The fierce hatred the Left feels for religion

The other day, as part of my “false syllogism” post, I noted the way in which the Left continues to be, as it was in Marx’s heyday, fanatically hostile to religion.  If you doubt me, just check out Patrick’s gimlet eyed examination of Cintra Wilson’s attacks on Palin and other openly religious public figures, as well as the larger attacks on faith emanating from the Progressive side of the political spectrum.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Zhombre
  • Wolf Howling

    I concur with Zhombre. The Judaeo-Christian ethic is woven into the fabric of Western civilization. Thus, the left must destroy it if they are destroy and then remake society. Radical Islam is not a part of that fabric and it also seeks to destroy and remake Western civilization. Thus there is a natural affinity between the left and radical Islamists and indeed, in Europe, the socialists are relying ever more on the Islamist vote to keep them in power.

  • Ozzie

    Given that every single U.S president has been a Christian, I don’t know if “the left” hates religion. I think most dislike the influence that Evangelicals have in politics and ways the Church and State divide has been threatened in the process .

    Republicans have long manipulated Evangelicals while hiding their contempt for them. George H. W Bush and Lee Atwater refered to them as “Extra-
    Chromosone Conservatives,” while former White House staffer David Kuo acknowledged that, during George W. Bush’s adminstration, White House staffers ridiculed Evangelicals privately while playing up to them in publicy.

    An outake from Kuo’s 60 minutes interview:

    In his book, Kuo wrote that White House staffers would roll their eyes at evangelicals, calling them “nuts” and “goofy.”

    Asked if that was really the attitude, Kuo tells Stahl, “Oh, absolutely. You name the important Christian leader and I have heard them mocked by serious people in serious places.”

    Specifically, Kuo says people in the White House political affairs office referred to Pat Robertson as “insane,” Jerry Falwell as “ridiculous,” and that James Dobson “had to be controlled.” . . .

    And one of the BEST things Kuo said:

    “This message that has been sent out to Christians for a long time now: that Jesus came primarily for a political agenda, and recently primarily a right-wing political agenda – as if this culture war is a war for God. And it’s not a war for God, it’s a war for politics. And that’s a huge difference. . . “

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    Wolf Howling, you have offered as good a summary as I’ve ever heard of the Left’s bizarre affinity for a religion that, on its face, seems to be antithetical to everything the Left claims to represent.

  • suek

    You know, Oz, if you substituted “blacks” or “women” for “Christian leaders”, your comment would be considered downright offensive.

  • suek

    Or Mexicans…how about:

    “Asked if that was really the attitude, Kuo tells Stahl, “Oh, absolutely. You name the important Mexican leader and I have heard them mocked by serious people in serious places.”

  • Ozzie

    You know, Oz, if you substituted “blacks” or “women” for “Christian leaders”, your comment would be considered downright offensive.- suek

    Those comments were David Kuo’s describing how Evangelicals were described by White House staffers, Suek. You should be offended. As with the first Bush White House, Evangelicals were courted and then taken for a ride and privately mocked.

    Kuo’s an Evangelical who worked in the Bush White House, who later wrote a book alerting Evangelicals to ways they were being derided and manipulated and how, when one mixes politics and religion, both tend to become weakened.

  • Ozzie

    Asked if that was really the attitude, Kuo tells Stahl, “Oh, absolutely. You name the important Mexican leader and I have heard them mocked by serious people in serious places- suek

    Kuo was rightfully disillusioned. You can watch the Interview here:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/14/60minutes/main2089778.shtml

  • BrianE

    This is in the comments section of an article about Palin.

    “I don’t know why you keep defending Palin – she’s a religious nut who is opposed to the principles of the Enlightenment. She’s opposed to science and reason. She’s an idiot!”

    This is how “intellectuals” view religionists and more specifically Christians.
    Many on the left see religious people and specifically Christians as the impediment to Utopia.

