Liberals are phonies. 20 examples

[Skip8282]

They're both dangerous - and for the same reasons. Any group that believes that it has "divine truth" on its side and has received a dictum to spread that belief is dangerous. The problem isn't the particular god, or the particular tenets of the religion in question, although they certainly help. The problem is unjustifiable mystical beliefs and the notion that those beliefs ought to be shoved down every non-believer's throat.

With that said, it's clear that at this time, Muslim extremism is a much more pressing issue. But let's not stick our head in the sand and pretend that only Muslims want to impose a theocracy.

Neither here nor there to what I was quoting.  I don't doubt for a minute that the religious right would impose a Christian theocracy if given the chance.  Doesn't change that the typical liberal mentality that I see displayed is one where Christian's are dangerous, but Muslims are not.  It's utter nonsense.

[avxo]

None of the examples you provided involved an organized group of Christians trying to impose Christian dogma on society.  You are correct that it does involve individuals using the political process.  

Also, most of those examples are not religious based.  And even the one that arguably is (intelligent design) has advocates who are not Christian.  

Using the political process to lobby and/or vote is part of the Democratic process.  It's not in the same universe as those nuts who blow themselves (and others) up over an ideology.  

Serious question:  do you feel threatened by people who use the political process to advance issues they believe in, if those issues are religiously motivated?

All those examples I mentioned are religious based. Christians are heavily against gay marriage and adoption of children by gay couples. They are against abortion - some are even against basic sexual education. They are in favor of teaching their religious dogma as a scientific theory (after covering it with the thinnest of veils). I could go on. As I said, nowhere near as virulent or extreme as Muslims. But is that really comforting? We are only taking about a difference in degrees here.

Do I feel threatened when people use the political process? Not really. I'm glad Christians are engaging in the political process and I applaud them for doing so. They deserve to be heard (even if I disagree with what they have to say).

I don't feel threatened because we have a robust Constitutional framework drafted by men smart enough to know to separate religion from politics and to not allow a majority to take away the rights of a minority by a simple majority vote.

Which is what I was getting to earlier: do you think, for a second, that the Christian wouldn't impose what he believes to be God's will on others if he could? Be careful in answering and remember your history lessons. Of course he would. But barred by the Constitution from instituting a theocracy, he will settle for implementing as much as he can.

It's the nature of the beast - men with power always seek more power. So do all these invented deities.

[avxo]

Neither here nor there to what I was quoting.  I don't doubt for a minute that the religious right would impose a Christian theocracy if given the chance.  Doesn't change that the typical liberal mentality that I see displayed is one where Christian's are dangerous, but Muslims are not.  It's utter nonsense.

You won't get an argument from me there. Many liberals see Muslims as misunderstood and abused and oh, if only they were given a chance. No idea why they seem them like that. But then again, I don't have any idea why liberals do many of the things they do.

[Dos Equis]

All those examples I mentioned are religious based. Christians are heavily against gay marriage and adoption of children by gay couples. They are against abortion - some are even against basic sexual education. They are in favor of teaching their religious dogma as a scientific theory (after covering it with the thinnest of veils). I could go on. As I said, nowhere near as virulent or extreme as Muslims. But is that really comforting? We are only taking about a difference in degrees here.

Do I feel threatened when people use the political process? Not really. I'm glad Christians are engaging in the political process and I applaud them for doing so. They deserve to be heard (even if I disagree with what they have to say).

I don't feel threatened because we have a robust Constitutional framework drafted by men smart enough to know to separate religion from politics and to not allow a majority to take away the rights of a minority by a simple majority vote.

Which is what I was getting to earlier: do you think, for a second, that the Christian wouldn't impose what he believes to be God's will on others if he could? Be careful in answering and remember your history lessons. Of course he would. But barred by the Constitution from instituting a theocracy, he will settle for implementing as much as he can.

It's the nature of the beast - men with power always seek more power. So do all these invented deities.

Thanks for answering. 

There are lots of people who support traditional marriage for non-religious reasons.  Keep in mind there was broad bipartisan support for preserving traditional marriage until very recently.  Same is true of abortion.  If you look at the vast numbers of restrictions on abortion and polling on restricting some forms of abortion, we're talking about a majority of the country who support these things and they're not all Christian. 

The problem with your position is referring to "Christians" as if they are some homogenous group.  They're not.  They belong to both parties.  They don't bloc vote.  So no, I don't believe Christians would impose a theocracy, even assuming they did constitute some kind of organized political party. 

Almost all of the Christians I know (and I know a lot) support church-state separation.  You might find elements of people who believe we should gut the First Amendment, but they are an insignificant minority.  You can find people who support all sorts of things that the majority of the country doesn't want. 

This is a far cry from an ideology that supports Sharia law, or killing civilians.  Radical Islam believes we should convert or die.   

[2Thick]

Certainly. But that's not to say they're completely non-violent either. I can recall at least two Christians who have killed doctors who performed abortions off the top of my head. And I won't even discuss Timothy McVeigh.


Sure, maybe they don't stone them; they only seek to prevent gays from marrying and to force women to carry their rapist's fetus to term...


I am too - as I said, they're an imminent and much more serious threat than Christians. My point, however, was that the particulars aside, the flavor of the religion doesn't matter; it's religion that's the problem, because just about every religion seeks to spread and become widely adopted.  

I'm all for religious freedom - I don't seek to eliminate religion. I don't agree with religions imposing on others either though. But muslims as a whole are clearly far more dangerous. Big difference between killing homosexuals vs merely treating them as second class citizens in some ways.

Did McVeigh act out of religious fanaticism, or wasn't it more out of a hatred for big brother, the tax man, etc? He wasn't expecting 72 virgins in heaven, was he?

[headhuntersix]

McVeigh was a non practicing catholic. He was at Waco...went down as to see what was happening as part of the militia movement. He conducted the bombing as a response to that. The Muslim religion is a cancer on the world.