August 13, 2006
Liberals Remain Miffed About Religion

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.

Posted by Eric Earling at August 13, 2006 03:12 PM | Email This
Comments
1. "Miffed about religion" is putting it mildly, (and politely, I might add).

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 PM
2. Liberalism is a religion.

Any 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 PM
3. JCM, If you don't mind a little correction: liberalism is a mental disorder - Statism is the religion that they worship.

As 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.

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 13, 2006 05:32 PM
4. So, when Cathy beats this guy (whoever the d's are sacrificing against her this year) like a rented mule, winning (again) by 15% or so... will he get it then?

Posted by: Pondering on August 13, 2006 05:40 PM
5. "alphabet soup":

You nailed it. Post #3 made my whole day. Thanks.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 13, 2006 05:49 PM
6. With the exception of inevitable disagreements between believers on the merits (or lack thereof) of dancing and going to movie theaters, I don't see what's so awful about trying to avoid dirtying up oneself spiritually. As if that's a bad thing to try to avoid??? The Word says we oughta be spending all whole lot of effort trying clean up spiritually and get our acts together. That's a GOOD thing. McMorris sounds like someone I'd enjoy chatting with over lunch. I've heard her talk on the radio, and she sounds nowhere close to being as screechy and judgmental as that democrat blogger sounds.

That 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....

Posted by: Michele on August 13, 2006 05:51 PM
7. ..last line s/b "for pretty much just breathing...."

Posted by: Michele on August 13, 2006 05:57 PM
8. And another good example of how the left really feels about "diversity".

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 13, 2006 06:03 PM
9. A minor correction, Soup...

"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
10. I think ms peebrain is scared to death that she will burn in hell....

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 PM
11. And those on the right that are not particularly religious still see the value and morality of religion. While those on the left who are not religious, view religion as a challenge. Religion has been an important philosophy and moral structure for centuries. That's why the left hates religion so much. Anything that imparts a value structure outside of a statist entity, or their structure of expected political correctness is a threat to the imposition of their secular doctrine.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 13, 2006 08:39 PM
12. Please excuse me in advance but you people are blowing little tendrils of smoke out of your hindquarters with this stalin/liberal/anti-religion thing.

It 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 PM
13. Why?

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 13, 2006 09:44 PM
14. it's a matter of 'selective acceptance'--the Left supports the 'offensive cartoon prophet' riots in Europe; they 'understand their anger'

and yet--they support the 'free speech' and non-censure of the midwest U.S. museum 'art' display of a Crucifix in urine a few years ago;

but--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 PM
15. alphabet soup

I stand corrected.

Statism, too often taking the form of communism drifting to Stalinism.

Posted by: JCM on August 13, 2006 09:51 PM
16. Well, Jimmie, I think it's just that christianity poses the most threat to them. Why? I don't know---perhaps because it's the one that has the most credibility and potential to be 'true', in their eyes. Therefore, it is threatening, even if they don't want anything to do with it (which is their right). What I've noticed is that those who take seriously their faith and are conservative are the ones that bother the left the most. If someone is christian and liberal, that's okay to them. But whoa if you are christian and conservative--somehow they see you as Hitler or some other negative entity. I don't know why. But that's what I've noticed. They hate that W is conservative (compared to the raging left, at least) AND christian. Drives 'em bonkers!

At 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 PM
17. With all due respect, I'm from Pensacola and I'd look askance at any PCC graduate. It's well known as a high-priced diploma mill. I'm surprised U-dub even accepted the degree. (As long as you pay your tuition on time and keep your head down, it's a doddle.)

It'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 PM
18. Since my wife is from the area, I just shared the message from "Pensacolian" with her, and got a two word response.

The 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 PM
19. Noemie Maxwell posts--(#12)
"It 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."

That 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 AM
20. Johnny, I stand by my comment as factually accurate. Nothing is more pathetic than denial. PCC is just the staffing arm of Beka publishing (which happens to be on-campus, being the only place students can work).

http://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 AM
21. And my question to "pensacolian" is...so what? If you don't like their policies, don't send your children there.

Are 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 AM
22. ohblah@dooblah.com AKA Pensacolian

Wow, 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 AM
23. ...and Pensacolian, let's count the number of that school's adherents to date that have strapped on bombs and killed innocents? how many have been plotting to take a bridge like recently (AGAIN!!) discovered in MI?

there 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 AM
24. Pensacolan would probably be upset to learn that some of the girls on the jewish school teams my kids' school team played against WERE HAVING TO WEAR SKIRTS WHILE THEY PLAYED BASKETBALL! Horrors! But we certainly didn't mind. I didn't notice any of those girls in skirts or their parents trying to blow me up. And I believe that in synagogue, men and women sit on different sides of the room. So what?? If these or any other religiously committed people start trying to blow other people up, THAT is what I'll have trouble with and join others in complaining. But they and those from PCC aren't doing any such thing.

