Awhile back I pointed out certain liberals haven't been quick on the uptake in understanding religion in American life. Well, some things haven't changed.
The "Liberal Girl Next Door" is a decent writer, but her thoughts on why people attend houses of worship are rather entertaining:
people attend church for all kinds of reasons that don't necessarily include a belief in God, such as social networking, business networking, or simply to keep a spouse happy or a neighbor's prying questions at bay. Why is it that "no religion" has to be explained away as if it's simply too unbelievable that more and more people are choosing that option?
Um, yes actually, that is rather unbelievable. Do such churchgoers exist? I'm sure they do. Yet, I have this crazy idea most people go to church because they believe in God...but maybe I'm a lunatic.
Well, maybe not. The WaPo article she cites leads with:
A survey released yesterday posits the idea that the United States -- already one of the most religious nations in the developed world -- may be even less secular than previously suspected.
Hmm.
Oh, that's right. Because America, whether you like or not, remains a nation with an undeniable religious character.
What that also means is that President Bush saying he senses a "Third Awakening" doesn't mean he "sounds more and more like Osama bin Laden every day." It means he actually talks to other Christians (not a tough thing to do outside of major urban centers in America), and is conveying his anecdotal experiences accordingly.
As I said, still miffed.
This is nuts on too many levels. I'm assuming that your assessment of "decent writer" does not preclude logical fallacies.
Ok, Ms. Writer...so if said an Islamafacist has his knife to your throat, you probably don't care if it's because of religious differences or because you wore white after Labor Day, but the facts in his mind are likely going to be of a radical religious nature, your thoughts notwithstanding.
It is amazing. If it is a cross burning in the US, it's a different crime entity, a hate crime. If it has to do with radical Islam, it's how lib's choose to think about it. In Oz, they had emerald-colored glasses. In demo-land, they have blue-colored glasses.
Either way, it's still Oz.
One need not be a "Christian Fundamentalist fanatic" to find the wisdom of standing up to terrorist threats.
Posted by: scott158 on September 16, 2006 12:27 AMThe comment she made further in the article about the war on terrorism ( Islamic -jihadism) is an exercise in reality denial.
She wrote "�They� don�t hate us for our freedom or because our women walk around uncovered or because we worship a different God, that is simply ridiculous."
They don't ?
Lets see. There were bombings in Tailand as well as beheadings (Buddhists.) There was a train bombing in India (Hindu). There is continual trouble in Kasmier ( Sikh). There are regular terrorist attacks against Israel, and Jews elsewhere including a synagogue here (Judaism). There are constant global atacks by jihadists on Christians (Christianity). There are attacks in the Sudan also on animists. The west ,(Europe and North America) which includes also atheists, agnostics, and "no religion", is the great Satan. There are also attacks on muslims by muslim jihadists due to sectatian differences and such issues as beheading a muslim school teacher in Afganistan for teaching little girls to read. The persecution the Parsee or Zoroastrians, Bahais and others could also be added to this list.
But all of this of course must have a socio-economic cause for a good marxist. That relgion means something and has any thing to do with it is "ridiculous."
She is clueless
Posted by: tomasM on September 16, 2006 12:46 AMThe old saying is right, "There are not athiest in foxholes".
Or as it was said in Tuskegee Airman, "If you don't beleive in god, you better get a damn good substitute."
See most liberals do not want to believe in God.
Because they think that they know it all.
When confronted with information, that they are wrong.
A liberals first response is "you think you know everything".
The reason for that is, they really do think that they know everything. And they are jealous that you showed them up.
Posted by: Mike P on September 16, 2006 01:19 AMI have come to find that Liberalism = guilty conscience sydrome.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on September 16, 2006 07:27 AMThe issue with those who go to church without religion is the confusion between liturgy and belief in a deity. If you ask people if they believe in a supreme being, entity or whatever most will say yes but if you ask them to identify a church or sect they will tell you none. The irony of non sectarian identification is that such identification becomes a liturgy.
There is a time in most reasonable people's lives when regardless of rationality or education they come to understand that they can't explain it all in human terms. This called intellectual maturity. Aquainis said that for the believer no explanation is necessary for the unblieveler no explanation is possible.
