David, damn it, why did you have to go and give your article such a great title? It's called "Are Conservative Christians Ignorant and Less Intellectual?" This from a guy who doesn't know the name of the town where he "earned" his Th.D. And "less intellectual" than what, exactly? (That link, by the way, is often considered my best piece.)
David, your whole article reeks of ignorance and deliberate anti-intellectualism.
There is no doubt about what the so called "progressives" (a fancy word for regressive socialists) feel about the intelligence of Christian conservatives. We all hear it from the elite media, it should be obvious just from their attack on Sara Palin alone.
OK, this elite media shit is just getting old. If you don't like someone, you just call them "elite." You see, it's easier to yell at someone for being elite than it is to actually do the work, earn your degree and actually make something of yourself. It's a populist tactic fueled by appeals to pathos, not logos. You inspire people to mediocrity and then praise them for it. Palin, furthermore, was simply not ready. She was manhandled mercilessly by Katie "One Halloween I Did the News in a Spongebob Outfit" Couric:
Oh, and it's spelled "Sarah." Fucktard.
You know the inferences of Christian conservatives as being a bunch of hay-seeds, ignorant of enlightened elitist's world views.
You can't go 2 lines without pulling the elite card. What you are doing is ridiculing your own constituency, and then claiming that people too smart to try to win people over by ridiculing them are the ones actually doing the ridiculing. The sad part is that they
choose to believe you, which actually goes a long way towards answering your original question, doesn't it?
There is no end to it. Remember what they say about Obama. There is a rush to make him the savior and clearly the left sees him as intellectually superior to all those stupid Rush Limbaugh listeners.
You mean "dittoheads"? I mean, Christ, they are sheep-people by choice and identify
themselves as such!
You know, what you are doing by calling libs elitist is the same as me calling you a dyed-in-the-wool racist for daring to challenge the serene wisdom of my lord and master B. O'Bama.
The "Progressives" (spare me that absurd title) have been pushing social and economic policies that have nothing to do with intellectual prowess, in fact just the opposite. When we examine factual evidence we can only come to the conclusion that it is not Christian conservatives that are ignorant and less intellectual. In fact it is the elitists "progressives" (Again, what a misapplied term).
Why, then, do you keep using misapplying the term? Some people (elites) are capable of learning and adapting.
For the purpose of making my point in this article I will refrain from making it a so typically "Christian article." I will not bring in matters of faith in this at all. I am going to simply and logically address some obvious things that only a person of "secular, socialist faith" would deny.
??? What does this even mean? "I am going to keep religion out of it and challenge wnat secularists believe." I think you just did a logical loop-the-loop. This article is the Top Gun of Goof!
Then Berman puts together one of his world-tedious lists. This is fine. He cites 4 examples of policies instituted by such liberals as Richard Nixon (say
whaaa?) and inadvertantly suggests that inner city blacks are incapable of governing themselves. Even if he is right on all of these points (and excluding the bit where he says that liberals believe that "taxation leads to prosperity" which as far as I can tell came directly out of his ass), it's hardly much of an indictment of progressive liberalism. My favorite bit was where he bitches about the floating currency, as if gold in itself derived its value from itself--gold too is priced against other commodities. Just saying.
I could write example after example of the factual disasters caused by liberal policies. The above are just a few of those examples. So here is the question; When a Christian conservative points out the factual destruction of big government policies on the family, education, the economy, and the list goes on, why are they referred to as lacking intellectual capacity? Why is it that failed policies supported by those who advocated them are somehow enlightened? It is simple. The very people, who accuse Christian conservatives of being ignorant believers in what they can't see, are themselves, ignorant believers in what history plainly smacks them in the face with.
Well, he sure stuck to that religiously neutral thing for, like, a whole few seconds! See, the problem is David, even if liberal progressives
do ignore evidence, it doesn't mean that you are any better at thinking. At best, it's a wash. And quite frankly, each of the examples that you site--the gold standard, the cost/benefits of federal education, and the War on Poverty (the tax one is balls)--each is overwhelmingly complex, and people have spent lifetimes, entire careers examining those issues. Apparently they all should have just listened to you.
The ideology of liberals is nothing more than blind faith in their historical failures cloaked in compassion. What a bad joke that is.
That was a joke? Oh. How staggeringly unfunny you are.
It is in this mindset that they hate conservatives and proudly call themselves "progressives." This word is supposed to imply that anyone who is conservative is against progress.
This, of course is not the case in fact. It is a convenient moniker. Now, if you will stop calling them "Pro-Abortion" advocates...
1) They say we are backward because we believe that there is a creator based on the evidence of creation. They believe in something coming from nothing.
No, you are backwards because your reasoning is perfectly circular. I think that not claiming to know exactly where we came from (only that it was certainly a lot more crowded and warm around these here parts way back in the day) is necessarily a bad thing. It is reasonable to suspend judgment when expert authorities still disagree. And by authorities, I certainly do not include preachers.
2) They say it is compassionate to help poor people and that must mean the government spending money. We say poor people must be helped in the private sector and held accountable for their actions. For example, we think you should not reward bad behavior. Liberals think it is compassionate to reward bad behavior and perpetuate the behavior. That is neither intellectual nor logical.
You are a cur. It
is compassionate to help poor people, innit? And that does not mean that government
has to spend money. I would love the private sector to pony up the dough, but the private business sector is primarily and overwhelmingly profit-driven. Charity doesn't really have much to do with it unless it is good P.R. Now, with respect to leaving charitable giving to individuals, if people don't give, for whatever reason, there are still poor people. What you are basically saying is that poor people deserve to be poor because of bad behavior. I think that this pretty much vindicates my opinion of you being a contemptible moral monster and moron. "Poor kids born into poor neighborhoods should be held accountable for having no opportunities. How dare they be born poor? The effrontery!" (Look it up.) Not everyone gets what they deserve, nor do they necessarily deserve what they get. We can, however, take coordinated action, and a good way to do this is through the one very large institution that can pool resources to make things suck less for everyone and is obliged by law to not selectively treat people like shit. (The govt. treats
everyone or no one like shit! Yay!)
3) They believe people who can't afford a house, buy one, and are ready to lose it, should be bailed out by the people who made good decisions. We believe that people who bought houses they could not afford should lose them unless they can work out a deal with their lender.
No, you simp. They
should lose their homes, but like I said, not everybody gets what they deserve. Let's say that we allow all houses bought unwisely go into foreclosure (and what about the people who could afford it but lost their jobs and then the economy went south, you heartless fuck?). The houses of people who made
good decisions in the neighborhood, including the ones in
your neighborhood, depreciate. Yeah, there is a real reason to float these people, and it's not blithely optimistic charity.
4) They believe that secular humanistic reason is the answer to all our problems. They often sight religion as causing wars. We believe that trusting human reason alone has proven in history to be a disaster. We also allow history to point out that by far more people were killed in wars by atheists (See facts about deaths in communist countries like China, Soviets, and Cambodia etc.).
Yeah, this one is so beneath me, I can't even begin to talk about it. Nobody killed someone else in the name of "not god." If you look at those groups/individuals who did the killing, many of whom were undeniably atheists, you will see a stunning similarity to the ideological rigidity of fanatic religousity. Often, the Great Leader becomes the object of worship, sometimes the ideology is invoked.
Never is it devotion to reason. I mean, to make that claim, I think you would have to say that Soviet Communism was reasonable, wouldn't you? The problem is fanaticism, unthinking, emotional, unreasoned fanaticism.
I invite you to kick yourself in the nuts for your last paragraph, David, even though I did not go over it here.
HJ
[...]
Seed Newsvine