  • http://northstarmartialarts.com/blog1 Scott in SF

    I loved reading Cintra Wilson’s piece! Probably because I knew her in College, we took Leftist Ideology 503 and various dance classes together.
    By the way, the piece she wrote is not about religion, it is a well written engaging rant about how much she hates Sarah Palin.
    I remember Cintra as drop dead gorgeous, a kind of Sinister Barbie, perhaps a Gothy version of Paris Hilton. I would have liked to like her, honestly, but when I think back on that time 20 years ago, she wasn’t exactly the type of person who would stop to give you the time of day.
    Sometimes when a woman is that good looking they develop a mean streak to keep men from drooling on them. Cintra had a very wide version of that streak. If I recall correctly even the puritanical feminists of that era permitted themselves to use the “B” word when describing her.
    She has written the piece that most accurately describes the mind of the average lefty. As I recall, she was an anarchist.
    Reading her piece I couldn’t help thinking she surely got all those nasty sexual insults hurled at her over the years.
    Cintra is an egoist who believes she is the strongest person alive. The fact that Sarah Palin is so much stronger has thrown her into a literary psychotic fit.
    Poor Cintra wouldn’t last ten minutes on the streets of Wasilla, AK.

  • suek

    >>Those comments were David Kuo’s describing how Evangelicals were described by White House staffers, Suek. >>

    So…those comments don’t reflect your opinion?

  • Zhombre

    Yes, Ozzie, there are cynical and manipulative people in politics who behave like swine. It’s a dirty business. Makes used cars or smuggling Mexicans over the border look like charity work. Some swine are Republicans. Some Democrats. Do you think so many people have attacked Sarah Palin so such persistent vituperation because they are kind? Do you believe that the media hatchet men and the DNC operatives are in Alaska because they like the fresh air, fresh salmon and want to dig up nice things about Governor Palin? If you believe so then I have a candidate to sell you who will stop the oceans rising and will heal the planet and got through Chicago machine politics with his integrity whole.

  • Zhombre

    Cue whiney voice:

    “She’s not even a REAL hockey mom!”

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31283_Video-_Hockey_Moms_for_Truth

  • Bonzo

    Progressives love religion as long as said ‘religion’ is secular.

    All religion may be lies, some religions are obvious lies.

    Is the cult of Obama a religion? Perhaps.

    I have a dream that one day a person will be judged not by the color of his skin, or kin, but the essence of who he/she is, by his or her character, deeds, choices and substance.

  • Bonzo

    Zhombre, I see the sarcasm there. I don’t believe Charles.

    Charles at LGF is still even today trying to figure out who he/she is. When things get tough I look at LGF the way I look at AOL or Rense.

  • Ozzie

    So…those comments don’t reflect your opinion?- seuk

    My opinion is that people should believe whatever they want to believe, provided they dont expect me to believe whatever it is they believe.

    Catholics and Evanglicals are worlds apart, and American citizens currently enjoy freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion.

    I pray it stays that way.

    Every single president has been a Christian, but it’s just been in recent decades that Evanglicals have been courted and manipulated by politicians.

    It’s very cynical.

  • Zhombre

    ” …it’s just been in recent decades that Evanglicals have been courted and manipulated by politicians…”

    You never heard of William Jennings Bryan? Politicians have courted & manipulated virtually every group that they could count on for votes. That is the nature of the politicians. And religious groups — be they Bible thumpers or big city Catholics — have always been part of the stew. You have an atrophied sense of history.

  • BrianE

    Catholics and Evanglicals are worlds apart,

    Ozzie, read “Jesus of Nazareth” by Pope Benedict XVI. You might find they aren’t as far apart as you think.

  • Ozzie

    You never heard of William Jennings Bryan? Politicians have courted & manipulated virtually every group that they could count on for votes. That is the nature of the politicians. And religious groups — be they Bible thumpers or big city Catholics — have always been part of the stew. You have an atrophied sense of history.– zhombre

    Of course I’ve heard of William Jennings Bryan. “Inherit the Wind” is one of my all time favorite movies.

    But, in 1960, when JFK was running for president, he had to insure that the Separation of church and state would remain intact.

    And it wasnt until Ronald Reagan’s campain that Evangelicals were courted with such gusto. (Lee Atewater and George H.W. Bush continued the trend, but they mocked Evangelicals behind their backs).

    Evangelicals, as a group, grew in leaps and bounds from the 1980s onward.

  • Ozzie

    Ozzie, read “Jesus of Nazareth” by Pope Benedict XVI. You might find they aren’t as far apart as you think.- Brian

    Let me put it this way: I see Catholics as being worlds apart from those who actually believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

    Some believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and others don’t.