We have always been faced with those who go to church for reasons other than devotion to God and there have always been those who corrupt the tenets of religion to justify violence and terror. There are those today in the Western faith community who association with relgion is justification for hatered and bigoty just as there are in Islam.
The Beatitudes say blessed are the poor for their's is the kingdom of heaven and Jesus was not talking about the poor in money he was addressing those who make themselves poor in spirit and ready to be filled. Luke's version says blessed are the poor for the wealthy have already recieved their reward.
People like this will never accept or understand religion because in their arrongance they still cling to the Cartesian concept of "Cognito ergo Sum" I think therefore I am.
Beleif in religion is very different from belief in God. Beleiving in God requires nothing other than beleif, belief in relgion requries adherence to principals and rules and of course that is alien to those who beleive in the primacy of their own minds and choices.
Posted by: dennis on September 16, 2006 08:39 AMLike libs everywhere she doesn't get it. Her entire post reeks of moral equivalancy. Liberals have so deluded themselves that they are unable to determine right from wrong or good from evil. Unless, of course, they are talking about Republicans.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 16, 2006 08:47 AMPersonally I see little difference in peoples life’s. I have a very religious family, but few religious friends. Although I do know a couple of Christians, Muslims, and Mormons. They all seem to be about the same in their enjoyment of life. If church makes someone happy I have no problem with that, but for many of us being agnostic or an atheist makes us equally as a happy. There does not, in my opinion need to be conflict between these positions.
Politics aside that article is quite interesting. I have been meaning to read the study they cited since I heard about it. I would not have guessed that a quarter of Americans are deists, with another 16% being semi-deists. When you factor that in with the non believes you get 45% who do not think that a god affects the world. That is much lower then I would have guessed. I also would have thought more then 47% would identify as bible believing. I think we too often lump religious and no religious people together, without recognizing the diversity within each label.
Thomas Paine was a devout believer in Deism. If you want to read some really scathing attacks upon Christianity, read his "The Age of Reason". In it, he denounced Judism, Christianity, and Islam alike, claiming that they all committed blasphemy by describing God as a tyrant and killer. His god, creator of the universe, had bestowed reason upon man. Man was to emulate god in compassion, intelligence, and freedom-- not use religion as an excuse to kill.
BTW, President Bush's statement about a "Third Awakening" refers to the two Protestant Revivals in this country-- times that were dangerous for non-Protestants of any religious values. When he talks in such terms, he's speaking in a tongue that bin Laden himself uses, casting our troubles as a clash of religions, not as a struggle between freedom and terror. Such language grants legitimacy to bin Laden's goons.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on September 16, 2006 11:25 AMThe liberal left does not believe in personal accountability, in this life or the next.
In this life the left tries to protect everyone from the consequences of actions, by labeling the problem as disease, dysfunctional family, societal pressure etc... thereby excusing behaviors.
They especially dislike accountability in the next life, something consist in religion, being held to account by God.
Accountability means you can't do what you like when ever you feel like it. Which is opposite the liberal "if it feels good do it" philosophy.
Accountability is a core conservative principle, and being accountable in this life makes accountability in the next much more acceptable and comfortable idea.
Posted by: JCM on September 16, 2006 12:20 PMDid anyone else hear the sound of gum chomping and snapping in her mouth as she expressed her absurd ideas on religion?
Liberals are mentally wasted animals...They go through life spouting and spitting out their failed philosophies on just about anything they no nothing about! Then they meet with each other and drink until they are pickled.......then simply begin the process all over again!
Unfortunately - there are no 12 step programs for liberals....sigh...
Posted by: Deborah on September 16, 2006 11:10 PMNotice where this little gem was written!
Posted by: Cheryl on September 17, 2006 04:44 PMI wrote a review of it the other day.. hang on... here:
http://www.outsidecontext.com/2006/09/20/the-salmon-of-doubt/
He basically says that whilst religion and belief in a deity is false, that is not to say that it doesn't serve some special and perhaps even vital service in keeping man alive.
Posted by: Basho on September 20, 2006 10:28 AM