#1 Ask a Conservative: what do you mean liberalism is a religion?
02-06-2009, 01:21 PM
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
As Ann Coulter has pointed out, a relativist’s best argument against bestiality is that animals cannot clearly communicate their consent. Liberals as a "Race" are simply not that stupid.
When conservatives compare liberalism to religion, we mean it exhibits all the bad things Bill Maher attributes to Christianity and Islam. We are noting that liberals like spreading their message as if it were the gospel. We are also sharing the impression that liberals seem to be intolerant of other “faiths.” The fact that some liberals are thoroughly convinced of the redemptive power of their beliefs doesn’t help the left. Neither does their cultish devotion to their most charismatic figures. Especially damning are their unsubtle comparisons of conventional intellectuals with Jesus Christ.
Despite its obvious implications, liberals don’t understand what the right means when they call liberalism a secular religion. They instinctively respond that they’re against state-sanctioned religions, and some even protest public displays of religion, such as Christmas manger scenes. Some liberals are such sticklers to the “separation of church and state” they even consider group prayer at public events an affront to their sensibilities. Limited to these observations, it seems ridiculous to claim that such an ecclesiophobic ideology could be thought of as a religion.
But that doesn’t mean liberalism doesn’t come frighteningly close. Since religion is a comprehensive worldview based on faith and absolutes, the case that liberalism is a religion rests on the three premises. One, liberal claims are accepted uncritically (“on faith,” so to speak). Two, liberals practice political absolutism. Three, the left does not defer to God’s authority, but their own.
The left’s uncritical embrace of theories that support their worldview is easy to observe. Many beliefs that liberals consider to be unassailable truths are actually debatable or even discredited. Anthropogenic global warming is one. Predictably left-wing editorials in publications such as San Francisco Gate insist that there is no debate about man-made global warming, even though more than a few intelligent experts disagree with it. The left is even more dogmatic when it comes to victim politics. Feminists still perpetuate the hoax that Super Bowl Sunday is the biggest day of the year for violence against women, an alarming and disturbing claim, especially since even organizations committed to ending domestic violence acknowledge that it isn’t true. This isn’t to say that conservatives don’t have a few myths of their own, but (1) I will argue until from sunrise to sunset that the right’s fringe isn’t mainstream—we reject the Birch Society, while the left embraces moveon.org, and (2), that’s beside the point, which is that liberals take many things on faith.
The left’s political absolutism is less obvious. One reason for this is the progressive’s affinity for moral relativism, the philosophy that morality is not universal, but dependent on circumstance. But while it’s important to contemporary liberal thought, by its very nature relativism cannot possibly supply the moral framework the left uses to condemn its opponents. Relativism is the voluntary suspension of judgment, and as such cannot possibly serve as the foundation of an ideology which readily proclaims that Dick Cheney/Sarah Palin/generic Republican is “evil.” Without the recognition of a transcendental moral authority, a moral code that binds all humans across all cultures, the left would simply not be equipped to say that murder, rape, or even bestiality is just wrong. Within the framework of moral relativism, acts as clearly perverse as interspecies intercourse can only be opposed on grounds whose shallow novelty illustrates the retrogressive potential of sophistry. As Ann Coulter has pointed out, a relativist’s best argument against bestiality is that animals cannot clearly communicate their consent. Liberals as a a whole are simply not that stupid.
02-06-2009, 02:38 PM
Moral relativism is a self contradicting ethical view point that completely defies logic. Even the original philosophical proponents of moral relativism realized this and abandoned it in favor of what I call circumstantial morality. Some people will doing anything to avoid the implications and responsibilities of universal morality.“Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always
perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an
everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle.”
G. K. Chesterton
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|