Godless - The Church of Liberalism

[Easyrider]

GODLESS – The Church of Liberalism - is the most explosive book yet from #1 New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter. In this completely original and thoroughly controversial work, Coulter writes, “Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.’ ” (Amazon.com review)

"If a Martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation's official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law," Coulter writes in "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."

The WND columnist argues that while many Americans are outraged by liberal hostility to traditional religion, to focus solely on the Left's attacks on Judeo-Christian tradition is to miss a larger point: Liberalism is a religion—a godless one.

Chapter headings in Coulter's "Godless" include "On the Seventh Day, God Rested and Liberals Schemed" and "Liberals' Doctrine of Infallibility: Sobbing Hysterical Women" and "The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=50364

Let the fur fly.

[micatala]

Quote:
Like Ann Coulter, the previous post so distorts liberalism that the description provided bears so slight a resemblance to reality that the arguments and conclusions thereupon based have no relevance to reality.

Many people are seeing liberals for what they truly are and not what they pretend to be.

I am open to someone actually giving a reasonable definition of liberal. At this point, this statement and nearly all of the rest of the post which it is from is merely an unsubstantiated opinion, with no evidence of support.

Trying to catch a slippery con artist is not easy. The left hides so well in plain sight. Because, there is no difference anymore between all of the diverse expressions that are exactly the same. Progressives, skeptics, humanists, atheists, liberals, freethinkers, etc., etc., etc., what's the difference anymore? They all dance to the same piper and sing the same song.

Please prove that all these groups 'sing the same song.' Please prove that they are engaged in an effort to systematically deceive people. This has been asserted many times, but an expressed opinion is not fact. So far, all I have seen is unsubstantiated opinion.

Remember, the claim implies that there is a systematic and ongoing effort to deceive. The person making this claim needs to show what claims the 'con men' are making, verify that they do not believe these claims, and verify that they are intentionally trying to deceive the public.

Quote:
1John wrote:
The role models of the left are who? Actors and rappers and socialists and communists in abundance. And I left out all of the pure and openly declared anti-Christians that literally fund and promte liberal/progressive actions and acts.

Selective mischaracterization. Do you have any data on how many self-identified liberals hold particular persons or types of persons as 'role-models?'

Gimme a break. It is truthfully stating a fact.

Uhhh. Baloney. It is stating an opinion. If it is a fact that you need to provide compelling evidence. You would need to show that a majority or even a significant minority of self-identified liberals hold such people up as role models.

Poll data would be appropriate. Isolated examples of such people who self-identify as liberals does not do it. As wyvern has pointed out, one can easily find actors, athletes, etc. who self-identify as very conservative. Charlton Heston, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mel Gibson, and Curt Schilling, for example.

Please. The assault on Christians from liberals is so well documented that people can write books entitled Godless The Church of Liberalism.

This was in response to my list of liberal role models, and my note that they did not fit your description of alleged liberal role models. This response seems to be irrelevant and an attempt to change the subject.



Let's define terms. WHat do you count as an 'assault?' Please be specific. Then we can consider whether any of the evidence provided actually shows there is such an assault.

1John wrote:

The Left actually thought everyone wants to be a hedonist.

And they not only demand it but put laws into place so nobody can issue another opinion.

I don't know what else to say but this is out and out false.

Children in schools force fed the celebration of queer culture and condom morality. Pure liberal ideology ensconced in both hedonistic outreaches.

You said the left wants everyone to be a hedonist and that no one was allowed to disagree. Now you backtrack and say children in school are 'force fed the celebration of queer culture and condom morality.'

This seems to be an admission that your first statement was false.

In addition, I would ask exactly what you mean by 'force fed queer culture' etc. Educating students on responsible sexual behavior is not by any reasonable definition the same as forcing people to be hedonists. Informing students that homosexuality exists and that students are expected to treat homosexual students reasonably, and not abuse them, is not 'forcing a celebration of queer culture.'

Unless you can show otherwise, it seems we can only conclude that this argument mischaracterizes what actually occurs in schools with bombastic hyperbole.

It still seems that there is no evidence that your original statement

The Left actually thought everyone wants to be a hedonist.

And they not only demand it but put laws into place so nobody can issue another opinion.

has any validity.

Quote of micatala:
This would mean you have to show that the left, as a group, desires everyone to believe that physical pleasure and gratification is the sole or chief good in life.

I have proven that over and over again. But what is amazing with a liberal like with avortion, you show them the facts and they say: "Where's your proof?" It is why so many people are coming to terms with the evil inherent in the new kind of liberal that has "evolved."

What proof?

You make statements but provide very few facts. I have not seen any facts which actually prove the hypberbolic assertions made.

You seem to think that because some liberals, or even most liberals, support abortion rights that this is the same as insisting everyone become hedonists and that no one is allowed to dissent. This is pure baloney.