  • BrianE

    From “Truth and Tolerance:

    Within the teaching about evolution itself, the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: ‘There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.'”

    Take comfort that the Pope accepts micro-evolution, but draws the line at macro-evolution and affirms the role of God in the creative process.
    From “In the Beginning”:

    “We must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.”

    Though I suspect he thinks the earth is older than 6,000 years.

  • Ymarsakar

    Given that every single U.S president has been a Christian, I don’t know if “the left” hates religion.

    Democrat leaders said they hate corruption. Yet they still elect corrupt leaders.

    But you don’t know if they really hate corruption? Of course they don’t hate corruption or religion. After Obamanation, how can you say they hate religion. They don’t hate religion. They just hate peaceful and honest religions.

  • Marguerite

    What is a Christianist? Miriam-Webster online doesn’t have the word and I’ve come across it more and more on the left.

  • Ymarsakar

    A Christianist is like a Leftist, except more like Trotsky than Stalin.

  • Ymarsakar

    Either that or they thought it was the correct form of a member of Christianity.

  • Ozzie

    What is a Christianist? Miriam-Webster online doesn’t have the word and I’ve come across it more and more on the left.– Marguerite

    Andrew Sullivan uses it a lot, but I haven’t read his book yet, so I’m not sure what he means by it. (I just bought “The Conservative Soul” today, however, so maybe I’ll have a better understanding of whether or not he coined the term and/or what it means).

    I’m guessing that people use it to describe those in the Dominionist/ Christian Reconstructionist movement, though it could also encompass Evangelicals and other groups trying to meld politics and relgion.

  • Marguerite

    Ozzie – If a person is religious, should one’s religion not be the driving force in one’s life? Religion is personal, but it is not private. So to some extent, a religious person will of course bring their religious convictions to their political choices in the public square. Is this the melding of politics and religion you reference? And if so, do you consider it a bad thing?

  • Mike Devx

    “Christianist” sounds like a newly-minted term that drips condescension. Invented by someone who felt a compelling need to drip condescension.

    (It ranks right up there with “Islamophobe”.)

  • Ozzie

    Is this the melding of politics and religion you reference? – Marquerite.

    No, I’m talking about what some see as a mandate to change the fundmental nature of this country and turn into an official Chrisitian nation though legislation.

    In 2004, Evangelicals were behind legislation to neuter the Supreme Court and change the powers of separation (which actually passed in the House but not in the Senate), but one politically active group, the Dominionists, would like to scrap the Constitution and install Biblical law instead.

    They are fringe, (even jerry Falwell found them “scary”), but in 2004 and 2005, they were behind “the Constitistuon Restoration Act,” which was hair-raising legislation that would have changed this country forever.

  • Marguerite

    ‘In 2004, Evangelicals were behind legislation to neuter the Supreme Court and change the powers of separation (which actually passed in the House but not in the Senate), but one politically active group, the Dominionists, would like to scrap the Constitution and install Biblical law instead.’

    Sounds as scary as the Environmentaist Religious Act – another theocracy in the making! :-)

  • Marguerite

    I meant to say the Environmentalist Religious Act – I shouldn’t type before I’m fully awake.

  • BrianE

    Constitution Restoration Act of 2005:

    A bill that would prohibit federal courts from ruling in cases involving government officials who acknowledge God “as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government” has been reintroduced in Congress after it failed to get a hearing last year.
    The House bill has 32 co-sponsors currently. The Senate version has eight co-sponsors, including former Majority Leader Trent Lott.

    Touted by some supporters as one of the most important pieces of legislation in U.S. history, the bill states:

    The Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
    The legislation also addresses what many high-court watchers consider a dangerous trend: Supreme Court justices looking to foreign law and rulings for guidance when deciding cases. States the bill:

    In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than the constitutional law and English common law.

    Essentially this would allow the 10 Commandments to be displayed, and prevent courts from citing foreign law in deciding law here. You may disagree with its purpose, but hardly hair-raising.

    This isn’t the source of your opinion is it? :)
    http://context.themoscowtimes.com/index.php?aid=131199

  • suek

    >>Essentially this would allow the 10 Commandments to be displayed,>>

    You mean, like they _used_ to be. Once again I say…”return” to a theocracy, not “change” to a theocracy.

