It's no secret to observers of the 2004 election that many Democrats, liberals in particular, are flummoxed by the influence of religion between the coastal, urban centers of the United States. Bluntly, the secularism of the increasingly dominant liberal wing of the Democratic party places them out of touch with much of America. That divide has political consequences.
More locally, a post at Washblog cries foul over some of the policies of Congresswoman Cathy McMorris' alma matter, Pensacola Christian College. Another liberal blogger piles on, questioning whether McMorris is a "nutjob." Brilliant political analysis this is not.
At it's core, the Washblog post is questioning, with great hyperventilation, McMorris based on the published policies of a school she attended, not her actual personal beliefs. This is a non sequitur of the first order.
As a personal example, I attended King's High School where, at the time at least, dancing was prohibited at school-sponsored functions. Dancing, however, did occur at parent-sponsored events related to school functions, and it would be a misnomer to assume all attendees of the school (and their parents) frowned on dancing as morally repugnant. Likewise, it is foolish for these liberal bloggers to presume the tenets of faith and standards of conduct embraced by Pensacola are an accurate representation of McMorris' personal beliefs.
If one were to attempt such imperfect analogies, McMorris' current choice of a house of worship might be a better option. In this case, McMorris attends Grace Evangelical Free Church, whose doctrinal statement of faith is generally consistent with the non-denominational churches common in the Pacific Northwest, and not to dissimilar to many mainline Protestant denominations as well.
More importantly, liberals should know better than to use denominational doctrine and/or religious policies as a filter for viewing political candidates. Need I remind them of the challenge of using such tests against faithful Roman Catholics? If such tests were to be applied with vigor, no practicing Roman Catholic or Protestant would likely pass muster with the Democratic base. Good luck with that strategy in 2008.
Such religious litmus tests are vile in the view of this writer. Whether you favored JFK or not, his victory was a step forward for a more rational view of the how faith should be considered in the electoral process. Is it good a thing to be a person of faith in this land of strong Juedo-Christian foundation? Yes it is. Should the individual tenets of one's faith with which others might disagree disqualify a candidate for office? That seems silly. If it were the case for example, the rising candidacy of Mitt Romney, who is garnering early success in policy and politics would be a non-starter because of his Mormon faith - a faith that is certainly anti-thetical to the non-denominational, Evangelical church I personally attend.
Liberals that would howl about religion, would be better served to actually practice the tolerance they claim to preach, rather than condemning the same faith held by non-urban voters who Democrats seem good at losing.
UPDATE: Noemie Maxwell of Washblog chimes in merrily at comment #12 after mocking McMorris' faith at this post about Peter Goldmark, McMorris' opponent. My own thoughts on Peter Goldmark 's hopes here.
Lovely hatchet job by the liberal bloggers. They're so adept at connecting dots except when it comes to, say, Muslim terrorism. Such a classy bunch of people.
The left hates religion because they regard it as a direct threat to their religion of "government run by us is the answer to everything". They hate religion just like...Communists.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 13, 2006 03:30 PMAny beliefs that do not agree with the liberal dogma are considered heresy and treated as such.
Posted by: JCM on August 13, 2006 04:30 PMAs the hard-left drag more of their base over the cliff the first thing they lose is reverence of culture. Liberals have abandoned organized religion at greater rates than any other period in American history. Why not - they tell themselves they don't need it. They feeeeeeeeel that they can control society through government. They've already made inroads in controlling our children via unionized control of education. What they can't control at the ballot-box they've derailed via the courts.
Never mind that everything they've touched in the last 60 years has turned to liquid baby-shiite, they're dead certain that, if they just cram more money at it, they can solve anything. Remember that it is the liberals who want the oxymoronic "fairness doctrine" - the vehicle with which they can stifle dissenting opinion. Given the chance they would certainly relegate religion to the same sort of official disdain that the USSR did during their "glorious reign". They will fail.
