Liberals Hate Christianity

Quote:

---

wow PJ , what would you say if someone posted here that Christians are so misguided they should never be allowed any say in our government?

---

Relativity is never a good argument. I believe that there are definite rights and wrongs, goods and bads.

In this case I would say that that person is simply wrong. Our country is much stronger when run by traditionalists, many of whom happen to be Christian, than by progressives.

And Im not arguing for any kind of Christian theocracy, as I dont practice my faith. However, I would never support a group of people who are openly hostile to Christians.

Progressives, liberals, socialists.. I think we all know the type.. are nothing but bad news for America. Theyre a fifth column in this country who work to subvert traditional american values. Their vision of america is an ugly mix of moral degradation, weakness, and intolerance of anything they dont like.

On the other hand, the American government has been run for years now by traditionalist Christians and where is all this intolerance predicted from the left?

Id much rather place the security of my freedom not to practice Christianity in the hands of Christians, than in the hands of progressives.

Quote:

---

The strength of our country is based on the free expression of diverse ideas, including those calling for the exclusion of those who think differently.

---

To a certain extent.. However, aggressive leftists should not be tolerated in any nation or they run the risk of the unfortunate events of 1917.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

While I agree with you that PJ's comments were a little out of line, people do post here, all the time, claiming that Christians are so misguided they shouldn't be allowed in government. I think we all need to calm down. Must be the summer heat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

So you'll forgive me if I think you're a little off-base here.

---

you're right, I can't believe I got upset and posted that ~:confused:

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

That's not very Christian of you...

~;)

---

dont worry i will ask for forgiveness... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Sorry, I have to disagree with you here, Swords. Shocker. You're saying that we have a moral obligation to allow an attacker to do whatever they will to us and when we attempt to defend ourselves, we deserve prison time?

---

No. I said that if you are ready to cross the law to defend yourself you should also be ready to accept the consequences.

And I'm saying it shouldn't be against the law to defend oneself.

What is the purpose of the law? When the law doesn't serve it's purpose, don't we have an obligation to change it? Assuming of course, it's against the law to defend oneself.

I'm a progressive/liberal/whatever label the US right wish to use for people like Robert Reich. Like Reich, I deeply dislike religious fundamentalism. Arguing a position on a contemporary moral or political issue based on a literal reading of a 2000 year old text just leaves me cold. Especially when opening any random page of that text - Old Testament at least - I usually find something so morally repellent, I have to stop reading. Like Reich, I prefer to debate things in "rationalist" terms, appealing to logic, empirical evidence and fundamental moral values or intuitions.

However, I also suspect that - despite my aetheism as an adult - my fundamental moral values and intuitions are rooted in a Christian culture and a Christian childhood. Much of Jesus's teachings can be used to justify values that are central to progressive/liberal beliefs - compassion, equality, self-sacrifice, fraternity, internationalism, respect, non-violence and tolerance. Unlike some among the US right, I would not try to claim any or all of these virtues for my part of the political spectrum only. But I suspect these values motivate many "liberals" who unlike me have not lost their faith, Clinton and Blair being the two most obvious contemporary examples.

Yay. I'm so glad that just by being a liberal, I can be not only anti American, but also anti Christian, as well as being anti many other things. ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Yay. I'm so glad that just by being a liberal, I can be not only anti American, but also anti Christian, as well as being anti many other things

---

No ones saying that

Quote:

---

But I suspect these values motivate many "liberals" who unlike me have not lost their faith, Clinton and Blair being the two most obvious

---

Clinton? ~:confused: Hasnt lost faith in what himself?

Quote:

---

I deeply dislike religious fundamentalism.

---

You can pretty much put anything you like in front of fundamentalism and it would be just as bad.

Quote:

---

No ones saying that

---

Well no. But the articale says that Liberals hate christanity. And I've heard liberals hate America, as well as babies (?) and other silly things. Not in this thread, but in general.

Oh, and the author of that articale reminds me of Archie Bunker, for some reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Clinton? ~:confused: Hasnt lost faith in what himself?

---

I knew that would get a rise. There was an interesting article in the Sunday Times by the right-wing commentator Andrew Sullivan. It was on the now elderly Billy Graham and argued that he represented a different kind of evangelical to the Christian right now vocal in the US. As a case in point, he referred to a public meeting involving Graham and the Clintons. IIRC, Bill Clinton said something to the effect that he always wanted to be an evangelist. Graham joked that Clinton should have become an evangelist and left running the country to Hilary. Sullivan observed that such a comment would be unthinkable from the Christian right, among whom hatred of the Clintons has become an article of faith.

