Facebook has this curious feature where, depending on the privacy settings of complete strangers, you may see things they have shared because a friend liked or commented on them.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this is. Perhaps it is to introduce us to people who know friends of ours, and thus expand our social circles. If that is the case, it's an odd choice, given how cavalierly we often make friends on Facebook with people we met at the pub a week ago, see every Wednesday at the pediatrician's office, or join forces with in Castle Age to best the ur-wight. As with holidays, so it often sees with social media: They bring people together, but what happens next is on us.

Today I saw a post in my Facebook feed with my friend Geoffrey's name attached. Geoff sometimes shares things he finds interesting or thought-provoking as I do. Read it, take what you want from it, and react if you want, but remember: Sharing does not equal endorsement. The post I saw was this:

“[Christians] incite liberal wrath in part because they profane liberal progressive ‘faith,’ a kind of hedonistic pseudo-religion that focuses intensely on sex. The primary sacraments of progressivism are sexual self-expression (especially in non-heterosexual forms) and abortion, both of which represent for progressives the vanquishing of nature in the name of unfettered personal autonomy. Christians keep stubbornly insisting that the body, in its natural form, has moral significance. That’s a deeply offensive message to the devout progressive.” - Rachel Lu, writing in The Federalist

Let me point out two things right away: First, I am a Christian. Second, I am unashamedly a liberal. These two things are not in conflict with one another. My liberalism proceeds from my faith.

Thus, while I know nothing about Rachel Lu and the context from which this pullquote comes, I can say of this quote in isolation: Kids, that this is what we call well-articulated bullshit. It comes of assuming one's initial reaction is correct and then looking for support, rather than actually listening to people whom we disagree with. Not only can I say so, I did; but I promptly deleted it once I realized that my friend Geoff had not shared this, but a friend of his had.

Rachel Lu is wrong. The fundamental sacrament of liberalism is not sexual self-expression and abortion, nor is it placing self-"actualization over nature," whatever that means. Liberalism is about treating other people with dignity and respect. This is a crucial difference. Lu and Geoff's friend probably would have a dozen reasons to disagree with this statement, but that's fine. It's just more well-articulated bullshit. Give me enough of it, and I'll fertilize the Sinai.

Liberalism fundamentally affirms the dignity of human beings, gays, women and conservatives included; and therefore supports their right to self-determination, even in situations where we may object to their decisions or see their decisions as imprudent, unwise or otherwise not what we would do. That's how a liberal can say, "I do not approve of abortion" and yet still support abortion rights. That's how a liberal can not be on board with gender reassignment surgery, and yet still support the people who opt to have it. That's how a liberal can reject the bootstraps and trickle-down mythology of contemporary Republicanism and still have Republican friends who embrace such thinking.

But Lu and my friend's friend are not considering liberalism on its own merits, they are looking at it from a conservative starting point. So of course it seems abhorrent. Essentially they are taking the points "liberals support same-sex marriage" and "liberals support abortion rights" and assuming that these are the basic missions or fundamental positions of liberalism. It reflects an unexamined a priori that liberalism is de facto bad or constitutes rebellion against God.

It's really thick-headed, to be honest. But that's an uphill argument because the people who feel this way regularly are applauded for sloppy and self-affirming thinking, and believe that they are courageously conveying hard truths.

It's nice and easy to think of liberals as monolithic bad guys, but that's not critical thinking. That's just being a dick.

I really don't like the term "racial reconciliation."

Reconciliation implies that there are two sides or more or less equal footing, like if a friend of mine and I got into an argument over something and had to patch things up. That just doesn't apply when it comes to the history of race relations in America, I draw a complete blank at anything African Americans have done, tolerated or turned a blind eye toward that comes anywhere close to a fraction of what they have endured from white society, starting in 1619 in the Jamestown colony.

Why don't we call for "racial justice" instead?

Copyright © 2016 by David Learn. Used with permission.