You nailed it. Post #3 made my whole day. Thanks.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 13, 2006 05:49 PMThat blogger--Ms. Peagreen-- seems to not be able to decide whehter she's more upset that McMorris is a christian (Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton and Algore claim to be one, too, but that apparently doesn't upset Ms. "peagreen"--her blog pen name) or that Peagreen doesn't think McMorris is judged to be a 'good' christian.
I will call on Michael Medved's logic to address this person's annoyance with the fact that christians believe that the unsaved will find themselves in a hot place (if you get my drift). Medved asks liberals who call up and complain about christians's belief that non-christians will go to hell: "Do you as a non-christian believe you are going to hell?" The answer is inevitably "no."
Michael's response is always "Well why do you care what THEY think about where you'll end up then????" It's as if the people who complain perhaps secretly believe it and that's what they're underlyingly upset about. But they never say that.
I'm sure that Muslims think that I--as an "infidel"--will end up somewhere other than Heaven. Well, so what?? I couldn't care less if they think so. All that matters--as Medved would say--is how are they treating me? If good, then fine. If the extremist among them are trying to blow me up, then there's a problem.
So I have to wonder why 'ol Peagreen is so upset about something she apparently doesn't believe will happen to her?? Come on, why does she care about a belief that several million people in this country hold, so long as they aren't mistreating her?
Methinks she's simply trying to judge McMorris for anyting she can get her claws on---for BEING a christian, for not being a good christian, for pretty breathing....
"if they just cram more money at it"
It's "more of someone else's money"
Posted by: Hoplophile on August 13, 2006 07:44 PM
she best look into the mirror before she judges again, it just might talk back to her.
Posted by: chris on August 13, 2006 08:11 PMIt must feel good to say things but you're likely to lead more fruitful lives if you proceed with a bit more caution, introspection, and curiousity.
Posted by: Noemie Maxwell on August 13, 2006 09:31 PMbut--they NEVER would dare support the same of a Koran in urine as 'art' and still rally for the Gitmo guests' religious rights--
so--why are they inconsistent? is it a particular religion they oppose or a principle?
libs--pick a side--defend or oppose all religions-don't cherry-pick; sh&& or get off the pot;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 13, 2006 09:50 PMI stand corrected.
Statism, too often taking the form of communism drifting to Stalinism.
Posted by: JCM on August 13, 2006 09:51 PMAt any rate, don't tell ms. Peagreen, but her post just helps drive more religious voters away from the democrat party. And they'll keep wondering why religious folks keep largely avoiding the democrat party, even though it is as plain as day. Oh well!
Posted by: Michele on August 13, 2006 10:32 PMIt's also your average Wahabbi madrassa masquerading as "Christian". The campus has separate *sidewalks* for men and women, and Saudi-style "muttawa" to police every aspect of student behavior (dress, activity, speech, etc) on- and off-campus. Students who even speak critically of the institution (much less do something really bad, like be seen talking to or holding hands with a member of the opposite sex) are confined to campus or expelled.
I know plenty of good Christians from Pensacola - but none that came out of PCC. The grads I knew were either utterly asocial or wealthy heirs of good-old-boys who couldn't get into real schools.
Posted by: pensacolian on August 13, 2006 11:20 PMThe first word was bull and the second rhymes with sit.
Another liberal anxious to compare the christians to radical moslems. It gets a bit pathetic after a while.
Posted by: johnny on August 13, 2006 11:32 PMThat sentence just oozes left wing superiority and snootiness. Makes me want to go get a 6-pack of Bud and watch professional wrestling in my undershirt.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 14, 2006 08:01 AMhttp://www.pensacolachristiancollege.com/rules.htm
Some choice quotes:
"As stated in the Student Handbook, leaving campus is a "privilege;" one which the administration will revoke as they see fit.
Males and Females are to use separate public beaches and may not go to the popular Pensacola Beach or to the nearby Boardwalk.
You may not go to a public library.
You may not go onto the campus of any other college in the Pensacola area.