Quote:

---

Graham joked that Clinton should have become an evangelist and left running the country to Hilary. Sullivan observed that such a comment would be unthinkable from the Christian right, among whom hatred of the Clintons has become an article of faith.

---

Because its ridiculous and as he said jokingly. Certainly Clinton has the charisma to be an evangelist but more like Baker than Graham.Hes not alluding to Clintons faith here. I mean hes famous for being unfaithful ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Because its ridiculous and as he said jokingly. Certainly Clinton has the charisma to be an evangelist but more like Baker than Graham.Hes not alluding to Clintons faith here. I mean hes famous for being unfaithful ~D

---

I'm not sure. Someone once said politicians were either bishops or bookies - ie holier than thou preachy types or shrewd wheeler-dealers[1]. On form, Clinton could give uplifting evangelical type speeches - yes, it was in large part charisma but I also think he was drawing on Christian values. Even the way he dealt with his adultery was through evangelical self-flagellating "I'm a miserable sinner" type appeals, rather than a secular "mind your own business" rebuttal.

[1] On reflection, I suspect the most successful politicians are bookies who can pretend to be bishops. Blair and Clinton may be cases in point. As someone else once said, if you can fake sincerity, you've got it made.

Quote:

---

Even the way he dealt with his adultery was through evangelical self-flagellating "I'm a miserable sinner" type appeals, rather than a secular "mind your own business" rebuttal.

---

Are we talking about the same guy here? He may have said that to Graham but he certainly didnt come off that way to many Americans. In fact he said he did it because he could.

Yeah, his 'apology' to the nation was (paraphrasing here) "Today, I answered questions nobody should ever be asked, but because I'm such a decent guy, I answered them. Some people misunderstood what I was trying to tell them earlier on and now they're claiming that I lied. I didn't, but even if I had, it's none of their or your business".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Yeah, his 'apology' to the nation was (paraphrasing here) "Today, I answered questions nobody should ever be asked, but because I'm such a decent guy, I answered them. Some people misunderstood what I was trying to tell them earlier on and now they're claiming that I lied. I didn't, but even if I had, it's none of their or your business".

---

that was basically it, yeah

And dont forget he was getting spiritual guidance at this point from the Reverend Ja ackson who at the time was hiding his love child. Suddednly there were pictures of Clinton going to church and carrying his bible. What a farce. You notice he dont tote it around no more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Are we talking about the same guy here? He may have said that to Graham but he certainly didnt come off that way to many Americans. In fact he said he did it because he could.

---

I don't think it was said to Graham, but it was said to a group of Christians and televised. IIRC, they were mainly African Americans. It was some time after the incident. Now you mention it, I do recall the televised "apology" to the American nation that was po-faced, defensive and unconvincing.

Quote:

---

but it was said to a group of Christians and televised. IIRC, they were mainly African Americans.

---

~D Come on hes playing to his base ~D He was the first black american president you know. You think he was sincere? Hes still having affairs though with a wife like Madame Hilary who can blame him. I bet if and when they do have sex she takes the dominant position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

And I'm saying it shouldn't be against the law to defend oneself.

What is the purpose of the law? When the law doesn't serve it's purpose, don't we have an obligation to change it? Assuming of course, it's against the law to defend oneself.

---

I am not arguing the law. Would you defend yourself if it was against the law? Does your resolve to engage in violence change depending if it is legal or not? Thats my point. The law is just one of many consequences of your action which is to shoot the invader.

And I agree with Simon in what he said about the christianity, except that I'm probably even more relativistic than he is when people's decisions are concerned. As he says, interpreting literally a 2000 old text that is incomplete for starters and wasnt even intended to be taken literally in the beginning is just not sensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

I am not arguing the law. Would you defend yourself if it was against the law? Does your resolve to engage in violence change depending if it is legal or not? Thats my point. The law is just one of many consequences of your action which is to shoot the invader.

---

Yes, I would. So go ahead and try to save a few home invaders lives and happiness... they come banging on the Don's door and they're going to have issues. Why are you obsessed with enslaving people to the point where criminals have the right to home invade and people don't have the right to defend themselves? Do you rob people's houses on a regular basis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Yes, I would. So go ahead and try to save a few home invaders lives and happiness... they come banging on the Don's door and they're going to have issues. Why are you obsessed with enslaving people to the point where criminals have the right to home invade and people don't have the right to defend themselves? Do you rob people's houses on a regular basis?

---

Well, my range of activity is beside the point of my post. And I'm not trying to save home invaders or leave anyone unprotected. I'm just saying that you will take a decision if you are ready to face the cosequences. Imagine that the invader is the one making the decision to shoot or not. If he doesnt shoot then he will get shot himself. If he does shoot he'll be spending a good time in prison. The decision will depend on what he values more, his life or his freedom. Not on his moral code.

