The Gospel according to….

A thought occurred to my apropos my post about conversations with liberals.  As you recall, those conversations reveal (a) that they live in something of a factual vacuum and (b) that fact that’s not in the pages of the New York Times doesn’t exist, while any “fact” that is in the New York Times is absolutely true. Critical thought is abandoned.

It occurred to me that one of the things these same liberals find most horrifying about Sarah Palin is their suspicion that, as a devout Christian, she actually believes that the Bible is true.  It doesn’t seem to occur to them that, if that type of fanaticism scares them, their mindless devotion to the New York Times is just as fanatical and, to those of us who do not believe in the Gospel According to the Times, just as ignorant and frightening.  The one thing I’ll add is that, while Palin reads the Times, these liberals do not read the bible.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Mike Devx says

    I’ll say it again: I’ve decided that the severe and vicious reaction against Sarah Palin is *primarily* a bigoted reaction against the religious.

    I lost my faith early in high school and decided to label myself agnostic. That by no means indicates a hostility towards the religious nor towards faith. It means that because of my loss of faith I simply “do not know”. It still seems quite likely to me that there is a Creator in the biblical sense. Perhaps that is why I am so comfortable with Governor Palin. The nuclear hostility towards her is something that leaves me shaking my head. I wonder what might be required to cause my faith to redawn.

    But that nuclear hostility! Can anyone identify a single case where it *definitely* can be attributed to something other than hostility towards the religious?

  2. BrianE says

    People who simply dislike her, think she is stupid, provincial, etc. do so because that’s what they’ve been told to think. They laugh at her literalist beliefs since that’s what sophisticated people do in this new age of Science, but I don’t think this drives fear or hatred, since that really gives her too much power.
    She connects with her audience and people relate to her, but they don’t see her as a demagogue, though some mistrust her populism, which they fear, is slightly above mob rule.
    We all rely on trusted sources of information. Since most of us have lives, or used to before responding to your blog, we don’t take time to verify every bit of information. We have some source that we trust, and once having chosen the source, have a vested interest in defending its accuracy, since an attack on the source is also an attack on us.
    For liberals, that may be the NYT. Since the NYT stabilizes their reality, it is not an easy process to wean them from their dependence.
    Another group, the ones who HATE her has more to do with abortion than Christianity. But if she were a he, and held the same views this visceral hatred wouldn’t be as strong, IMHO.
    She reminds the pro-abortionist of the stark reality of abortion by carrying Trig with her. Many of these liberals believe that defective children should be aborted– it’s the humane thing to do. And when they see this visible symbol of a seeming healthy infant, it not only shatters their conception of what a defective baby is, but may remind them of their own experience with a child that was not defective, just not wanted. And giving into this inconvenient moment, they performed a perfectly legal act, though I suspect, and it is just a suspicion, that in the quiet times, not often, but sometimes, they wonder just what that young life could have meant to them.
    And they know the feeling will return at times, as long as she is around.
    Abortion is like a wound that scars over but leaves an uneasy feeling at its center.

    Ozzie actually prompted this, when she quoted an article in The Economist that said:
    “The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion…”
    What a curious thing for an economics journal to say.

    I also think libertarians have a hatred for religion, and the far left have a hatred for Christianity, since in both instances, religion stands in the way of achieving the distinctly different notion of social order they both strive for, anarchy for one and communism for the other. Which may actually be one and the some thing.

  3. Ymarsakar says

    Brian, Oz likes to talk about doom and gloom and about how voting for Obama is better because McCain’s choice is so much worse. The truth, however, is that Oz believes the nation is already lost. Obama can’t recover that but Oz is going to back him regardless simply because Oz can’t stand Sarah. Oz said in another thread that we have already lost the nation.

    That’s an enlightened and productive way to fix problems, neh, Brian?

  4. Mike Devx says

    Brian,
    Thx, you’ve accomplished several examples that refuted my simplistic analysis.

    >> People who simply dislike her, think she is stupid, provincial >>

    I think most of these people *are not* engaging in that nuclear hostility that I’m referring to. But they do express a curious and adamant opposition to her that is deeply troubling, too. She connects with conservatives in about the same manner that Obama connects with liberals. Serious people don’t tend to attack Obama because of this charismatic connection; they likewise should not attack Palin because of her charismatic connection. It’s a political strength.

