jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (26 posts)

Liberal Fundamentalism - The Worship Of Destruction!

  1. lady_love158 profile image58
    lady_love158posted 6 years ago

    <snipped - no promotional links, please>

    You have to admit when it comes to liberalism it's very much like a religious fanatism where they worship at the alter of bureaucracy and believe in one all powerful central authority! It's laughable! If only libs actuall believed in science!

  2. skyfire profile image71
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    You're talking about religious fanaticism ? lol

  3. lady_love158 profile image58
    lady_love158posted 6 years ago

    The Wacky World of Liberal Fundamentalism By Robert Weissberg The candidacies of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, Bible-affirming Christians, predictably have ignited the liberal media's zeal for exposing their allegedly odd if not wacko religious beliefs (see here). Support for some version of creationism, a faith in the efficacy of prayer, and actual belief in scriptural condemnation of homosexuality (among other religious views) are taken as prima facie evidence of presidential unsuitability. To be sure, millions of Americans (assumed to be ill-educated trailer-court denizens with rotting teeth and beer guts) may share these odd inclinations, but, at least according to liberal pundits, holding them betrays a lack of intellectual sophistication plus an aversion to modern science. Such antediluvian fundamentalism should, say the experts, have gone extinct with the Scopes Monkey Trials. Ironically, liberal attackers are guilty of far greater unscientific dogmatism, sloppy thinking, and mind-boggling confusion but fail to notice it thanks to a manufactured respectability that deters --if not forbids --close inspection. Worse, judged by the unforgiving standards of science, the liberal creed may be far wackier (and factually incorrect) than any assertion about God creating the world in seven days. The war between secular liberalism and evangelical fundamentalism is a battle between competing dogmas, not science versus religious hokum. What is this weird liberal creed? Unlike the orthodox Christian rival, it is not yet officially codified, but its major tenets are easily discerned. Just regularly read the New York Times or watch CNN. Let's begin with Conviction I: what I call Liberal Creationism or, as the oft-invoked cliché, people are the same all over. According to this gospel, modern humans emerged roughly 180,000 years ago in Africa and eventually populated almost the entire globe. According to evolution, via mutations and selective breeding, humans adapted to varied conditions. For example, in colder climates, white skin and blue eyes facilitated vitamin D absorption. So far, so good. But, though evolution tells us that traits most valuable for survival are more susceptible to change, the human brain remains fixed despite thousands of years of evolutionary pressure in widely unlike settings. Yes, pygmies in central African may be anatomically unlike Swedes, but the brains are identical. So, send the pygmies to Sweden and enroll them in Swedish schools and provide all the benefits of Swedish society, and after a generation or two they will be just like Swedes, albeit a bit shorter and with a darker complexion (or send Swedes to central Africa and they will become blond, blue-eyed "pygmies"). It then follows, according to this Liberal Creed, that those differences in educational attainment, income and social status, and even crime rates and other pathologies must be artificial. If third-generation pygmies living in Sweden lag behind their taller countrymen, the only explanations are discrimination, racism, lack of opportunities, and similar fixable environmental obstacles. Going one step further, since all people have the same brains, equality of intellectual accomplishment is human nature. A multi-billion-krona initiative by the Swedish government to bring pigmies up to the Swedish average in income and education does not contravene nature; it is a social engineering enterprise to restore, not reverse the human default condition of equality. And, the Liberal Creed tells us, this will be accompli

  4. Greek One profile image76
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    wow.. i didn't understand until now... thank you, thank you in putting it in this light.. it's clearer now...

    1. lady_love158 profile image58
      lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      There is hope for you yet Greek one! Listen and learn! smile

      1. Greek One profile image76
        Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        tell me more please.. don't stop.. give it to me

