Found it on Facebook: The Left enlists yet another sweet-faced child in the war against religion *UPDATED*

Michelangelo Sistine Chapel[UPDATE: If you came here from Ricochet, welcome. Having read Judith Levy’s post, I think she misunderstood the point I was making here. I obviously wrote with insufficient clarity. I’ve expanded upon — and, I hope, clarified — my point in this post.]

It’s been many years since I read Jane Eyre, but I doubt that I’ll ever forget the ugliness of Mr. Brocklehurst’s Christianity, one composed of hellfire in the afterlife, and suffering and humiliation in the present time. With Mr. Brocklehurst firmly in mind, I defy you to walk into any church in America and find his peculiarly corrosive view of religion.  As best as I can tell, most Christians today view God as a loving God, and see themselves as his blessed creation.  If they can embrace God and his teachings, they will live a good life that sees them sitting at His feet in the Afterlife.  Modern Christianity, as actually practiced by modern Christians, strikes me as a very beneficent religion, with the emphasis on Grace, not Damnation.

One would never know this, though, if one lived solely in the Left’s anti-religious fever swamps.  When they’re not busy mis-citing scripture to pass Obamacare, they view religion as negatively as did Mr. Brocklehurst.  In other words, the Left’s is a profoundly regressive view of religion.  This isn’t surprising, since they’re regressive in most of their beliefs, ranging from abortion, which they view through a 1950s lens, all the way to race, which they also see as stuck in a perpetual 1950s Jim Crow reality.

This grim, regressive world view explains why, when I opened my “real me” Facebook today, I found this much-celebrated image touted amongst my Progressive friends:

Facebook poster saying religion demeans people

I have an alternative poster for that sweet little girl, one I easily created even though I’m a Jew who believes in the possibility of a divinity, rather than in a divinity’s absolute reality:

Religion versus Science

I’m sure all of you can come up with more examples for column one or column two.  If you think of anything, please be sure to share it with all of us.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • JKB

    Okay, the people who made that little girl’s sign have no comprehension of religion or science.  
    That’s some great miseducation they got there.  Guess the OD’d on edumedication.  

  • Charles Martel

    To quote the boy in “The Incredibles,” “If everybody is special, then nobody is special.” According to the girl’s sign, science specifically has singled her out as smart, beautiful, and full of potential and wonder. Does it say that about every little girl? How about stupid, ugly little girls? What does science say about them?

    • lee

      Expose them on the side of a mountain.
      No, wait! That was the ancient Greeks…
      Cover them in a bag, and marry them off as children…
      No, wait! That’s the Talaban…
      Sacrifice them to the great god, Ba’al…
      No, wait! That’s the Canaanites!
      Ah, yes! Tell them the are smart and beautiful, because no one is “special.” And don’t forget to shackle and cover up the pretty, smart ones a la “Harrison Bergeron.” (Isn’t it deliciously ironic that a short story by a major liberal has become a cri de coeur of the conservatives?)

  • ferninphilly

    The last one in the religion column (I am “nothing”) is interesting since Religion gives life a divine meaning and science gives it NO meaning (We’re here. We’re gonna be gone). A group of honest atheists never would have taken the beaches at Normandy as there can be no metaphysical and objective “Good” or “Evil” in the atheist view of the universe…so they would have died for…what again? Oh yeah- as they so eloquently put it: “Nothing”. 
    Also- what religion considers a cute little girl “nothing”?

  • Matt_SE

    Which of those two columns applied better to Vladimir Putin?

  • Ymarsakar

    I didn’t know science was a religion and a divine existence equal to Christianity’s god.
    When is the Left going to finish making zombies and cannonfodder place holders? When their puppets exceed humanity’s 6.5 billion population.
    They keep putting up these tools that don’t even understand what’s printed on the paper.

  • Earl

    I agree completely with the point you’re making in this post, BW….and that photograph infuriates me!
    However, despite your kind words about today’s Christians, I’m sad to report that, despite the fact most of them don’t preach it, almost all Christian churches still accept the (thoroughly unBiblical) doctrine of the everlasting torture of the eternally conscious damned.  Many Christians can get quite exercised about the suggestion that this is simply contrary to God’s character as revealed in Scripture, and supported by Biblical “evidence” so thin as to be evanescent.
    Happily, what my own church has taught since the middle-1800s – conditional immortality, the permanent destruction of those who reject God’s calling – is being brought forward by a brave (now, not-so) young man by the name of Edward Fudge.  A recent movie about his efforts is out – I saw it in a commercial theater, and it’s also available on DVD ( 
    In addition, the third edition of his 1982 book is now available (, although I don’t recommend this unless one is a serious Bible student.  I slogged through it – he covers every single text dealing with the subject of the final destination of the wicked that appears in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and three different inter-Testamental sources.  Heavy stuff.
    For regular people who are interested, and prefer something a little “meatier” than the movie (which is quite good, by the way), I recommend Hell, A Final Word (  It should be enough to convince seekers that a God who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ is not going to torture any of His children forever, even those that rejected Him utterly in life. 
    Something about this author, Edward Fudge, that fills me with awe, is the gentle and very Christian way he deals with those who disagree…even if they have treated him roughly.  He sets an example of gentlemanly behavior to which I aspire.

