Liberalism's suicidal tendencies

This is how the left works: yell "bigotry" to silence critics who confront them with arguments they don't wish to have. A lot of this has to do with our illiberal education system, that values Political Correctness over logical thought. Popularity of ideas is taught to hold more weight than logical ideas. People (generally liberals) take this idea into many places, a recent example is the global warming debate...smearing people who doubt the evidence as presented are "deniers" etc., rather than logically explaining their errors. You can see this method of thinking on display on this blog often: rather than carefully explaining why they disagree without hard feelings, many tend to go emotive, counting on many others of like mind to help on the attack. My favorites: 1) directly asking others to attack the person they disagee with, rather than confront the data (this just happened to me on this blog). 2) attacking reason itself as a flawed tool of getting to the truth (again, just happened). 3) deliberately misrepresenting anothers views to make them look bad, rather than actually addressing their ideas (again...) 4) engaging in "ad hominem" attacks on the person, not on their ideas (and again...) Many people do this, but for some reason liberals are the main offenders; most likely because throughout the schools and the media they are constantly reinforced for it.
But it's sad, first because it ruins any sort of polite discussion, and second because there is no chance to actually debate ideas.

Michael, Michael, Michael, you sure have got us lefties pegged. As a pinko, I am choosing to be offended here. It's my right as troll.

I honestly don't get this. Shouldn't liberals be the most concerned about Islamic fundamentalism, given that the things they profess to value are the first things they would lose under Islamist pressure? It all has to do with cultural relativism. The reason why liberals aren't as hard on militant Islam as they are on conservative Christians is because they view Christianity as a "western" religion, whereas they associate Islam with the East. Since, in their view, the East cannot be judged by western standards, it would be "racist" or "imperialist" to criticize the Muslim world for their record on women's rights, religious freedom, etc.

The Leftist cannot bring himself to acknowledge that there might be something worse than Christianity. Nothing can displace it. It would be too shattering for their world perspective.

Rod, here's my speculative answer to your question: "The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation [N.B., I'd say, 'by the Enlightenment' instead]), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone." G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy.
Being attentive to the interests of "the other" -- particularly the poor and oppressed other -- is a virtue deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic. When this virtue wanders alone, especially when it is separated from a theistic system that offers a means of forgiveness, "love your enemy" can become "permit your enemy's aggression to be the means by which your sins are punished." That mad reformulation seems to have many unwitting adherents these days. In the face of Islamic fundamentalism, this virtue gone mad has the potential to do truly terrible damage to the liberal societies of the West.

but for some reason liberals are the main offenders Funny, I'd say that abut conservatives. A statistically representative sample of people commiting such rhetorical crimes would be difficult to come by, largely because of the work involved and the ambiguities associated with the "liberal" and "conservative" labels. But since what you've done is take a series of genaralizations and personal anecdotes and make a sweeping conclusion about liberals and PC vs. reason in our education system, you've set the bar low enough that this liberal feels entitled (ooohhh how the word "entitled" makes my liberal body tremble with joy!) to respond with a simple alternate explanation rather than a rigorous argument based on agreed-upon facts. Could it be, M_David, that you primarily notice these lousy argumentative tactics when its done by people professing a point of view you disagree with? If this were the case, your informal statistical sampling would be quite biased. I mean, if I listen to 20 minutes of Rush Limbaugh (not accusing you of being a fan) I hear little but examples of 3 and 4. There's my anecdote and statistically biased sample. I will resist the urge to use it to make any sweeping generalizations about conservatives. On topic, Islam freaks me out. And I think it should be highlighted that Below and Fortuyn are liberals. It does disturb me that many of my fellow liberals have blinders on regarding Islam's impact on people's ability to identify with, and tolerate the differences of, non-Muslims. This makes it difficult to form a community with them. On the other hand, liberals are generally correct to note that Muslims will not make serious attempts to join the broader community if they are economically and socially excluded. I happen to think that the explanation for their exclusion lies far more with Islam than with the host western communities. Not all liberals agree, but many do.

...recent example is the global warming debate...smearing people who doubt the evidence as presented are "deniers" etc., rather than logically explaining their errors. In a similar vein. I love debating young earth creationists, after awhile, trying to show the facts repeatedly to the same people who are only going to deny them based on a priori religious committments you just have to walk away and call a spade(denier) a spade (denier).