  5. lady_love158 profile image58
    lady_love158posted 6 years ago

    ng to make the effort. This, then, brings us to Conviction II, the wonders of Diversity: though all groups share the identical brain, it is beneficial to have lots of people around who differ by outward appearances --in skin color, hair texture, facial features, bone densities, body shapes, even selective susceptibility to diseases. The Liberal Creed is, sadly, a bit hazy on how all this synergy works, but rest assured: if one needs to build a better spaceship, one should assemble a team of engineers that includes a few Hispanics, lots of women, some blacks, a handful of Asians, perhaps a Polynesian or two, and a few white males. The ultra-orthodox Liberal Creed might add a few gays and disabled. Conviction III concerns immigration and might be called the Doctrine of Benign Filtration. Here's how it works. First, all immigrants coming to the US --no exceptions! --can make a valuable cultural contribution, things like good Vietnamese or Mexican restaurants. For this reason, it is important that cultural heritages --everything from language to the celebration of religious holidays --be preserved. This conservancy is what makes the US such a vibrant multicultural mosaic. But, and this is critical, while the good elements (e.g., the food, religious festivals) will survive assimilation, bad features of a culture --for example, religiously sanctioned wife-abuse --will be (mysteriously) weeded out. Again, how this selective adjustment is to occur is unclear, perhaps just as Rick Perry's prayers will miraculously end the Texas draught. And now we come to Conviction IV: the Almighty. Don't believe liberals claiming to be secularists. They have a god, and this is, rest assured, a God that will put all rival deities to shame. In a nutshell, this god of the Liberal Creed is all-knowing, all-powerful, and combines the best features of the vengeful God of the Old Testament with a Santa Claus on steroids. To invoke the Newspeak vocabulary, let's call this deity Fedgov. Fedgov's power is breathtaking. Among other miraculous powers, it can provide low-cost universal health care without bankrupting the nation; bestow college degrees on all youngsters regardless of intellectual ability; abolish race-related gaps in academic achievement and income, eliminate the lingering vestiges of racism, sexism and discrimination; solve the problems of poverty; provide unlimited quantities of "green" energy; end festering economic inequality; supply decent housing and healthy nutrition to all Americans; and otherwise bring a liberal heaven on earth. To be sure, Fedgov may require more than just a single day of rest after accomplishing all this, but it is possible. It just requires faith and a willingness to allow Fedgov to work its miracles free from Tea Party obstruction (perhaps Tea Party "atheists" should be burnt at the stake to please Fedgov). It is impossible to exaggerate the cosmology's weak empirical underpinnings. In many instances --e.g., eliminating poverty and myriad inequalities --Fedgov has always failed despite spending hundreds of billions. Elsewhere --e.g., low-cost universal health care --the prayed-for miracle rests solely on deceitful accounting. And like the fervent Creationists, Fedgov environmentalists want to ignore libraries of scientific evidence and inescapable economic principles in their confusion of "ought" with "is." But, more is needed that just drawing parallels between Liberal and Christian Fundamentalism. Better would be to turn the tables on orthodox liberals with "gotcha" questions just as they try to embarrass Michele Bachmann. A few samples useful for upcoming TV debates: President Obama, your administration has taken several steps to diversify the federal workforce. Can you offer any scientific evidence that a diverse workforce, whether in government or private industry, provides any economic benefit that outweighs the bureaucratic costs? Vice President Biden, why should the federal government continue to pour hundreds of billions into anti-poverty programs when the evidence strongly suggests that trying to uplift the underclass is futile and only breeds further dependency? President Obama, what evidence do you have that after two generations, immigrants from Mexico can fully assimilate into American society and become less dependent on public welfare? Needless to say, few questions of this type will elicit scientifically sound answers. Most will reflect moral imperatives --e.g., Fedgov ought to try to eliminate income inequality Other responses will cherry pick evidence just

  6. lady_love158 profile image58
    lady_love158posted 6 years ago

    s impossible to exaggerate the cosmology's weak empirical underpinnings. In many instances --e.g., eliminating poverty and myriad inequalities --Fedgov has always failed despite spending hundreds of billions. Elsewhere --e.g., low-cost universal health care --the prayed-for miracle rests solely on deceitful accounting. And like the fervent Creationists, Fedgov environmentalists want to ignore libraries of scientific evidence and inescapable economic principles in their confusion of "ought" with "is." But, more is needed that just drawing parallels between Liberal and Christian Fundamentalism. Better would be to turn the tables on orthodox liberals with "gotcha" questions just as they try to embarrass Michele Bachmann. A few samples useful for upcoming TV debates: President Obama, your administration has taken several steps to diversify the federal workforce. Can you offer any scientific evidence that a diverse workforce, whether in government or private industry, provides any economic benefit that outweighs the bureaucratic costs? Vice President Biden, why should the federal government continue to pour hundreds of billions into anti-poverty programs when the evidence strongly suggests that trying to uplift the underclass is futile and only breeds further dependency? President Obama, what evidence do you have that after two generations, immigrants from Mexico can fully assimilate into American society and become less dependent on public welfare? Needless to say, few questions of this type will elicit scientifically sound answers. Most will reflect moral imperatives --e.g., Fedgov ought to try to eliminate income inequality. Other responses will cherry-pick evidence, just as Creationists have their favorite facts. In the final analysis, debates may return to an earlier era of religious strife --my Faith is just better than yours. Amen. Already have an account with Amen.

