Quantcast

Why do Liberals hate Christianity, but ignore Islam?

MtDuffer 2013/05/01 21:03:10
You!
Add Photos & Videos

I would like to challenge any Left Wingers out there in Obama Land to Please have the guts to comment. And please do it in a respectful way.


The reason that liberals hate Christianity, but ignore Islam

http://www.bookwormroom.com/
April 29, 2013

One of the things that's frustrating for non-liberals and non-Progressives is Leftists' refusal to look Islam in the face (so to speak). Yes, there are crazy people who are Christians and there are entire Christian sects that are crazy (such as the Westboro Baptists or Warren Jeffs' polygamist Mormon cult). The fact remains, however, that Christians as a whole, whether they belong to big churches or small ones, do not embrace or practice terrorism to achieve their political or religious goals.

Muslims, by contrast, routinely practice terrorism to achieve goals that are simultaneously religious and political, owing to Islam's fusion of God and state. Even though it's remarkably simple to tie Islam to terrorism (9/11, the underwear bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, the attempted Portland Christmas tree massacre, the Boston Marathon bombing), Leftists scurry around like cockroaches exposed to the light in their desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging Islam's violent heart.

Today, I read one thing and wrote another, both of which address Leftist hatred for Christianity, even though modern Christianity and genuine Judaism (as opposed to the hard Leftism that masquerades as "reform Judaism") are the most humane, civilizing forces the world has ever seen. With their focus on justice and grace, they rid the world of slavery, ended child labor, advanced women's status and, in Israel's case, fought a 60-year war without sinking to the level of her enemies. But the Left truly hates them and seeks to undermine them at every turn.

The article I read on this subject is Benjamin Wiker's "Why aren't liberals more critical of Islam?" In it, he posits that, because secularism arose within and in opposition to a Christian Europe and America, Christianity was its original enemy. Giving proof, however, to my repeated claim that "Progressives" are actually profoundly "regressive," secularists (i.e., Leftists) continue their battle with Christianity despite that particular war having ended long ago. Judaism and Christianity absorbed the better parts of secularism while holding on to their core religious principles.

Because they are locked forever in an ideological time warp, says Wiker, liberals (or Progressives or Leftists or whatever else they call themselves to avoid the taint their ideas leave behind) cannot contemplate the possibility that there is another enemy, greater than their old foe Christianity. Which brings me to a post I did today for Mr. Conservative. It concerns Michael 'Mikey' Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and one of the most rabid anti-Christians you will ever meet.

When I wrote the post this morning, it made me uncomfortable that such a venomous man is somehow Jewish, whether genetically or in actual practice. I hate to see that kind of hatred emanate from a group with which I'm affiliated. However, having read Wiker's essay, I realize that my concern is unfounded. Weinstein's hostility to Christians isn't because he's Jewish, it's because he's a Leftist. (Not all Jews are Leftists, and not all Leftists are Jews, but those Jews who are Leftists are amongst the most extreme Leftists. Mikey's in that category.)

Here's my Mr. Conservative post. See what you think:

The Obama government sure knows how to pick 'em. Right now, the Pentagon is concerned about religious intolerance in the American military. When people who are neither Leftists nor career politicians in thrall to the White House think of intolerance in the military, they think of Major Nidal Malik Hasan who went on an"Allahu Akbar" shooting spree at Fort Hood, killing 13 people and injuring more than thirty. The Pentagon, though, isn't fooled by these false trails. It knows who the really intolerant people in the military are: Christians.

To that end, the military has brought in Michael Weinstein, Esq., a "religious tolerance" specialist and the man who founded the Military Religious Freedom Foundation ("MRFF"). Michael knows all about tolerance. Or at least, he knows all about tolerance in the Obama era. To Michael (or "Mikey" as he likes to be known), a good way to express tolerance is to call Christians "monsters" or, even better "bloody monsters."

According to Mikey's tolerant world view, Christians who serve in the American military are "well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation's armed forces." And that's just Mikey's throat-clearing.

Troll through an article Mikey wrote in The Huffington Post to justify his tolerant attack on alleged Christian intolerance in the American military, and you'll learn quickly that the people he's out to destroy (tolerantly, of course) are "evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures." They are "bandits" who "coagulate their stenchful substances" in religiously-based organizations that support traditional marriage and oppose abortion. Don't be fooled by these old-fashioned values, though. In fact, says Mikey, "The basis of their ruinous unity is the bane of human existence and progress: horrific hatred and blinding bigotry."

What inspired Weinstein's apopletic rage is the fact that conservatives took offense when the military piggy-backed on a delusional Southern Poverty Law Center screed and identified conservative Christians as the greatest terrorist threat in America. Because these groups use hate-filled language, Mikey says, such as "God Hates Fags" or "Thank God for IEDs," they're obviously one step away from committing a bomb attack in a major American city. (It's so magical. It's as if 9/11, Fort Hood, and the Boston bombing never happened.)

If Mikey is correct, that toxic, hate-filled rhetoric is all one needs to prove that a person or organization constitutes an imminent danger, then Mikey better start looking over his shoulder. Considering the "evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures," "bandits (who) coagulate their stenchful substances," and "monsters" who inhabit his rhetorical world, he looks like he's ready to blow.

What Mikey can't comprehend is that, while mainstream Christians and conservatives routinely condemn and distance themselves from organizations such as the Westboro Baptist Church, Mikey gets to disseminate his particular brand of hate-filled, toxic intolerance at a major Progressive internet outlet.

Even worse than the applause he's getting from the mainstream Left is the fact that he's been taken on by the Pentagon as a consultant to help develop new policies on religious tolerance in the military. These new policies will include rules for court-martialing military chaplains who use the Christian gospel when they counsel the American troops under their care. Or, as MRFF Advisory Board member Larry Wilkerson told The Washington Post, they essentially sexually assaulting the troops with their God talk.

