Liberals Hate Christianity

This should be interesting

Quote:

---

Liberals Hate Christianity

Liberals disdain the concepts of right and wrong, dismissing them as unscientific value judgments. Their only acknowledged virtue is what they call “tolerance.” Tolerance, however, does not extend to Christianity.

-----------
In an August 28, 2004 article for the Associated Press, Richard N. Ostling notes, “After years of talk about the centrality of conservative Protestants and Catholics in the Republican Party coalition, an opposite factor is gaining wider notice: the Democrats’ reliance upon non-religious voters.”

And, “A religiously linked values clash is redefining U.S. politics, according to Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio of City University of New York. And if Republicans are labeled the party of religious traditionalists, they assert, “the Democrats with equal validity, can be called the secularist party.”

A University of Akron poll of 4,000 adults this spring showed that those with no religious affiliation are 17 percent of self-identified Democrats, rivaling the party’s traditional blocs of white Catholics (18 percent) and black Protestants (16 percent). The secularists favored John Kerry over George W. Bush by 57.4 percent to 27.2 percent (with the rest backing others or undecided).”

Political maneuvering in the Presidential race so far this year has made clear that an articulate and highly vocal part of our citizenry don’t just oppose Christianity. They hate it.

When a candidate gives witness to his Christian faith, liberals roar like wounded beasts, declaring that this will destroy American freedoms.

All of this is cloaked as sincere devotion to the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Underneath that cloak is the real objective: to establish secular and materialistic socialism as the nation’s official religion. Liberal organizations like the ACLU don’t just want Christianity separated from legislative and executive governance. They want to destroy Christianity and elevate socialism as the governing catechism of political life.

Maggie Gallagher, in a recent column, reports the following, fairly typical attack:

“Robert Reich, a former Cabinet secretary, implies in a recent issue of the “American Prospect” that Christian fundamentalists are even more dangerous than people who blow up skyscrapers. And he defines fundamentalism awfully broadly: ‘Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernist; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority ... between those who believe in science, reason and logic, and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face.’ “

There are three important points to be noted: first, socialism is a secular religion, second, liberalism is the American sect of the international religion of socialism; and, third, liberals cannot be shaken from their religious faith by the unremitting evidence that their religion always fails to deliver the goods.

For details to support these assertions, see
Socialism: Our Unconstitutionally Established Religion

Socialism has failed to deliver on its promises wherever it has been tried, but our liberals simply refuse to abandon it. They remain confident in their secular religious faith that, if they can just push Christians into the ash can of history, a nice, perfect new world can be created by intellectuals running the Federal bureaucracy.

In the religion of liberal-socialism, morality comes, not from God-given natural law, but from the fevered imaginations of intellectual style-setters.

We already know some of the marks of secular perfection in the liberals’ Brave New World: legalized abortion on demand, encouraging sexual promiscuity by distributing condoms in school and teaching young students how to use them; and same-sex marriage. The end point of secular, materialistic socialism is obliterating individuality and personal moral responsibility. We all are to be submerged into classes of more or less equally distributed income and wealth.

As in the Soviet Union, liberal-socialistic planners like Robert Reich are certain that most of the goods and services we buy today are bad for us and bad for the environment. They want to compel us to behave in the proper manner, that is, to buy what they decide is best for us.

The only thing they don’t propose to regulate is the raw sex and violence that pervades TV, movies, and the print media.

---

Religious people (and ideals) holding too much power in a state is always a bad thing. Liberals are just trying to keep the christians honest (a full time job IMO). By the same tokin too much socialism will always end up strangling a successful state.

liberals doesnt hate christianity - they just hate religion all together.

The entire term 'liberal' is mishandled here. I'm a liberal, but I don't hate religion. I love capitalism. I hate communism. I'm a right-winger, but not a conservative. Yes, it's possible. In America, the term is just misused.


~Wiz

Quote:

---

liberals doesnt hate christianity - they just hate religion all together.

---

Is that so? Did you look at my other thread?