No student is allowed to talk or otherwise interact with another student of the opposite sex outside of a "chaperoned" area. It does not matter if they are alone or among hundreds of students if it is not an "official" chaperoned area.
You may not interact with a student of the opposite sex in any way off-campus without prior approval and an approved chaperone.
Each gender must use segregated stairways, elevators and in some cases, sidewalks.
Siblings of the opposite sex should not interact in unchaperoned areas to abstain from the "appearance of evil."
etc. etc.
Also see http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i29/29a04001.htm
Posted by: pensacolian on August 14, 2006 08:17 AMAre you equally critical of other religious schools (read, muslim), or only the "christian" ones?
See post #14.
Posted by: Shaun on August 14, 2006 09:34 AMWow, you should try a week there, and let us know how you liked it. You might learn from the so called Oppression you seem to believe that resides there. You may learn how to ACCEPT the things that you cannot change.
You see, we live in a FREE country, and I can make choices of were to LIVE, EAT, SLEEP, PRAY, POOP, & BLOG.
You shouldn't judge others. It's not your place to judge me, nor would I judge you. (especially on my freedom choices) You see that is what FREEDOM is all about.
By attending this college, maybe the challenge is more a lifestlye change than an academic challenge, but in any case, you shouldn't judge another because of it.
Posted by: Chris on August 14, 2006 09:56 AMthere are a wide range of strict schools of Jewish and Christian preference, but one thing they have in common is a love of life, family and basic acceptance of others--hardly the legacy of our latest "religion in the news," on a daily basis-
like Shaun--don't like it, don't go--
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 14, 2006 10:02 AMBtw, several of my kids' school textbooks are from Beka publishing and I've looked through them and they are wonderful textbooks. I recommend to anyone.
Posted by: Misty on August 14, 2006 10:25 AMI'm just pointing out why I think PCC is a dubious place and that based on what I know of the school and the graduates I've known over the years, why I'm suspicious of someone with a PCC degree. Period.
To those (most of whom clearly know nothing of the place) who excoriate me for judging someone for attending PCC, yet who would not hesitate to judge a Muslim for attending a similarly reactionary institution, I say boo. I'd cast a wary eye on both.
Could be partly because I'm willing to stand up and say that I believe in equality between the sexes. Could be because I'm from Pensacola, and have seen "Christian" terrorism up close. (Michael Griffin and Paul Hill come to mind.) Could be I'm just deeply suspicious of any kind of religious indoctrination that forbids dissent and free inquiry, utterly.
Posted by: pensacolian on August 14, 2006 10:30 AMThis strikes me as naive. Just slap the label "Christian" on it and you know, without any further inquiry, that it's all about peace and love? It may come as a surprise to you that there are those who call themselves Christian who preach hate.
From the Chronicle link:
"[Lisa Daxer's] problems with Pensacola go beyond the rules. Administrators there equate loyalty to the college with obedience to God in a way she finds objectionable. 'They used to say that being at PCC is God's will for our lives,' she says. 'So walking out of PCC would be breaking God's will for our lives. Then I've heard them say that you might end up dying because God can't use you anymore.'
Darrell Dow has heard much the same thing. 'There is this idea that if you go against us, you're going against God,' he says. Mr. Dow graduated from Pensacola in 2003 with a degree in computer science, but by then he already felt disillusioned. (Timothy Dow, who was kicked out for hugging a recently expelled friend, is Darrell Dow's cousin.) He says because rules can be 'made up on the spot,' it seems impossible to abide by all of them. 'There's a feeling of helplessness and a spirit of fear,' he says. 'Not to put too fine a point on it, but there's a very 1984 feel to the place.'"
This doesn't sound like agape to me.