No kidding. Wilkerson says that "Sexual assault and proselytizing are absolutely destructive of the bonds that keep soldiers together." Lest there be any misunderstanding, Mikey clarified to The Post what Wilkerson really meant:

This is a national security threat. What is happening [aside from sexual assault] is spiritual rape. And what the Pentagon needs is to understand is that it is sedition and treason. It should be punished.

Mikey hates everything. Or at least he hates everything that has to do with Christianity. He foams at the mouth, spittle flying, when he talks about Christians, imagining them guilty of the most heinous crimes. The problem is that it's not Christians committing the crimes he imagines. The major terrorist crimes come from the Islamists, something that Mike and his friends on the Left refuse to acknowledge. It's bad when even arch-liberal Bill Maher calls this denial "liberal bullshit."

Speaking of committed, though, in a sane world Mikey's delusions would have him being checked out by psychiatrists as a clear and present danger. In our insane world, psychiatrists are used to disarm our veterans and the delusional, hate-filled, spittle-flecked Mikey gets to work with the Pentagon to create a tolerance policy that ensures that military chaplains will be court martialed for doing their jobs.

If troops are indeed being punished or ostracized because they don't embrace a particular form of Christianity, the military has to address that. But Mikey makes it clear that, for him, being Christian is the real problem. In that regard, he's the typical Leftist who says that the First Amendment, rather than giving people the right to worship, means that the Christian religion must be erased from America.

(End of the Mr. Conservative article, beginning of my last comment on the subject.)

As for me, I think that people who are willing to fight and die for their country in a constitutionally-bound military run by civilians, in a nation controlled by the First Amendment, should be allowed to practice their religion without Leftists denying them the comfort of knowing that, as they go into battle, God walks at their side.

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • chaoskitty123 2013/05/02 02:25:47
    None of the above
    chaoskitty123
    +11
    It's political. Notice how they attack Christians for the exact same things Muslims do? Or how about the 5,000 women and girls stoned to death for not obeying their husbands or fathers? How about all the gays they imprison or execute... or torture to death? What about the young people they kill for being "too western"?

    Prior to 9/11, the left did not ignore these things because all of these people within the Muslim world are what people... say it with me... they are LIBERALS and only want the freedoms western liberals claim is the right of all peoples to possess.

    But after 9/11, the political right went after Muslims moreso than the political left and some special interest leaders decided that they might use this to win over the Muslim vote in the US... even though Islam is far more rightwing than Christianity and has more hatred for everything the left believes in than Christians do.

    In fact, do you notice how every time anything dubbed a "hate crime" happens, the left comes online screaming it's a white rightwing racist Christian Conservative Republican male? And how many times does this blow up in their faces because they didn't wait to learn the facts? How about writing a couple of hours or a day? Their hate is so great for the political right that they have come to vie...



































    It's political. Notice how they attack Christians for the exact same things Muslims do? Or how about the 5,000 women and girls stoned to death for not obeying their husbands or fathers? How about all the gays they imprison or execute... or torture to death? What about the young people they kill for being "too western"?

    Prior to 9/11, the left did not ignore these things because all of these people within the Muslim world are what people... say it with me... they are LIBERALS and only want the freedoms western liberals claim is the right of all peoples to possess.

    But after 9/11, the political right went after Muslims moreso than the political left and some special interest leaders decided that they might use this to win over the Muslim vote in the US... even though Islam is far more rightwing than Christianity and has more hatred for everything the left believes in than Christians do.

    In fact, do you notice how every time anything dubbed a "hate crime" happens, the left comes online screaming it's a white rightwing racist Christian Conservative Republican male? And how many times does this blow up in their faces because they didn't wait to learn the facts? How about writing a couple of hours or a day? Their hate is so great for the political right that they have come to view all hate and discrimination as rightwing which is a huge reason they label Nazi Germany rightwing when everything from their environmental laws and animal rights to universal healthcare, social welfare programs and belief in heartless science like eugenics were all leftwing... true, the majority of the German people were rightwing, but also true Germany was in chaos so the people put their support behind Hitler who immediately eliminated all opposition and imposed military force against his own people. They supported him because he provided stability and prosperity but he told us very clearly in Mein Kampf his intentions to return his people to their original faith by convincing Christians he supported them before weening them away from the foreign faith most embraced. Go check Hitlers laws... they are identical almost word for word to what many of todays Liberal Progressives believe in and have pushed into law.

    When these anti gay fanatics come out protesting at funerals, they immediately come out attacking rightwing Christians... problem there is that Fred Phelps and his Westboro Church are not only leftwing Christians, but they hate the political and religious right more strongly than most Liberal Progressives. But it doesn't stop them from initially attacking these fanatics as being rightwing haters until they dig just a little to learn Phelps and his followers are indeed leftwing... and the left shuts up about Phelps and the Westboro Church which ironically, rightwingers and moderates do not as they continue to attack Phelps... but then, it's easier to see these people for the haters they are when you don't have all that egg on your face like the people who jumped the gun falsely attacking Phelps and his supporters of being rightwing.

    But I don't think Liberals hate Christians altogether as look at Phelps and his group... they're Liberals and there are millions of Liberal Christians in the world.

    It's where they allow knee jerk reactions and mindless stupidity to take over their minds following the ignorance and hate of the extreme left every time these people lash out at rightwingers without having a clue... and where they have misled themselves to think only rightwingers are racists, gay bashers, chauvinists and have allowed all their perceptions of the political right to portray them as haters in the minds of those on the left... and it's destroying the left doing that.

    How is it that after they became majority Democrats in the 1960's that the black on black crime rate and violence exploded until reaching epidemic proportions?

