The Problem With Having Opinions

Is that some times they slip out when they shouldn't. Josh picked up on this in my previous post and has run with it. Specifically, he has exploited my description of the ultimate Progressive political objective as a utopian state. While I believe this to be correct (and I'm guessing Josh does as well), it is not self-evident that this is the case. Ultimately, the the Progressive aim is to establish a just society. Therefore, in order to establish whether Progressivism can be deemed consistent with Christianity (or any religion, for that matter), the following questions must first be answered:

1) What is a just society?
2) What powers should the state be entrusted to establish and maintain such a society?
3) With what powers can the state be entrusted to establish and maintain such a society?
4) What is the impact of overthrowing long-standing traditions in an attempt to establish such a society?

There are probably others as well, but these will do for a start. While questions of human nature and theology can legitimately come into play here, these questions are questions of political philosophy.

I'm not going to back away from my opinion that Progressivism is utopian, and if I am right, Josh is correct to say that Progressivsm cannot be legitimately reconciled with Christianity (assuming Christianity is true, something both Josh and I do). However, the religious Progressive, particularly the Christian Progressive has a way out. He may well concede that there is no way man can bring aout this just society on his own, but just as God works through man with all of his imperfections, so can he work through the state with all of its imperfections to bring about a just society. Of course, this almost renders politics irrelevant. After all, God could also work through a ficus plant with all of its imperfections to bring about a just society. Still, this cannot be seen as the conclusive answer to the argument of the religious Progressive, merely a witty retort to make his argument seem silly.

No, when it's all said and done, the compatibility of Progressivism with Christianity depends on the answer to my first question: What is a just society? I reject Progressivism as uptopian because I find what I understand to be its vision of a just society to be sorely lacking. I regard it a fantasy to believe that a Progressive society can be equated with a just society. It is only because I recognize my fallibility that I allow for the possibility that I am wrong.

Also, I don't think it reasonable to conclude that the NSP dismisses the Scriptures as a source of authority. There are clearly members of the NSP who think Scripture should be a legitimate source authority and those who think it shouldn't, and there is no way to tell from the article in "The New York Times" which faction, if any, represents the majority opinion.

And, on another point of agreement, I also do not see the NSP coming out against abortion or homosexual "marriage", or anything of the sort. Hence, I can't see them becoming much more than an Amen Corner for the secular left.