    • MacG

      Earl,  since you slogged through his book could you tell me how he handles the Jesus’ description of the net end of all mankind in Matthew 25:46 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”  
      If your author is saying there is no eternal punishment then is he saying there is no eternal life?

  • Danny Lemieux

    Absolutely perfect, Book. You may not be a believer but you are a seeker…and, you “get it”.
    Earl, what you related absolutely does not square with most Christians, especially Catholics and Anglicans but also Lutherans and many Baptists and non-denominational evangelicals (I recommend reading Phil Yancy’s books on the subject of God’s love…starting with Amazing Grace). The Christians to which you refer I refer to as “Old Testament” Christians, who focus far too much attention on the old and not nearly enough on the new (in my humble opinion, of course). 

  • Pingback: Maggie's Farm()

  • Libby

    Is the “Religion” column based on one religion or a combination of several? It makes a huge difference, since Islam holds vastly different views on a young girl’s value than Christianity or Judaism. It also depends on if she is a believer or an infidel – which would explain the “Nothing” entry on the list (which applies to all infidels).
    The signs should include a disclaimer: Everything I know about religion I learned from movies and TV. Hollywood has provided decades of entertainment where religious people are invariably portrayed as humorless, stupid, secretly evil, and/or hypocritical control-freaks.

  • Tara S

    According to science, female beauty is encapsulated in symmetrical features, proper facial ratios, a small waist-to-hip ratio, clear skin, and healthy-looking hair. This little girl might turn out to be scientifically beautiful, but too bad for all the girls and women who don’t fit those standards.
    According to religion, physical beauty is nice, but thoughts and actions are what make a person truly beautiful.
    According to science, you’re smart if your IQ is above the average of 100. If it’s below that, scientifically speaking, you’re stupid.
    According to religion, wisdom is knowing and doing what’s good and moral. By that standard, a mentally retarded man who saves a child from a burning building is much smarter than a professor with multiple PhD’s who turns and runs from the flames.
    According to science, you are what you’re born as. If your worth is determined by “scientific” definitions of intelligence and beauty, then ultimately, genetics determine your value.
    According to religion, your choices are what make you who you are. The weakest, ugliest, most unintelligent person from the lowliest of circumstances has all the potential to be a wise, attractive, thoroughly admirable human being.
    I’m of the opinion that religion and science can easily coexist. But I certainly don’t look to science to figure out my worth, because that way lies despair.

    • Ymarsakar

      At least 68% of Americans treat science as a religion. Thus it cannot co exist with other religions.

    • Bookworm

      Tara S:  Those are beautiful examples.  Thank you.

  • raymondjelli

    Couldn’t we just add a third column for most damaging and just put down – Idiot Parents!!!!

  • KellyM

    Funny, but when I first looked at the religion side of the list I agreed. As humans, living with and under the sin of Adam, we are broken, flawed, sinful, weak and nothing. But that’s a good thing. Those are things that God uses to create something better – with His grace. I would much rather go through life calling on Him to help me, who is broken, flawed and sinful, than to live according to the science side and be told I’m beautiful, smart, a quick learner (whatever that means) and ultimately be empty, endlessly searching for that which will make me feel whole and never being able to find it, and believing that when the lights go out that’s all there is – poof! How sad.