    When the Democrats controlled the South, they had a policy of manipulating whites to scapegoat blacks for all their problems rather than actually doing the damn jobs they were elected to do... much as our leaders continued to do after the 1960's. However, the Democrats shifted direction because when it became politically incorrect to be a racist or to scapegoat blacks for the problems of whites, whites began blaming their leaders and within a few short years... an economic rebirth happened in the South that had been long delayed by Democrat hatemongering and the blame game. They reversed Jim Crow by perverting Affirmative Action with quota's where under the claim they were just helping blacks gain equality, they began denying opportunities to qualified non blacks giving them to blacks just because of the color of their skin... that is how Jim Crow worked and it's not what JFK or MLK wanted as they only wanted the barriers removed that kept qualified black Americans from getting the opportunities they deserved.

    Does a white supremist care who harms a black person as long as a black person is harmed?

    The answer is no and under the Democrats since the 1960's, the black on black crime and violence rate exploded until today in just one year more blacks are harming other blacks than any thirty years combined of white on black violence. White supremists dropped out of groups like the KKK because there was no need to be part of them when blacks are doing far more damage to themselves than white suprmists ever could. Toss in how black women have two to three times as many abortions and how the Democrats have convinced blacks to remain in all black communities if they want and to call themselves ni**ers even though it means the same as when whites used to do it... white supremists are kicked back laughing their damn fool heads off.

    And what happened to all the local chapters of the womens rights movement as most women today who might want to join can't find any groups locally to join. What happened is the Feminists were the militant fringe of the womens rights movement who did nothing but blame men for everything, teach women they're victims and preach hate for all men to the point that today they're going after newborn baby boys... you expect women who love their husbands, their brothers, their fathers, their male friends and their sons are going to remain part of a movement like this??? In the 1950's and 1960's, there were womens rights groups in almost every community and their battlecry was "equality" not hate. But somewhere along the line, women allowed the extreme fringe of their movement to take over and then began dropping out of the movement even if they still support womens rights... they don't support the feminists!

    Look around you as it's not just Christians who are suffering from leftwing hate.

    When it was revealed last year that 30% of Republicans now supported gay marriage, the left dropped the matter. Now, if you are winning a war for a persons "rights" and winning over your opposition, do you stop fighting? No, you fight that much harder to keep the momentum going... but if you have ulterior motives for your support of a cause and you actually are using that support thinking your opposition will never give in, then yes you would drop the matter. The political left dropped the matter until the Supreme Court picked up the torch because they are using the matter of gay rights as a tool against the political right and to keep the gay vote... Fred Phelps and his group may represent the lefts true view stripped bare of pretenses more than what we see most on the left doing. Many on the left even admit they support gay marriage only to "shut gays up about it" which isn't the most glowing support one might have.

    Now, put that into perspective of how they are supporting Muslims for the very things they attack Christians about... yet Christians are all talk and it's only hate speech when they speak hate. Muslims don't just talk as the tens of thousands of people killed or imprisoned throughout the world for their leftwing beliefs prove.

    So why is the left so silent?

    Because they are trying to use support for Islam against the Republicans and political right no different than they're doing with gays and minorities.

    Examine their support for black Americans as all it's gained black Americans is even greater heartache and suffering. You try to point out how the Dixiecrats and racist Democrats like Robert Byrd never left the Democratic Party but apologized and began supporting policies like quota's, allowing blacks to call themselves ni**ers while making it a hate crime for anyone elses, killing the dream of Martin Luther King jr by ending integration if blacks didn't want to integrate when King said ALL SEGREGATION MUST END including self segregation... the KKK and white supremist groups were never so successful even when it came to killing blacks as blacks have been in killing one another after they accepted leftwing Democrats as their friends and benefactors!

    Then look at the Boston Bombings where they again came out with their claims it was a "white rightwing racist Christian Conservative Republican male" even when Arab eyewitnesses said they were Arab looking men... and when it became clear it was Arabs, many on the left began almost praying that somehow it would be discovered, beyond all hope, that it would be domestic white rightwing racist Christian Conservative Republican male militia hate groups involved and not Arabs or Muslims.

    So much hate from the Liberal Progressives but ultimately, when you dance with the devil don't get angry when you get burned or horned in the face... you choose to side with Muslims for solely political reasons trying to use them against Republicans and gain their votes; when your deafening silence about the suffering of leftwing Muslims being butchered, tortured, killed and imprisoned reveals you don't give a damn about them beyond exploiting them with the old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine which many MANY people have learned the hard way that the enemy of my enemy is an even greater enemy!

    True Liberals and true Progressives don't play these games as they either support all Muslims who are victims here and over there... or they speak mistrust and anger at Muslims like rightwingers do because they see Islam attacking us with terror and their jihads for what it is... hate aimed at the United States, against the political left and violence aimed at every group the left claims to represent!

