The publisher of the Amandala is trying to lead us to “something” but he is not sure exactly where or how. He would like to be our watchman. But he has not arrived at a form of “value” that would be good for him and us. He refers to his religion as being ‘information’ (see the issue of Amandala, August 27, 2006 “From the Publisher”), and attacks ‘THEM’ whoever or whatever they may be. He uses these terms because he has not ‘received’ the information that would help him to FINALLY arrive at a conclusion. He has not finished his own searching. He does not know exactly where to ‘look’ and it shows. Let us view one of the things: he would like to be: a Liberal. Even when he may reject that title!

            Now for myself I would not consider myself a Liberal. But our editor and publisher would.

            Liberalism, in all its forms, is a vision of the final form of political association. All history is viewed as a slow and painful struggle toward the realization of the liberal state. Other forms of political association are not denied value, but only because they can be seen as approximations to liberalism. The universalism of liberalism is of a peculiar kind; it is not a universalism rooted in and inseparable from a tradition ordered by a vision of the good. Liberalism rejects the idea of an overreaching good in favor of a plurality of heterogeneous goods. And what makes these goods ‘good’ is that they are the preferences of someone. The goodness of a thing is its being chosen. Hence, the central moral idea in liberalism is ‘rights’. Rights are devices that enable us to make the choices of a life plan. And rights are thought to be ‘neutral’ in respects to the good.

            In a truly liberal society, the good is seen as a private matter. The public realm is the realm of rights and choice making, as in a market where preferences are traded. IT IS THIS DIRECTION THAT ENABLES LIBERALS TO INSIST ON THE SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND STATE.

            However, when cut loose from the moorings of belief, many find a life of choice making to be a burden, even frightful. The loss of a moral tradition means that people no longer know how to behave! Quarrels will result over what is to count as valid choice makings, and this leads to “chaos”. This causes (in time) the need for a strong leadership who will make ALL the decisions.

            Even then the aspirations of all people are those of respectability, bounded in the understanding of the reason WHY we are here!

--- ++ ---

NOTE: I need actually to cover more ground on this question but will stop here for now, because of the length of this writing.