Socialism: Our Unconstitutionally Established National Religion

this article is a realistic but biased editorialization of truth
and there is alot of that truth in it

the only thing that i can see as wrong is the equation of socialism as secular

it isnt - maybe modern socialism is for the most part secular, but the concepts of many versions, i believe, are based on religious morality

the secular socialism that i fight is the one that proposes that we must all enter into some sort of huge collectivisation program because of egoism rather than altruism

some forms of socialism are prevalent in traditional christian communities on a massive scale and a bit of government sanctioned socialism as a safety net can easily be subscribed to by christian moralists.

to villify "socialism" as anti-religious is a serious mistake from my point of view. it is the secular kind that is absolutely self-defeating in the long run

who knows

i am not religious (logically, i think that it is absurd to believe in a God or moral code, yet i still seek it because there is no real alternative that is more sensible), but any government that legislates without beliefs in a superlative moral code cannot be trusted or respected. if it isnt "wrong" for me to kill or steal then it is agaisnt my interests to have anyone force me not to from a darwinian point of view. It is ok that the govt would protect me, but not ok that it would protect others

who knows
this is part of a larger debate of modernism and the meaning of life

I actually disagree with this article. The Methodist church I belong to is more liberal than conservative, but there's folks of every ilk there on any given Sunday.

I don't think Liberals hate religion, per se. They hate the the socially conservative narrow view that the Southern Baptists tend to take. They also seem to be struggling with the fact that they have a need to 'keep it in the closet'. There's a good book we're reviewing in my Sunday school class called "God's politics". I disagree with his whitewashing of important social issues as irrelevant such as abortion and gay marriage, but I also agree they probably occupy too much of our current debate on morality and what it means to be Christlike.

The fact is, regardless of the reasons, as long as there are children out there starving to death and I'm wondering whether I want a steak or swordfish, I'm in trouble when I die. Yes, behavioral morality is important. I'm called on to follow God's commandments and push myself hard towards Christ's message on personal purity. But I'm also called on to follow the two commandments that are the greatest, according to Christ: To love my God with all my heart and all my soul, and to to love others as I love myself.

I think we need to stop defining a life of Christian witness as being willing to go picket the neighborhood smut shop, or at least limit it to that, and understand when we didn't do all we could to help our brothers and sisters, it was though we snubbed Christ. Cause he told us that's how we was going to take it.

we may be missing the point of the article

"liberals" dont necessarily have a problem with the christ-like message,
the new problems that have arisen come from the logical and historical inconsistencies that created modern christianity in the first place

and these are the reasons that the entire christian religion is being called to task on WHY they believe what they believe

the idea that God did not, in fact, come up with christian morality seriously takes away from its existence as a legitimate moral code. If men decided what was right and wrong and the religion is fallacious, then it is a waste of time to believe in the various tenants

this is where the problem comes from - not benign vs malignant versions of christianity - but from the inherent illogical and potentially man-made and false world view of christianity in general. these make the entire concept ridiculous to follow to the letter.

i dont honestly know what christianity can do to save itself - all it can rely on to stay afloat is ignorance in the presence of certain facts relating to various church histories, blind devotion to an archaic faith and a difficult to follow moral code. when you look at how easy it is to abandon christian ideals when shown a hedonistic modern cultural alternative, it will be amazing to see if the various churches can hold out.

but the death of christianity has been heralded before and, for some odd reason, it has never ceased to exist so far

I don't think I missed anything. The guy is painting with a very broad brush and takes the example of Robert Reich to writ large for any and all liberals in the country. He also equates socialism and American liberals. While they have much in common, they are not mutually inclusive, as the author would have you believe.

What's more, I'm done with this whole silly fight. Has it ever struck anyone on the the religious Right that there are many passages in the gospel, where Christ warns us to not become content with our Faith? "Do not pray on the street corner and beat your chest for all to see, for I assure you, these hypocrites have already had their reward. When you pray to your heavenly father, find a quiet place, and what the Lord hears from you in secret, he will reward, in secret".