    There _used_ to be a general societal recognition and general acceptance of the God of Judaism and Christianity. That recognition and acceptance is what has changed. There are those who believe that the country would be in better social condition if we returned to those values – that the effort to completely secularize the law is detrimental to our society. That is not a progression to “theocracy” but a return to “theocracy”. If you want to call it that. I don’t, but hey…if that’s what Oz wants, that’s what Oz gets!

  • BrianE

    The Constitution Restoration Act does remind folks of our Judeo-Christian heritage, which dovetails with Wolf Howling’s original post.
    Christians are viewed as being against reason and science, which stands in opposition to the left’s goal– a society based purely on human reason and science- a brave new world.

    If I were just picking a religion at random, buddhism has a lot of attractive qualities, lots of mysticism and dedication to thinking good thoughts; but Islam’s gotta be the choice. 1. It’s about as pro-male as you’re going to get. Christianity reminds men to love their wives as Christ loved the church and sacrificed his life for it. Kind of gets in the way of male domination. 2. Islam really doesn’t require much in the way of sacrifice. Get on my knees 5 times a day, remember which direction to point, and bingo, I’m done– except I can never be sure I’ve made it to heaven unless I’m willing to engage in jihad. Oh well, I’d take my chances. 3. I can lie and cheat a whole bunch of people, and it’s OK. Not even OK, but good! Downsides: I can’t drink, but that’s overrated anyway. It would be a bummer to give up bacon, though my arteries would probably thank me.
    Yeah, Islam’s the religion of the future.

  • Ozzie

    This isn’t the source of your opinion is it? – Brian

    Initially, the source of my information was former Chrisitanity Today reporter Katherine Yurikca, who’s written several articles on the Chrisitan Reconstruction Act, and on the Dominionists’ agenda .

    I’d never heard of Dominionists until I stumbled up on her.

    In addition to that, I’ve read several articles by Kevin Phillips, along with his book, American Theocracy.

    I’ve also listened to interviews with Phillips, along with Chris Hedges.

    That’s how I’ve come to my conclusions, Brian.

    And, I just bought Andrew Sullivan’s book, “the Conservative Soul.”

    I’m not sure if I’ll learn anything new, but I’m interested to see how he came to his conclusions as well.

    You’re accussing me of doing exactly what you do: You make up your mind beforehand (in this case, that this legislation isn’t so harmless) and then use Google to locate information to make your case. And in turn, you try to belittle me by making it seem that my opinion comes from one single source.

  • suek

    Just bear in mind that Sullivan _used_ to be a Conservative. He decided he wasn’t when the gay marriage thing became a political football. He’s in favor of gay marriage, and apparently has decided that anyone that doesn’t is evil.
    He’s a one issue person.

  • Ozzie

    Just bear in mind that Sullivan _used_ to be a Conservative. He decided he wasn’t when the gay marriage thing became a political football. He’s in favor of gay marriage, and apparently has decided that anyone that doesn’t is evil.- suek

    Sullivan saw through the legislation as something that goes beyond the gay marraige issue, to actually insert descrimination into the Constituion.

    When the gay marriage admendment failed, House members tried to circumvent the Supreme Court to undermine protections under the Constitution, and change the separation of powers forever.

    (This is where reality is as strange as ficion: .In the book, It Can’t Happene Here, which was written in the 1930s, Buzz Winthrop cozies up to religious zealots’ and also neuters the Supreme Court to turn the Republic into a dictatorship).

    In any event, I’m interested in what Sullivan has to say, just as I was interested in what Phillips, Yurika and Hedges had to say.

  • Ozzie

    Just bear in mind that Sullivan _used_ to be a Conservative- suek

    I remeber when Conservatives cared about preserving the Constitution.

    I’ve read Sullivan for years, and while he no longer backs today’s Republicans, (who are also not Conservatives) he’s hardly a liberal.

    This is what he said when he finally saw through the Gay Marriage smokescreen:

    “It was because I believed in the Constitution of the United States that I felt no qualms in backing this president and in fighting rhetorical wars on his behalf – because that Constitution was under attack. . . So you can see, perhaps, why the bid to write anti-gay discrimination into this very Constitution provokes such a strong response from me – and so many other people, gay and straight, and their families. It robs us of something no one in this country should be robbed of – equality and inclusion in the founding document itself. When people tell me that, in weighing the political choices, the war on terror should trump the sanctity of the Constitution, my response is therefore a simple one. The sanctity of the Constitution is what we are fighting for. We’re not fighting just to defend ourselves. We are fighting to defend a way of life: pluralism, freedom, equality under the law.”