    So it's not Liberals per say as true Liberals don't play these games and see Muslims for who they are. Yes, they might oppose discrimination against them just for being Muslim as that definately is wrong... but they do not defend them where they attack this country or our people where Muslims themselves are wrong nor do they ignore what's happening to leftwing Muslims around the Islamic world where each decade hundreds of thousands or even millions of them suffer for wanting nothing more nor less than what Liberals in this country claim is their right even under Islam!
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • happyday49 2013/08/26 04:37:03
    None of the above
    happyday49
    +1
    Isn't it a thing that people identify with like spirits, kindred spirits, or people they have more in common? Whereas, progressives aren't physically out there performing the dastardly deeds as radical Muslims, but they are doing a helluva job making lots of laws, signing bills that cause a lot of damage (from the White House to the Congress to the Courts). They don't like Christians, because it reminds them of what they aren't living up to, especially when they portray themselves as God's people, or Christians as President Obama says he is, and like Nancy Pelosi "I am a good Catholic - yeah right!! Yet he/she allows bills to pass that allows the church to be persecuted!! Y'all, I'm not talking about all Democrats, just progressive, communists, liberal sell-outs. They can change if they want to though.
  • Blueskys 2013/05/23 19:28:48
    None of the above
    Blueskys
    The "Liberls" Attack the Dominate Religion Whatever it is. They attack Muslims in Muslim countries.
    They want them to change to reflect feminist Liberals ideals. The only religion allowed is Statist Feminism.
  • ☆ c61☆ 2013/05/10 01:46:38
    What is it with the Left to distroy ones right to believe in a God.
    ☆ c61☆
    +2
    The truth is that everything leftists stand for is in direct opposition to the Christian doctrine. Lying ,cheating, tyranny are all vile characteristics of this regime.
  • MtDuffer ☆ c61☆ 2013/05/20 22:09:03
    MtDuffer
    +1
    I wouldn't judge every Left leaning person so harshly. I do know Christians that are Left leaning and they do not Lie, cheating and tyranny.
  • ☆ c61☆ MtDuffer 2013/05/21 02:12:50
    ☆ c61☆
    +1
    I stand corrected.
  • MtDuffer ☆ c61☆ 2013/05/21 03:03:19
    MtDuffer
    It is so easy to put people who have different slant on things into sacks and label all of them the same. That is what is so wrong with the Lefties they like to do that and there are Righties that fie back the same way. That is why I love being an Independent. I see both side, well I try my best.
  • Blueskys MtDuffer 2013/05/23 19:23:30
    Blueskys
    This is my opinion based on limited knowledge- If anyone knows more please correct me.

    Those are not 'liberal' Christians, I think, they are leaning towards living like Christ (the Amish for example are Christian Communists).

    There is two main schools of Progressives in the USA. The "Better" (elite) who is the enemy of the "Good" (yeoman/middle class).
    What has become dominant by control of higher education and ownership of the media, is the "Wilson-an" school, the rule of the International "Better" which has evolved toward todays Bureaucratic State.

    IMO Its main opposition was the Teddy Roosevelt Progressives, oriented towards the American People and rule of the "good", who's last examples were Eisenhower, JFK, and Nixon. the leaderless remnant making up much of the Tea Party.
    And this is the Ideological heart of the Tea Party, or should be imo.
    This is long but imo worth reading many times over.
    Teddy Roosevelt Citizenship in a Republic 1910
    http://www.leadershipnow.com/...

    excerpt;
    .....The citizen must have high ideals, and yet he must be able to achieve them in practical fashion. No permanent good comes from aspirations so lofty that they have grown fantastic and have become impossible and indeed undesirable to realize. The impracticable visionary is far less often ...




    This is my opinion based on limited knowledge- If anyone knows more please correct me.

    Those are not 'liberal' Christians, I think, they are leaning towards living like Christ (the Amish for example are Christian Communists).

    There is two main schools of Progressives in the USA. The "Better" (elite) who is the enemy of the "Good" (yeoman/middle class).
    What has become dominant by control of higher education and ownership of the media, is the "Wilson-an" school, the rule of the International "Better" which has evolved toward todays Bureaucratic State.

    IMO Its main opposition was the Teddy Roosevelt Progressives, oriented towards the American People and rule of the "good", who's last examples were Eisenhower, JFK, and Nixon. the leaderless remnant making up much of the Tea Party.
    And this is the Ideological heart of the Tea Party, or should be imo.
    This is long but imo worth reading many times over.
    Teddy Roosevelt Citizenship in a Republic 1910
    http://www.leadershipnow.com/...

    excerpt;
    .....The citizen must have high ideals, and yet he must be able to achieve them in practical fashion. No permanent good comes from aspirations so lofty that they have grown fantastic and have become impossible and indeed undesirable to realize. The impracticable visionary is far less often the guide and precursor than he is the imbittered foe of the real reformer, of the man who, with stumblings and shortcomings, yet does in some shape, in practical fashion, give effect to the hopes and desires of those who strive for better things. Woe to the empty phrase-maker, to the empty idealist, who, instead of making ready the ground for the man of action, turns against him when he appears and hampers him as he does the work! Moreover, the preacher of ideals must remember how sorry and contemptible is the figure which he will cut, how great the damage that he will do, if he does not himself, in his own life, strive measurably to realize the ideals that he preaches for others.
    Let him remember also that the worth of the ideal must be largely determined by the success with which it can in practice be realized. We should abhor the so-called "practical" men whose practicality assumes the shape of that peculiar baseness which finds its expression in disbelief in morality and decency, in disregard of high standards of living and conduct.

    Such a creature is the worst enemy of the body politic. But only less desirable as a citizen is his nominal opponent and real ally, the man of fantastic vision who makes the impossible better forever the enemy of the possible good.

    We can just as little afford to follow the doctrinaires of an extreme individualism as the doctrinaires of an extreme socialism. Individual initiative, so far from being discouraged, should be stimulated; and yet we should remember that, as society develops and grows more complex, we continually find that things which once it was desirable to leave to individual initiative can, under the changed conditions, be performed with better results by common effort. It is quite impossible, and equally undesirable, to draw in theory a hard-and-fast line which shall always divide the two sets of cases......
    (more)
  • MtDuffer Blueskys 2013/05/23 19:49:48
    MtDuffer
    Here is something that might be interesting to you. It is rather long and I am sorry for that but please read all of it before commenting.

