Mediaboss Marketing

One reason they dont is that some of what those congregations offer is already embodied in liberal politics and culture. As the sociologist N. J. Demerath argued in the 1990s, liberal churches have suffered institutional decline, but also enjoy a sort of cultural triumph, losing members even as their most distinctive commitments ecumenical spirituality and a progressive social Gospel permeate academia, the media, pop culture, the Democratic Party.

But this equilibrium may not last, and it may not deserve to. The campus experience of late suggests that liberal Protestantism without the Protestantism tends to gradually shed the liberalism as well, transforming into an illiberal cult of victimologies that burns heretics with vigor. The wider experience of American politics suggests that as liberalism de-churches it struggles to find a nontransactional organizing principle, a persuasive language of the common good. And the experience of American society suggests that religious impulses without institutions arent enough to bind communities and families, to hold atomization and despair at bay. . . .

Do it for your friends and neighbors, town and cities: Thriving congregations have spillover effects that even anti-Trump marches cant match.

Do it for your family: Church is good for health and happiness, its a better place to meet a mate than Tinder, and even its most modernized form is still an ark of memory, a link between the living and the dead.

I understand that theres the minor problem of actual belief. But honestly, dear liberals, many of you do believe in the kind of open Gospel that a lot of mainline churches preach.

If pressed, most of you arent hard-core atheists: You pursue religious experiences, you have affinities for Unitarianism or Quakerism, you can even appreciate Christian orthodoxy when its woven into Marilynne Robinson novels or the Letter From Birmingham Jail.

You say youre spiritual but not religious because you associate religion with hierarchies and dogmas and strict rules about sex. But the Protestant mainline has gone well out of its way to accommodate you on all these points.

I appreciate that by staying away from church youre vindicating my Catholic skepticism of that accommodation but really, arent you being a little ungrateful, a little slothful, a little selfish by leaving these churches empty when theyre trying to be exactly the change you say you wish Christianity would make?

View original post here:
Shouldn't liberals be going to liberal churches? - Patheos (blog)

The BC Liberals say they stand corrected after falsely accusing a retired civil servant of being an NDP plant after she encountered Leader Christy Clark in a grocery store and told her shed never vote for her.

However, the party did not issue an apology to Linda Higgins, which some have been calling for after last weeks encounter. The incident, captured by TV news crews inside a store in North Vancouver, sparked its own hashtag on social media, #IamLinda, which critics used to vent their own reasons for never supporting Ms. Clark.

On Tuesday, after days of controversy, the Liberals issued a statement that said: Were happy to stand corrected, though the party did not elaborate, despite a request to do so.

The statement cited Ms. Clarks previous statement that we are fortunate to live in a democracy where respectful disagreement is possible, though it did not include any apology to Ms. Higgins or express any contrition.

Ms. Higgins told The Globe and Mail that she was in North Vancouver last Thursday having had lunch with her husband. When Ms. Clarks leadership tour arrived for some mainstreeting, Ms. Higgins decided she wanted to talk to the Liberal leader about her concerns about education policy, housing affordability and other issues.

The face-to-face chat was brief.

I would never vote for you because of what Ms. Higgins said.

Ms. Clark cut her off. You dont have to thats why we live in a democracy. She then walked away.

Ms. Higgins has denied she was there at the behest of the NDP.

As the hashtag took off, campaign director Laura Miller suggested on Twitter that Ms. Higgins was sent by the NDP to disrupt Ms. Clarks campaign.

Several party officials shared Ms. Millers post, while Sam Oliphant, a former press secretary to Ms. Clark who now works on the campaign, also used a tweet to question Ms. Higgins allegiances.

The party initially refused to say anything about the encounter or whether it stood by the claims about Ms. Higgins, a 61-year-old former social-worker assistant.

Earlier in the day on Tuesday, Ms. Clark declined to answer questions about whether the party had any evidence to justify claims by senior Liberal officials or why the party would not apologize.

Youll have to speak to the people that tweeted that out, Ms. Clark said. I dont have the answer to that. What I am spending my time talking about while I am out here is what I stand for and what I believe in and our plan for the province.

Ms. Higgins told The Globe that an apology would have little value because it would not be sincere, but rather forced by the pressure that the Liberals have come under over the situation.

