood studio than major pro sports league, with a of players seeing themselves more as entertainers than pro athletes who more worried about their so-called brands and how they play in American culture in general and even view the NFL as one of their side business that they use to gain fame and use that to get other business opportunities for themselves. But then I look at Bill Belichick or even Bill Cowher from just 10-15 years ago and think maybe a Lombardi could succeed today, because those great coaches believe in the same things and get their players to believe in them as well. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

David Hoffman: 'The 60s Hurt America- Says This Brilliant Conservative'

Source:David Hoffman- Unknown man, but looks like Robert Kuttner from The American Prospect: who would never be confused with any actual Conservative.

"This is another clip from interviews that I conducted for my PBS television series, Making Sense Of The Sixties. It was recorded in 1989. The speaker was a professor and writer."

Source:David Hoffman

I think we need to careful about throwing out political labels when we get into the discussions in these debates and perhaps first figure out what we're talking about here and then see if the label conservative or liberal fits here. Instead of labeling everyone on the Right as a Conservative. And everyone on the Left as a Liberal.

Because as the guy in the video said: "liberal today, doesn't mean what it use to mean and even what it meant in the 1960s." And the same thing with conservative, as the guy said: "a Conservative use to be about protecting the free market and being a cold warrior against communism." And I would add to that not someone who believes that everyone should be the same and live the same lifestyle and even use big government to force a certain way of life onto everyone. That America is a republic and free society, not some theocracy or monarchy where everyone is supposed to be the same.

As far as the 1960s: like every day decade the 60s had its ups and downs. What I liked about it was the individualism and America finally saying goodbye to Ozzie and Harriet and Beaver Cleaver's 1950s America ( thanks to the Baby Boom Generation ) and Americans were finally free to be Americans. Whether you're on the Far-Right or Far-Left in America, or somewhere in between just about every American wants the freedom to be themselves and to make their own decisions in life. Instead of Big Government or some national cultural authority telling us what it means to be a real American and Patriot and what it means to be moral. That instead our morality should be judged by how we treat each other. Not about how we live our own personal lives and personal decisions that we make.

Being an American to me as a Liberal, is about being an individual and respecting not just my own freedom, but the freedom of every other American just as long as we're not hurting innocent people. Instead of judging people's morality and patriotism based on how often they go to church. Or whether they had sex before they got married. Did they live with their partner before they got married and did they even have kids before they got married. Do they gamble, drink alcohol, smoke, that sort of thing. And instead we should judge people's morality and patriotism by how we treat each other. Not just the people we say we like and love, but how we treat people in general and we do respect their rights and freedom as mush as our own, or not.

And for me at least the positive aspect of the 1960s along with the civil rights movement, women's rights, and gay rights the new individualism that came about for all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or religion was what was great about that decade. Along with music and movies that came out during that decade. What wasn't good about that decade and the negative aspects of the 1960s was all the violence including the War in Vietnam, but all the violence and what at times at least looked like anarchy in this country with big, great cities like Detroit, Chicago, Washington, Los Angeles all blowing up because of rioting.

Some have argued that there were justifiable reasons for all the violence in that decade because of high poverty, crime, and racism: but people who argue that should understand that all of that anarchy from that decade is how Richard Nixon becomes President in 1969 and how we get Watergate just a few years after that. And my question for them would be was all the violence from the 60s worth having President Richard Nixon, and escalation of the Vietnam War, and Watergate?

So what was great about the 60s was all the freedom and individualism of that decade where social movements that looked radical just 5-10 years earlier and even Un-American with people on the right-wing believing that these movements were started by Communists and other radicals, now becoming mainstream in America just 5-10 years later: the civil rights movement, antiwar movement, the music and movies, the hippie movement from that decade. With all the violence from that decade being the broccoli for dessert and giving the country a real sour taste in their mouths.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Arthur Brooks: 'Love Your Enemies: Be An Authoritative Leader'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Arthur Brooks: the idealist hippie?

"If you’ve turned on the TV or scrolled through social media lately, you know that being nice isn’t in fashion. But is it also a losing strategy? In the last of three video lessons on how to subvert the culture of contempt, Arthur Brooks reveals the surprising effect of kindness on leadership and job performance and shares how we can elevate better leaders in our society."

Source:American Enterprise Institute

At risk of sounding insulting here and I respect and even like what Arthur Brooks trying to accomplish here and the message: but we wouldn't have nasty, partisan, hate TV on cable or on social media if it didn't sell. It's the hold Henry McCarthy quote ( also known as Billy The Kid ) when he was asked why he robs banks and he answered because that is where the money is: why do people go to the kitchen or restaurants when they're hungry: because that's where the food is. Why do we have nasty, partisan, hate TV and hate on social media and not hate necessarily in the sense in a bigoted or racist sense, but hate in the sense where you have two competing ideological factions who literally hate each other simply because they disagree with each other and look at the country differently, because it sells!