B-Dog, I'm very happy for the common ground.
I like a lot of you lib'ruls. Heck, I married myself one!

Depending on the cause, either liberals or conservatives (using our clumsy American labels) can find common ground with our Muslim sometime enemies. It was liberal feminists who, in the late 1990s, first raised the alarm about the Taliban. Religious conservatives of all sects regularly oppose U.N. conventions seen as too friendly to abortion, birth control, etc. Looking out for underdogs and immigrants is a classic liberal American value, and there are a lot of cases where genuine suspicion of radical Islam morphs into unwarranted bigotry against swarthy guys with beards. I haven't read the book in question, but I was dismayed about the similar reaction to Orianna Falacci (sp?) --- until I read her work lamenting the stink of Arabs on her precious Italian streets. Frankly, when lefties called her racists, they were right. Anyhow, it is suicidal to ignore real threats -- perhaps liberals' failing. It is equally suicidal to create needless enemies.

I think Chris summed it up very well! I will add in response to the general statement of liberal suicide. I agree, but the conservatives should look inward at their implosion. I would think this would eventually lead to suicide as well. And deacon bresnahan, that was simply a perfect example of Rushism. Is Fox news mainstream? Or have the christians labeled it as theirs, therefore not mainstream?

Then again, radical Christianity is no better. Visit the website of Rev. (what a joke, that!) Fred Phelps. This moral equivalence between fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam is a common leftist trope. As if one fundamentalist kook and his sicko church was anything remotely like the threat posed by al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Jamaat and all their violent fellow travelers. That's a fantasy.

Very interesting comment, watsy. In a somewhat similar vein, I've wondered whether "moderate Muslim" is a term that we should use. If somebody called me a "moderate Christian," I'd be pretty annoyed because it would feel like I was being called lukewarm. (What I want to be is a politically moderate person who's a zealous Christian.) Maybe "politically moderate Muslim" would be a better description.

CLS, Is the seriousness of the danger posed by radical Islam vastly greater than the seriousness of the danger posed by radical Christians? Yes! Otherwise I agree with you. (I'm an evangelical who's also a classical liberal and disagrees with the "Religious Right" on a bunch of political points.)

watsy said: "If we can, then what do you call a Muslim who has very orthodox views about Allah and Islamic law but doesn't condone the violence within Islam?" Hi, watsy. The problem with those "orthodox views" you spoke of above is that they often include putting apostates to death, stoning adulterous women to death (or, compassionately, putting rape victims in prison), advocating the imposition of shariah law on secular societies such as the U.S., etc.
I agree that, as a practical matter, fundamentalist Muslims who live in the U.S. may support these ideas "in principle" without trying to actually enact them.
However, I have a problem with supporting any of these ideas that I mentioned above "in principle," since I find little difference between them and what I am reading in Leviticus as I study it this month.

Rod, can you ever manage to respond to me without twisting what I said? What I said was radical Christianity, but then in response, you discuss fundamental Christianity. Do you really think I equate the two? Or do you possibly think I'm not smart enough to know the difference? Or are you even simply trying to turn your blunder around and pin the blame on me with your deception? And this isn't just the second or third time you've done this to me; it's become a pattern. Every time.

Well, let me ask first, before anyone else even tries.. This question comes from loong experience with talking about any possible negative activities by religions. ANY of them. Many Muslims have made the same argument. If someone did come up with some examples, would people try and dismiss them as 'not being Christian at all'? A sort of 'No True Scotsman' problem? 'Well, they aren't actually Christians, because Christians wouldn't do such a thing.' Before anyone objects, I've heard THAT argument too many times to count, including by moderate Muslims when talking about Muslim terrorism.
So, if a group identifies themselves as Christian, and plans and performs violent acts using their faith and sacred texts as justification for them, will they be counted as Christians?