In a statement, NDP Leader John Horgan said Ms. Clark has even made up some details about her encounter with Ms. Higgins that are disproved by video of the meeting. After the encounter, Ms. Clark told reporters Ms. Higgins said she didnt vote for her previously, had never voted Liberal and would not vote for again. The suggestion is disputed by video of the encounter.

Mr. Horgan said the discrepancy is typical of Ms. Clarks approach to such disputes.

When Christy Clark gets into trouble, she just makes stuff up, Mr. Horgan said in the statement. I think she owes Linda an apology.

Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver said, on Tuesday, the lack of an apology to Ms. Higgins by either the Liberals or their leader has sustained the controversy.

Mr. Weaver said there was nothing wrong with Ms. Higgins initial comment nor Ms. Clarks response, which he described as fair, although it was done a bit flippantly.

However, he said the Liberals went too far thereafter.

When they accused this woman of being a spy, they crossed the line, he said.

Its not the first time Ms. Clark and the BC Liberals have been under fire for making false allegations. In February, Ms. Clark apologized after accusing the NDP of hacking the BC Liberal Party website. Her allegation came after a party document was sent to a journalist.

Follow Ian Bailey on Twitter: @ianabailey

Follow this link:
BC Liberals take back claim woman was NDP plant in #IamLinda debacle - The Globe and Mail

AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast

Former President Barack Obama hosts a conversation on civic engagement and community organizing, Monday, April 24, 2017, at the University of Chicago.

In a decision that launched a thousand Hot Takes, former President Barack Obama has accepted a $400,000 fee to give a speech at a health-care conference sponsored by the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald. Given the intensity of the reaction from liberals (sample headline: "Obama's $400,000 Wall Street speaking fee will undermine everything he believes in"), you'd almost think Obama had begun lobbying for the repeal of Dodd-Frank, or maybe gone on a seal-clubbing expedition. While he had some defenders, the dominant sentiment from his supporters seemed to be either disappointment or anger.

I'm not going to make an argument for why Obama should or shouldn't give paid speeches, and to whom (though I will say that by today's standards, $400,000 is pretty modestit'll cost you a lot more to get Kim Kardashian to make an appearance at your nightclub). What's more interesting is the reaction, and what it says about the place Obama will occupy in the liberal imagination from this point on.

To understand why so many liberals would care so muchas opposed to just saying that Obama can take Wall Street's money if they're offering it, since as a former president it's not like he can be corrupted at this pointyou have to go all the way back to 2008. Or more precisely, you have to understand what made Obama's 2008 candidacy so extraordinary, and so different from those that came before it. Even as we lived through eight complex, exciting, maddening, exhilarating, disappointing years, liberals' views of what Barack Obama represented will always be shaped by how he made them feel back then.

For nearly half a century after John F. Kennedy got elected, Democrats endured one underwhelming presidential nominee after another. Most of them were politicians with long records of public service, but not the kind of guys you'd name your baby after or see in a framed picture on the wall in your grandmother's house. They were often admirable, but almost never inspiringthe prevailing sentiment upon the nomination of candidates like Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, or John Kerry was, "This guy? OK, I guess."

And the two Democrats who became president since the 1960s produced profound ambivalence: Jimmy Carter was personally admirable but a professional failure, while Bill Clinton was the reverse.

Then came 2008. In contrast to the dull candidates Democrats had so often resigned themselves to, Barack Obama was someone they would literally write songs about. Not only was he an extraordinary political talent, he was the living embodiment of liberal values. He was smart, thoughtful, eloquent, cosmopolitan, urban and urbane. In both his rhetoric and the way he built his campaign with brand-new social media tools, he told them a story of their own empowerment, that instead of watching history on TV they could make it with their hands and their will.

To liberals who had largely internalized the right's long insistence that this is a conservative country and if you live in a city or believe that knowing things is worthwhile then you aren't a "real" American, it was absolutely intoxicating.

Even though Obama's years in the White House were full of compromises and setbacks, that emotional connection lived on. If you're a liberal, he might have made decisions you disagreed with, but he was still the kind of guy you wanted to be: the one who displayed equanimity in the face of vicious personal attacks, who had a seemingly perfect family, who could bring Stevie Wonder and Prince to the White House for a secret concert or talk literature with Marilynne Robinson, who never lost his cool or stopped being cool.

