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.

[Rob]

Ooh, ooh! Look at me! Christian liberal over here!

Are you mocking your own liberal views below?

Personally, given the figure of Jesus Christ which we are meant to emulate, I cannot understand how one can be a Christian and not a social liberal (by today's definition). Jesus was not concerned with the affairs of one nation, but rather with the entire world, he was a pacifist by his actions and he was foremostly concerned with social justice (for the poor, the meek and the sick). [Agreed.] The entire ethic of 'getting ahead' above any other responsibilities (as propounded by today's pro-business conservatives) is utterly foreign to me, and I cannot see it as compatible with Christianity. [It is certainly not compatible with the teachings of Jesus.] Likewise, the ultra-nationalist idealism of the neocons (whom the history majors like to call Wilsonian liberals gone evil) makes just as little sense to me. So when I see self-proclaimed Christians supporting the most reactionary elements of the Republican Party (on the issues of gay marriage and evolution which strike me as petty in comparison), I admit to bewilderment and distrust of the deepest kind. That's just where this liberal is coming from.

Why do you think most colleges tend to be liberal? It's because young conservatives are either too cowardly or too greedy to want to go into education.

I am staying in school and getting an education. And I ran a Parry/Kerry ballot. In general, the Democrats' voting base do tend to be better-educated than the Republicans. What was it a famous social philosopher said once? 'While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.' .... The imperialistic thing is lost on most of this country, it seems, given what the conservatives are aiming for this country to become.

Can anyone spell 'cognitive dissonance'?

There is a dichotomy in liberalism regarding sexual behaviour that I find strange. Most liberals I know have and value responsible, healthy, monogamous (or abstinent) lifestyles - but at the same time, realise with some level of pragmatism that we're not going to get anywhere if we set the bar too high from the get-go. What we see conservatives doing is setting the bar high and not telling people what they have to do to get there - that's hypocritical and I deplore it. I hold many of the same values as conservatives regarding sexual behaviour, but you have to value education and teaching responsibility accessibly in order to get there. And our current system is failing from under-funding.

Evidently, the real issues in life are a bit more complex than simple minded black and white knee jerk reactions. So you don't think Coulter is one of those fundamentalist Christians that espouses what you call a "ultra-nationalist idealism of the neocons"? She pretty much admits such herself? The only cognitive dissonance I see Magus is your self-contradictory words above. Who else do you think those whom you yourself describe as "self-proclaimed Christians supporting the most reactionary elements of the Republican Party" are? It seems reasonable to say, while "it is not true that all neo-conservatives are fundamentalist Christians, it is true that most fundamentalist Christians are neo-conservative" in the more radical sense of term (i.e., "ultra-nationalist idealism of the neocons" inspired by a religious ideology).

Personally, I think it is perfectly reasonable, based upon thoughtful reflection, to be conservative with regard to some issues and liberal with regard to others; but find no sympathy for the type of ignorant stereotypes used by the "self-proclaimed Christians supporting the most reactionary elements of the Republican Party," many of whom are politically motivated fundamentalist Christians. They have a religiously motivated ideology, and a clear political agenda, and it is no secret this has been a reality influencing US politics for some time.

[Easyrider]

MagusYanam wrote: Personally, given the figure of Jesus Christ which we are meant to emulate, I cannot understand how one can be a Christian and not a social liberal (by today's definition).

Jesus a liberal??

Who is Jesus? Jesus is God (many scriptures). As God, then he is the one who gave Moses the commandments against gay sex (Lev. 18:22; 20:13, etc.), and shacking up, etc. He's also the one who inspires all scriptures, which includes Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10. Jesus is the same God, then, who helps create life in a mother's womb (Psalm 139:13) that the liberals love to refer to the abortionist for termination. Jesus is the one who defines sin, of which many liberals say there isn't any. Jesus is the one who grants salvation that others think they can earn by their own perceived goodness. Jesus is the one who said a man shall reap what he sows, as opposed to the liberal's redistribution of wealth scheme (a concept centered in greed for other people's money where people reap what others sow). And Jesus is the one who, in the end, will bring judgment (vs. the liberal's endless windjamming at the U.N.) on the ungodly in the Book of Revelation. And, of course, there's more, but that's for starters.

[Cathar1950]

Jesus a liberal??

I doubt it but he seems to be against power and wealth over others. He may have been egalitarian. Paul was a liberal or at least a seeker of smooth things, power and authority.
I think he was pro-Christ and anti-Jesus.