This whole business of "I'm more pious than him" is a foolish, and in a theological sense, very dangerous debate to have. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory". I strongly advise anyone who is a follower of Christ out there to stop holding themselves up as an example of a pious person. We all sin, every day, each and every time we pause or hestitate in our obediance to God's word, let alone when we fragrantly disobey it.

One last quote "Remove the plank from your own eye, then you will be able to see better when you remove the splinter from your brother's".

pretty thin, the article makes many wild assertions with no supporting evidence. Seems like someone is trying to fan the flames and keep us all fighting.

My experience is that most folks either support Christianity or they think its misguided, but only a very few hate it.

Lately tho I've seen a dramatic increase in the number of hateful Christians, those who would wipe out the unbelievers and the sinners. Disturbing, because Christ doesn't seem to me to about that.

ichi :bow:

Warning - Troll Article Encountered.... ahh, what the hell!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

What's more, I'm done with this whole silly fight. Has it ever struck anyone on the the religious Right that there are many passages in the gospel, where Christ warns us to not become content with our Faith? "Do not pray on the street corner and beat your chest for all to see, for I assure you, these hypocrites have already had their reward. When you pray to your heavenly father, find a quiet place, and what the Lord hears from you in secret, he will reward, in secret".

This whole business of "I'm more pious than him" is a foolish, and in a theological sense, very dangerous debate to have. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory". I strongly advise anyone who is a follower of Christ out there to stop holding themselves up as an example of a pious person. We all sin, every day, each and every time we pause or hestitate in our obediance to God's word, let alone when we fragrantly disobey it.

---

:bow:
Once again you have shown understanding and moderation sorely lacking on internet discussion boards.


The mainstream churches seem to be involved in some bizarre competition to show who is the most God fearing/Bible Bashing/etc. It seems to involve attempting be the most direct in forwarding the Christian morale belief on issues that really, Christ never dealt with, or probably cared about. It's funny really, and ultimately, many are not even the domain of the church (I mean, Gay Marriage? Seriously, churches don't have to perform the services, everything else is a matter for the state, and if they end up burning in hell for it, well, that's their business). And at the same time much of Christ’s message seems ignored, or just forgotten.

It makes me think what it was like just before the reformation... Hmmm, probably not enough decadence for another of those just yet.

Quote:

---

What's more, I'm done with this whole silly fight. Has it ever struck anyone on the the religious Right that there are many passages in the gospel, where Christ warns us to not become content with our Faith? "Do not pray on the street corner and beat your chest for all to see, for I assure you, these hypocrites have already had their reward. When you pray to your heavenly father, find a quiet place, and what the Lord hears from you in secret, he will reward, in secret".

---

You are stilll missing the point. Its not about holy rollers but about secularist eg liberals vs religous people eg conservatives. Yes he does paint with a large brush but certainly more secularists are liberlas and more religous people are conservtives in general. Ive seen what he descibes countless times on these boards. This is an argument thats as old as man. Religion tells you theres a higher power and if you dont behave you are screwed. They also tell you others will tell you this is nonsense that there is no god but knowledge. Did you see Ichis post ? What was original sin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

You are stilll missing the point. Its not about holy rollers but about secularist eg liberals vs religous people eg conservatives. Yes he does paint with a large brush but certainly more secularists are liberlas and more religous people are conservtives in general. Ive seen what he descibes countless times on these boards. This is an argument thats as old as man. Religion tells you theres a higher power and if you dont behave you are screwed. They also tell you others will tell you this is nonsense that there is no god but knowledge. Did you see Ichis post ? What was original sin?

---

I think your becoming out of touch with reality... and your bible. Some of the most 'liberal' people I know (using the American definition) are strong Christians, and some of the most atheist are conservatives. Indeed, I can't see how anyone could consider the Christ of the bible anything other then such a 'liberal'.