    1. recommend1 profile image66
      recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Why don't you just post the link to all this twaddle instead of copy paste, it clearly is not your writing as there are very few spelling errors - although the jerky flip-flopping from one bigoted point to another is the same.

      1. lady_love158 profile image58
        lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Wow! You were able to read all that?

      2. Greek One profile image76
        Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        please!  I am trying to learn here!

  7. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 6 years ago

    Paragraph breaks are right up there next to the wheel in terms of valuable human inventions.

    1. lady_love158 profile image58
      lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry about that. Stupid hubpages snipped my link. How is an article promotional? If thats how they define it then everthing is "promotional". It seems the only thing hubpages wants to promote is the liberal viewpoint. Big suprise... not!

  8. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 6 years ago

    Maybe hub pages assumes the forums are for discussion and not  intended to be soap boxes?

    1. lady_love158 profile image58
      lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Right which explains why they prefer poopie head threads.

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        lol That was a bizarre one. But, have you ever considered toning it down and attempting to host a dialogue between the camps? This in your face style  of thread doesn't really create a healthy environment for political discussions. I would think if you are so passionate about the topic you'd want to persuade, not alienate.

        1. lady_love158 profile image58
          lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Do you think liberals can be persuaded? It's not in their DNA!

          1. Reality Bytes profile image89
            Reality Bytesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            If we are going to fix our Country we need to drop the labels.  Either you are American or you are not!

            Labels only divide.

            1. lady_love158 profile image58
              lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Youre American if you believe in the constitution, if you don't, then you're probably a liberal.

              1. Reality Bytes profile image89
                Reality Bytesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                liberal, conservitive, socialist, fascist left, right, it does not matter.  Americans have a Right to hold and express their views.

                We all have things in common.  Hopefully improving our Country is at the top of the list.

                Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it can be amended if that is what the People want.  Our founders did not make it easy but it is possible to alter the Constitution.  Civil discussion among the People is perhaps the most beneficial actions that can occur.

                I think that there are many who should be charged with treason for disregarding the document.

                1. lady_love158 profile image58
                  lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes and a number of them have worn the black robes of the supreme court! Have you read Judge Marcus dissent of the unconstitutionality of Obamacare? Just unbelievable! He pretty much says the government can do what ever it wants!

          2. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            That's the same thing they say about you guys. I think you're both wrong. I hope, anyway.

            1. lady_love158 profile image58
              lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              One of us is right and that would be me. Liberals believe in oppression, a central authority to impose their vision of "fairness" on people by force. Liberals believe there is no such thing as private property, that the government owns everything including all wealth and only that government can and should distribute that fairly. Does that sound right to you? Does it sound American?

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                No that doesn't sound right, nor does it sound like a reflection of what mainstream America wants. However, that would be an extremely far left view; or a warped right wing view of what the left represents.

                Let me tell you the way I see the far right and you tell me if that is a fair assessment. I see greedy, uncaring angry people that worry only about themselves. I see people who could care less if all Americans went hungry and homeless; just a long as they were given government sanctions to rape pillage and plunder in order to raise the balance of their bank accounts. I see people who fear the world to such an extent that they will gladly hand over my civil liberties to the federal government on a sliver platter.

                Is that a fair assessment of your stand?

                1. lady_love158 profile image58
                  lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  In another thread i posted poll after poll that disputes your "assessment" so I'm not going to reiterate those points here. Your assessment is they way the left characterises conservatives as a tool to push through their oppressive agenda. Its why Obama talks about evil oil companies profits and corporatejet owners tax loopholes, just the way he demonuzed health insurance companies so he can pass a law that caps their profits and forces them to spend 85% of their revenues to pay benefits.
                  Liberals look upon that as "fairness" and the right thing to do, yet this is a violation of everything yhat is right and fair and constitutional. Its oppression pure and simple worse, it destroys any incentive for corporations or people to solve real problems. Socialism fails everytime because without a motivation to better yourself, there is no point in even trying! This is why liberalism is evil! It pretends to be something its not... its the snake in the garden of eden offerin eve the apple... it needs to be defeated its head cut off, its flesh stripped from its bone and its skull displayed on a stick to remind us all of the image of evil.

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    lol Too funny. Maybe it is in your DNA. That post was insane.
                    Is that typical Tea Party rhetoric? Unbelievable.

 
working