And unlike every two-term president in recent history, he finished out his tenure without any significant scandals, and not even the whiff of inappropriate conduct of any sort by the man himself. That powerful feeling of 2008 may not have been sustained, but it was never betrayed.

And then came 2016 and Donald Trump, which both highlighted Obama's virtues and made liberals question what he had made them believe eight years earlier.

In 2008, liberals told themselves that everything was going to be all right. Their values and the change they wanted to see would triumph. The country was moving in their directionbecoming more inclusive, more tolerant, more progressive in a hundred ways. Despite the powerful resistance of the Republicans and their voters, they'd win in the end.

If that's what you believed, the 2016 election was a punch to the gut. The countryor at least an electoral college majoritysaid in a guttural growl, "No." It put on its "Trump That Bitch" t-shirt and said, "We want that guy. The charlatan, the con man, the phony, the clown, the ignoramus, the petulant, vindictive man-child, the bigot who cozies up to white supremacists, the xenophobe who scapegoats immigrants and wants to build walls, the guy who's on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women. That's the guy we want." This country, the election result said to liberals, is not what you thought it was. It's not moving in your direction. You were fooling yourself.

And then we watched as Barack Obama, who had comported himself with such dignity and grace, handed the keys to the Oval Office to Donald frigging Trump.

In that history and that remarkable contrast lies the key to understanding liberals' current displeasure with Obama. If Hillary Clinton was now president, I doubt we'd be seeing a tenth of the concern about him giving speeches for money as there is now. But in a moment where everything in our politics is being sullied by the current president, we want Obama to be pure. We want him not just to do what's perfectly defensible, but to exist on some higher plane of virtue. Perhaps, in some irrational little corner of our minds, we want him to come back and save us. But of course, he can't.

I say this all not to defend Obama's decision to take some easy money. Had he asked my opinion, I'd have said he might want to take a passbut I'd have also said that it doesn't matter much either way. What does matter is what he did with his time as president. That's a complex story, full of both successes and shortcomings. But liberals' view of him, and what he does with the rest of his life, will always be colored by the way he made them feel.

Continued here:
Why Liberals Are So Worked Up About Barack Obama Giving a Paid Speech to Wall Street - The American Prospect

The Liberal government is moving to break a month-old deadlock over parliamentary reform, dropping some proposals that had raised opposition concerns, but nonetheless seeming readyto make changes to the way the House of Commons works, with or without oppositionsupport.

The government's intention is outlined in a letter from Government House leaderBardishChaggerto her Conservative and New Democrat counterparts that was delivered on Sunday.

In the letter, Chagger says the government will introduce amotion in the House that includes a set of reforms that were promised in the last Liberal campaign platform, including changes to question period,the consideration of omnibus legislation,and the process through which MPs approve government spending.

Other proposals, some of them controversial, will be dropped and a committee study, which was being filibustered by the opposition, will be abandoned.

The new motion is to be introduced before the House adjourns for the summer in June.

The Liberals, with a majority of seats in the House, would be able to approve the changes without the support of MPs in other parties, a possibility that has been at the heart of a messy dispute between the government and opposition.

"In the last election, Canadians were tired of how Stephen Harper's Conservatives had abused Parliament, so we really offered them real change and that's where some of our campaign commitments came from," Chagger said in an interview on Sunday.

"We have a mandate to really advance those changes and we really do want to deliver on the commitments that we've made to Canadians."

Repeating an argument the government has made on this issue, she said the Liberals "will not give the Conservatives a veto over any of our campaign commitments."

Chagger says she is interested in a "meaningful debate" and argues that the changes included in the motion will make the government more accountable to Parliament. But she suggests the government is committed to delivering on its promises of reform, regardless of opposition support.

Conservative House leader Candice Bergen said the motion will not be warmly received.

"I think what's happened is the Liberals have been hearing ... from Canadians that Canadians are not impressed with the arrogance of this government, the arrogance of this prime minister, that he thinks he can ram these changes through. And so they are scrambling and trying to do something," Bergen said in an interview on Sunday.

They are doing exactly the same thing though and it's not going to work. It's certainly not going to be a positive reception from us and the NDP, and I don't think overall Canadians will be receptive."

Bergen maintains that the rules of Parliament should only be changed with all-party consensus.

NDP House leader Murray Rankin was similarly unimpressed.