Who is Jesus? Jesus is God (many scriptures). As God, then he is the one who gave Moses the commandments against gay sex (Lev. 18:22; 20:13, etc.), and shacking up, etc. He's also the one who inspires all scriptures, which includes Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10. Jesus is the same God, then, who helps create life in a mother's womb (Psalm 139:13) that the liberals love to refer to the abortionist for termination. Jesus is the one who defines sin, of which many liberals say there isn't any. Jesus is the one who grants salvation that others think they can earn by their own perceived goodness. Jesus is the one who said a man shall reap what he sows, as opposed to the liberal's redistribution of wealth scheme (a concept centered in greed for other people's money where people reap what others sow). And Jesus is the one who, in the end, will bring judgment (vs. the liberal's endless windjamming at the U.N.) on the ungodly in the Book of Revelation. And, of course, there's more, but that's for starters.

Speculation and hearsay as I see it. So here is mine.
I personally think you replaced God with Paul's Christ. You commit the Gnostic heresy by removing Jesus' humanity. While you give lip service in practice you have replace God and look at Jesus for salvation when even his name means "God saves". Of course I think this comes from a pagan platonic blend with Hebrew myths in a beehive of late 2nd temple religious fever, temple destruction anti-Jewish sentiments and withdrawal. Then there is the Son of man, last Adam and Messianic influences misunderstood by gentile background and interpretations.

[Easyrider]

I personally think you replaced God with Paul's Christ. You commit the Gnostic heresy by removing Jesus' humanity.

Negative. Jesus is portrayed as God in numerous Scriptures apart from Paul, and Jesus' humanity is evident in both Paul's writings and the Gospels, none of which I "remove" or dismiss.

While you give lip service in practice you have replace(d) God and look at Jesus for salvation when even his name means "God saves".

Perhaps you can provide an example of this?

Of course I think this comes from a pagan platonic blend with Hebrew myths in a beehive of late 2nd temple religious fever, temple destruction anti-Jewish sentiments and withdrawal. Then there is the Son of man, last Adam and Messianic influences misunderstood by gentile background and interpretations.

That's quite a mouthful. You have some documentation for all this?

[MagusYanam]

Are you mocking your own liberal views below?

No, I was mocking Ann Coulter's erroneous statement that liberals are all irreligious and saying that she was cognitively dissonant. I was definitely being tongue-in-cheek, but I thought that poke at her system of beliefs clear.

So you don't think Coulter is one of those fundamentalist Christians that espouses what you call a "ultra-nationalist idealism of the neocons"? She pretty much admits such herself? The only cognitive dissonance I see Magus is your self-contradictory words above.

I think she panders to such people, and I wouldn't be surprised if she were one herself. But judging from the ill quality with which she argues, I think I can assume she's little more than a political hack and no danger to anyone who can reason properly.

[MagusYanam]

Jesus a liberal??

Yes.

See, you make the mistake of equating 'liberal' with 'gay sex', 'shacking up', moral relativism and radical pro-abortionism. Unfortunately, the shoe doesn't fit. The vast majority of liberals do not engage in any of the above, so start calling spades spades and stop engaging in this kind of sensationalist stereotyping.

'Liberal' simply means promoting social and economic equality and personal civil freedom, both of which are supported by the Gospels and by Jesus (thus God) himself.

[Cathar1950]

No, I was mocking Ann Coulter's erroneous statement that liberals are all irreligious and saying that she was cognitively dissonant. I was definitely being tongue-in-cheek, but I thought that poke at her system of beliefs clear.

I got it. She says they are irreligious and yet the are a religion.

Perhaps you can provide an example of this?

Jesus is God.
he is the one who gave Moses the commandments
He's also the one who inspires all scriptures
Jesus is the same God, then, who helps create life in a mother's womb Jesus is the one who defines sin
Jesus is the one who grants salvation

I believe those are your words minus the commentary about homosexuals and abortion.
Where is God, YHWH or the father? You seem to have replaced him with Jesus for all practical purposes. Do you need more examples?

That's quite a mouthful. You have some documentation for all this?

There are many threads dealing with the subject. It is all over the place.
Most isn't even questionable some just likely.

Of course I think this comes from a pagan platonic blend with Hebrew myths in a beehive of late 2nd temple religious fever, temple destruction anti-Jewish sentiments and withdrawal. Then there is the Son of man, last Adam and Messianic influences misunderstood by gentile background and interpretations.

I repeated it in case you missed it the first time. It is a small summary.
MagusYanam:

See, you make the mistake of equating 'liberal' with 'gay sex', 'shacking up', moral relativism and radical pro-abortionism. Unfortunately, the shoe doesn't fit.

So true.

'Liberal' simply means promoting social and economic equality and personal civil freedom, both of which are supported by the Gospels and by Jesus (thus God) himself.

Said in the spirit of liberal theology and maybe a little liberation theology too.

[1John2_26]

Easyrider wrote:
Jesus a liberal??

Yes.