Gawain,

There's a LOT of Christian folk out there that are socialists (economically speaking) because they Christian. They believe that Christ commands us to pool our wealth and share it among all who need it. I think they're wrong, but I would never dare to question their belief. I think different people frame the drama of life, including religious life, in different contexts. Just because you think gay marriage is the burning moral issue of our time, and another Christian thinks it's that there's starving people out there, doesn't mean you're not both Christians.

This guy seems to be saying if you're not willing to play the game and take the dare of casting the first stone, you're not a true believer. Well, I'm not going to take the bait. I know there's liberal Christians out there and who am I to question their belief? A humble and weak servant who knows better.

Quote:

---

I think your becoming out of touch with reality... and your bible. Some of the most 'liberal' people I know (using the American definition) are strong Christians, and some of the most atheist are conservatives. Indeed, I can't see how anyone could consider the Christ of the bible anything other then such a 'liberal'.

---

We have been over that many times before and the answers not as simple as you state. I said he was speaking in generalities. Do any of you deny that religous peole tend to be more conservative than secularists or that its secularists and liberals who are trying to take christianity out of anything they dont like because it may offend someone. Its mighty Ironic thata girl using God in her paper is attacked because it may offend someone by them while they back the rights of gays to march in outlandish outfits. Who or what is more likey to offend more people? This answer is directed at you also Don. Again I post things not because I agree with them entirely but to get an interesting converstion going If this

Quote:

---

This guy seems to be saying if you're not willing to play the game and take the dare of casting the first stone, you're not a true believer.

---

If thats what hes saying well that part at least I dont agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GodsPetMonkey

I think your becoming out of touch with reality... and your bible. Some of the most 'liberal' people I know (using the American definition) are strong Christians, and some of the most atheist are conservatives. Indeed, I can't see how anyone could consider the Christ of the bible anything other then such a 'liberal'.

---

but here - that is an abusrd statement
supposedly, christ followed a fairly strict form of judaism.

for anyone to claim Christ as a modern liberal, one would have to be daft beyond belief based on what we believe to actually know about him from the New Testament and any historical knowledge that we have.

liberal as in "new thinker" - i think so - but that does not mean that he would have supported abortion or gay marriage

and as a conservative it doesnt mean that he would have supported a war in iraq or darwinian capitalism

this i the point - christianity has no business anywhere in a rational modern world if the new testament is based on falsehoods generated by men who created it without spiritual guidance - it may have certain good ideas, but like the communist manifesto, the declaration of independence, harry potter, it has no ability to claim "truth". If you believe that it does - then it belongs in government to a fairly serious extent and there is really no alternative to that - what is right must be supported by the state

i am not sure where i stand - i think that religion is utter garbage from a logical point of view - but so much of what we believe is based on it that to deny it a place in the public area of life while at the same time using its tenants as justification of ones own "secular" agenda - human rights, socialism based on rights, denouncement of imperialism, etc - is absurd. we must either totally alter our foundational beliefs or try to rationalize what we already subscribe to.

i dont know what to think - there doesnt seem to be a socially harmonizing alternative to modern christian ethics that i, personally, would follow - and in the end - this is all that seems to matter as long as we have a democratically elected government - individual opinion

much needs to be done by churches to figure out if what they beleive is based on superstition and archaic notions or God given truth

Liberals have a problem with authority, most of them surely had a problem in school as well. Christianity is a form of authority, hence their reluctance towards it........ ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Liberals have a problem with authority, most of them surely had a problem in school as well. Christianity is a form of authority, hence their reluctance towards it........ ~:)

---

i dont necessarily agree with that - if authority is arbitrary or based on superstition or political correctness, then it has no place leading me. Even kids who listened in school and are half-way intelligent will tell you that.

people want to be "lead" by ideals based on truth - and truth itself seems to be in short supply on all sides

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

but here - that is an abusrd statement
supposedly, christ followed a fairly strict form of judaism.

for anyone to claim Christ as a modern liberal, one would have to be daft beyond belief based on what we believe to actually know about him from the New Testament and any historical knowledge that we have.

liberal as in "new thinker" - i think so - but that does not mean that he would have supported abortion or gay marriage

and as a conservative it doesnt mean that he would have supported a war in iraq or darwinian capitalism

---

Good point, I should restate what I said before, to claim Jesus was a conservative (by modern or contemporary terms) is far fetched, but so is to call him a liberal by modern terms. In fact, I would say no side can claim him as his own, and doing so would be wrong.