"For the past few weeks, the Liberals have tried to claim that all they've wanted was a discussion," Rankin said in a statement. "Well, they have just announced that they will be unilaterally forcing through changes to the way our Parliament works, largely just to suit themselves. Discussion was always just a pretence it just took them a while to admit it. It's clear now that the emperor has no clothes."

The parties have been at odds for more than a month, since the Liberals released a discussion paper on reform and proposed that the House committee on procedure take up a study of possible changes.

Conservatives and New Democrats expressed concerns about some of the ideas raised by the Liberals, including a new procedure to schedule debate in the House and limits onthe ability of MPs to delay committee business.

The opposition alsoalleged that the government was preparing to force the changes on MPs anddemanded that the government agree in advance to only implement reforms if all-party agreement could be found.

The Liberals refused and Conservatives and New Democrats responded by filibustering the proceedings at the committee, preventing a study from starting.

That protest spread to the House of Commons, where Conservatives used procedural maneuvres to delay business. Two weeks ago, an unrelated debate in the House became a filibuster that tied up the chamber and could continue when the House resumes sitting on Monday.

In deciding to move a motion that puts their platform commitments to a vote, the Liberals will drop their pursuit of a larger committee study.

The new government motion has not yet been tabled, but the Liberal platform proposed:

The Liberals also said they would not abuse prorogation and have since proposed a new procedure for proroguing Parliament.

On Sunday, Bergen said the Conservatives are concerned that changing question period could result in the prime minister appearing only once per week. The Liberals have said that that is not their intention.

The Conservatives are also concerned that changes to the estimates process for reviewing spending could make it harder for the opposition to scrutinize the government.

Liberal MPs are generally expected to support the government on votes in the House that relate to platform commitments.

The government isabandoning itssuggestion of a new mechanism for scheduling House business (known as "programming.")But Chagger warns that, instead, the government will be relying more often on a procedure known as time allocation, which allows the government to cap the time for debate.

"We believe in the role Parliament plays to have constructive debate of legislation and I will always strive to find out from the opposition how much time is needed for debate," Chagger says. "But if there is no agreement, we will have to use time allocation more often."

The Liberal motion will also not include a proposal to eliminate the abbreviated sittings of the House that take place on Fridays and reapportionthat time to other days, a suggestion that opposition parties have criticized.

The Liberals believe it would be better for MPs to be able to be in their ridings on Friday. Opposition MPs have complained that doing away with the Friday sitting would deprive the opposition of a day to question the government (though sparsely attended, a session of question period is conducted on Friday mornings).

The Liberals say they will discuss the proposal within their caucus and ask that the Conservatives and New Democrats do likewise.

Read the original here:
Liberals drop some proposals, but seem ready to move ahead with reform to Parliament - CBC.ca

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Letter to the editor: As a Democrat, I agree with Republicans who've sued UC Berkeley over Ann Coulter's planned speech.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Jo Schwenckert 9:26 p.m. MT April 30, 2017

After several days of back-and-forth between Ann Coulter and UC Berkeley, the conservative speaker just canceled her planned April 27 speech. USA TODAY

FILE - In this Friday, April 21, 2017, file photo, a leaflet is seen stapled to a message board near Sproul Hall on the University of California at Berkeley in Berkeley, Calif. The University of California, Berkeley says it's preparing for possible violence on campus whether Ann Coulter comes to speak or not.(Photo: Ben Margot, AP)

As a die-hard liberal and Democrat, it might seem strange to some that I agree with conservatives that Ann Coulter, with whom I passionately disagree, has a constitutional right to speak at UC Berkeley.

Two conservative groups, UC Berkeley College Republicans and the national Young Americas Foundation, have rightly filed a lawsuit against the university.

I am saddened that these so-called liberal students have no concept of what true liberals understand: freedom of speech must be defended, even the speech we hate.

Jo Schwenckert, Scottsdale

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2pyxsCb

1:28

0:35

1:12

1:04

1:16

0:53

0:46

1:20

2:45

3:08

0:35

1:40

0:41

0:54

1:08

1:11

0:55

0:30

0:14

1:01

0:38

1:02

0:29

0:34

0:59

0:30

1:01

1:27

2:33

1:45

0) { %>

0) { %>

See the original post here:
Liberals don't understand freedom of speech - AZCentral.com (satire)