This blog is about politics, not religion; despite my occasional flights off topic, but this post is not about religion, per se, it's about the hypocritical use of religion in politics by the Left.
So while I don't respect DeMar's theology, I can't discount truth even when it comes from DeMar-- a broken clock is right twice a day.
From DeMar's article, Leftist Dominionists Hate Competition...
What liberals hate is to have some group or competing ideology to claim what they believe is their turf. For decades liberals have staked out politics, education, media, entertainment, and every so-called secular area of life to be their domain, and woe to anyone who attempts to enter the gates to their heavily protected and subsidized kingdom.
So when liberals read about a group that wants to impact the family, religion, arts and entertainment, media, government, education, and business, they go into a frenzied dance of defiance and shock. There’s nothing new in any of this. It has a long history.
There is a lot of hypocrisy in this as well; not from DeMar, but from liberals. Religion, they say, has no place in politics, and yet they inject their own religion all the same, claiming it's their moral right and responsibility to do so. But let a conservative member of congress suggest that it is right and moral to do a thing for the benefit of all Americans, and liberals will rise up in apoplectic outrage. The only injection of religious principle into American culture the left will tolerate are those promoted by the left. As though they are the sole, rightful arbiters of morality in all of America.
In 2003, Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry criticized the Vatican for saying that “Catholic politicians like him have a ‘moral duty’ to oppose laws granting legal rights to gay couples.” He went on to say that “it’s important to not have the church instructing politicians. That is an inappropriate crossing of the line in America.” Would Kerry agree to the following logic of his position?:This 'logic' is at the core of the division between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals, according to DeMar, having entered "into every civil, cultural and political activity... patiently leavening them all as thoroughly as yeast leavens bread" is loath to give up any ground to Conservatives who are trying to do the very same today. The Tea Party has become the most dangerous grass roots organization to the Left's proclaimed cultural fiefdom, in decades (or ever). Which is why they attack the Tea Party at every opportunity. They fear change. Especially any change that threatens to topple them as the rightful purveyors of approved American license and culture.
- "It’s important not to have the church instructing politicians about slavery."
- "It’s important not to have the church instructing politicians about ethnic cleansing."
- "It’s important not to have the church instructing politicians about civil rights."
Liberalism, especially under Obama, has shown itself to be a failure. It's time for a change. Not the kind of change he wants us to believe in, but the kind of change Americans believe in. And if truth be told, democrats and republicans (outside the beltway) are not so far apart in terms of what's best for America. There are only a few sticking points keeping us on opposite sides of the fence. If the ideologues would simply get out of the way... if WASHINGTON would get out of the way... we could work this out among ourselves.
America has no further need for ideologues. What America needs are some simple, real-world Americans with good ideas.
"I can't discount truth"
ReplyDeleteAll evidence to the contrary.
This post and the crap upon which it it based is a crock. It's one straw man after another.
"For decades liberals have staked out politics, education, media, entertainment, and every so-called secular area of life to be their domain, and woe to anyone who attempts to enter the gates to their heavily protected and subsidized kingdom."
This is utter nonsense.
"they go into a frenzied dance of defiance and shock."
You mean arguing against things they oppose, or exposing facts about efforts, organizations or people who argue against them is a "frenzied dance"? More nonsense.
"Liberalism, especially under Obama, has shown itself to be a failure."
Very little "liberalism" has been enacted under President Obama, and there is no way anyone can rightly call what has been done a failure.
"If the ideologues would simply get out of the way... if WASHINGTON would get out of the way... we could work this out among ourselves."
Would that this were so. That would require give and take, compromise. I've hardly seen anything on these pages that would suggest that any of you are willing to do that.
I am very glad to see that at least one reader has the common sense to see the utter crud and hate behind this post. I would love to see specific examples of the "religion" the author purports the left tries to inject into their politics at every turn. There are many faith based beliefs one holds and applies to their actions, but to try and hold this (which for the most part in reality is secularism) as religion is just a reversal of criticism. Then there is the giant straw man about John Kerry's argument.
ReplyDeleteIt boggles the mind how you take Kerry's opposition to one claim of the church (to oppress peoples freedom to marry who they love), and then hold him against hypothetical positions of the church that no one can be against, as if Kerry would certainly oppose them on a religious ground. Not even taking into account that those viewpoints could be shared with the church on an ethical and moral ground as well as a religous one.
I know this blog is supposed to be propoganda, but my word! I wish there was some reason to be found in any of your arguments for the Right.
Liberals love to claim the moral high-ground. But, hypocritically, denounce conservatives for daring to speak of morality when those points attack the sacred tropes of liberalism.
ReplyDeleteWhatever position DeMar stakes out for himself with his criticism of Kerry, I am not claiming any moral superiority here.
How patently absurd that the two libs above would pretend there is no truth in the post regarding liberal view of morality. Let us consider how often we must hear of the duties of the rich to pay more taxes, and then try to insist that lefty politicians won't say something along the lines of "Jesus says to care for the poor". Let us consider how often Dems will speak at churches, especially politicians such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and never get heat from the ACLU and other protectors of the fictitious "separation of church and state". Indeed, is it not the left (mostly) who insists on interpreting that Jefferson quote whenever there is the slightest hint of religion having brushed ever so lightly against the arm of anything regarded as governmental?
ReplyDeleteAnd the Kerry bit is an example of how the left dictates the place of religion in politics. On the one hand, the lefty politician will speak of his faith and how it shapes their lives (Yeah, right). But then on the other hand, they will pretend they are compelled to keep that to themselves and not "impose" their beliefs on the nation. What kind of idiot tries to run with that attitude? (Don't answer. The question was rhetorical. We know the answer is "a lib idiot".) If one truly believes in the faith to which they lay claim, how can seeking to bring about what that faith teaches be a bad thing for the nation? Why would a true believer keep it to himself? My position has always been that regardless of whether or not one believes in God, the teachings of the Christian faith are beneficial to the whole of society that lives by them. But the lefty politician has no spine and less real faith to pretend there is no place in his policies for the guidance of his religion.