Quote:

---

this i the point - christianity has no business anywhere in a rational modern world if the new testament is based on falsehoods generated by men who created it without spiritual guidance - it may have certain good ideas, but like the communist manifesto, the declaration of independence, harry potter, it has no ability to claim "truth". If you believe that it does - then it belongs in government to a fairly serious extent and there is really no alternative to that - what is right must be supported by the state

---

:bow:
Good rational thinking.

Quote:

---

i am not sure where i stand - i think that religion is utter garbage from a logical point of view - but so much of what we believe is based on it that to deny it a place in the public area of life while at the same time using its tenants as justification of ones own "secular" agenda - human rights, socialism based on rights, denouncement of imperialism, etc - is absurd. we must either totally alter our foundational beliefs or try to rationalize what we already subscribe to.

---

IMHO, just because modern society had Christianity as one of its foundations does not mean it should be the end all (sorry Gawain, church and state remain separate). As you said, if it were totally right, it would be, as the state must support what is right. But what is right changes over time, and a lot has changed since the days when the New Testament was written. If you want another example, look at the differences between the New Testament and the Old Testament, clearly what is right and good had changed between the 2 writings. To think otherwise is absurd, and besides, I enjoy meat on Fridays, you don't know what your missing out on ~D

Quote:

---

i dont know what to think - there doesnt seem to be a socially harmonizing alternative to modern christian ethics that i, personally, would follow - and in the end - this is all that seems to matter as long as we have a democratically elected government - individual opinion

much needs to be done by churches to figure out if what they beleive is based on superstition and archaic notions or God given truth

---

:bow:
Let everyone decide for themselves what they want to believe, and decide for themselves what is right, and wrong, and the state allow them to act upon that within what is reasonable to the community at large (a good starting point is if no one is hurt from the act, then why ban it?). The community at large is not only Christians, and I sure wouldn't want the Christian equivalent of Sharia (sp?) law as much as I wouldn't want the Muslim form, even though I am a Christian, and not ashamed of it either. Live and let live.

Yet another flame-bait article from Gawain with no author, no publication, no link, nada. Where exactly did this theocon screed come from? Who wrote it? Who paid for it?

Gawain, as a courtesy to all of the not-as-conservative-as-you people whom you're trying to infuriate, please cite your sources.

yes liberals hate Christianity

but that is not news

i pointed this out in my old thread that proved that everyone who does not have the wisdom to realize who Jesus is, will hate Christianity and anyone who stands up for what is good. i'd provide a link to that thread but the search function of these boards is still fubared at the moment ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

yes liberals hate Christianity

but that is not news

---

well its news to me, and its not true

Quote:

---

i pointed this out in my old thread that proved that everyone who does not have the wisdom to realize who Jesus is, will hate Christianity and anyone who stands up for what is good.

---

I realize who Jesus was, and I don't hate Christianity.

and, anyone will be way off base thinking that only Christians stand up for what what is good. I know thousands of good people who get up every day and try to do the right thing who don't consider themselves Christians.

This idea is why some people worry about a fundamental Christian theocracy. Not that they hate Christians, but that some Christians mistakenly believe that only they cansee and do good, and the rest of us must be brought into line.

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

well its news to me, and its not true



I realize who Jesus was, and I don't hate Christianity.

and, anyone will be way off base thinking that only Christians stand up for what what is good. I know thousands of good people who get up every day and try to do the right thing who don't consider themselves Christians.