I got news for ya. If he's standing in my bedroom, waving a pistol around, the decision has already been made for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I got news for ya. If he's standing in my bedroom, waving a pistol around, the decision has already been made for him.

---

Oh, today's youth.... Where's you abstract thinking? I'm not talking about that specific event but about the act of pulling the trigger or not as a personal decision based on ones priorities and not on a doctrine.

Are you trying to make the point about whether I factor external stimulus into my decision making process or not?

Fair enough, but you probably didn't pick the best issue to use as self-defense tends to be intensely personal and hopefully, spur of the moment. I suppose you could pre-meditate a self defense, but you'd have a hard time selling it to a jury you had no other options. Last I checked, booby-trapping your place is illegal and not considered self-defense.

I have a wife (and now a baby on the way) to think about. I'm not going to let somebody take them away from me. I'd rather die, and yes, I have made that decision ahead of time and there's very little the government could threaten me with that would change my mind (actually, the only thing I can think of is them taking them away from me now if I don't submit to a life of defenseless slavery).

Again, why is it so important to you that people leave themselves vulernable and defenseless? Sorry, you lost me hours ago.

ok, maybe the example wasnt the best....

Quote:

---

I have a wife (and now a baby on the way) to think about. I'm not going to let somebody take them away from me. I'd rather die, and yes, I have made that decision ahead of time and there's very little the government could threaten me with that would change my mind

---

exactly my point. But religion didnt have a say in that decision did it? (well, except maybe marrying you...)

Quote:

---

Again, why is it so important to you that people leave themselves vulernable and defenseless? Sorry, you lost me hours ago.

---

That wasnt my point really... My point was that fairness is very subjective and anything you consider necessary is "fair" if you are prepared to face the consequences of your actions.

I made that point pages ago. "Fair" is what I want. "Unfair" is what you want that differs from that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

exactly my point. But religion didnt have a say in that decision did it? (well, except maybe marrying you...)

---

this notion flys in the face of self preservation and i believe that all altruism in western culture is derived from religious assumption

it becomes so habitual that even if one is not religious, they are taught to put certain relatives safety and well-being above their own

it serves no real egoistc purpose to save the life of a wife, sybling, child or parent at the expense of your own life

if it wasnt for this simple fact (for so many, but not all), i would disbelieve in the possible existence of a right and wrong entirely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

it serves no real egoistc purpose to save the life of a wife, sybling, child or parent at the expense of your own life

---

in so much as the ego is affected/produced by biology, there are certainly biological reasons for an individual to risk their own life to ensure the survival of their children. moreover, a response of violence against an attacker should not necessarily be seen as a conscious decision to forfeit one's life for the protection of one's family. such a response, while endangering the individual, may be adaptively advantageous for populations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

exactly my point. But religion didnt have a say in that decision did it? (well, except maybe marrying you...)

---

Well, in truth, it is my religion that makes me at times question my right to defend myself. It certainly is what brought me to a place that I find capital punishment unacceptable. If I have any questions about the war, it is because of Christ's teachings, not because of the pathetic ramblings of a Left that seems to relish it's own destruction. This religion is also is what tempers a lot of other base instincts I have. My wife and unborn child, well, okay, I'm not Abraham. I would not allow these to be sacraficed. Call me small, and a weak follower.

So, I guess your point, now that I've given it a couple of hours to calm down and reflect upon it, is that I'm a hypocrite, that my so-called religious morality is no less tenuous than the concept of 'fairness' that gets tossed around. Fair enough. I wouldn't let you carve my wife and unborn child up, but I probably would let you do it to me. I guess I am a hyporcrite. Must be nice to be able to take the high ground on these issues. Are you in a penitentiary or something?

why? Do types like me usually end up in one? ~;)

Quote:

---

So, I guess your point, now that I've given it a couple of hours to calm down and reflect upon it, is that I'm a hypocrite, that my so-called religious morality is no less tenuous than the concept of 'fairness' that gets tossed around.

---

I never said that. But you realise yourself that religion plays a smaller role in real life than it would if the bible was followed to the letter. Because following it to the letter is not what it was meant when the bible was written and humans felt similarly about similar things then and now.

As of fairness it doesnt exist. There are just hings that you are going to do something about because they bother you more intensely and others you will ignore because you consider them insignificant. The things themselves and your reaction will depend on the priority you set yourself and no religion or law can set for you.

Thats why Democracy is crap. It destroys your independency without even giving you a chance to fight for it.