Posted by: pensacolian on August 14, 2006 11:01 AMADmit it, the reason you are against McMorris is not because she went to PCC, it's because she's a republican and you wish a democrat were holding the seat she holds. Therefore, it's quite clear that you and Peagreen will do whatever you can to try and smear a conseravtive republican, under the guise that they are christians and attended a christian college that has strict rules for attendees. so therefore she must be unfit for office. You dont' believe it, you just put it out there hoping somewhere it will stick. You'd still be against her if she hadn't gone to PCC. You'd still be working to replace her no matter what. We understand that. But just be honest---just say it's because she's a conservative republican and you are a liberal democrat and she is at odds with your particular political agenda. But nobody is going to believe your attempts to equate PCC with madrasses with the implication that McMorris is plotting to blown up airplanes. Sane people view that as ridiculous.
Posted by: Mist on August 14, 2006 11:17 AMKind of makes you wonder which political campaign this person gets paid by, right
Posted by: johnny on August 14, 2006 11:22 AMMy goodness, you are really grasping at straws here....
I feel in todays society, that ADULTS should make decisions for themselves. If they want to attend a college that dictates their every move, then who am I to stand in their way or JUDGE them.
Man, the left is surely reaching into our freedoms(and pocketbooks) these days. I for one can THINK FOR MYSELF. I Dont need any help. Thank you anyway.
And if more people in society were made to THINK for themself, and take a lil bit of responsibilty for their actions, we wouldn't need all the Left Leaning Babysitters we have now.
Posted by: Chris on August 14, 2006 11:25 AMNo. I am not a Democrat, liberal or otherwise. It's rude to put words in my mouth. I have the right to judge anyone as fit or unfit for office based on any criteria I choose, and I don't think education is an unreasonable one.
I am not "working against McMorris" - I don't know that I'd vote against her if I lived in her district, after consideration of the issues and candidates in her race. (I freely admit I'm ill-informed about the WA 5th district race, being new to WA state and not living in Eastern WA.)
That said, what a politician does before they become a politician can be very revealing. I doubt that even if McMorris did adhere to PCC's particular "Christian" doctrine she'd admit it now, when it might turn voters off. I don't think I'm wrong in thinking that politicians frequently say one thing and do another in the furtherance of their political careers.
I don't think PCC is inciting jihad. I do think PCC's segregation and subjugation of women is repugnant (just like I find the same segregation and subjugation repugnant in radical Islam and for that matter Orthodox Judaism). I also think that PCC's degrees are generally worth bupkis (except their nursing program). I question the judgement of anyone who attends PCC long enough to graduate.
I'd be suspicious of a politician with a degree from the Harvard Kennedy school of Government, too. I'm not going to apologize for considering McMorris' PCC degree a black mark.
If you don't like it, lump it.
Posted by: pensacolian on August 14, 2006 11:48 AMYep, sure looks like they keep the boys and girls separated everywhere!
Those images are from the school's official website, by the way...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on August 14, 2006 12:00 PMBased on all the times I've heard her talk about issues on the radio, Cathy McMorris seems like a truly lovely, kind, and intelligent person. If she is an example of the kind of student that PCC churns out, then maybe we need MORE PCC grads to run for congress!
Posted by: Misty on August 14, 2006 01:52 PMSorry Arnold but I can't go along with your theory, although I do think there's some validity to it particularly regarding abortion.
I believe the reason the left is so strident in opposing religion, (particularly Christianity), is that they fear it stands in the way of their goal of a socialist state. They also fear traditional families, which tend to raise children who are less likely to fall into the myriad victim categories that make up their base. Watch how they uniformly oppose any notion of school choice, too. The folks who are the big guns in the modern left are old '60's and 70's socialist and communist radicals. They've had socialism as a goal they're entire life, which explains why they come unhinged when they lose. They haven't got much time left.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 14, 2006 04:59 PMWhere do you get this stuff?
Posted by: Bruce on August 14, 2006 10:32 PMEvidently Bruce didn't bother to read the links to the liberal bloggers above. Or read condescending post #12 from Noemie Campbell,(note the "stalin" reference even though no one had mentioned him anywhere).