    The Meaning of "Progressive" Politics

    by Barry Loberfeld

    To the American mind, the most formal connotation of the term progressive is the Progressive Movement, a period of reform that ranged from the late 1800s to the end of World War I. Unlike its predecessor, the Populist Party, Progressivism was not a movement of farmers or manual laborers. Its guiding lights were college-educated men who were consequently steeped in the post-Enlightenment collectivism that had taken hold of the universities both here and in Europe. Among its apostles were “economists who adopted the ‘organic’ collectivism of the German historical school, sociologists and historians who interpreted Darwin according to the social ideas of Hegel (the ‘reform’ Darwinists), clergymen who interpreted Jesus according to the moral ideas of Kant (the Social Gospelers), single-taxers who followed Henry George, Utopians who followed Edward Bellamy ... ‘humanitarians’ who followed Comte ... pragmatists who followed William James and the early John Dewey.”

    (Peikoff)
    The man who is now virtually synonymous with Progressivism, Herbert Croly (The Promise of American Life), was himself b...
















































    Here is something that might be interesting to you. It is rather long and I am sorry for that but please read all of it before commenting.

    The Meaning of "Progressive" Politics

    by Barry Loberfeld

    To the American mind, the most formal connotation of the term progressive is the Progressive Movement, a period of reform that ranged from the late 1800s to the end of World War I. Unlike its predecessor, the Populist Party, Progressivism was not a movement of farmers or manual laborers. Its guiding lights were college-educated men who were consequently steeped in the post-Enlightenment collectivism that had taken hold of the universities both here and in Europe. Among its apostles were “economists who adopted the ‘organic’ collectivism of the German historical school, sociologists and historians who interpreted Darwin according to the social ideas of Hegel (the ‘reform’ Darwinists), clergymen who interpreted Jesus according to the moral ideas of Kant (the Social Gospelers), single-taxers who followed Henry George, Utopians who followed Edward Bellamy ... ‘humanitarians’ who followed Comte ... pragmatists who followed William James and the early John Dewey.”

    (Peikoff)
    The man who is now virtually synonymous with Progressivism, Herbert Croly (The Promise of American Life), was himself both the son of a noted proponent of Comtian positivism and the student of Harvard's Josiah Royce, a disciple of Hegel. All of these thinkers contributed to what would become the ethical foundation of the Progressive Movement: a contempt and loathing of "individualism" -- and its political expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution:

    * Croly: "The Promise of American Life is to be fulfilled ... by a large measure of individual subordination and self-denial."

    * Sociologist Lester Ward: "The individual has reigned long enough."

    * Antitrust leader Henry Demarest Lloyd: Individualism is "one of the historic mistakes of humanity."

    * The Outlook editor Lyman Abbott: "[I]ndividualism is the characteristic of simple barbarism, not of republican civilization."

    * Baptist minister Walter Rauschenbusch: "[I]ndividualism means tyranny."
    So great was this fear of the individual that John Dewey believed that the "mere absorbing of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness." "Progressive education" was developed to meet the individualist threat on the juvenile level, while Progressive collectivization of the economy would meet it on the adult, with the first targets being those unregulated monoliths of "economic power" -- the corporations.

    Here is where Progressive myth collides with historical reality. The myth is that these "trusts" were becoming monopolies that were then able to use their power to "strangle" the rest of the country -- and all because the government clung to an out-dated doctrine of laissez faire that prevented even modest regulation. And the reality? “Despite the large number of mergers, and the growth in the absolute size of many corporations, the dominant trend in the American economy ... was toward growing competition. Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial interests ... As new competitors sprang up, and as economic power was diffused throughout an expanding nation, it became apparent to many important businessmen that only the national government could [cartelize] the economy ... [I] t was not the existence of monopoly that caused the federal government to intervene in the economy, but the lack of it.”

    (Kolko)
    If Big Business was the devil of Progressive rhetoric, it was nonetheless the beneficiary of Progressive policy. How did Progressivism's means lead to such a corrupt end? How did a movement that advocated greater democracy, that insisted that the "National Government must step in and discriminate ... on behalf of equality and the average man" (Croly), bring about the rise of bureaucracies that were removed from democratic review and "invariably controlled by leaders of the regulated industry" (Kolko)? Along with the chasm between the myth and the market, an illuminating answer can be found in Dewey's own definition of democracy: "that form of social organization, extending to all areas and ways of living, in which the powers of individuals shall ... [be] directed" -- by the State, which can justly be described as the god of Progressive belief.

    In addition to Prohibition and segregation, the Progressives' anti-individualist idealism found yet another manifestation -- militarism. Under the Roosevelt Administration, the "spirit of imperialism was an exaltation of duty above rights, of collective welfare above individual self-interest ... [of] the heroic values as opposed to materialism, action instead of logic, the natural impulse rather than the pallid intellect" (Osgood) -- in short, an exaltation of every tenet of Progressive ideology above Enlightenment liberalism. This manifestation tumefied with the outbreak of war in Europe, with the Progressives' clamoring for U.S. entry:

    * Journalist Frederick L. Allen: "War necessitates organization, system, routine, and discipline. We shall have to give up much of our economic freedom ... We shall have to lay by our good-natured individualism and march in step."

    * Dewey: The "social possibilities" of war will supersede the "individualistic tradition" and demonstrate the "supremacy of public need over private possessions."

    * Journalist Ray S. Baker: "We need trouble and stress! I thought once [the abolition of individualism] could be done by some voluntary revolt from comfort and property ... But it was not enough. The whirlwind had to come."

    * Croly: The "tonic of a serious moral adventure" -- i.e., the war -- will prevent the "real danger of national disintegration" by forcing the American citizen to elevate "national service" above "having his own way."

    War opponent Randolph Bourne denounced Dewey and the other Progressives for allying themselves with the "least democratic forces in American life." He openly mused that there "seems to have been a peculiar congeniality between the war and these men. It is as if the war and they had been waiting for each other." It is possible to suggest that there was nothing at all "peculiar" about the congeniality between the war and the ideas these men held.

