Libtards? Is Empathetic, Progressive, and Educated All We Are?

Mark Rego Monteiro We "libtards" need to learn a little more about our empathy, and how to apply that deconstruction stuff, which is the best application, or extension of anything we´ve learned. One problem is overspecialization. Another is getting more spiritual than secular. I identify more with "progressive" than "liberal," myself, and my identity isn´t defined by science, much as I love it. Human rights is closer, but where exactly do "human rights," and for that matter "science," come from? And why do "progressives" not seem all that focused so that we seem to be losing. And if you look at sustainability statistics, and human rights ones, no less. We´re losing badly. We need to go from deconstruction to what I got turned onto in my IR masters, social constructivism and constructionism. By referring to myself and the rest of us progressives as "libtard", I´m coopting that attempted term of insult right now, of course. It reflects my personal growth and creativity efforts, and projecting the results of self-care and understanding of self-esteem and pro-active, pro-social engagement with an apparent adversary. As a "libtard", I already embraced an interfaith spiritual path based on my family´s educational values, interest in therapeutic psychology, and Comparative Religious Studies, while in high school. In that context, I sought out Kung Fu in college, already after I had found my way to Bio Anthropology. It´s a long story, but I knocked on doors for an NGO, taught science in Africa, and left a corporate job after three weeks to work in social services with substance abusers there as I was starting out. Long story short, all our possible "bleeding heart" mentality and knowledge is in accordance with a standard, which has been underappreciated by progressives as secularization has emphasized science. In fact, "science" has assumed the definition of "truth." In fact, "science" is scientific philosophy, and is a Christian-based practice based on Christian religious philosophy. It breaks down to Aristotle rejecting the First Cause argument. Christian, not just "CAtholic," Thomas of Aquinas addressed that well. Aquinas´ contemporary Bishop R Grosseteste was a protoscientist at that time and modern historian James Hannam, among others, has written about the matter. Galileo´s own situation wasn´t cut and dried, and the worst harshness was by a Pope and the Catholic Church, which had already been rent asunder not by scientists, but by "ye" monk Martin Luther. The Catholic Descartes was frolicking about in Holland, no less. Other Christian scientific adventurers in Protestant lands include William Harvey, who came along in biology before Newton came along with Hooke and Boyle in England. Huygens, van Leeuenhook and others. Locke, too, and Grotius in moral philosophy´s early branching. If you know about the New Atheists, they have also misrepresented things in the extreme. Slavery began to be ended as a young college grad and dissenting Anglican T Clarkson sought out the famous Quaker-Friends for their integrity and pioneering anti-slavery sentiments in the 1780s. He then pioneered modern social movement investigating and organizing with their anchor and a growing network including W Wilberforce in Parliament. NGOs do a lot of that stuff nowadays, and Quakers no less led the founding of Greenpeace and Oxfam, as well as spurring early women leaders like Susan B Anthony, AFro-Am Olaudah Equiano, and the Underground Railroad. I sense that "libtard" is a term that gets inserted in the psychosocial and cultural space that has been created by the artificiality of secular and mechanicist pretensions. I recommend paying more attention to the role of spirituality with an eye to integrating it with other progressive interests. Jesus was no fundamentalist, but he deserves to be championed, as even Gandhi said, "I love Christ, and read the Bible 'faithfully'." There is a progressive image problem. The Social Gospel was the main influence on FD Roosevelt and Eleanor as they founded the UN. Secularism has given us the UN and human rights, so that the pro-poor Grameen Bank of Mohammed Yunus using his Western education gives us a prominent example at that modern level of UN community of nations. Vandana Shiva is an ex-physicist and activist for small farmers and agroecology. Wangari Maathai was an African biologist, pioneer as a woman, in her founding the Green Belt movement. Progressive healing seems focused on medical practitioners, and OC Simonton MD and Lewis Mehl-Medrona MD, PhD, Lissa Rankin MD were/are advocating combining the spiritual approach in healing. We need to get righteous, not proud. And Jesus is the appropriate name with the orientation at our disposal. Again, he was no fundamentalist. Rev MLK was quite a good representative, with his degree in sociology and doctorate. He actually referred to the problem of overemphasizing science, incidentally, when he said, “We have genuflected before the god of science only to find that it has given us the atomic bomb, producing fears and anxieties that science can never mitigate.” We need to broaden our spiritual vision, even with the informally educated Fannie Lou Hamer and her Farm Co-op, based on an alternative economic model, widespread in Social Europe and in food co-ops etc. Jesus for progressives with a righteous spirit. Not just "left-wing", but very much pro-social, spiritual, and building a society that does a good job. Social Europe does, but they´ve been riding the ghost of FDR that inspires UN human rights, it seems. "Libtard" is a word. Righteous is the answer for liberals and progressives, and Jesus is the way behind progressive pluralism, Muslim, Jewish or whatever. UN human rights and sustainability and Greenpeace, Oxfam, Fair Trade type activist style.