'The left' is not insisting that anyone has an abortion. They are not insisting that anyone have sex. They are not promoting the notion that everyone should seek physical pleasure as the greatest good. The arguments for abortion rights that I have seen center on the idea that it is better for woman and couples to have the freedom to choose what level of family they can adequately support. In one study2/3 of women who have had abortions already have children.

Now, I would agree that we should promote dual-parent families, and encourage responsble sexual behavior. My own view is that young people who are not economically and emotionally ready to deal with having a baby should probably not have sex. I would be willing to consider at least substantial restrictions on abortion.

However, the fact that some have a different view on abortion, and feel it should be essentially unrestricted, does not mean they are promoting hedonism. To make this assertion is to abuse words and mischaracterize the position of nearly all those who would identify themselves as supporters of abortion rights.


If you wish to argue that your statement is a fact, you are going to have to do much better than simply expressing opinions and claiming you have evidence. You have to provide evidence that is relevant to the claim made, and that is sufficient to show the particular claim is true or at least likely to be true.



This has not been done to this point.

[Cathar1950]

MagusYanam you have an important insight concerning consumerism.
Here are a couple of books that you might enjoy by Stuart and Elizabeth Ewen.
Channels of Desire and
Captains of Consciousness

[McCulloch]

I am open to someone actually giving a reasonable definition of liberal.

Liberalism

• a political orientation that favors progress and reform
• an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard

Liberalism an ideology that believes in the following social values: freedom, individualism, inequality, pragmatism, and humanism. Liberalism supports social insurance programs, because it believes that they encourage savings (thus being less dependent on the State), shares the risk of unemployment, injury and retirement amongst all those at risk. Liberalism believes in full employment as a social program, so that people support themselves and can be less dependent on the State.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Liberalism

1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
2. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
3. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
4. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

Now, since this thread is about the "The Church of Liberalism", I suspect that we are using definition 3 above. "A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology."

Here is a perhaps biased article which may serve.

[...]
It is an attempt to incorporate modern thinking and developments, especially in the sciences, into the Christian faith. Liberalism tends to emphasize ethics over doctrine and experience over Scriptural authority. While essentially a 19th century movement, theological liberalism came to dominate the American mainline churches in the early 20th century. Liberal Christian scholars embraced and encouraged the higher biblical criticism of modern Biblical scholarship.

Protestant liberal thought in its most traditional incarnations emphasized the universal Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the infinite value of the human soul, the example of Jesus, and the establishment of the moral-ethical Kingdom of God on Earth. It has often been relativistic, pluralistic, and non-doctrinal.

Liberalism birthed other movements with varying emphases. Among these movements have been the Social Gospel, theological Feminism, Liberation theology, Process theology, and the Jesus Seminar.

[micatala]

THank you for the definitional guidance, M.

Liberalism
1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
2. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
3. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
4. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

I am not sure 3 is what either 1John or Coulter have in mind. However, I am willing to consider any or all of these with regards to the claims being made concerning liberalism.

Certainly none of these definitions equate with promoting hedonism. The first might be construed as being more amenable to allowing hedonism, for those who wish to pursue it. However, as the claim made by 1John is that 'the left' (which until we receive further clarification I will equate with those who identify as liberals or with liberalism as similar to 1) is insisting that everyone become a hedonist, we can certainly conclude using even 1, that this claim is not consistent with the evidence.

In fact, given that liberalism emphasizes individuals being allowed to make their own choices, forcing everyone to be a hedonist is contrary to liberalism as defined in 1. It would also be counter to liberalism as defined in 4 and probably 3. Certainly, orthodox theology does not promote hedonism. I would venture to say the ethical considerations of those part of the movement described in 3 would also be counter to hedonism.


I would go back to my previous claim that Coulter and 1John seem intent on mischaracterizing liberalism for their own ends. Certainly their description of liberalism bears little if any resemblance to the actual concept as described here.

Promoting hedonism is irrelevant to liberalism as defined in 2, it seems to me.

[MagusYanam]

Liberalism

1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
2. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
3. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
4. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

Thanks, McCulloch, for the definitions here. But I would take some issue with the third definition. A Christianity which favoured free intellectual inquiry, held ethical and humanitarian strains and de-emphasised dogmatism was present since kerygmatic times. Theology which would now be described liberal was present in the work of Athanasius, Tertullian and Origen, and later the famous Peter Abaelardus of France (12th century, responsible for the moral influence theology of the Crucifixion) and Thomas Aquinas.

Other than that, I agree with micatala's conclusions. Liberal theology has always embraced the idea of righteous action over doctrinal rigidity, and continues to do so today. I see nothing hedonistic or belligerent about it, and believe it to be the truest school of thought to kerygmatic Christianity.