Just not a liberal-liberal.

See, you make the mistake of equating 'liberal' with 'gay sex', 'shacking up', moral relativism and radical pro-abortionism. Unfortunately, the shoe doesn't fit

yet it is the only shoe warn by progressive-liberals. I suggest that the liberals take back the democatic party from the liberals.

There is no seperation of licentious liberalism (relativism) and liberals. That ship has sailed.

The vast majority of liberals do not engage in any of the above, so start calling spades spades and stop engaging in this kind of sensationalist stereotyping.

It is only liberals that not only engage in those thing but urge people, in fact, demand people to support these things: 'gay sex', 'shacking up', moral relativism and radical pro-abortionism. A conservative (or, morally sound individual) would be exchanging conservative/moral views on thos things and enbracing a liberal view on those things to embrace and practice those things.

If liberals want to rid the other liberal from liberalism than a lot of Christians will become democrats overnight. There is no seperation of liberal and relativism and godless secularism anymore. The die has been cast.

'Liberal' simply means promoting social and economic equality and personal civil freedom, both of which are supported by the Gospels and by Jesus (thus God) himself.

Uh yeah errrrright. But not: gay sex', 'shacking up', moral relativism and radical pro-abortionism, the myth that He didn't exist (liberal theology), or that there could possibly really be a seperation of Church (the "body of Christ") and voting records.

Well maybe the liberal's Jesus but not the one from the Gospel.

Ann Coulter is just another voice to define what a liberal is and who liberals are. In today's modern world. Now. Currently. Certainly godless religion is an accurate painting of what liberals present as art.

[1John2_26]

Rob wrote:
Are you mocking your own liberal views below?


MagusYanam wrote:
No, I was mocking Ann Coulter's erroneous statement that liberals are all irreligious and saying that she was cognitively dissonant.

Cognitive dissonance? The common liberal/progressive reels and contorts when shown they are reprobates. They grab their heads and scream in pain that anyone would challenge their absolutes of goodness and benevolent power.

It is hilarious to deal with.

Ann Coulter points out how evil the liberal really is and the liberal rails on about what a better world it is with no rules to behaviors other than to proscribe another aniti-psychotic drud to deal with the behaviors of miscraents misled by relativism.

Ann Coulter and Pope benedict are echoing a wave back to reality and away from liberalism's decadence for hedonism's sake.

I was definitely being tongue-in-cheek, but I thought that poke at her system of beliefs clear.

Cause and effect is definately a good belief system. Practiced by Ann Coulter and Pope Benedict and woefully missing in the lives of those lived for self-gratification and licentiousness. That is to say, liberals.

Until "liberals" start implementing morality in reality, they will be labeled correctly as godless proponents and adherents to a bad belief system.

[Cathar1950]

Cognitive dissonance? The common liberal/progressive reels and contorts when shown they are reprobates. They grab their heads and scream in pain that anyone would challenge their absolutes of goodness and benevolent power.

No they don't. Where do you get such notions? Do you make them up or just parrot what others have made up.
You have yet to show they are reprobates any more then you are. You present no challenge. She would have to hold at least two ideas to really have cognitive dissonance. I doubt she can hold one idea. Mostly I see just silly contradictions and bitterness.
I think you can place all her meaningless ideas and biases on bumper stickers. Where they belong.

Ann Coulter points out how evil the liberal really is and the liberal rails on about what a better world it is with no rules to behaviors other than to proscribe another aniti-psychotic drud to deal with the behaviors of miscraents misled by relativism.

She doesn't know what she is talking about and neither do you.
You seem to share her misunderstanding of relativism and mindless rant about evil liberals.

Ann Coulter and Pope benedict are echoing a wave back to reality and away from liberalism's decadence for hedonism's sake.

Why you place her on par with the pope is beyond me. But I would think Ann is the epitome of American Decadence.

Cause and effect is definately a good belief system. Practiced by Ann Coulter and Pope Benedict and woefully missing in the lives of those lived for self-gratification and licentiousness. That is to say, liberals.

There is hardly a correlation that alone a cause and effect relationship. It looks like Mere rhetoric on your part. Self-gratification and licentiousness are no more related to liberals then the right's desire for control and power.
I see Ann is doing all your non-thinking for you.

Until "liberals" start implementing morality in reality, they will be labeled correctly as godless proponents and adherents to a bad belief system.

They are labeled incorrectly and it seems rather simple-minded.
There is no seperation of licentious liberalism (relativism) and liberals. That ship has sailed.

Just your unfounded opinion.

If liberals want to rid the other liberal from liberalism than a lot of Christians will become democrats overnight. There is no seperation of liberal and relativism and godless secularism anymore. The die has been cast.

There are a lot of Democrate Christian Liberals.