    The fact that these “conservatives” are attacking her, and often in particular are throwing support to Obama, indicates that they are not conservative. Period. You cannot possibly be a real conservative and endorse Obama. His past associates and allies; all of his statements prior to 2004 and many of his statements since then; his expressed economic idealogy… there is not one ounce of conservatism there. Some people, such as Rick Moran, may defend these people, but I cannot see how he can and it is thoroughly dismaying that he does. Via this endorsement of Obama they have repudiated any opportunity to join in the looming conservative rebirth to have a voice we should listen to. Nope. Not a chance. If that’s conservatism, I’ll take Door #2 and cheerfully walk away from conservatism forever. (Fat chance! I’m walking away from these Obama-endorsers first. I will fight them tooth and nail to the end, or at least until they repudiate *completely* their endorsement of Obama.)

    >> She reminds the pro-abortionist of the stark reality of abortion by carrying Trig with her. [...] [This] may remind them of their own experience with a child that was not defective, just not wanted. [...] in the quiet times, not often, but sometimes, they wonder just what that young life could have meant to them.
    And they know the feeling will return at times, as long as she is around.
    Abortion is like a wound that scars over but leaves an uneasy feeling at its center.>>

    Beautifully and profoundly expressed! I was lumping them in with “bigoted hatred of the religious”, but you’re right, this is different. Sarah Palin is an affront to their consciences, whether those consciences be guilty or merely troubled, and they deal with that by expressing rage. (This is not true of all pro-abortion liberals, just the ones with the nuclear hostility that I mentioned.)

  5. BrianE says

    Mike, I always look forward to reading your thoughts and don’t disagree with you on this.
    The antagonism towards Palin comes from all sides and many people are embarrassed or reviled by fundamentalist Christianity. To us, Christ is real, and each human has to make a real life or death choice.
    I think Ozzie does make your point about hostility to religion, though she has NEVER expressed the vileness we see directed toward Palin. Ozzie loves to talk about religion as long as its in the context of “hey, how about those Cubbies” or “do you think the Phillies are building a dynasty”, but implicit in the conversation is the realization that nothing real is going to come of it.
    Cocktail party conservatives are also aghast at her parochial views, and the inbreeding of intellectual snobbery transcends political philosophy– intellectual effetes have a code of ethics that smacks of opportunism. After all, it’s just words on paper, rearrange the words and you’ve switched sides. It’s just virtual sweat that’s a byproduct of their labor—not the real kind that American’s lives are filled with.
    I agree with you that it’s bizarre that someone who holds conservative political ideas could with a wave of the hand cast that all aside to “hope for the best”. I wonder what happens to them when they try and write the word principle! I suspect their keyboards are missing those letters.
    It’s possible that those whose livelihood is made from thinking traditional, mainstream Republican ideas in those special tanks of thought realize that a Palin administration may view many of those thoughts as floating dead fish.
    As to abortion though, Reagan was pro-life, Bush senior and junior were pro-life but we never saw the level of vitriol. Bush’s Christianity was ridiculed, and even Methodism seems mainstream in comparison to Pentecostalism, but most Americans don’t know enough about Christianity to recognize the difference.
    When you hear people talk about her philosophy of governance, it sounds remarkably similar to Bush’s (which may also be some of the problem). She doesn’t dwell in the land of second thoughts and doubts where intellectuals love to spend their days. Hence the accusation that she’s not a deep thinker.
    If she applied her talents to business, I have no doubt she would make a gazillion dollars. She operates in a world where decisions are made, results analyzed, and everyone moves on to the next decision.
    Which makes me think that Americans are still trying to turn the presidency into a twisted version of European royalty. We long for Camelot and since our memories of those days are so faint, in our mis-remembrance we see a hint of JFK in the One. At least, that’s what the One has practiced so hard to imitate.
    Sarah isn’t Cinderella-like and we just can’t envision her being the royal princess. And with that imagery in mind, who do you think Hillary would be?
    Sometimes I just don’t know what Americans are thinking.

  6. suek says

    >>As to abortion though, Reagan was pro-life, Bush senior and junior were pro-life but we never saw the level of vitriol.>>

    That’s because they’re men. They don’t count. Instead of vitriol towards specific males, liberal feminists have turned their hatred towards males in general. No, they don’t throw vitriol – but they have a level of cold fury towards males in general that is just as destructive. They have succeeded in emasculating most of their fellow travelers – the metrosexual is a liberal construct. They want medicine to succeed in raising test tube babies. They seem to hate themselves, and hate men as well. They hate that reproduction is a female “burden”. Onward and upward to a nation of Borgs – drones with no sex who all work for the ever greater glory of the nation.

    Gad.

    >>And with that imagery in mind, who do you think Hillary would be?>>

    Heh. The wicked stepmother???

Leave a Reply