[MagusYanam]

Thanks, Cathar1950! I'll look into these books - they look quite interesting.

I've always been surprised at the neoconservative movement, which keeps pointing the finger at liberals for what they see as the 'vulgarity' in society. At the same time, though, haven't the liberals in the 1950's and 1960's especially been the ones who decried loudest what they saw as society's departure from the moral in pursuit of the material?

[micatala]

I've always been surprised at the neoconservative movement, which keeps pointing the finger at liberals for what they see as the 'vulgarity' in society. At the same time, though, haven't the liberals in the 1950's and 1960's especially been the ones who decried loudest what they saw as society's departure from the moral in pursuit of the material?

I don't really know the answer to the last question.

It seems to me, though, that using the liberal versus conservative division is not the best way to explain the increasing 'vulgarity' of society. In my opinion, it has more to do with the expansion of materialism, and that American society has been successful in providing more and more opportunities for people to be materialistic (and be good at it).

It is not a question of which 'morality', liberal or conservative, is taking sway, but that a sort of amorality is becoming more prevalent. Conservatives often claim this amorality is a result of liberalism, or should be identified with liberalism, but this entirely misses the point. Those who might be said to lead the trend towards materialism and cultural vulgarity seem, in my view, to care little for political ideology, religious doctrine, or moral theories. They care about making money.

The fact that particular money-motivated individuals or groups can be associated with liberals or conservatives is beside the point. It would a gross over-generalization to say that the bulk of conservatives share much in common with Ken Lay and his ilk, just as it is a gross over-generalization to say that the run of the mill liberal shares much of anything with Barbara Streisand.

[1John2_26]

I would go back to my previous claim that Coulter and 1John seem intent on mischaracterizing liberalism for their own ends. Certainly their description of liberalism bears little if any resemblance to the actual concept as described here.

Liberals bear literal resemblance to anything they may have once thought they represented. Now condom morality and MTV spring break, Vanity Fair and Hollywood, rap and pimping are the popular culture on the left. Where are the great moral voices from Kennedy and Boxer anf Feinstien telling bithches and ho's to stop their licentious-hedonism and seek a better and more moral life? Sorry Bill Cosby is hammered "by the lib's." His sole voice is denigrated from one side of leftist politics to the other. Unless unfettered avenues to pursuing hedonism is left untouched, the liberals scream their pat answers of racism and class warfare.

Abortion is a birth control method now to promte a sex without accountabilty, consequence and it promotes and celebrates hedonism. The sicties ushered in the slide on which our society has reached rockj bottom on and now "of course" we are demanding the entire overhaul of normality and morality and the liberals are screaming for same-sex marriage. The connect the dots of hedonistic "do as thou wilt" of liberalism is not deniable. Follow the yellow brick road of licentiousness. It leads to the new liberal leadership.

Liberalism no longer means looking out for people's rights . . . it means silencing the Christian,voice; and that has been done with an effeciency that would make the Gestapo proud. Where crosses have stood for decades have been taken down for no reason other than for and by corruption. There is no such thing as seperation of church and state in the constitution. Yet, there is to liberals. And the club membership of humanists, liberals, progressives, skeptics, atheists, agnostics, socialists, greenies, gays and lesbians, et'c.,etc., etc., are one united voice whenever sexual and hedonistic aims and goals are pursued.

Where is the equivalent to Billy Graham in the Queer Community or Democrat Left? Demanding to keep open the bath houses and abortion mills in San Francisco is not exactly evangelism or, social progress.

[MagusYanam]

Liberals bear literal resemblance to anything they may have once thought they represented. Now condom morality and MTV spring break, Vanity Fair and Hollywood, rap and pimping are the popular culture on the left.

Sad to say, but they're part of the popular culture of the country. Why is anything popular culture? Nearly never because it's being driven by a political agenda; almost always because it's being driven by the ol' green wrinkly. Do you honestly think we liberals are not as disgusted by Vanity Fair and MTV Spring Break as the conservatives, just because we're not as obnoxious about it as you are?

Where are the great moral voices from Kennedy and Boxer anf Feinstien telling bithches and ho's to stop their licentious-hedonism and seek a better and more moral life?

Simple. They're in the schools, not on the front pages, and they need more help. It's not in the job description of the Congressmen to scold their constituents into behaving themselves (I'm absolutely positive that Tom DeLay never told a drunk in his state to turn his or her life around).

Liberalism no longer means looking out for people's rights . . . it means silencing the Christian,voice; and that has been done with an effeciency that would make the Gestapo proud.