    With the end of World War I came the end of the Progressive Era. What didn't end was the movement's premise: the substitution of collectivism for individualism, statism for laissez faire. As a policy, Progressivism continued to progress.

    The term progressive returned to the national scene with the 1948 presidential campaign of former vice president Henry Wallace and his Progressive Party, whose name pointedly harkened back to Theodore Roosevelt's own third-party challenge in 1912. But the raison d'être of this party was a very un-Progressive opposition to any action by, growth of, or support for the American military. The difference was that "the enemy" was now Soviet Russia and this Progressive Party was in fact a creation of the Communist Party and its ranks were filled with Communists and fellow travelers -- the Old Left -- none of whom had had any problems with the military when it was fighting Stalin's enemy in Europe. The Communist domination of the party was recognized by many even then, and Wallace left it when he supported Truman’s policy in Korea. But not to be lost was the connection between progressive and a position that reflexively opposed anything to do with the American military but ideologically supported collectivization of the American economy beyond what the "liberals" of the day advocated.

    However, the term did go into hibernation when the Old Left, faltering under the burden of the Khrushchev revelations, was succeeded by the New Left, which maneuvered to distance itself from the Old Left's commitments (the USSR), ideology (Stalinism), and terminology -- including “progressive.” The New Left imagined itself independent, anti-Stalinist, and "revolutionary."

    But by the end of the 60s, the New Left had realized itself as a movement that proclaimed “solidarity” with totalitarian regimes from Southeast Asia to Cuba, embraced Maoism as a visionary creed (especially for the remnants of Students for a Democratic Society), and had utterly failed to achieve anything "revolutionary." What next -- a Newer Left? Many activists brought their leftism with them as they entered mainstream institutions such as the universities and the Democratic Party. If anything, they were now "liberals" -- left-liberals, meaning that they were to the left of all other liberals. (Of course, liberalism itself had shifted markedly leftward, e.g., McGovern.)
    And progressive? The term has today re-emerged to once again denote any person, organization, or idea left of moderate. It was the centrist liberalism of the Clinton Administration -- e.g., the (proposed) neo-Progressive cartelization of medicine, the intervention in the Balkans, the North American Free Trade Agreement -- that brought forth self-designated "progressives" who opposed anything less than full socialization of all medicine, the deployment of U.S. troops anywhere, and the rise of the global economy. The only real change in the term is how commodious it has become. It encompasses everyone from an ever-leftward social democrat to a Communist-without-a-Party to such relatively recent arrivals as the colorless "radical feminist" (i.e., white bourgeois female) fighting the Patriarchal Occupational Government, the Queer activist fighting "heteronormality," the multiculturalist fighting Western civilization, and the Deep Ecologist fighting all civilization. It even includes ideologically exhausted leftists-without-an-ism such as philosopher Richard Rorty, who allows that the "best we can hope for is more of the same experimental, hit-or-miss, two-steps-forward-and-one-ste... reforms that have been taking place in the industrial democracies since the French Revolution.” What's left is a "progressive" Left that can progress in any number of directions -- or with none at all.

    Which raises the question of just what progressive really tells us. Something that means everything, means nothing. Even as a synonym for all things leftist, can it logically include, for example, the Marxist crucifixion of Malthus and the Green resurrection of him? Or both pacifism and militarism (the “armed struggles” of socialist forces)? How can we speak of as “progressive” striving for a Communist future that is already past – or yearning to drive humanity “back to the Pleistocene” (an Earth First! slogan)? And exactly how long can a concept sit on the shelf until you can’t continue to market it as “progressive”? Presumably, labeling one’s position “progressive” endows it with the virtue of being forward-looking, "relevant," while conversely rendering any opposing position backward, "reactionary" – all in all, a superficially more sophisticated alternative to “good” and “evil.” In a public square increasingly devoid of common referents, forward-and-back, much like left-and-right, reveals neither where someone is coming from nor what he’s going after. For the mere honesty of the debate, what we need is a political vocabulary whose terms actually describe the ideas on the table – a proposal evidently more daunting than its modest tenor would suggest.

    Bibliography

    E.J. Dionne, Jr., They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate the Next Political Era, 1996.
    Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., Progressivism in America, 1974
    Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916, 1963.
    Michael McGerr, A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920, 2003.
    R.E. Osgood, Ideals and Self-Interest in America’s Foreign Relations, 1953.
    Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America, 1982.
    _____________________________...
    (more)
  • Sara 2013/05/07 06:44:28
    None of the above
    Sara
    +3
    I am not against ANY religion unless it is used to hate, persecute, destroy and murder. Therefore I am equally tolerant of peaceful Christians and Muslims, and equally intolerant of bigoted, oppressive Christians and Muslims.

    All religions have been used as an excuse to kill and oppress, and I believe that the world would be better with no organised religion at all; but I would not and cannot force that belief on anyone, so therefore my default position is to accept what others believe as long as they also have the courtesy not to force those beliefs on others.
  • MtDuffer Sara 2013/05/07 14:43:03
    MtDuffer
    A very honest response.
  • loner131 2013/05/06 21:34:25
    None of the above
    loner131
    +2
    liberals will do and say anything to make themselves look superior to someone else.