You can talk about the need for less partisanship in Congress and in government generally, or on TV and that cable news shouldn't have a panel of so-called experts there who are simply there to talk about why the other side sucks so much and instead have bipartisan panels of experts who are there to  present different viewpoints who disagree with each other, but aren't there to destroy the other side and even listen to what the other side says and the intelligently responds to their points.

But at the end of the day FNC and MSNBC, and to a certain extent CNN which is less partisan than the other two, but they have their own share of partisan panels and shows of people who represent one side of the isle and aren't bipartisan, but in the end these cable networks are all for-profit companies that have to make profits in order to stay in business.

And as long as partisan news is profitable and straight, hard news isn't where the so-called experts there aren't partisans, but are simply there to give intelligent analysis about what they know, as long as straight up hard news isn't profitable, cable news will just get more partisan. And as a result we'll have a less informed public, because we'll still have this large population in the country that are getting news based on their partisan viewpoints and not where's the best sources of news and information.

Cable news and news in general is never any better than the people that consumes its information. We have a partisan news age now simply because we have a very partisan population. And again all of these news outlets have to make money to stay in business and have present the news in the most profitable way possible even if that means being less truthful and even honest than they have in the past. Which is bad for their industry and bad for the people they represent, because it leaves their viewers less informed.

But if there is any bright side here and I'm coming from the viewpoint as someone who just wants actual news and intelligent, nonpartisan commentary: there will always be a market for people who simply want straight, hard news and could care less about what the partisans think of the actual real news. Which is why I believe network news, big city and big market newspapers, and big national newspapers will always be in business, because there will always be that group of Americans who are simply interested in what the hell is going on in the country and world, regardless of which party it may hurt or help. Even if the market for partisan news is always greater.

The Federalist Coalition: Justin Stapley-‘The Cultural War and Federalism’

Source:Medium- "“Why America should return to federalism”

Source:The New Democrat

“Federalism is one of the few political mechanisms that benefits everyone. All sides of the political divide should be wary of allowing it to become a casualty in the ever-escalating culture war.

The system of federalism created by the Constitution of the United States formed a union of sovereign states. While modern Americans do not generally think of themselves in terms of state identity and citizenship as much as their ancestors did, our laws still maintain a Republic of individual states. Because of this, each state has been allowed to craft much of their own laws, establish and maintain their own customs, and enrich and grow their own unique cultures. There is likely nowhere else in the world where such different political realities and cultural norms could be experienced while remaining within the same country.

Contrary to what many of the more abrasive elements of the left and right might declare, the almost radically different state-to-state realities is a good thing. Political, cultural, and religious pluralism is what creates the free market of ideas. We are fortunate to live under a government system that not only encourages as much local autonomy and freedom as possible but stubbornly protects it. Despite these apparent strengths of diversity under a federalist system, fewer and fewer American citizens seem to see things this way.”

Read the rest at:The Federalist Coalition: Justin Stapley- 'Culture War and Federalism'

From Wikipedia

“Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or ‘federal’ government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism by the United States under the Constitution of 1787, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established.[1] It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.”

As a Liberal and as a pragmatist, I’m going to give you both my argument for federalism and why I’m a Federalist and my philosophical view of why I believe in federalism as opposed to some type of Unitarian state where governmental power is centralized with the national government. And then let you weigh in on what you think of both of my perspectives here.

In a time where you have a country that’s so divided not just politically, ideologically, culturally, and now unfortunately as if those factors aren’t bad enough we now have a country that is divided religiously, ethnically, and even racially now is the best time to be a Federalist and support the Federal Republic in America, if for no other reason you don’t want the country to ever officially divide up again and fight another civil war between Confederates and Unionists. So that’s the first part of my practical argument for being a Federalist.

The second part of my practical argument for being a Federalist and for federalism goes back to my first part: since we’re so divided as a country for all the reasons that I just explained and can’t even agree anymore on what’s new and what’s opinion, since we all get our news and commentary from different media sources depending on what political faction we’re part of, we don’t whether we’re on the Right, Left, or somewhere in between want a national, centralized government telling us how we should live and govern ourselves. How we should protect our streets, educated our kids, mange our welfare systems, decide for us what personal activities should be illegal or legal, etc. And instead let the states make the decisions for themselves based on their own cultural and political values, as well as the U.S. Constitution.

The first part of my philosophical argument for being a Federalist, goes to me being a Liberal and believing in liberal democracy: as a Liberal you’re supposed to not be against power and always oppose it, but you always question it and always hold it accountable. The old cliche power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely: and the more you centralize especially governmental power and the people who control our law enforcement, military, and corrections system, the harder it is to hold that power accountable and to question it.