    • MacG

      “Religion is a crutch” “A crutch is not a bad thing when you are crippled” Mike Warnke
      I have heard it said that we are unworthy but worthwhile.  
      In John chapter 3 Jesus taught that we are spiritually dead to the things of God (loving your enemies among them) and that we must be ‘born again’ (one of the two places that that phrase is used).  He goes on to say that with man this is impossible but with God all things are possible.   He encourages us to keep on asking. keep on knocking and keep on seeking the Kingdom of God.
      Christianity  as far as I know is the only religion whacknowledges the Creator making the sacrifice (provides His own ram as it were) to redeem the fallen creation out of His love for it.  God’s judgement is harsh but He pays the penalty and for those who believe, like the passover lamb’s blood on the door post gave a pass from the angel of death so God’s wrath passes by.  God gives grace to the humble but opposes the proud.  With the relationship restored Jesus proclaims that He will never leave us nor forsake us, fear not for I am with you till the end of the age.  No longer having to hide from God in the Garden because of our guilt for dishonoring God and breaking fellowship and our paltry efforts to cover it up we can have restored fellowship with God who is love. “38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Rom 8
      The problem for the creator of the little girl’s sign is their cherry picked data set blinds them to the beauty described above.

      • MacG

        “whacknowledges”??  wow. that’s funny :)  let’s try “which acknowledges”  :)

  • beefrank

    There is a vast difference between being religious and having faith.  One is simply outward appearance while the other is an inside job.

  • Michael Adams

    Today is Ash Wednesday, a day of contemplation and repentance. In our congregation, there are no flowers on the altar, only the purple paraments, and the service is said, no hymns sung. We have ashes on our heads to symbolize repentance. Nevertheless, even on this solemn day, the Collect begins, “Almighty and everlasting God, Who hatest nothing that Thou hast made” I’d say, maybe not so grim,  after all.
    To all those who keep the season, a very blessed Lent.

  • Wolf Howling

    At this point in my life, there are very few things I find shocking.  That picture, however, is one.    
    Numerous thoughts come to mind.  The first concerns the supposed reliance on “science” for the definition of self.  Science is amoral, neither inherently good nor evil.  We get no moral truths from science.  Science does not teach the golden rule; it provides no dictum to act honorably.   In the absence of such moral grounding, narcissism is, at best, the most likely result.  (And never forget that Communism, stripped of religion and used to justify so much bloodshed in the last century, was defined by its founders as “scientific socialism.”  Remove the grounding in Judeo-Christian ethics and there are no limits whatsoever on morality or state power.)     
    Two, despite claims made ad infinitum to the contrary, science and the anti-religious left are hardly on friendly terms.  Real science, predicated on the scientific method and independent verification, seems rarely to be practiced and indeed, never to be demanded by the left.  Nothing is more politicized than the left’s abuse of “science,” particularly in the areas of economics, ecology, climatology and sociology.    
    Three, in Christian circles, we have the concept of the prodigal son.  Love the sinner, hate the sin.  Not even the most vile sinner is ever “nothing,” right up to the moment of their demise, because the possibility and hope of redemption is at the very core of Christian beliefs.   But pity that poor girl if, in the circles she will no doubt grow up, she commits the only sin that matters to the left – sprouting some bit of science or morality that contradicts the liberal orthodoxy, for then she really will be “nothing.”  Well, if she is lucky, she will be “nothing.”  Otherwise, she will receive treatment beyond mere shunning, she will be demonized.
    Lastly, the parents of this girl are teaching her intolerance – to wholly devalue anyone who is religious.  Tolerance is a Judeo-Christian value.  The left only adopts it as a tactic when they are in the minority.                   

  • Earl

    Thanks, Danny.
    Love Phillip Yancey, and have read much of his stuff, including Amazing Grace.
    A big part of Fudge’s contribution is to show that the Old and New Testaments are united in the picture they give of the final destination of the wicked, and thus of G-d’s character.  Very important stuff, and his work is just encyclopedic…’s making a difference, too.

  • Earl

    @MacG:  Fudge deals with every single text, and he does NOT deny “eternal punishment”.  The punishment is death, or destruction, or other term used in Scripture.  He shows, again from Scripture, that these terms are contrasted with “life”.  So the answer to your question is that “eternal life” is the end of the redeemed, but “eternal death” is the end of those who reject God’s grace. 
    By the way, there WILL be a “lake of fire and brimstone” in which the devil, his angels, and those who have chosen to follow Satan rather than God will be “burned up”.  That destruction, and the consequent eternal separation from God is their final end, and that’s the punishment.

  • Ymarsakar

    The wages of sin are death.
    Whether people intentionally sought to aid the Left or unintentionally helped evil… won’t really matter. Just as who got killed in the nuclear bomb or the firebombings in WWII didn’t matter to Americans much, whether they knew about it or not. The consequences of your actions will hit you on the way back around the world, one way or another.

  • Pingback: News of the Week (March 9th, 2014) | The Political Hat()

  • Pingback: A response to Judith Levy’s comment about a “religion versus science” post I wrote()