Today we find an article by a rabid partisan pretending to be a conservative:
Mike Adams published this piece on townhall.com.
Well, that left a bad taste in my mouth. If Mr. Adams wants to call Leftist and Progressive attitudes Liberal then someone shuold point out that this would leave us with NO term for classical Lberal thought at all.
I am sure this would please Mr. Adams, but I think the rest of us might want to live in a world a little more compassionate than 1638 Massachutsetts!
Let us look at this list of propogandistic canards and take a peek through partisan colored glasses at the world as he sees it.
“…Abortion: Liberals support abortion not because they anticipate needing an abortion in the wake of an incident of rape or incest. They overwhelmingly want to escape the natural consequences (pregnancy) of a freely chosen decision to engage in sex outside of marriage.”
According to the information in MY world most contraception is used BY married people. Is Mr. Adams claiming that anyone who is not a devout Catholic or some such engaging in sex outside of “marriage”? Probably not, instead he is simply lying about the actual usage in order to support his dubvious attack on the very term “Liberal”. A term that, in its classic meaning, is embraced by many who read, write and edit this site.
This argument is nonsensical in other ways… Does Mr. Adams wear clothes? Does he cook his food? If so, he is clearly guilty of attempting to avoid the natural consequances of exposing himself to a non-tropical climate and to the trials of chewing and digesting natural foods. Not to mention killing off the natural bugs that he is trying to avoid in his zeal to eat things like pork and such.
The bottom line seems to be that Mr. Adams feels that anyone who does not embrace his STRICT Judeo-Christian worldview is “attempting to avoid the consequences” of the “natural order”. As an argument against abortion this falls far short of being persuasive to those who are not already in Mr. Adams’s choir.
“Social Security: Saving money is difficult and it requires a lot of patience and a general willingness to delay gratification. Social security is nice for those who never get around to investing and saving money on their own. When the government does it for you, it insulates you, in part, from the consequences of your bad financial decisions.”
Again with the shoving Puritan ethics down the throat of every man, woman and child in sight! Imagine the “compasion” of a mind that views every mom and pop in America as being responsble for learning, understanding and having the time and skill to apply sophisticated savings and investing strategies.
Mr. Adams may argue that forcing HIM to participate is wrong, but here he seems to feel that to even WANT this saftynet available is somehow a crime.
We are only two points into his worldview but let us add it up:
A working class family, with no doubt 3 to 9 kids, must find the time for, and have the education to pursue, a consistant long term savings scheme and not fall afoul of random economic downturns or bank failures, or their old age is of no concern to Mr. Adams. Am I missing something Virginia, or is Santa wearing a suit made of Bod Cratchet’s skin?
“Separation of Church and State: Our Founders thought it would be a bad idea to have a national religion.”
This is a MILD undertatement to say the least, It was the Puritan theocratic tendencies of Mr. Adams’s heros that provoked the majority of colonies to vote Aye on that amendment!
“But since the Warren Court era political liberals have been using this notion of a “wall of separation” to exclude from the public square all kinds of constitutionally protected religious speech.”
Such as? The main result to me has been to require that any voice/access given to one religion must be given to all, or none may have it.
It means that religious instruction is not allowed to be endorsed in anyway by the government.
It means that no citizen must face a judge or teacher or cop feeling excluded by that official’s blatant application of their tribal rites to the excercise of their duties to the public.
“In reality, liberals don’t want a “wall” they want a partition – something they can take down and put back up in order to attack religion while banning close scrutiny of their ideas.”
No, the Partisans want that. ALL Partisans of any political stripe want; “freedom for me but not for thee” in order to apply, without friction, their “perfect plan” for society. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Osama, and de Sade all shared the same mindset. They simply used different excuses for their evils.
“..One of the professors on my campus teaches that Paul was … Ultimately, these folks hope that they can convert people away from antiquated religions like Judaism and Christianity and towards newer, hipper religions like multi-culturalism and diversity. “
Oh my, Virginia I am sorry about that. It is not pleasent to snort milk through your nose from a sudden laugh.
Mr. Adams, PAUL was the FOUNDER of a “hipper”, “Multi-cultural and diversity” oriented heretical offshoot of the original Christianity. Peter and James themselves were in no way happy with the man’s theological opinions on most things; they merely gave in when his numbers outstripped theirs and his church became the default “Christianity”. And now the Conservative of the conservative defend him as the bastion of the faith. The more things change, the more they stay the same Virginia!
“…No college professor (of religion, no less) would say “I don’t know whether there is a God and, by the way, I am blissful about my ignorance.”
Wow, all I can say is Mr. Adams needs to look up the difference between know and believe. I know that if I drop a rock on my foot it will hurt. There is NO way, to date to KNOW that God exists; this is in the realm of faith. By the same token it is not possible to KNOW that God does NOT exist.
Thus, both the adamant Theist (Mr. Adams) and the adamant atheist are “believers” not “knowers”. This is simply the way the universe works; to NOT be able to be “blissful” about it is the delusional path, as far as I can see.
“…What kind of education are we providing when professors are teaching courses aimed at indoctrination into atheism?”
About as good an education as you get NOW at schools run by people on the THEISTIC side like PAt RObertson. A biased education full of holes and illogic and hatred.
Mr. Adams, the nasty tactics of the LEFTISTS donot excuse the nasty tactics of the far RIGHT any more than YOUR hero’s excesses excuse the ecesses of the LEFT.
“And what are we to do about it?”
Hopefully grow up, and accept that without CLASSIC Liberal thought NO society can be anything but harsh and nasty. Hopefully start adressing the proper segments of society and not demonize the “opposition” simply because they do not think like you do.
The line between Jonestown and Jesus Camp is hardly worth mentioning to those who seek solutions, instead of domination.
“The real problem is that many of these atheists have made a free choice to attack traditional Christian beliefs and simultaneously wish to erect a “partition of separation” to keep Christians from defending themselves.”
And the actions of Leftist atheists gives you reason to attack the concept of “Liberal”? I fail to follow your “logic”, Mr. Adams.
How about a course in the effects of theistic and non-theistic tribalism on a society when carried out by self-serving, heartless individuals bent on suppressing ALL dissent in the name of “harmony”?