I'm sure Bruce also happily supports the left's annual war on Christmas, their war against the Boy Scouts, their campaign to remove the cross in San Diego, and their crusade to remove the 10 Commandments from any public area.
Or are we just making this stuff up?
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/11/21/christmas/index.html
Posted by: Bruce on August 15, 2006 12:19 PMYour selection has the typical sneering leftist hyperventilations, but ironically, they list many of the anecdotes that add up to a leftist assault against Christians' celebration of Christmas.
Not surprising.
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 15, 2006 12:25 PMYou stated: "I oppose anyone pushing their religious beliefs or practices on me or anyone else."
Does your objection to forced morality extend to:
- how much family leave an employer OUGHT to offer,
- what land use practices a farmer OUGHT to employ,
- how illegal immigrants OUGHT to be treated,
- that all taxpayers OUGHT to support the arts with required taxes,
- how much two people OUGHT to exchange in return for an hour's labor,
- that a wealthy person OUGHT to donate half his/her estate to the state rather than his dependents,
- that college students OUGHT not express insensitive thoughts in public institutions,
- that animals OUGHT to be treated with respect and deferance equal to that due to humans,
- that the right to personal transportation OUGHT to be submitted to government-run cooperative transit,
- etc. etc. etc.
Because I find these moral precepts forced upon me with the aid of government much more often than any strawman you could conjure coming from Christian values.
Posted by: anon on August 15, 2006 01:25 PMNot one of you can define 'Liberal', outside of 'those who disagree with bushco'. Try it - look it up and see! You'll be surprised at definitions that include a willingness to sacrifice for the greater good.
War on Christmas? Who makes this crap up?
When the wingnuts have their asses handed to them in November, it will have been a self-inflicted wound. Those who fell into lockstep with the propaganda and continually regurgitated all this Liberal=Traitor (or whatever) will then have about 20 years to think about the insipidness of the episode... that's how long it will take the Democrats to become as corrupt as the Republicans are now.
Yes, bashing liberals without even possessing a working definition is insipid. I'm saying you're insipid. Look it up.
Bwaaaaahaaaaa!
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 15, 2006 01:33 PM- that all OUGHT "to sacrifice for the greater good" as defined by the perspective of those meeting the hidden, but very noble (trust us) definition of 'liberal'
Posted by: anon on August 15, 2006 01:41 PMWe don't have to make up anything. Witness the lefty Chicago city council banning the serving of foie-gras in the city's restaurants effective August 22nd.
If you don't believe me, just deny that global warming exists. You'll get the same visceral reaction as if you were to insult Allah in Mecca.
Got this from a friend the other day. #17 is on topic:
--------------------------------------
18 WAYS TO BE A LIBERAL \ SOCIALIST:
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.
GOD BLESS AMERICA! Ooops, Democrats can't do that either!
-----------------------------------------------
I favor Orwell's definition--"Liberal: a power worshipper without power."
Posted by: YourLifeIsMyFault on August 15, 2006 07:13 PMWell here is the point. Has anybody (especially any conservative hosts) actually done an airtime count or a dollar count of how much advertizing is now bought by the federal government? By my estimate it is about 60% at our local talk radio station across the river in Iowa. The government ads increase significantly after Rush. After Hannity nearly all the ads are government ads.
The conservative media are being back doored into fairness once again. How many newspapers ever take on the auto sales industry? How many radio stations will let hosts take on the government when the percent of revenues from government ads reaches the current 60% of ad air time. Meanwhile Sean keeps preachin' that we've got to ensure the fairness doctrine doesn't return. Don't turn down the volume when you go to commercial Sean. Wake up good old boy, your gettin' rear ended.
Posted by: Jericho on August 15, 2006 07:47 PMThe liberal (tyrannist) mindset it to always create a crisis (winter), but never to seek the Christ (Christmas). Always a crisis, never the Christ.
Posted by: Jericho on August 15, 2006 07:55 PM