Btw, 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 AM
25. I don't oppose the right of PCC to exist, or to set whatever policies they like. And yes, I'm critical of Muslim religious institutions with similar policies - isn't that self-evident?!

I'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 AM
26. Pensacolian, at the madrases they teach the kids to HATE America and infidels, etc.
PCC, being a christian college, I don't even have to go there to know that they are NOT teaching the students to hate others. Period. Because I'm familiar with christian teachings. Christians are told to get rid of bitterness and envyings and strife, etc etc. Don't even try to compare the two. It's not working for you and nobody buys it.

Posted by: Misty on August 14, 2006 10:39 AM
27. ...and btw, it's clear from looking at the rules PCC has that offend you so much that they are trying to curb most if not all the casual sex that goes on at most college campuses. Clearly, the college wants the parents who send their kids there to feel assured that the likelihood that their daughter will come home pregnant or with an STD is very low. I don'[t see what's so wrong with that. Temptations are fairly common for engaging in the behaviors that would result in such an outcome. It's too bad that you are so critical of people who don't want their children/students to be in an atmosphere where casual sexual activity is discouraged.

Posted by: Misty on August 14, 2006 10:59 AM
28. "PCC, being a christian college, I don't even have to go there to know that they are NOT teaching the students to hate others. Period. Because I'm familiar with christian teachings. Christians are told to get rid of bitterness and envyings and strife, etc etc."

This 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 AM
29. In fairness, it should be pointed out that the URL cited by Pensacolian (www.pensacolachristiancollege.com) is NOT the school's official website (www.pcci.edu). The information cited may or may not be accurate - but it should not have been presented out of context (or actually, in a context that suggested it was something it was not).

Posted by: Patrick on August 14, 2006 11:02 AM
30. pensacolian, no I don't think it's naive. Cathy McMorris strikes NOBODY as someone who is walking around judging everyone around her. All the judgmentalism keeps coming from you and Peagreen. If people don't like the policies of the school, they shouldn't go there. What's so difficult about that?? But do you really expect us to believe that PCC is teaching everyone to commit jihad against their version of "infidels"? Get real. The school would be under federal surveillance if that were the case.

ADmit 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 AM
31. Pensacolian seems to be working extra hard on this one. So much for "casual" commentary.

Kind of makes you wonder which political campaign this person gets paid by, right

Posted by: johnny on August 14, 2006 11:22 AM
32. Pensi @ 28

My 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 AM
33. 'ol Pensacolan would be shocked to learn that the kids at our school have to sign a paper saying they will NOT swear, take drugs or smoke, have sex, watch dirty videos in OR out of school (ok, now any parents out there please raise your hand and tell us WHICH of those things you HOPE your teenager will do---yah, none--I thought so). And most of the kids who go there are smart as a whip and will make fine citizens when they grow up. I suppose he/she'll say that those kids go to a madras, too. How tolerant and 'open-minded'.

Posted by: Misty on August 14, 2006 11:31 AM
34. "Admit you really blah blah blah"

No. 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 AM
35. My, such segregation at the school:

Image 1


Image 2

Yep, 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 PM
36. Pensa, we're not the ones complaining about the school. I'd say the 'if you don't like it, lump it.' would more apply to you, because you are the one who brought the complaint. N'est-ce pas?

Posted by: Misty on August 14, 2006 12:16 PM
37. ..and I should add: McMorris has been a popular political figure in her region, even before she was in congress when she was elected to serve as a state legislator (for those new to WA state politics).

Based 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 PM
38. Let's face it. The main, and in many cases the only, reason secularist liberals detest Christianity revolves around sex and the consequences of sex. Dogma is of little interest or importance to them. The only thing that matters and rattles them is traditional Christianity's sexual ethic.

Posted by: Arnold on August 14, 2006 03:31 PM
39. This is such a non-issue it's laughable! It does demonstrate how very out of touch the Democrats are with the very conservative (and mostly Christian) voters of Eastern Washington. Hopefully, the Dems will make a big deal (and spend a lot of money) pointing out that Cathy McMorris attended a conservative Christian college.

Posted by: Elaine on August 14, 2006 03:48 PM
40. "Let's face it. The main, and in many cases the only, reason secularist liberals detest Christianity revolves around sex and the consequences of sex."

