« Oh, that majority | Main | Church State follow-up »

May 13, 2005


jon st

Where do you get this “liberals are perceived as anti-religious”? With all due respect, I think you may be suffering from a bit of the Stockholm syndrome. You are believing what your captures (MSM) are telling you.

The history of 20th century liberalism in the United States is deeply interwoven with religious institutions of all kinds. Go back to Progressivism’s roots.


Recall the Labor movement of the 20s and 30s. Move on to the civil rights and anti-war movements and see for yourself the interconnection. Examine Carter’s political philosophy.

Has this history been wiped out of people brains? En masse?

After Reagan got in….and the media started to become a more willing tool of corporate America it worked to their benefit to claim liberals were “anti-religion”. Are some liberals’ anti-religious? Sure. Are some conservatives? You bet. So what?

I’m not buying the fact that “liberals are perceived” as “anti-religious”. If you do, fine….I believe you fall right into their game.

The people who are pushing the Ten Commandments…..and the manger issues will find other issues to organize around if you compromise on those issues. Kevin and Matt are clueless about the nature of the foe. Well meaning, perhaps smart, but clueless on the central question of the day: What does the enemy want? He wants the Enlightenment repealed. He awaits the Rapture. There is no compromise with this bunch. Compromise is possible with a lot of the GOP. Compromise is possible with a lot of the people who deeply hold to their religious views. But with the Rapturenistas ? No way.

Winston Smith

I agree. What Matt and Kevin sometimes seem clueless about is the nature of principles, and the role the appearance of not having any, or at least none worth fighting for, has played in the long-term loss of Democratic power.


Ion St. Perception is seldom reality. Michael is not say that liberals are anti-religious, but that they are percieved that way.

The real problem is that liberals are being generalized to death by being made the sum of their fringe.


The dangerous issue here isn't the ten commandments--it's the creationism in the schools issue. Creationsim disguised as ID has the potential to set us back centuries technologically, and turn us into a backwater intellectually. Religious thought versus secular thought in government--that's a debate we've been having since the founding, with religion ascendant to various degrees, but always ascendant.

But in science and education, there can be no room for compromise. There is no place for religion when it comes to science--the two must be separate. Otherwise we risk losing a generation or more to superstition. At the rate at which the world is changing technologically, one generation might put us so far behind that we may never recover.

Ed Drone

The 10 Commandments in Government buildings is the nose of the camel! But what I can't understand is the fervent desire of the neopharisees to allow the Government into their pulpits. To them I'd say:

You want the Government to push your religion, support your message, lean toward you? Great! But once it's pushing religion, it will be subject to influence by specific religions, so the Baptists, for example, may wake up to find the Pope walking hand-in-hand with the President (shades of the sheik), and all the fundamental reasons the Protestant churches split from the Catholic Church will go for naught. And what if the church the Government chooses to support the most is the Unification Church (as if they weren't already hand-in-glove)? Or Scientology? Or Judaism (is Rabbi Kahane still alive and available?)?

You can't count on the Government to push only the religious viewpoints you support. Or maybe you'll get a Government whose 'support' of religion is so bureaucratic and wishy-washy (all things to all people) it'll make you think that 'political correctness' was a pale precursor to the official religion you've created.

And if Government gets on the side of one religion, what happens to the tax status of all the other denominations? Right now, the IRS is pretty laissez-faire about tax exemptions for religions; what if someone in a Bureau somewhere gets a bee in his bonnet and declares that the Mormon Church, for example, isn't a "real" religion?

And those who say 'separation of church and state' are not in the Constitution ignore that Jefferson wrote that the establishment clause was intended to erect a wall between church and state, so, to him, 'separation of church and state' is indeed in the Constitution, in the very clause the wingnuts claim says something different. You want 'original intent?' It's right there, folks, and you can't show me that it isn't.



It makes no sense, Ed, but what the neo-Pharisees (love that term, almost as much as theocons) are presuming is that they'll also be in charge of government, and thus will be able to impose their will upon other sects. I know--it doesn't make logistical sense, but hey, we're talking about Dominionists here, the same folks who believe that God sends hurricanes to punish liberals.

It's not a stretch for them, if you consider where they're coming from. These are people who believe not just in the triumphance of christianity, but of their particular brand of it--they believe that people who belong to other sects have got it as wrong as the Jews and Muslims and all the others, and if you're willing to believe that your church has found the one secret to all-knowing truth, then it's not much of a leap to think that if you're able to batter down the wall between church and state, that god will lead you to the position of power in that state. They don't even consider the possibility that other groups think exactly the same way they do, and that they'll be wanting supreme power as well--it never even occurs to them. They'll consider victory to be validation of God's approval of their sect. Problem is, so will all the other sects. That's when the Holy Wars begin again.

The comforting thing about all this is that when psychos like that get any kind of power, they inevitably destroy each other. The non-comforting part of it is that they always take a lot of bystanders down with them.

The comments to this entry are closed.