The second part of my philosophical argument of why I’m a Federalist, is also somewhat practical, because in a gigantic country like America that’s located in between two of the largest oceans in the world and goes three-thousand miles long and roughly two-thousand miles wide, ( and that’s just the Continental United States ) that also has 320 million people in it, you don’t want a central governmental authority in Washington or anywhere else in the country telling Milwaukee, Dallas, Seattle, or Los Angeles, or any other city far and way from Washington telling them how they should protect their streets, educate their kids, manage their welfare systems, etc, since the national government could never know the conditions on the ground as well as the people in those communities themselves. Since the people on the ground know their own communities the best.

Not saying that I don’t believe in having a national government: a big part of the Federal Republic is a Federal Government, but it should be limited to doing only the things that you need a Federal Government for: like national defense, interstate law enforcement, regulation of interstate commerce, enforcing the constitutional rights for all Americans equally, financial assistance for low-income communities. And leave the state issues to the states, just as long as what they’re doing is within the U.S. Constitution and no one’s constitutional rights are being violated.

“A political primer that was originally created 10 years ago and put away because it seemed the Red State – Blue State divide might be a fading cliche. But here we are….”

Source:Don Wells: 'Red State Culture War Primer'- Red vs blue?

CATO Institute: Doug Bandow: 'Is Liberalism Good For Religions?'

Source:CATO Institute- In its classical and real sense, liberalism is great for religions

"Featuring Joseph Loconte, Associate Professor of History, The King’s College; Daniel Philpott, Professor of Religion and Global Politics, University of Notre Dame; Mustafa Akyol, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute; moderated by Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute.

Liberalism, a political philosophy that grew out of the Enlightenment and champions reason, freedom, and equality, has lately been criticized by some religious thinkers in the West. Liberalism, in their view, only “atomizes” individuals, weakens society, and ultimately corrodes all faiths.

Yet other religious intellectuals think that there are many reasons to appreciate liberalism, including the very freedom that the believers have found in liberal societies to practice and manifest their faith and to be free from the persecutions that have defined much of human history. Moreover, they think that under liberalism, religions flourish in healthier ways — through persuasion rather than coercion, and through civil society rather than state power.

This discussion is particularly relevant for Islam, since Muslim opinion leaders are often ambivalent, at best, on whether they should accept liberal standards of human rights or rather reject them as alien and detrimental. If liberalism is rejected even by Western Christians, whose religious traditions have been much more at peace with liberalism, Eastern Muslims will not even consider it."

Source:CATO Institute

From Wikipedia

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion."

This is another post from this blog about what liberalism actually is and what it isn't and religion, individual choice, and free speech are great topics to look at when you're talking about liberalism, because they all get to free choice and thought, which is what liberalism and liberal democracy is all about.

If you look at liberalism from a stereotypical big government and even communist sense that liberalism is essentially based on big government and the test being that the more liberal someone is, the more government they believe in and the less individual choice that you believe in, under this test liberalism would be horrible for religions and believers, because Communists would be the most liberal people around.

And under this bogus test ( let's call it ) progressivism and Progressives would be horrible for religions and believers, because under this test Communists would be the most liberal and progressive people around. Even though communism, is the most illiberal and regressive political ideology anywhere in the world. ( At least on the left ) But that's not the actual test about what it means to be a Liberal and whether someone believes in liberalism or not.

The test for what it means to be a Liberal ( meaning someone who believes in and practices the philosophy of liberalism ) is whether someone believes in liberty and equal rights. ( As the Wikipedia link says ) People who believe in limited government, individual rights, including civil rights and human rights.

Those include things like property rights, the right to privacy which includes freedom of choice, like whether someone should be able to or not practice any religion of their choice, or no religion at all, or in my case I'm Agnostic. That Liberals believe in not only freedom of or from any religion and they also believe in Separation of Church and State. That religion should not be illegal in a free society, but that there shouldn't be any official religion and any state sponsor of religion in a free society.

And under this test the liberal test or the Wikipedia test, ( if you prefer ) liberalism is great for all religions and even Agnostics and Atheists, Communists even and people who believe that liberalism should actually be outlawed in society, because individuals have a constitutional right of whether or not to practice any religion at all or no religion at all, because they have that constitutional right in a liberal democratic free society.

Again, if you look at liberalism is actually about and that being based off of liberal democracy and not some stereotypical, big government sense where Liberals are supposed to essentially be Socialists and even Communists who view individual choice and freedom in general as dangerous and bad for society. And you need a government big enough to make sure that individual choice is limited as mush as possible.