    I totally get where he’s coming from.

  • suek

    Ok…discrimination.

    Here we go again.

    Gays want to be “married”. Why? Do you really believe that marriage offers them something other than the 1200 or some privileges that are offered to heterosexual married people at this time? So let’s assume that the privileges are extended to marrieds who are gay…what is your justification for not extending those privileges to singles?

    Wouldn’t it be preferable to just eliminate all of the privileges and remove authorization for marriage from the civil sphere? How about if return it to the religious sphere solely? How is marriage a function of your preferred secular society? Isn’t that a mixture of church and state? I’d think you’d oppose it…

  • Ozzie

    Ok…discrimination- suek

    You’re looking at this as if it’s only about gay marriage – and the privledges marriage offers.

    Maybe if you read this article, you’ll get a better grasp of the dangers posed by subesquent legislation and understand where I’m coming from:

    Published on Monday, July 26, 2004 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

    House Vote Doesn’t Only Threaten Gays
    by Jay Bookman

    “. . . Frustrated by the Senate’s failure to produce even a majority of votes in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, House leaders decided to take a more controversial approach. Citing an obscure and largely untested provision of the U.S. Constitution, the House voted 233-194 to bar the Supreme Court from considering the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law dealing with gay marriage.

    That is a power grab of breathtaking consequence. If Congress has the authority to tell the Supreme Court that certain issues are off-limits, it would give legislators a free hand to do whatever they wished, without worrying about whether it violated the Constitution. The whole idea of a separation of powers could be rendered null and void if that happened.

    And unfortunately, it could. The provision in question, Article III, Section 2, gives the federal courts the power to decide a broad range of cases, including challenges to the constitutionality of federal laws. However, it also grants the courts that power “with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    Theoretically, that allows Congress to pass a law — say, making it a felony to criticize members of Congress — and then forbid the courts to review such a law. It could pass a law making Christianity the national religion, and bar the courts from hearing a challenge. It could allow government to tap our phones without a warrant, or toss dissidents into prison without trial, and refuse to allow the courts to intervene.

    That’s why the provision has remained obscure and largely untested. Previous generations of politicians, even in the heat of intense battle, have understood and respected the potential damage it could do. They saw it as a Pandora’s box that once opened could threaten not just our constitutional liberties but the whole concept of a balance of powers among the judicial, legislative and executive branches. . . ”

    for full article:

    http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0726-08.htm

  • suek

    >>If Congress has the authority to tell the Supreme Court that certain issues are off-limits, it would give legislators a free hand to do whatever they wished, without worrying about whether it violated the Constitution.>>

    I don’t have time at the moment to research it, but it’s my understanding that Congress _can_ do this – that is, place certain issues off-limits. I assume that there are limits on this – the Presidential veto would be one – but I don’t really know. Otherwise, I think Congress would be likely to place _all_ their laws outside the jurisdiction of the Court!

  • Mike Devx

    Whenever I hear anyone use the phrase “Christianist”, I know I’m dealing with a hater. It’s just one of those terms – and is explicitly derogatory – that only a committed idealogue would use.

    And Ozzie, Andrew Sullivan *has* gone off the deep end. You’ll only get confused by attempting to treat him seriously. This happens occasionally: Someone formerly capable of rational discourse discovers the straw that breaks his sanity’s back, and completely loses it. His refusal to give up on the “Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy to pretend to have Bristol’s baby” rumor says everything you might need to know about where he is at these days.

  • Ymarsakar

    Andrew Sullivan is not a person any sane person should listen to.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Andrew Sullivan claimed to be Catholic and a proud conservative. He supported GW Bush fully and was a cheerleader for the Global War on Terror and the re-invasion of Iraq. As an immigrant Brit, he articulated the Bush position very well from a global perspective.

    Then something happened that convinced him that he (Sullivan) had been 100% wrong about Bush and he did a full-180 turn on GW Bush and conservatism. What was that momentous event that caused his conversion? Bush would not back gay marriage.

    Sullivan is a very unstable and troubled person. Sad.