Simon ~ Have you read the Bible to see what it advocates? Try Psalm 137:9; Malachi 2:3; pretty well the whole of Leviticus and Deuteronomy; 1 Timothy 2:12-15; Matthew 10:34-37 for a start. You could go further and browse through the Skeptic's Annotated Bible for some more ideas. And this, dear Simon, the Bible, is just what fundamental Christianity is supposed to teach. Injustice, cruelty, violence, intolerance, misogyny, subjugation and death to the non-believer. And only after this do the radicals, such as Westboro Baptist church or the KKK, begin to twist the already twisted concepts to their own ends. No Christians who advocate terrorism? What about the Klan and the abortion clinic bombers? Theocracy? Have you visited www.christianexodus.org? Persecution of "non-religious" minorities -- as you put it -- and the "inferiority" of women in "God's" eyes? I point you back to the KKK and Westboro Baptist, among others. All examples that have more than once made national headlines. Zero, huh? And you are the only one who has suggested that these Christians should balance out the radical Muslims. I merely stated they were no better.

Have you read the Bible to see what it advocates? Try Psalm 137:9; Malachi 2:3; pretty well the whole of Leviticus and Deuteronomy; 1 Timothy 2:12-15; Matthew 10:34-37 for a start. In 1 Timothy 2:12-15, St. Paul declares that women should not have leadership roles in the Church. That is not at all the same as suggesting they are inherently inferior to men. It was Christian civilization that introduced chivalry, the exaltation of women, and the radical notion that women could even be sovereign rulers in their own right. Such notions were unknown in pagan antiquity or ancient Judaism, and are still unknown in Islam today. Your passage from St. Matthew does not refer to physical violence -- and Christians have never understood it as refering to physical violence.
The rest of your citations are from the Old Testament (as are most of the inane secularist prooftexts against Christianity, by the way). Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Christian belief understands that the Old Testament is preparation for the New Testament and cannot be understood without reference to the New Testament. Christ expressly overrules much of the Law and belief system derived from the Old Testament(e.g., permission to divorce, eye-for-an-eye justice, the Sabbath restrictions, and the whole strange notion that bad things happen to people as punishment for their sins or that God showers material blessings on those He favors).
You can't cite passages from Leviticus or Deuteronomy as evidence for what Christians believe, because that isn't how Christian doctrine works.

Actually, no. They are generally said not to be 'real Muslims' also for their speech. Just that this doesn't get a lot of press. Besides, I wasn't talking the KKK. I'm talking about things like abortion clinic bombings, and shootings. I'm talking about groups like the Dominion and Kingdom Now movements, which include such larger names as Pat Robertson, who believes that the US Constitution should be changed in order to enact Leviticus laws, including penalties (So, stoning for disobedience, etc), because, according to their theology, Jesus won't come until this is done. (That's the 'Kingdom' they want to be 'Now'.)
This doesn't even count radical Christian groups like Christian Identity, or the Phelp's Westboro Baptist Church, etc.

And as expected, yes, you are simply going to deny they ARE Christian. And if 'who is considered Christian' was to be based on what the other denominations think, then alot of Protestants wouldn't consider Catholics to be part of that number. (And a few vice versa.)

Simon ~ The Matthew citation may not be about physical violence per se, but about strife, which eventually leads to violence. The other passages demonstrate the twisted morals of Christianity -- black sheep, if you will, -- that aren't talked about but are still part of the fabric. Just because Christianity doesn't recognize the Klan doesn't mean they aren't. And why are you attributing my comment to someone else now? Where is your integrity? How is it you think I can't cite Leviticus or Deuteronomy? So many Christians hold to both testaments. Fundamentalists especially. And you've totally ignored the clinic bombers and Christian Exodus.

Hi, Chris,
I hadn't heart of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible but I will add it to my reading list. Sounds interesting.

Tens of thousands of Muslims believe and advocate all of the things I listed above, and tens of millions of Muslims believe and advocate at least some of them. You appear set to scrounge around the Idaho panhandle to find some group that uses the name "Christian" to demonstrate some sort of moral equivalence. If so, you're making my point rather nicely. Simon | 02.11.07 - 12:08 am | #
I would like you to cite this, please, which shouldn't be difficult for you given the wealth of sources available to you. Specific quotes, if you please, from the gathered thousands, as opposed to the muddle headed op-eds I'm confident you drew this bit of gibberish from. Thanks. By the way, if you want to talk about radical Christians and their plans for the country, I suppose you could start with Dominionists, those Jesus Camp folks, Christian Zionists, portions of Catholicism (the Donahue Brigade), and no few others. But the one thing I would like you, or Rod, or any of the other deep thinkers here to explain is what, precisely, is the threat to Western Civilization you guys seem to be quaking over?