Sorry 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 PM
41. Of course you can't hold someone responsible for every policy of their college, church, religion, club, etc. But if someone chose and spent 4 years at a college with a philosophy and significant policies that I find offensive -- not to mention very low academic standards -- those facts are relevant.

Posted by: Bruce on August 14, 2006 10:24 PM
42. Arnold and Bill, I'm one of your feared secularist liberals and I can assure you that theories are all wet. I oppose anyone pushing their religious beliefs or practices on me or anyone else. It's not about sex (I couldn't care less about your sexual ethics), traditional families (I'm part of one), or socialism (which I oppose). The same holds for virtually all of my secularist liberal friends.

Where do you get this stuff?

Posted by: Bruce on August 14, 2006 10:32 PM
43. But Bruce, it wouldn't matter if she graduated from a college you approve of (does UW meet w/ your approval?) and took on your secular outlook. You are liberal and if you lived in the 5th I doubt she could win your vote, because she's a conservative republican and that's not your outlook in life, obviously. So all the talk about whether or not she's a good christian (refer back to the liberal blogger's post that started all this) or what college she went to is really a smokescreen. You and all those people wouldn't vote for her anyway.

Posted by: Misty on August 14, 2006 11:26 PM
44. Bruce says,(referring to my post #40). "Where do you get this stuff?"

Evidently 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?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 15, 2006 09:23 AM
45. That should read "Noemi Maxwell". Don't know where I got "Campbell" from. My apologies.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 15, 2006 11:46 AM
46. Ah yes, the feared War on Christmas.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/11/21/christmas/index.html

Posted by: Bruce on August 15, 2006 12:19 PM
47. Yes bruce - that war on Christmas.

Your 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 PM
48. It's amazing the lengths the left will go to in denying who they are, what they believe, and what they do.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 15, 2006 01:21 PM
49. Bruce:

You 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 PM
50. Oh jeez.. not again.

Not 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.


Posted by: Remote Exploit on August 15, 2006 01:30 PM
51. "When the wingnuts have their asses handed to them in November..."

Bwaaaaahaaaaa!

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 15, 2006 01:33 PM
52. Oh, thanks to Remote Exploit, I can add another to the list I started:

- 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 PM
53. "Who makes this crap up?"

We 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.


Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 15, 2006 01:52 PM
54. Whew! I visited, trying to keep up with evangelical Christianity, and have found myself rowing through a waterfall. Just one parting comment: Enlarge your categories, because you have before you someone who fits none of them. I'm a social democrat/democratic socialist in part because I believe that that is the presently available political position that best accords with the Gospel of Christ. Social democrats are opposed to liberals because they have learned to expect very little good from free markets, and SD's oppose "conservatives" because SD's view the state, especially a state that sponsors religion, as a threat to citizens' morals. If that seems weird to all of you, try looking up the Socialist Party of Oklahoma, run by Church-of-Christ and Pentecostal ministers, ca. 1900.

Posted by: W Everdell on August 15, 2006 06:00 PM
55. Liberals hate religion for a couple of reasons. 1) they have their own religion, a belief in global warming, and the supremecy of the state over the individual; 2) religions have firm views of right and wrong, which goes against a liberal's view of moral relativism.

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!
-----------------------------------------------

Posted by: Obi-Wan on August 15, 2006 06:43 PM
56. Remote Exploit: "Not one of you can define 'Liberal', outside of 'those who disagree with bushco'."

I favor Orwell's definition--"Liberal: a power worshipper without power."

Posted by: YourLifeIsMyFault on August 15, 2006 07:13 PM
57. Side note regarding Alphabet Soup's post number 3 and his mention of the fairness doctrine, which when it existed nearly killed AM Radio and which when Mr. Reagan ended it led to the quick excelleration of the Conservative media (we were already making inroads in books, but very slowly).

Well 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 PM
58. "It's always winter and never Christmas." Mr Tumnas the faun in C.S. Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe."

The 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
59. For those liberals who claim to not be socialists.... Liberalism and Social Democracy are some of many branches of the International Socialist Party. I've just been reading this stuff for a couple of years.... oh how ignorant and naive I've lived my life. Hey folks, we've been lied to. Our dear 'liberals' will, if given the power, put us Christians in jail... just like in Russia. Wake up time was a while ago.

Posted by: ljm on August 15, 2006 09:17 PM
60. LJM, your post is devoid of logic. Try looking up terms like "socialist" and "liberal" in any dictionary. They're totally different.

Posted by: Bruce on August 16, 2006 01:28 AM
61. Whatsa matter, Bruce? Did LJM's post hit too close to home or are you just a pompous ass?
I had no problem understanding it.

Posted by: Elaine on August 16, 2006 06:53 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?