You see this? This is a Christian exercising his right of free speech. Right here on this keyboard in Providence, Rhode Island. I've been doing this for years and I have yet to be silenced by this supposed anti-Christian crackdown. On the other hand, it seems the religious right seems to be doing its damnedest to exclude, denigrate and silence voices which assert a more moderate, less dogmatic form of Christianity. Where are the Desmond Tutus, Gary Dorriens and Hans Küngs of the right, who push for actual social justice and work to propagate a meaningful vision of the Gospel in our time?

Once again 1John2_26 demonstrates his complete lack of ability to engage in civil discussion, instead using the space freely given him on this forum for demagoguery, sensationalist hyperbole and libel.

[1John2_26]

Liberal verbiage is an exercise to escape complicity and culpability once the gross immorality of the liberal is exposed and showcased. Magus, how many Vanity Fair staff would claim not only to "be" a liberal but vote liberal? New York Times staff and MTVites?

You cannot escape cause and effect. Christians have never stopped warning about what would happen to society if the lunacy (actually evil) of permissiveness and unrestrained hedonism was not only embraced but promoted.

Ann Coulter would find so many more less violent speaking engagements if she attacked responsiblity and accountabilty and consequences they way a liberal does and that is to excuse away and let the licentiousness continue. There are no Billy Graham's on the left and there never will be. Just "educated" philosopher-like political pundits, and pimps and ho's. I'm not sorry to point out that abortion and same-gender "marriage "are signs of a debased and corrupt society. History has seen it so many, many times.

We could go down the list of pop poplitics and social ills and see that liberalism has been a match to the forrest floor far more than anything the right has to say.

Rhetoric is the accusation, but reality is the bottom line of looking at society with open eyes and more importantlly, with an intellect devoid of emotional knee-jerk reaction to being shown the evil hidden behind lies. Liberals scream and writhe about whatever the rich are, and will not embrace their own insidious nature to excuse away guilt and wrong deed.

Both of my children are in private Christian schools and my wife (a woman, and we were married before having our children) and I drive older used cars that are paid off, to keep them as far away from the mind-controlling indoctrination of liberal hedonism package as some wierd kind of academics. That is not rhetorics, that is the truth of what liberalism has evolved into.

1John2_26 wrote:
Liberals bear literal resemblance to anything they may have once thought they represented. Now condom morality and MTV spring break, Vanity Fair and Hollywood, rap and pimping are the popular culture on the left.

Sad to say, but they're part of the popular culture of the country. Why is anything popular culture?

Because it is promoted. America has seen nothing like MTVism before. It is the political and ideological bastard child of an unwed teen-age mother, not knowing which of the twenty guys she had sex last with (last month) is the father of her baby. What should we have expected? Dan Quayle was right of course.

Where is the great voice for morality "on the left?" Condoms and abortion, and redefining family and marriage don't count. We know what "all" liberals preach about those things.

Nearly never because it's being driven by a political agenda; almost always because it's being driven by the ol' green wrinkly.

It is interesting how rich Pelosi and Feinstein and Kennedy are and none of them live "in the hood."

Do you honestly think we liberals are not as disgusted by Vanity Fair and MTV Spring Break as the conservatives, just because we're not as obnoxious about it as you are?

I do not believe that liberals are disgusted about sexual debauchery and licentiousness, as they encourage and celebrate it in every media outlet. And vote it in with every vote.

Like i wrote, there will never be a Billy Graham on the left. The only preacher we'll see on the left is the one redefining Christ Jesus to look more like a Babylonian or Molech worshipper than the Messiah of Israel.

1John2_26 wrote:
Where are the great moral voices from Kennedy and Boxer anf Feinstien telling bithches and ho's to stop their licentious-hedonism and seek a better and more moral life?


Simple. They're in the schools, not on the front pages, and they need more help. It's not in the job description of the Congressmen to scold their constituents into behaving themselves (I'm absolutely positive that Tom DeLay never told a drunk in his state to turn his or her life around).

Nice try. It seems the job description of a liberal politician to usher in the New Greece or Rome. Hedonism and decadence and all.

I'll respond to this other "stuff" later. I gotta go. Look what time it is?

1John2_26 wrote:
Liberalism no longer means looking out for people's rights . . . it means silencing the Christian,voice; and that has been done with an effeciency that would make the Gestapo proud.


You see this? This is a Christian exercising his right of free speech. Right here on this keyboard in Providence, Rhode Island. I've been doing this for years and I have yet to be silenced by this supposed anti-Christian crackdown. On the other hand, it seems the religious right seems to be doing its damnedest to exclude, denigrate and silence voices which assert a more moderate, less dogmatic form of Christianity. Where are the Desmond Tutus, Gary Dorriens and Hans Küngs of the right, who push for actual social justice and work to propagate a meaningful vision of the Gospel in our time?

Once again 1John2_26 demonstrates his complete lack of ability to engage in civil discussion, instead using the space freely given him on this forum for demagoguery, sensationalist hyperbole and libel.