    especially if the topic involves conservatives.
  • MtDuffer loner131 2013/05/07 01:03:28
    MtDuffer
    Yes, indeed.
  • Kat ♪ ~BTO-t-BCRA-F~ ♪ 2013/05/05 02:17:43
    What is it with the Left to distroy ones right to believe in a God.
    Kat ♪ ~BTO-t-BCRA-F~ ♪
    +3
    The left are delusional twats that believe what their masters tell them, which is Islam is peaceful.
  • MtDuffer Kat ♪ ~... 2013/05/05 02:26:15
    MtDuffer
    +2
    Well, that is one reason, the other is they haven't been taught to think on their own they have been indoctrinated through our wonderful education system.
  • goatman112003 2013/05/04 00:29:35
    None of the above
    goatman112003
    +3
    Christianity is a thorn in the left's side as the ten commandments stand as a monolith against them.
  • MtDuffer goatman... 2013/05/04 00:32:32
    MtDuffer
    +2
    Very good! Thank you
  • Mark Twain 2013/05/03 16:06:03
    None of the above
    Mark Twain
    +4
    We are deceived by the mislabeling of these collectivists who hide behind the word liberal. A totalitarian regime works well with fundamental Islam. Thats what they want and when the collectivists get power the gays will be executed and women who dont submit to being mere slaves will be crushed under heel. I have lived in it. these useful idiots over here have no idea whats being planned for them.. So many people think the world is a beautiful garden,,,but its a deadly jungle in reality.
  • MtDuffer Mark Twain 2013/05/03 16:19:22
    MtDuffer
    +1
    Thank you so much Mark Twain! Your comment holds a lot of merit.
  • Jane 2013/05/03 12:25:31
    None of the above
    Jane
    Ignorant statement.
  • JEFF 2013/05/03 03:40:27
    Christians are the ones that promote Hate and Murder.
    JEFF
    +2
    Name me one religion responsible for more deaths than christianity.
  • Mark Twain JEFF 2013/05/03 16:08:43
    Mark Twain
    +2
    Ah come on give Islam a chance to catch up.
  • MtDuffer JEFF 2013/05/03 16:20:25
    MtDuffer
    +1
    Islamic Muslims
  • Sapphire JEFF 2013/05/04 17:47:41
    Sapphire
    +2
    Death in the Christian religion is due to human error. Not because I'm catholic...it doesn't make me a saint because I do submit to sin and I pray to be forgiven of them and try my best to be good. We don't promote hate and murder. We strongly believe in human sanctity and the dignity, value, and respect for all human life. I know about the past, where the people of the Christian faith promoted bad things but those judgements were based off their bigotry and not the teachings of God because the teachings of God doesn't tell me to hate people, the teachings of God tells me to love and respect other people. Abortion has more deaths than all the wars combined.
  • MtDuffer Sapphire 2013/05/04 20:30:14
    MtDuffer
    +1
    Christians support the right to life. The non-Christians are the ones that support abortions.
  • Sapphire 2013/05/03 03:14:50
    None of the above
    Sapphire
    +2
    Yeah, I believe it's for political purposes. The Catholic has not agreed with one thing they say and speak up about it...they don't like that. They don't want people to stand up to them or question them.
  • Rodney 2013/05/03 03:11:57
    None of the above
    Rodney
    +3
    In my view, Christianity and Judaism is the last bastion of the free people. If those two can be destroyed, the left knows they can then replace God with government. Once all people are reliant upon government, they have total control over all the people. Look at the communist countries to see how that worked out?
  • Lucy Krueger 2013/05/03 01:34:18
    None of the above
    Lucy Krueger
    Liberals don't hate religions.
  • Lefty-Lucy 2013/05/03 00:57:58
    Undecided
    Lefty-Lucy
    Because Christians are usually the ones oppressing everyone else, including Muslims....it's liberal mentality to stick up for oppressed minority groups...and I don't think that's a bad thing.
  • MtDuffer Lefty-Lucy 2013/05/03 16:24:20
    MtDuffer
    +2
    Well Lefty-Lucy what are going to do when or if the Muslims are incharge with your life. I am they believe that women are lower than their cattle.

    The Muslims will destroy everything that the Women Movements have gained.
  • polo MtDuffer 2013/05/20 17:08:09
    polo
    Why are so many Women converting to Islam ?

    O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is (one who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). [ Quran 49:13 ]

    According to "The Almanac Book of Facts", the population increased 137% within the past decade, Christianity increased 46%, while Islam increased 235%.
    In a recent poll in the (US), 100,000 people per year in America alone, are converting to Islam. For every 1 male convert to Islam, 4 females convert to Islam, Why?
    It is Clear why Christians are converting.

    1. Christian Scientists are declaring the Koran is from God. Visit Here for Christian and atheist Scientists who convert to Islam and why: http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/m...

    2. The Christian Bishops and Priests are admitting the Bible has tensions. http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/m...

    3. Jesus is a Muslim: http://www.geocities.com/Athe...
    The question still remains, why are more women converting than men to Islam ?
    Perhaps they realize their Soul is worth the Factual Research.

    1. The Bible Convicts Women as the original Sinners, (ie. Eve picking from the forbidden tree){Genesis 2:4...



































    &
















    Why are so many Women converting to Islam ?

    O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is (one who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). [ Quran 49:13 ]

    According to "The Almanac Book of Facts", the population increased 137% within the past decade, Christianity increased 46%, while Islam increased 235%.
    In a recent poll in the (US), 100,000 people per year in America alone, are converting to Islam. For every 1 male convert to Islam, 4 females convert to Islam, Why?
    It is Clear why Christians are converting.

    1. Christian Scientists are declaring the Koran is from God. Visit Here for Christian and atheist Scientists who convert to Islam and why: http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/m...

    2. The Christian Bishops and Priests are admitting the Bible has tensions. http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/m...

    3. Jesus is a Muslim: http://www.geocities.com/Athe...
    The question still remains, why are more women converting than men to Islam ?
    Perhaps they realize their Soul is worth the Factual Research.