This idea is why some people worry about a fundamental Christian theocracy. Not that they hate Christians, but that some Christians mistakenly believe that only they cansee and do good, and the rest of us must be brought into line.

ichi :bow:

---

firstly, those people would be fooling themselves
they are doing what is "right" based on the scale of right/wrong provided by whom? a vague notion of the "most important" parts of what they heard when they were children from people who based their ideas on judeo-christian/other Religious Ideas. If these Religions never had the authority to decide what was good/bad in the first place, how can one maintain that a byproduct of them based entirely on them is good? i'd like to know that for my own sake

the second statement is accurate - i also fear that

Quote:

---

Yet another flame-bait article from Gawain with no author, no publication, no link, nada. Where exactly did this theocon screed come from? Who wrote it? Who paid for it?

---

My My we get up on the wrong side of the bed today? I didnt write the title but did find it provocative and worthy of disscussion. Yes I like to use provocative titles as it gets peoples interest. Its not a flame bait.

Quote:

---

Gawain, as a courtesy to all of the not-as-conservative-as-you people whom you're trying to infuriate, please cite your sources.

---

How long have you been using the internet? Do you know how to google?Ive just learned recently how to do it. I didnt have a computer on the internet until I joined the org. I couldnt even cut and paste till someone here taught me . So let this noob give you a little lesson. You see the name of this thread. Well type in into google like I just did and the first match that comes up is this.

LINK

Now dont act is if you didnt know that. The same can be said of any thread I post. This aint calculus. I dont see where it came from is going to make any differenve though. Now calm down annd try a little pateince all you need do is ask or use the enormous Lemurmania brain you have. I could likewise accuse you of being lazy and baiting me but I wont go there.

So, am I a Liberal?

Better question was Jesus a conservative Rabbi or a liberal Rabbi?

Quote:

---

they are doing what is "right" based on the scale of right/wrong provided by whom?

---

by their parents, by their society, by their own internal sense of right and wrong. Religions, including Christian religions, have asked people to do some pretty awful things. To be honest, I'm comfortable making my own decisions about good and bad.

It's rather a nice feeling, to do whats right, and to do it because its right, and you know it to be right, not because someone told you to do or because if you don'tdo it you'll burn in hell.

and we'll just have to disagree about who is fooling themselves ~:cheers:

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

So, am I a Liberal?

---

well, a first test would be to ask yourself: do you hate christianity? if the answer is yes, you may very well be a liberal (it's not certain though). however, if the answer is no, then you're not. easy as 1, 2, cake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

by their parents, by their society, by their own internal sense of right and wrong. Religions, including Christian religions, have asked people to do some pretty awful things. To be honest, I'm comfortable making my own decisions about good and bad.

It's rather a nice feeling, to do whats right, and to do it because its right, and you know it to be right, not because someone told you to do or because if you don'tdo it you'll burn in hell.

and we'll just have to disagree about who is fooling themselves ~:cheers:

ichi :bow:

---

so, you believe that inside you know what is right and wrong?

then what about me? do i know, inside, what is right and wrong?

i believe that abortion is wrong
this is a core belief of mine

you may believe that it is right

if "deep down" we both know what is right - and we disagree - chances are that one of us is wrong. and deep down right and wrong wouldnt be worth too much. if one person says murder for ones own convenience is ok and another says it is the worst possible thing to do - how can both be right or wrong?

how can we have a government that protects both what is right and wrong based on everyone's individual beliefs? wouldnt there be serious conflicts of interests there? some people believe that human sacrifice is ok - those being sacrificed probably do not.

who are we then to tell the sacrificer that, even though, deep down, they believe that human sacrifice is right, we have the right to stop them?

im just looking to someone who believes so firmly that they know the way to give me some guidance here, ichi - if you would be so kind

because i am sort of lost

Quote:

---

well, a first test would be to ask yourself: do you hate christianity? if the answer is yes, you may very well be a liberal (it's not certain though). however, if the answer is no, then you're not. easy as 1, 2, cake.

---

If you read the article hes actually caliming that Liberal/securalists/socialists are the danger not liberals in themselves. I dont know any rightwing securlarists/socialists but I guess there are some.