Burt’s Eye View: Liberalism is a Cult
by Burt PrelutskyFor the longest time, I’ve insisted that liberalism is the religion of choice for atheists, agnostics and run-of-the-mill secularists. After all, be they Christians, Jews, Moslems or Buddhists, the truly devout accept the tenets of their religion on faith. They can try to have logical debates with the likes of a Christopher Hitchens, but in the end it all comes down to a couple of people getting red in the face, hollering “Is so” and “Is not” at each other.
But, of late, I’ve decided that referring to liberalism as a religion for non-believers is showing it too much respect. It far more resembles a cult. Even the expression about leftists drinking the Kool-Aid refers to an actual cult, the one created by the certifiable loony, Jim Jones. Having led his flock of deranged sheep from San Francisco to Guyana, one day in 1978, he ordered more than 900 of his followers to drink Kool-Aid laced with cyanide.
It would be easy enough to dismiss Jones as just another cuckoo, except that he was a man well-connected in left-wing circles. Mayor George Moscone had appointed him Chairman of the San Francisco Housing Authority. He was on a first-name basis with Walter Mondale and Rosalynn Carter. Governor Jerry Brown, Lt. Gov. Mervyn Dymally and Assemblyman Willie Brown, all attended a testimonial dinner honoring Jim Jones in 1976. What makes that date all the more remarkable isn’t just that it was a scant two years before Jones choreographed the mass suicide, but three years after a series of critical newspaper articles had appeared and after eight members of the cult had defected and warned the world that he was a deranged menace.
It was in 1973, after the articles began appearing, that Jones started looking for an escape route. The options he considered included Canada, Trinidad and the socialist nation of Guyana. He favored the last-named because he approved of its left-wing government, having preached that “those who remain drugged with the opiate of religion have to be brought to enlightenment — socialism.” But a contributing factor in making him settle on Guyana was that it lacked an extradition treaty with the United States.
He referred to his creed as apostolic socialism and called his settlement the People’s Temple Agricultural Project. It’s always a good idea to give anything that puts “People’s” in its title a wide berth, be it a cult in South America or a country, such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria or the People’s Republic of China.
Just like the disciples of Jim Jones, liberals, too, will swallow any swill. They will believe, for example, that Al Gore is a science maven. They will parrot his absurd prognostications even when he goes from yakking incessantly about “global warming” to “climate change” without missing a beat, even though changing from one to the other is tantamount to warning people of a locust invasion one second and sounding the alert about an incoming comet the next.
But no self-respecting liberal would ever think to ask the man if by climate change, he meant that we were now facing the danger of global-cooling, and that we had better watch out for expanding icebergs and those marauding gangs of polar bears. Liberals don’t think twice about comparing George W. Bush to Hitler and Sarah Palin to a cheap slut, but they would never think of embarrassing one of their own with an honest question. One can easily picture Al Gore, whose cash register hasn’t stopped ka-chinging for even five seconds since he lost the 2000 election, saying in that self-reverential tone of his: “Are you going to believe me or that icicle hanging from your nose?”
Another thing about which all liberals agree is that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Recently, I even heard Bill O’Reilly insist that Obama’s birth certificate is a non-issue and that nobody really cares about it. By this time, I have come to regard the Number One Name in Cable News as a big blowhard, so his observation, needless to say, did nothing to change my opinion. But the truth is, a lot of people care about the birth certificate and Obama’s passport and what nationality he claimed to be on his college application. I know they do because they keep writing to me about these things. For my part, I hope Obama is an American citizen. I wouldn’t want to witness the inevitable riots in the streets of this nation if there were a move to depose him. I would much prefer to see Blue Dog Democrats join with Republicans to stop Cap & Trade and Obamacare in their tracks, and then have conservatives elected in record numbers in 2010. Nothing I’d enjoy more than seeing Obama turned into a lame duck for the last two years of his term, and see people like Harry Reid, Arlen Specter, Chris Dodd and Henry Waxman, turned into private citizens. And the more private, the better.
The hypocrisy of liberals is apparent in the fact that not a single one has expressed any concern over Obama’s refusal to offer up any of those documents or expressed the slightest alarm over the Constitution’s being treated like so much toilet paper. On the other hand, imagine how the NY Times and all its hand maidens in the MSM would be carrying on if, instead of being a left-wing ideologue, The Man Without a Country were a Republican!
When you get right down to it, the worst thing about cults is that, unlike the Jonestowners, they so rarely drink the right blend of Kool-Aid.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
178 Comments
Good article Burt, I couldn't agree more. I also think that one of the worst things that the left does is its self serving (politically) sales pitch that there is little that people can do to move up the economic ladder in this country. This is a bald face lie that gives the wrong impression to our youth. Patience, hard work, good choices and the virtues of experience and wisdom are sold short for grievance purposes by the cult that is liberalism.
They can try to have logical debates with the likes of a Christopher Hitchens, but in the end it all comes down to a couple of people getting red in the face, hollering “Is so” and “Is not” at each other.
You mean the Christopher Hitchens who wrote this?
http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/
The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.
It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.
The liberals elevate man to God status, which justifies an unquestioning mind.
"I would much prefer to see Blue Dog Democrats join with Republicans to stop Cap & Trade and Obamacare in their tracks, and then have conservatives elected in record numbers in 2010".
I would love to see that also, however based on past results when Republicans had the majorities in the house & senate, it sure seemed that Democrats still ran the show. They are either incapable or unwilling to play the game "to win", and are more concerned with the appearence of being "collegial" to the other side.
"…or expressed the slightest alarm over the Constitution’s being treated like so much toilet paper."
Please don't make too much hay out of this fact, as liberals by and large detest this document and purposefully elected a guy who is more worried about the omitted 'things the government must do for you,' than not doing the things the constitution prohibits him doing.
Liberals only care about one part of the Constitution: the First Amendment. And that only when it is used in the defense of porn, preferably NEA funded.
"Cult" seems to be good term but it is inadequate. The other day NT Times columnist Thomas Friedman published a piece extolling the virtues of "one party autocracies" such as China whose leaders can "get important things done" without unnecessary political distraction. More and more the beliefs of "bioethicists" such as Peter Singer who argue for a "duty to die" to conserve resources are moving from the way-out loony fringe to a respectable place in liberal opinion. Many liberals such as Obama appointee Mark Lloyd at the FCC are arguing that the idea of "free expression" is passe and that broadcasting and the internet should be under a centralized control so that only "constructive discussion" can take place on vital issues. I don't think that I'm an alarmist but the term "liberal" is taking on totalitarian and dictatorial overtones that a Jim Jones would be quite at home with.
Jim Jones would have voted for the Kenyan fraud.
You neglected by ommission to state the inverse -that liberals have reduced God to mere mortal status.
Just for the sake of accuracy it was Flavor Aid, not Kool-Aid.
The best label I see in reference to liberals is that they are indeed "fallen man" and comfortable with that condition – at least until Judgment Day.
I don't see how an atheist can be anything but conservative. I am an atheist and regard myself as using logic as much as possible. Ergo….Liberalism is out.
Summary: The failure of liberals to echo the insane fantasies of the birthers shows that liberals are cultists.
Birther cultists are the gift that keeps giving, since we liberals get to put them out front and center as the true face of conservatism. I even feel a bit sorry for the non-crazy conservatives. But only a bit. They spent decades courting these crazies for political gain, so now they get to deal with the downside of that.
Liberals are a cult of leftist Godless malcontents who hate everything America stands for. This is why we need to throw all these cultist we saw on TV in congress last night, out of office once and for all. These people are not Americans they are cultist and the cult is what they are loyal too. They are a cancer to the body politics and our liberty
Very interesting column and I agree with most of what you have written. I would like to make one observation about the birthers. I do not believe that the President was born outside of the United States, I do however based on the actions or more appropriately the inactions of the President on this issue believe that there is a reason that he is not releasing the birth certificate. I think that it would be, especially after this long be an embarrassment to him to release the document and have to explain why it says that Barack Obama is white. Hold on follow me here. If a baby is born (now I don't know if this was true in 60's HI but its true in the state I live in today but then again this is just my theory) of a mixed race couple the baby is declared to be the race of the mother on the certificate. She is the only parent at that point that can be deemed 100% as being the baby's parent (for obvious reasons of chain of custody). Now imagine the confusion uproar and general hoopla that would erupt form some folks if thats the case.
I presume that you can provide chapter and verse citations for these references???
"It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses."
I recently wrote that it was unfortunate that there is no vaccine, or cure for stupid, but when one comes along, please step to the head of the line.
You are obviously through ignorance or lack of reading comprehension unaware of the following facts:
She took on in a primary election the then sitting governor of Alaska. who was corrupt, but of her own party.
Not only did she defeat him in a primary, but she also defeated immensely popular democrat, and former governor Tony Knowles in the general election. Stupid huh? Moron?
Not bad for the elected Mayor of Wasilla.
You, of course, can demonstrate a much higher level of accomplishment….???
If she's such a lightweight, why did the pretender to the presidency single her and only her out, in his "most important speech ever?" on healthcare? Why does he care what she thinks…??
her bizarre religious and political affiliations
That right there explains everything Hitch says.
"The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace.
The uncharacteristically vague and slanderous diatribe by Hitchens above was obviously made in the heat of pre-election last year. It's wrong on all inferences. Hitchen's main political concern then and probably now has only to do with continuing war in the middle east (which he has taken on as a personal vendetta) and attacking any within either political party who suggests it may be time to end it.
Sarah Palin speaks plain truth from the traditional American perspective – a perspective the left, the MSM and the Democrat Party deeply detest, fear, and are hysterically passionate about wiping out.
I prefer my country back – and therefore support the fully admirable Sarah Palin in all her future efforts.
More accurately, Leftists elevate certain men to God status while likening the rest of mankind to livestock to be herded.
"For my part, I hope Obama is an American citizen. I wouldn’t want to witness the inevitable riots in the streets of this nation if there were a move to depose him." – Oh boy, another "birther" conspiracy theory fan. Kool Aid comes in many flavors, and I would suggest Birther-ism is one – perhaps 'bitter grape'.
Sort of like the Truthers? I got a mote, but you got a beam, pal. If you don't know what I mean, check out the Bible…it got pages and words, and you can read it…if you can read…
Burt can this be part of the cult of hypocrisy of liberals we are witness to?
Last night President Obama stood in the House Chamber to reveal his plan. But were is the Plan? I waited to see if the Plan would be posted on White House web site, I see no Plan! We can dissect the speech. But we cannot dissect the plan. We can count the lies but we cannot count on the Man. And here is why we cannot count on the Man EVER!
A few months back he stood in front of a Tele-prompter and said We are Not a Christian Nation. Last night he stood in the House Chamber, and in this chamber there is only one statement etched in marble, Only One. In this vast room only one Motto and no other. He stands last night proud to present his Plan confident to present his Plan he stands strong to present his Plan. I see no Plan only words and platitudes. Applause roars from his trained seals as he speaks in front of the house motto as he says to his seals "I will be the President to bring you health care like no other President has done before me and none will do after me." "I will bring you health. "I will save this nation." So many know the Motto he stands in front of, the only motto in the House Chamber. The only words etched in marble. The only words glaring right above his head.
Those are: In God We Trust
Yes both may be true, but I do believe the arrogant and condescending nature of liberals, combined with their blatant intellectual dishonesty, points toward them preferring to view themselves as Gods who cannot be questioned, rather than merely humans. I do not think they care for humans very much. As Mel Brooks said, "It's good to be king" or in the case of liberals, "It's good to be God"
yes…that and this –"The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud."
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
interesting
I don't see how the religious could be liberal.
So everyone should be conservative.
I think he was referring to the Hitchens who said, in his book, No One Left to Lie To", about, who else, Bill Clinton:
"It took no time to make up my mind that I wouldn't protect Clinton's lies, or help pass them along. I wasn't going to be the last one left to lie to."
He may hate Sarah Palin, (he hates Mother Teresa as well…so she's in good company) but at least he has shown himself CAPABLE of being honest with himself about those who claim to be champions of his ideological background. Sorry that you missed that one…
Yes, the birther silliness is damaging and distracting to the cause; especially since- even if by some miracle they were right, and conprove their theory conclusively- it wouldn't matter in the slightest. The Supreme Court would rule that once he's taken the oath of office it's too late, following established precedent regarding the age requirement for Congress.
Besides, we already know enough; it's no secret. Obama may be legally an American, but mentally he isn't. His heart and mind are of the post-colonial Third World, his mindset that of the assorted National Liberation Movements. Throw in his early mentors and associates, and Obama might as well have been educated at Moscow's Patrice Lumumba U. He's a chip off the old block: the son of the Muslim Marxist from Kenya may not be quite any of the above, technically: but he's on their side.
And Marxism and Islam are both cults.
I can't really classify "Liberalism" as either a cult or a religion, it is nothing more than an ideology. And a false one at that. I think I read this in Bernie Goldberg's book "Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right". He said "it is very easy to be a Liberal when there is no price to pay for your virtue". I think this is why so many entertainers and other wealthy people gravitate towards this ideology. It makes you feel good about yourself to believe you are on the side of the poor or downtrodden and you don't have to actually sacrifice anything of substance to be helping your fellow man. Liberalism, demands little of your time, or emotional energies, and even less of YOUR OWN money. Higher taxes are good for everyone right. It is an ideology adopted by lazy insecure non-thinking people who are very fake and phony in their true character. This is why there are so many patent hypocrisies involved throughout their belief system.
Yes, the birther silliness is damaging and distracting to the cause; especially since- even if by some miracle they were right, and could prove their theory conclusively- it wouldn't matter in the slightest. The Supreme Court would rule that once he's taken the oath of office it's too late, following established precedent regarding the age requirement for Congress.
Besides, we already know enough; it's no secret. Obama may be legally an American, but mentally he isn't. His heart and mind are of the post-colonial Third World, his mindset that of the assorted National Liberation Fronts, hostile to capitalism and caucasian society. Throw in his early mentors and associates, and Obama might as well have been educated at Moscow's Patrice Lumumba U. He's a chip off the old block: the son of the Muslim Marxist from Kenya may not be quite any of the above, technically: but he's on their side.
And Marxism and Islam are both cults.
As Christianity in Europe waned in uniform power throughout the 19th century, as Nietzsche proclaimed, “God is dead”, the new faith of Socialism arose in direct inverse correlation. All the notable (and invariably unending, grinding murder machine-like) Socialist movements from Bolshevism, Nazism, Maoism, the Khmer Rouge to the People’s Temple all attracted and perfected and then gave power unto and unleashed the fanatic—invariably with nameless horror as a result. To continue to embrace collectivism, Statism, Communism, Corporatism, Fascism or National Socialism despite the historical precedent absolutely requires religious fervor and irrationalist faith. Kool Aid drinkers, all.
What I find the most interesting is that the 9-11 Truthers do not get nearly the press that the Birthers do and their Flavor-Aid is just as bad (if not worse…."First time in history fire has melted steel" , apparently swords are just pulled from the ground that way….)
Mamooth is affirmed by most of these postings. Obama is no doubt native born, and the idiocy of maybe "white" makes no sense at all. Strictly speaking , we are all afican-american, or african-european, or african-asian . There is certainly a cultural construct for "race" and it is practiced by all cultures in some measure, always to diadvantage the perceived other. Obama is professed he is religious and not a Moslem. His character is very srong and moral. He certainly cannot be a family values republican .
I used exactly the same reasoning skills to reject leftism that I used to decide I don't believe the religion I was taught as a kid. A lot of us on the right these days are secular thinkers, and frankly the only way forward for the right is to make room for skeptics (and as I understand it that includes Breitbart too). Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I automatically am going to believe in liberalism.
It is a mistake to hammer atheists when rallying support against Obama. For better of for worse, the intellectual fraction of Gen X is far, far less religious than previous generations. The security of Christians and religious freedom for Christians requires respect and tolerance for agnostics and atheists. I'm perfectly happy to be a minority in a mostly-Christian nation and I believe most of us are. I think it's a fact of human nature that most people will be religious because I live in this world and can see around me how it is. I'd rather people have faith in the religion I was taught as a kid, than in the state, if for no other reason than pure self-interest! Christians don't pick-pocket me and use the money to make social problems worse, do they? Christianity works. I don't literally believe it but it works as a system to produce a society with room for me. I'm for it.
Backing up your premise of Liberalism-as-cult, Liberals love the messianic type. Over and over, Obama and elites have showered praise on men who stand above a messy thing called democracy and offer salvation in the form of 100% literacy, free wealth liberated from bad people, protection from angry sky spirits (see also Global Warming), etc.
Spot on, Burt!
"You, of course, can demonstrate a much higher level of accomplishment….???"
No, he CAN'T- he's a complete, unrepentant, un-apologetic IDIOT.
I prefer Michael Savage's take on Liberalism:
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Obama is probably an atheist given his proclivity for moral relativism. Trinity Church was convenience turned inconvenience. Obama was elected in part because of an unhealthy romanticizing of the "Other" in our society, a failing he was not above subtly criticizing his own mother for in his autobiography. Let’s all work toward color-blindness and no more ‘social constructs’, blah, blah, blah. Enough deconstruction! As to Obama’s strong moral character, the Machiavellian elimination of his primary challengers and general election opponent Jack Ryan during his Senate bid tell another story.
Jim Jones was quintessential man of the left. A pure idealogue that put himself above all else, including the lives of the people he professed undying love for. When his own future was destroyed he made plans to commit suicide, and he murdered 800 people to prevent them from exposing the truth about his Little House of Horrors after his death. I always laugh when leftwing cult members talk about Christian violence throughout history. In just the 20th century alone the left murdered over 70 million people. From Stalins Russia to Pol Pots Cambodia, they've left a trail of human misery and destruction that would make the Devil himself blush.
I don't know, man. I felt that way at one time, perhaps. But as an atheist, by what or by whom are you endowed with unalienable rights?
I think that what you say has been true in the past. the current groundswell of conservatism, I believe will lead to both parties being held more accountable for their actions.
The "can't we all just get along" tenor of the Republicans after the storm of 1994 will change, because simply, the people will not stand for continuing these practices.
To "go along to get along" will not be tolerated any further. it was never tolerated by the Democrats, and if we are to be successful, both we and our representatives need to take back the the creeping socialism we have been subjected to inch by inch until we arrive back at where we started, a government that fulfills it's Constitutional duties, and nothing more.
The price for freedom will be eternal vigilance. And turncoats from either party should rightfully fear for their political lives.
On the money, Burt.
Jonah Goldberg in LIBERAL FASCISM traces the roots of fascism back to Progressivism in the late 19th and early 20th Century America. Progressivism arose in large part from the Social Gospel movement, which rewrote the Gospels to create a "historical" Jesus as a 1st Century Community Organizer.
Obama's speech last night reflects this messianic worldview: if you are not in agreement with the President, you are a liar, a dupe, or a willing stooge of shadowy evildoers who stand in the way of his blueprint to lead us to heaven on earth.
Like Jesus multiplying loaves and fishes, the Obamessiah will miraculously expand healthcare coverage to millions more without raising costs or rationing care. He will make government bureacracies which have always expanded to absorb and overspend every dollar allocated to them recede like the stormy winds on the Sea of Galilee. For those with eyes and ears to hear, those styrofoam temple columns in Denver should have told us something.
It's time to be very afraid, but not to back down.
obama is a serial liar, a fraud and a complete charlatan.
he could fix health care, get the gov't both state and federal OUT of the picture so that people on one state could buy in another, it's called choice. Young people might want maternity coverage but old people do not. Old people want hip replacemaent coverage, the kids don't.
get the lousy trial lawyers [ambulance chasers] OUT of it..can't do THAT, they own the dem party.
But then he couldn't control the healthcare industry.
He could get us off foriegn oil, could have built 100 nuke plants for what he's given away to his friends and the unions who supported him, but they emit no carbon, so he could not TAX it and raise our electric rates like a "skyrocket.
His agenda is to re-make this country into a communist country and those bums on the hill are enabling him…toss them all out in 2010 while we can still save this republic that so many of us fought and bled to protect from someone just like him.
Actually Jack Ryan ended up being yet another not so family values republican. Obama comported himself with resraint. Mr. Ryan hung himself out to dry.
You're spot on with your interpretation of modern liberals (to differentiate between the current version and classical liberalism). If you ever have questions on the topic, feel free to email me. I used to be one, was raised by one, and just about every member of my family, neighbors and local friends are all still modern liberals.
I'd just like to add one comment concerning your opening paragraph, the reference to Hitchens. I've been figuring out why all the clash between, for lack of a better phrase, creationist v. evolutionists.
As near as I can figure out, the issue seems to boil down to who's definition of the word "creation" is superior. When religious people use the word, they mean Genesis from the Bible. Evolutionists mean the big bang theory.
The problems is, creation has multiple definitions.
. "On the other hand, imagine how the NY Times and all its hand maidens in the MSM would be carrying on if, instead of being a left-wing ideologue, The Man Without a Country were a Republican! "
Apparently Prelutsky was in suspended animation for the previous 8 years. The Commie NY Times carried the water for every Bush military & foreign policy disaster. Judith Miller took everything the Bush administration said about Iraq as gospel and ran with it. Thomas Friedman praised the Iraq invasion in the Times editorial pages. But these facts might get in the way of whining about the "liberal" media one more time.
Nice to see Prelutsky is being open and honest about being a BIRTHER though.
Don't get too caught up in the "liberals=cultists" talk either. Andrew Breitbart,the founder of this site writes for a paper owned by Rev. Sun Myung Moon,a convicted felon,who operates an actual cult. Moon's connections to republican causes go back about 30 years.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon7.html
Michael Savage is mentally disordered. That is the correct paradgm.
You are close . . . you can also consider the differences in beliefs about human nature; is it inherently good or bad. I would guess most conservatives believe it is bad, most liberals believe it is good. This makes a tremendous difference in your worldview and your level of skepticism of human behavior.
Jonah Goldberg has a rich fantasy life, part of which pretends he understands history and is capable of analysis of same.
Quick observation: when Obama says "We can all agree…" the subtext is, you'd BETTER agree. The One has already thought it through all of the possibilities and his Solomonic conclusion is the only correct one.
I would suggest extending that slightly. Modern liberals may think they believe humans are inherently good, but deep down they don't. They expect the worse in human behavior, which is one of the main reasons they prefer an all powerful government, in order to protect them from all the evil things in the world.
I was debating the second amendment with a dyed-in-the-wool modern liberal and a libertarian. And we managed to get the lib to admit his problem wasn't with his own personal liberty, he was afraid of what other people would do with their own personal liberty, and he wanted big government to protect him from others.
I would also contend the few conservatives I do know, they tend to believe (at least it seems so) in the goodness of human nature. It takes a lot of faith and trust in your fellow man to stand up for a stranger's right to bear arms, especially when so many fellow citizens are so damned sure that banning guns will solve all our problems.
and a social disease.
I would not call you an "atheist" simply because that word, as used today, can be misleading. Many self-designated "atheists" are, in fact, ANTI-theists. They may present themselves as general anti-theists, but in the West it usually turns out that they are specifically anti-Christian..or anti-Judeo-Christian, as it were. People like you are NOT in that category. I think "agnostic" or plain English "non-believer" is a better term!
One does not have to be a believer to appreciate the positive cultural impact of a religion and to wish that religion to prosper. I do not believe in Mormonism, but I respect their values and self-reliance. By the same token, I suspect that , even being a traditional Catholic, I would find far more in common philosophically with you, an "atheist," than I would with many "social justice Catholics." Why? Well, what you said. Because they put their faith in Caesar.
By our very status as sentient beings, perhaps? Animals and machines don't use reason or emotion or imagination. The only "emotions" they know are petty, primal urges that don't leave any room for rationality. Doesn't that sound like modern liberals?
Burt, tell it like it is brother. Kool-Aid is the liberal refreshment of choice, and Jim Jones is a shining example of a leftist meglamaniacal, eh…hmm… leader, like our Barry. We are indeed in dangerous waters with these ‘60s radicals and we must keep our eyes open for the promised assault on America, is here.
I never bought the whole "humans are inherently evil" thing either, and I consider myself pretty conservative–though perhaps a better term would be "classical liberal", as opposed to modern-day liberals who keep siding with evil instead of good. I think we have the potential to go either way. We simply need to be taught how to recognize and uphold the good. And we should definitely shy away from those who think the government is meant to babysit us.
Then how would a liberal reconcile the illogical proposition of concurrently believing that human nature is bad and also wanting a human based government to oversee them?
Man, that was almost word for word the way that I have thought for over half my middle aged life. Sort of follows the line of thoughts like: "Don't Tread on Me." and "Live and Let Live."
It's so easy to have dissidents label a group of similar thinking people cultists, but like Gerard says, you have to look at the outcome of that group of people. It's pretty easy to highlight the groups, religious or not, that bring something positive to society and are open and above board about what they believe.
I'm perfectly happy to be a minority in a mostly-Christian nation and I believe most of us are.
So do I. That's the basis of what brought this country together. We learned through many trials and efforts that we can be a very potent melting pot of diverse thoughts and backgrounds, and when we work together for what is "best" (that's a discussion for later), then this country has been, and once again, will be an example of the value of the American way of society.
How dare he try to link a Socialist cult leader to Socialist non cult leaders. Democrats have never stated that they are a cult. Burt Prelutsky is mean and insensitive.
Just the way I like it.
A modern liberal wouldn't. They don't understand the concept of logic and reason, there fore they can't understand the concept of illogical.
When you spell it out for them, they simply declare themselves the winner of the debate, and if you can't see that they obviously are, then its proof you're an idiot.
Here's how a modern liberal debates:
1. Repeat talking points as if they are gospel facts.
2. If that doesn't work, insist the reason you can't see they're right is proof of your stupidity.
3. Start on the insults, and repeat as many times as necessary, getting meaner and nastier as they progress.
4. Change the subject.
5. Ignore you altogether, then come back after a while, and then insist they've already won this debate before so you must be an idiot for not remembering that.
It has nothing to do with logic, reason or facts. It deals only with emotions. What ever makes a modern liberal feel morally superior is correct. Anything that contradicts that euphoria is wrong.
The political struggle with modern liberals will never be won through debate, reason and logic. It's a foreign language to them. If we spell it out so there's not a chance in hell they don't understand it, they'll just change the definition of words. Abortion becomes pro-choice. Socialized medicine becomes the public option to promote competition in the market place.
You will not defeat them as long as we allow them to set the definitions of words and concepts, and then use those to frame the debate in such a manner, that allows them to use their talking points. You will never convince them welfare reform is good, as long as they are convinced, welfare reform means you hate poor people, and want to see them suffer.
Examples to illustrate your statement? Because it IS just a statement. Not a "paradigm". Go look up the meaning of the word in the dic-tion-ar-y.
Yes, our society is suffering the symptoms of liberalism, that's certain.
Off point, but I do give props to the Hitch for being waterboarded. He says it was torture. For the Hitch, I suspect, getting out of bed without a fresh pack of smokes and a bottle of vodka is torture, however.
I didn't say there wasn't an element of creep to Mr. Ryan. However, suing to unseal the divorce records of your campain rival is slimy and not comporting oneself with restraint.
Please see SALON, Gene Lyons, "Is The GOP A CULT?", not definite but does show a preponderance of evidence for the affirmative. The regurge of the majority of not-so-bretbarters would seem to argue for cultish inclinations. There is no doubt that Andrew Breitbarts employer is head of a cult and a convicted criminal. Enjoy.
Wish I knew who to credit for this: "The difference between 'Republic of…' and 'People's Republic of…' is like the difference between 'chair' and 'electric chair'."
There is an infinite chasm between modern and classical liberalism. I can't say with any authority, but as I understand classical liberalism, its more concerned with things like, oh, say, liberty? Classical liberals, in my opinion, include James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Adam Smith. et. al.
There are multiple flavors of modern liberals. The most common form of modern liberal is some one who isn't overly political. They mostly go about their daily lives. They understand a little about classical liberalism, and for lack of paying attention, they think that's what modern liberals are selling. For the most part, those people can be fairly debated using logic and reason, and they will admit they at least need to rethink their positions.
Then you have your hard core modern liberals. Rev. Rights, the Professor Gates, The Keith Olbermans, the Bill Mahars, the Jon Stewarts, etc. They are making money off it, but they are true believers non the less. And so are a bunch of others who aren't smart enough to game the system and earn a living in politics. They are just as dangerous.
Then on top of them you have the real problem. The politicians, party leaders, MSM, union thugs, environmental wackos, etc. They are getting filthy stinking rich and powerful misleading the common modern liberal, and they're backed up by the hard core modern liberals, to prove they're right.
Know your enemy.
Thanks for the insight. Looks like a contentious future is in the cards for the USA. It will probably have to get really bad here to awaken enough people to stem the liberal tide.
"But the truth is, a lot of people care about the birth certificate and Obama’s passport and what nationality he claimed to be on his college application."
abso-freakin-lutely Burt, this clown is trying to dismantle a 230 year old country and I'm not sure he's legally
qualified to hold his office… like R.Reagan once said "trust,… but verify"
Obama did not bring the legal actions, the press did as well as continuing Ryan and ex discord.
"After all, be they Christians, Jews, Moslems or Buddhists, the truly devout accept the tenets of their religion on faith"
Actually, this is not accurate. (At least, not for some people.)
As a follower of Christ, I accept the tenets of my religion because I have sufficient evidence from history, archeology and fulfilled prophecy to believe that these people existed and these events actually happened.
Furthermore, there are many Christian philosophers and debaters who have dedicated their lives to take on people like Hitchens. They are able to make their case using facts and logic. They do not approach the issue saying, "believe it on blind faith".
I agree. We only need to look at his list of friends (Tony Rezko, Reverend Wright , Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, Bernardine Rae Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Father Michael Pfleger, George Soros and so on) to know what kind of man he is and what's worse is how blind these self professed "patriots" continue to miss the big picture regarding Obama. Now he is getting friendly with the likes of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chaves and voicing support for the wannabe dictator ex-Honduran president by threatening refusal to recognize the results of their Nov elections if they didn't reinstall Zelaya. And despite all this there are still those among us that defend his positions.
They are not endowed. They are simply an aspect of Man's nature to be recognized or violated.
Read Ayn Rand.
> > " …When you get right down to it, the worst thing about cults is that, unlike the Jonestowners, they so rarely drink the right blend of Kool-Aid…. " < <
Can't you just come right out and say it? You wish for all liberals to commit suicide so Righties can rule the country, unopposed. How very Christian-like of you, Burt.
I often wonder about those "liberal" Protestant churches that make much of their caring for the dispossessed and oppressed and yet support policies that will keep people dispossessed and oppressed. They railed against the Bush administration alleging nonsense about government oppression and suppression and yet support governments l ike Cuba that throw dissidents and outspoken Christians into jail. They wasted their compassion – the most misused word in the English language – on terrorists as they demanded we try to "understand" their grievances.and how we "oppressed" them and their countries. They rage against Israel but never condemn islamic terror. They preach against anything that will keep this country safe and punishing those who would do us harm. We may condemn haters like Jeremiah Wright but the same message is being preached with less histrionics in "liberal" protestant churches to "liberal" so-called Christians.
[...] the rest here: Burt’s Eye View: Liberalism is a Cult This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
The truth to liberals about themselves is always 'hateful language'. Also, you can't be a true Christian and be a liberal. It doesn't work as liberalism is a morally bankrupt belief system that is touted by those on the left as a 'better' alternative to the Christian religion.
Surprise! Conservatives are not a monolithic group (whether or not you consider Hitchens a conservative–on balance I think he is, but I know some who argue he isn't). Some of them, for instance, do not like Sarah Palin, while others do not consider cut out for the highest office in the land, at least not yet. Whether they're right is beside the point; the point is that unlike you and your leftist buddies, we can have disagreements and dialogue with each other without race/class/gender baiting or being forced to conform to what the elites tell us we should think.
Why, that's just silliness.
Homocidal maniacs need execution before they do decent people harm.
Hmmm. I have to say, your first sentence never really occurred to me. Not that I'm unaware of the existence of atheist conservatives, I simply tend to assume any particular atheist I meet or hear about is liberal until they demonstrate otherwise. Partly that's just because I'm sort of from the Bible Belt and almost every atheist in my area tends to be liberal, but I also think that it tends to be the case most of the time unless you're really, REALLY serious about your atheism. I believe there's a distinction to be made between the really committed atheists and the ones who inevitably get hooked on replacement, secular faiths, the kind who still believe in the ideals of Christianity but want to see them realized on earth instead of heaven. This would include socialism, communism, fascism etc., and is what I think Burt means when he talks about liberalism being a new faith or cult for many atheists. These of course are the ones who are most to be feared, because they get caught up in a fanaticism of their own and don't know when to stop. Case in point: everybody currently residing or working in the White House (Sasha and Malia excepted–maybe).
My guess is you are not a "modern liberal", my term, but consider yourself a "classical liberal", which I still consider myself.
There is a huge difference. The claims that good old fashioned classic liberals made that attracted me to their banner, have nothing to do with what the democrats and the modern liberals are selling these days.
What passes for liberalism today has stolen the banner from the classical liberalism I grew up on. As an avowed classical liberal (though leaning libertarian) I am appalled at what modern liberals have done to the name name. Also I'm out raged that more REAL liberals refuse to even acknowledge what's going on in the democratic party, much less demand an end to it.
Why the hell won't liberals take back their standard? Why do you willingly hand it over, on bended knee, to the likes of Obama, Manuel, Clinton, Matthews, etc., with out even a fight? Where is your classical liberal streak of fighting for what is really right?
"Obama has professed he is religious and not a Moslem. His character is very strong and moral. He certainly cannot be a family values republican."
Ignoring your little self-righteous sneer about Republicans, let me put it this way: I firmly believe that Obama firmly believes he is a Christian. That, of course, is not the same thing as actually being a Christian. As to his character, the same thing could almost be said. I think he is dedicated to a set of goals he sees as being "moral," and is willing to do almost anything to see them realized. The length to which he can/will/has gone to do so, however, calls that character into severe question.
My guess is you are not a "modern liberal", my term, but consider yourself a "classical liberal", which I still consider myself.
There is a huge difference. The claims that good old fashioned classic liberals made that attracted me to their banner, have nothing to do with what the democrats and the modern liberals are selling these days.
What passes for liberalism today has stolen the banner from the classical liberalism I grew up on. As an avowed classical liberal (though leaning libertarian) I am appalled at what modern liberals have done to the name. Also I'm out raged that more REAL liberals refuse to even acknowledge what's going on in the democratic party, much less demand an end to it.
Why the hell won't liberals take back their standard? Why do you willingly hand it over, on bended knee, to the likes of Obama, Manuel, Clinton, Matthews, etc., with out even a fight? Where is your classical liberal streak of fighting for what is really right?
To be honest, I'm not sure I know the diff between the terms. I just know that I'm not conservative anymore, and that most of my positions on issues, etc., do not line up in the conservative column. And I used to be very conservative. Voted Repub most of my life 'til Obama. And I campaigned for him.
I'm probably more moderate in some ways, or more like a born-again Liberal, perhaps a toddler in the Liberal ranks? Not sure it's quite so definable.
So I find the big generalizations about either side to be just dopey.
You got me, it is statement. Michael Savage, Rush, Beck and others are continuing proof of PT Barnums remarks about not going broke by underestimating a portion of the American public being true.
I'm not exactly sure on the "official" definitions of the terms, mostly because I don't worry too much about people's opinion who tend to be anally retentive. So I freely admit, my definitions are my own.
As I see classical liberalism, its the flavor espoused by the likes of George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, and the rest of the magnificent generation who understood, and indeed staked their very lives on the concept that all men (people) are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator (what ever their own personal definition) with certain unalienable rights, among them, life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
For modern liberals, that's heresy. The only way civilization can possibly survive is to have a bunch of so-called 'well intentioned' bureaucrats make every one's every decision because We The People are nothing but chattel, and can't possibly figure out what's best for ourselves.
If I may suggest some reading, if you are interested, here are a couple of great books:
American Creation. Each chapter deals with a specific issue that affected and formed early America's culture.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Creation-Triumphs-...
1776. David McCullough's awesome interpretation of the most decisive year in American History. It's amazing to read. America didn't declare independence from King George, Britain declared war on the founding fathers.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alia...
And as always, anything that comes out of Reason or Cato
http://reason.tv/
I'm not exactly sure on the "official" definitions of the terms, mostly because I don't worry too much about people's opinion who tend to be anally retentive. So I freely admit, my definitions are my own.
As I see classical liberalism, its the flavor espoused by the likes of George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, and the rest of the magnificent generation who understood, and indeed staked their very lives on the concept that all men (people) are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator (what ever their own personal definition) with certain unalienable rights, among them, life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
For modern liberals, that's heresy. The only way civilization can possibly survive is to have a bunch of so-called 'well intentioned' bureaucrats make every one's every decision because We The People are nothing but chattel, and can't possibly figure out what's best for ourselves.
If I may suggest some reading, if you are interested, here are a couple of great books:
American Creation. Each chapter deals with a specific issue that affected and formed early America's culture.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Creation-Triumphs-...
1776. David McCullough's awesome interpretation of the most decisive year in American History. It's amazing to read. America didn't declare independence from King George, Britain declared war on the founding fathers.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alia...
And as always, anything that comes out of Reason or Cato
http://reason.tv/
Oh ho ho, you got us good with that Kool-Aid reference. So worrying that an attempt to remove Obama would cause rioting (indicating a placing of public order and calm over one's personal dislike of the man) is evidence of a conspiracy theory? Yep, you keep telling yourself that.
That might be more convincing, if you actually provided anything to back it up.
What do you mean it won't matter? It most certainly will matter. It will demonstrate that the President, who takes a solemn oath upon the assumption of office to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, did, with full knowledge and malice aforethought, subvert and betray that selfsame Constitution in order to unlawfully obtain his position. He is therefore, unequivocally, a liar and a traitor to the very law he asks us to believe he gives a shit about.
Granted, anyone with half a brain already knows he's a liar and a leftist revolutionary, but showing that he is not a natural-born citizen, as the law requires, and that he knew it when he ran, will remove any possibility of denial on the part of his co-conspirators in government and in the population at large.
You do know that the way was finally cleared this week by a California federal judge for a trial on these matters to proceed, and a court date set for January, 2010, right? It's inconceivable that a case like this would be allowed to go forward, particularly in light of the pressure exerted by the Justice Department to kill it (not to mention the public opposition), unless there was a clear interest on the part of the People, as well as sufficient evidence of possible wrongdoing. We are going to find out what's going on here one way or the other, and while even a finding of illegality may not result in the removal of Obama from office, it will surely (and rightly) cripple him and prevent him from doing great harm for the remainder of his one term in office..
Good article. I don't see a happy ending to this whole chapter in American history. The leftists are so narcissistic they won't and can't quit as they are in a trance. The right will not put up with having our country being overtaken from within and there will be in my opinion an event which will trigger the inevitable clash. Of course the conservatives will win as they are principled and the left are cowards. We aren't quite there yet but with a true leftist leader like Obama it won't be much longer.
I always respect Hitchens for what he has to say because, regardless of his position, it is always reasoned and informed. I don't mind if someone disagrees with my point of view, as long as their reasoning is sound and they are intellectually honest. Christopher Hitchens is a true iconoclast, and the world needs more of those.
I always respect Hitchens for what he has to say because, regardless of his position, it is always reasoned and informed. I don't mind if someone disagrees with my point of view, as long as his reasoning is sound and he is intellectually honest. Christopher Hitchens is a true iconoclast, and the world needs more of those.
Right on the money, Burt.
You know, I was watching an old episode of 'Dragnet' that you had written (the one where Howard Hesseman postulates the singular of 'fuzz' as 'fizz') and intently trying to figure out which side of the fence you were on back then.
I'm still not sure, but certainly glad you're on 'our' side now. Just like Ronald Reagan.
[...] Burt’s Eye View: Liberalism is a Cult – Big Hollywood [...]
I don't believe that "drinking the Kool-Aid" is really correct here.
I've always understood the connotation of that phrase as to mean the "drinker" is voluntarily doing something ultimately damaging to him- or herself. That references back to the "Kool-AId" (really Flavor Aid, as previously noted) at Jonestown.
I believe that many people pushing President Obama's "reform", on the other hand, go far beyond that… they seem to honestly believe that they are doing the right thing, and voluntarily doing something ultimately damaging to themselves *and others*.
To that end, I've started using the phrase "drinking Obama's wee wee", in reference to the President's turn of phrase of people getting "wee weed up". At least, until a better term (or explanation of the President's phrase) comes along.
What are you, on retainer for the Kool-Aid Corporation?
: )
J Michael, I would like to become a genius liberal like you. What do I need to do to sign up?
It seems like all I need to do is go on to conservative boards and tell everyone how stupid or racist or extremist he is. Oh, and sexist!
"Oh boy, another 'birther' conspiracy fan."
Earth to dumbass: no one has alleged any "conspiracy" that I know of, beyond the small group that would know about it if in fact the "birthers'" allegations turn out to be true. You people sling cliches and slogans around with abandon and then flatter yourselves that you've refuted the argument. You haven't. You've simply torched a straw man of your own construction. Not one person in ten even understands the "birthers'" case, much less is equipped to address it rationally and substantively (for instance, the issue is not whether Barry is a citizen, but rather whether he's a *natural born* citizen, which is what the Constitution–the law of this land–requires, whether you "living and evolving document" liberals like it or not).
Second, being willing to give a hearing to people who allege a Constitutional violation would have been considered one's solemn *duty* back in the day when Americans were sober thinkers and jealous defenders of Liberty. How telling that you deride Mr. Prelutsky as a birther "fan" simply for listening to what the birthers have to say.
You're right, J. Michael. First of all, imagine how lowlife and dirty Ryan was, as well as totally lacking in family values for wanting to have sex with his wife. You are also correct in stating that Obama's campaign did not sue to unseal Ryan's divorce records, which both he and Jeri Ryan wanted sealed, partially to protect their autistic son from the messiness of their divorce, and partially to protect Mrs. Ryan from a stalker. Instead the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent numerous emails to reporters about the Ryans' divorce until the Chicago Tribune filed suit for them. This was the same thing they did to Blair Hull, the Democratic candidate opposing Obama in the 2004 State Senate primary. Total coincidence that both individuals who were standing in the way of Obama winning the Senate seat were defeated after the Tribune suddenly took an interest in the circumstances surrounding their divorces. I'm sure Obama had nothing to do with that at all.
Jeremiah Wright's racist Hate-a-Rama is not "Christian" by any meaningful definition of the term.
Personally I doubt Obama worships anything but himself.
You must be logged in to post a comment.