    1. The Bible Convicts Women as the original Sinners, (ie. Eve picking from the forbidden tree){Genesis 2:4-3:24}.
    The Koran Clarifies it was Adam Not Eve {Qur'an 7:19-25}

    2. The Bible says "The Birth of a Daughter is a loss" {Ecclesiasticus 22:3}. The Qur'an says both are an Equal Blessing { Qur'an 42:49}

    3. The Bible Forbids Women from Speaking in church {I Corinthians 14:34-35}. The Qur'an says Women Can argue with the Prophet {58:1}

    4. In the Bible, divorced Women are Labeled as an Adulteress, while men are not {Matthew 5:31-32}.
    The Koran does Not have Biblical double standards { Qur'an 30:21}

    5. In The Bible, Widows and Sisters do Not Inherit Any Property or Wealth, Only men do{Numbers 27:1-11}
    The Koran Abolished this male greediness { Qur'an 4:22} and God Protects All.

    6. The Bible Allows Multiple Wives{I Kings 11:3}
    In The Koran, God limits the number to 4 only under certain situations (with the Wife's permission) and Prefers you Marry Only One Wife{ Qur'an 4:3}
    The Koran gives the Woman the Right to Choose who to Marry.

    7. "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long
    as he lives" {Deuteronomy 22:28-30}
    One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished, the man who raped the woman or the woman who was raped? According to the Bible, you have to spend the Rest of Your Life with the man who Raped You.
    The Prophet Muhammad Says {Volume 9, Book 86, Number 101} Narrated by Aisha:" It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage)".
    Would the Christian men Reading this prefer the Women they know to Be Christian or Muslim?

    8. The Bible also asks Women to wear veils as in Islam {I Corinthians 11:3-10}, this lowers the chance of rape, (God Forbid), see statistic link below.

    9. Women were given rights to Vote less than a 100 years ago in the (US), while the Quran (42:38) gave Women Voting rights almost 1,500 years ago.

    10. Islam has unconfined Women and has given them the human right to reach for the sky. There have been Muslim Women Presidents throughout the centuries,
    but to this date, the oppressive mentality of the men in the Western U.S.A. has stopped any Women from becoming Presidents in predominately Christian countries, while the Muslim countries have voted for and elected Female Presidents.
    Here is a list of previous Female Muslim leaders:
    Khadija bint Khuwaylid
    Aishah bint Abu Bakr
    Fatimah bint Muhammad
    Barakah
    Ramlah bint Abu Sufyan

    Read The Last & Final Testament Of God On Line With An Open Mind

    http://www.dar-us-salam.com/T ...

    The Life Of Prophet Muhammad(Peace be on Him)
    http://www.alquranclasses.com...

    You can watch some of the scientific Miracles of the Quran Today, visit those websites and see the numerous miracles that've been discovered since the Quran was sent by God Almighty to prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him

    http://www.quranmiracles.com/
    http://www.allahsword.com/mir ...
    http://www.miraclesofthequran...
    http://www.miracle-quran.com/ ...
    http://www.quran-miracle.info/

    http://www.guideus.tv/
    http://islam101.net/
    http://www.islamtomorrow.com/...
    (more)
  • MtDuffer polo 2013/10/09 05:45:54
    MtDuffer
    Dream on.
  • Ron Han... Lefty-Lucy 2013/05/06 23:53:30
    Ron Hanforth
    +3
    I see, and would you mind telling me where and how are Christians Oppressing everyone?

    Can you show me where Christians are stopping people from other faiths from voting in countries that are predominately Christian?

    Can you show me where large groups of well organized and well funded Christians are committing acts of violence in the name of Jesus?

    Can you tell me where in modern Day Christian Doctrine, are Christians violently forcing their will upon non Christians?
  • reaper Ron Han... 2013/05/07 05:24:23
    reaper
    +1
    while to the US, where some people are still trying to do just that.
  • MtDuffer reaper 2013/05/07 05:31:57
    MtDuffer
    +1
    Reaper, you are running out of excuses in blaming Christians. One must understand that there are people of all Religions that are on the Far Right and the majority of the others are mostly courteous people. The only Religion that preaches the controlling or changes every ones religious thinking with death as an option is the Muslim belief. Just read the Koran I mean if a person wants to learn the truth you must read about a subject in all of the points of view then and only then can you really find the truth.
  • reaper MtDuffer 2013/05/07 05:48:06
    reaper
    +1
    umm, i've always said both christianity and islam is just as bad as each other. look at the history of both and what is going on with both now. both of them have fundamentalists that are only out for control while they both also have more moderate and liberal followers that are tired of the fundamentalists because they make them look bad.
  • MtDuffer reaper 2013/10/09 05:49:36
    MtDuffer
    The biggest thing that is different between the two is the Muslums are living with laws that was sat down by Mohamid, while the Christians are living under the laws of Christ. Most non-christians make the mistake in thinking that the Christians are living under the Old Testiment when in fact Christ change that.
  • Ron Han... reaper 2013/05/07 13:46:44
    Ron Hanforth
    Key word: TRYING..

    Trying to do just what? If you're going to engage in this discussion, could you be a little more specific?
  • jeane 2013/05/02 22:13:06
    None of the above
    jeane
    +5
    The enemy of my enemy is my friend (for now). They are hoping to be eat last!
  • Tee Quake 2013/05/02 21:36:04 (edited)
    None of the above
    Tee Quake
    +6
    Liberals are mixed-up morons who don't know their right from the left. They cannot be explained nor reasoned with. They are a problem with human genetics gone crazy and will only understand how destructive they are when the communists take over America and have their guns trained on the useful idiots muscle between their ears. useful idiot gifs
  • Flowers 2013/05/02 20:33:49
    None of the above
    Flowers
    +4
    You expect people to comment and "do it in a respectful way" but you call them left wingers, which has a negative connotation, you say "obama land" which again is negative.
    Kettle, meet pot. Why don't you lead by example instead of demanding others do something you aren't even willing to do yourself?

    I don't think all liberals (which again is what you implied because you said a blanket statement) hate christianity, but they see the hypocrisy of christians which you proved very well in this post. Do unto others, sir.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 17 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/02 14:53:53

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals