How do you respond to Bill Maher's new movie and vendetta against religion, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation's recent billboards attacking religion? Dr. Darryl DelHousaye, the brilliant President and Co-Founder of Phoenix Seminary, refutes their attacks better than anyone.
Dr. Darryl DelHousaye, co-founder and President of Phoenix Seminary, has a powerful response to the "Imagine No Religion" billboards that popped up around the country this year, and Bill Maher's movie "Religulous," which makes fun of religion.
Pastor DelHousaye gave a lecture today in Phoenix on these two latest threats to Christians and religion generally. The following is taken from that talk. "Imagine No Religion" billboards are the latest aggressive efforts from the Freedom from Religion Foundation to eradicate religion out of public life. FFRF put up five billboards in Phoenix last month. Every year during the Christmas season, the FFRF puts up a billboard in Wisconsin, denouncing religion and calling it a fairytale. The "Imagine No Religion" theme is based on the John Lennon song "Imagine," which longs for a society with no religion – because it makes the assumption that religion is associated with violence.
FFRF was co-founded by a mother and daughter team. Daughter Annie Gaylor wrote a book entitled, "Women Without Superstition : No Gods – No Masters," apparently developing her anti-religious views from associating religion with men in power. She is married to Dan Barker, a former Pentecostal minister who became an atheist and wrote a book called "Losing Faith in Faith." Membership fees fund the billboards and other activism.
FFRF has cleverly started using the term "non-theist" instead of atheist, in order to rid themselves of the negative connotations associated with atheism. FFRF claims that it promotes freedom to think, which is a bit odd considering the last I checked, we were still a free country.
Taking advantage of the politically correct hostility towards religion as a result of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, FFRF took out a full-page ad in the New York Times generally linking terrorism to religion. The ad declared, "One of the lessons of 9/11 is that there is no greater source of terrorism, strife, bloodshed, persecution or war than religion."
Also taking advantage of the current fad of attacking religion is left wing humorist Bill Maher. He is the self-declared new agent against Christians and religion. Maher is doing quite well because he is likable, articulate, smart, and entertaining. He claims that religion is dangerous because it stops people from thinking, since they think they know all the answers. His theory is that if you're no longer a free thinker then you're going to lose your freedom. Maher has called religion a "neurological disorder that justifies crazies." He compares religion's promise of an afterlife with empty promises by politicians.
This year Maher produced a movie called "Religulous," a play on the words religious and ridiculous. It mocks several religions, but conspicuously leaves out Buddhism and Hinduism, probably because Maher considers them "nonviolent" religions, since they don't teach that other religions are not valid. The movie contains nudity and foul language, so it is not recommended.
In order to portray Christians negatively, Maher interviews people on the fringe who are not representative of the Christian faith, such as a trucker who happened to stop by a chapel for a rest break.
One sympathetic critic, Andy Clarkson from Capitalism Magazine, admitted that the movie left viewers with no positive alternative to religion. He criticized Maher for "doing nothing more than continuing the mindless battle between mysticism and skepticism…"
Maher says his beef with Christians is that they should ask more Christlike. Well, who doesn't agree with that? Maher expects Christians to get angry at the movie. He wants them to get angry, because it will show nonbelievers "an angry face of Jesus," and drive up sales.
But showing nonbelievers an angry response isn't going to draw people to Christ. The anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires.
One of the most common reasons nonbelievers claim they dislike religion is because they say it's full of hypocrites. They describe religion as if it's just a composite of hypocrites. If their description was accurate, who wouldn't agree with wanting to eradicate it? Even Jesus agrees with eliminating the hypocrites. In Matthew 23 he strongly condemns the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees. Over and over again, he repeats, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites." He lists their self-righteous hypocrisies, and says, "On the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing."
Just because there are hypocritical people in the Christian church does not mean they are Christians. Jesus said that not everyone who calls him Lord is his disciple.
According to Jesus, the Christian religion is not to be defined by what we say, it's what we do: visiting orphans and widows, living a Christian life, not a worldly life. Now, imagine a world without the Christian charity and kindness.
FFRF is wrong when they claim that religion is responsible for the worst events in history. There has been more bloodshed under the name of atheism than under the worst Christian hypocrites. There are several recent examples. Hitler called Christianity a disease and predicted he would see its demise. Under the Third Reich, 11 million people were slaughtered. Karl Marx started communism based on an atheist philosophy. Stalin and Mao Tse Tsung adopted Marx's communist rule, killing tens of millions. Under the atheist Pol Pot regime, around 2 million lost their lives, about one quarter of the population of Cambodia.
Atheists like to argue that the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity prove that it is bad. But the reverse could also be true – the wonderful charitable things that have been done in the name of Christianity could equally prove that it is valid.
Christians aren't required to be defense attorneys and defend the actions of others in the past who we don't know. Anyone can say they are a Christian, but it doesn't mean they are one.
Next time someone attacks Christians with the usual lines, calling them hypocrites and judgmental, etc., tell them that you are a Christian and ask them if they believe that about you. Matthew 5:13 says that Christians are to be the salt of the world. This means they are supposed to temper the evil in the world. It does not mean they are capable of completely eradicating it all, however, because salt cannot permanently keep meat from spoiling, but can only do some good.
Most atheists aren't going to give you more than three minutes of their time to convince them of the validity of Christianity. The best you can do is to not be a hypocrite, show them why you have hope by telling them your story in three minutes. Dr. DelHousaye's wife Holly runs a ministry called SoulWork.com, which assists Christians with creating a 3-minute compelling testimony of their story for $10 (https://server22.lfchosting.com/jc724web/soulwork/curriculum.htm – click on Chapter 1). And maybe Bill Maher will meet some real Christians and interview them for a movie, "Imagine an Accurate Portrayal of Religion."
Can’t live up to the message? So put it down. Don't psychologists have a term for this?
It is very difficult to live according to the Gospel, impossible to live up to what Maher and other atheists demand: for all Christians to be perfect. How difficult is it to be an atheist?
Proof that God exists:
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant, I noticed my server had on an "Obama 08" tie; again I laughed, as he had given away his political preference — just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to
redistribute his tip to someone whom I deemed more in need — the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10, and told him to thank the server inside, as I've decided he could use the money more than the server. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
Then I remembered that restaurants are required to report servers' sales to the IRS. The IRS assumes an average tip of 8%, and servers have to pay income tax on it. So, our "Obama 08" server would have to pay income tax on a tip that he never got!
Who says there is no God?
I have little doubt that Maher ran into some real Christians and not the caricatures that he and his buddies love to use to falsely characterize everyone. Problem is, the footage was probably too embarrassing for him to show and was left in the cutting room floor. People doing good in the name of Christ? Perish the thought!
Sedona — I have passed your story on to a dozen people. It's a perfect metaphor for the Obama tax plan!
Phil:
Except for the part I added about proof of God and the IRS, the story is fiction — author unknown.
Sedona — yeah, I figured as much. But it makes a great metaphor anyway.
I'm a politically-moderate agnostic. I am not an atheist. I voted for Reagan and the first Bush and Clinton. Right up front, I'll mention I don’t believe civilization as we know it today would exist without organized religion. Prior to organized religion, tribalism was everything. If someone didn’t belong to your tribe, then they were enemies. Think Africa or pre-Columbus Native Americans. Organized religion expanded people’s concept of tribe to much larger groups. Only this enabled the advent of cities and cooperation between dissimilar peoples in a whole region. However, the tribalism remains: if someone doesn’t belong to one’s own religion, then they must be enemies. I'll give some credit to atheists, who don't seem to suffer from tribalism.
Now to the topic of the article.
The fundamental conflict between atheists and the majority of religious denominations is this:
• The religious abhor the concept of a world without God. One presumption is that humans without God are evil.
• Atheists abhor when the religious force their beliefs on everyone, justified simply because they hope God exists.
Nothing will ever reconcile the two perspectives. Where atheists do not believe in God because they see no proof, the devout believe in God, without proof, because they want to.
I agree with the author that "the angry face of Jesus" will not produce positive results. I also agree that not all people to claim to be religious are hypocrits.
However, I don't believe avoiding acting angry is enough to "draw people to Christ". Just like I wonder why truly wonderful, thoughtful Muslims (I've met some) can't restrain their nut-cases, I wonder why truly wonderful, thoughtful Christians don't speak out against self-proclaimed 'Chistian' attack-dogs. Rabid, agressive anti-"liberal" hatred gives every Christian a bad name.
On the topic in the article about how the FFRF claims it “promotes freedom to think”, and how it presumes religious people don't think. For the sake of discussion, let me point out some reasons atheists have this impression.
For example, evolution. To an atheist, anybody who does not recognize that evolution is the best-fit explanation for why life is as it is, simply hasn’t thought about how DNA works. To an atheist, it’s not a matter of needing proof of evolution, because it fits the evidence so well and no invisible powers are required. Even Pope John Paul II agreed that evolution is the best explanation.
The fact that many religious people base their vote primarily on whether a candidate believes abortion should be legal is another clear example. It is grossly naïve to think making abortion illegal will stop abortions. Think about why abortion is legal today: it’s partly because freedom of religion is protected in the US constitution, but also because so many women were dying from illegal abortions. Legal abortions actually saves lives, the woman’s. Yes, the concept of killing a human fetus is abhorrent to religious people, and to many atheists too for that matter. However, the “Christian” attempts to make abortion illegal not only infringes on the liberty of everyone, it also fails to recognize it is only God’s prerogative to judge. Besides, anti-abortion efforts fail to consider what the penalty should be for having an illegal abortion. Life in prison? Death penalty? What about mothers who have strong motivations for an abortion? Should her other kids go without their mother?
Here is a different kind of example. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, when cigarette companies were faced with huge liability lawsuits, their lawyers did something in the media that they normally do in courtrooms: they attacked the credibility of scientists. How did they do this? By funding public attacks questioning evolution. Why? Because if questioning evolution becomes ingrained in the public, then it’s a fairly simple jump to question a scientist’s claims that smoking is bad for one’s health. Their plan worked pretty well at first, but now half the population of the country thinks it is wrong to think evolution is a good explanation for how God created life.
Another example of why atheists accuse religious people of not thinking comes right at the fundamentals of Christianity. How can a Christian go to a “bible study” class and not learn about the remarkable similarity of the Gilgamesh flood and the Noah flood? Guess which story came first? How can a Christian believe in the immaculate conception, despite the fact that bible scholars recognize the immaculate conception was invented by the Catholic church in the 7th century to impress the masses? How gullible can people be?
Does it not seem suspect that the first recorded evidence of a religion espousing a single, all-powerful God was in Egypt? The same place a man named Moses hung out for awhile? Is it not interesting that the Pharaoh who invented monotheism did so in order to consolidate his power throughout all Egypt? This is because it is far easier to convince a people believing in a single god to fight against those of another faith. The Pharaoh’s problem was, people who believe in multiple gods are more accepting of other people’s gods. He cleverly leveraged the human dendency for tribalism to achieve his goals.
Still another case: How can anyone believe Fox news is “fair and balanced”? The problem is, Fox news successfully make the word “liberal” mean “bad” in their viewer’s minds, then they claim any news organization that isn’t Fox news is “liberal”. A person of average intelligence looks like a genius to a moron, and a moderate looks like a liberal to a conservative. The so-called ‘liberal’ media is actually moderate. Remember Monica Lewinsky? If the media was truly liberal, it wouldn't have given blanket coverage to the story.
The examples are seemingly endless. Here’s a parting thought: Jesus was a liberal. Honest. Think it through.
LambKabobWithFeta:
Re: “…if questioning evolution becomes ingrained in the public, then it’s a fairly simple jump to question a scientist’s claims…”
Waitaminnit. Wait just one cotton-pickin’ minnit. It’s the atheists, among others, who insist we question everything.
Re: “To an atheist, anybody who does not recognize that evolution is the best-fit explanation for why life is as it is, simply hasn’t thought about how DNA works.”
Evolution might currently be “the best-fit explanation for why life is as it is,” but evolution needs matter to work on, and evolution doesn’t explain where its matter came from. You might explore the Second Law of Thermodynamics and ponder an explanation on how the universe got into a reduced state of entropy.
Re: “Atheists abhor when the religious force their beliefs on everyone…”
I love this one. Virtually every law ever conceived by man is an attempt to force someone’s beliefs on everyone. Take speed limits for example. Speed limits are the result of the moral belief that you do not have the right to endanger others excessively. What about those of the religion of environmentalism forcing people to believe in global warming? Not too many on the Left side seem to have a problem with them forcing that on everyone, and I haven’t heard any atheists complain about its being forced on them.
Re: “How can anyone believe Fox news is ‘fair and balanced’?”
Do you remember Buckley’s program Firing Line and his two-hour debates? Liberals characterized them as “conservative” although liberal guests got just as much time to speak as conservatives.
Re: “A person of average intelligence looks like a genius to a moron…”
I’m not sure the meaning of this is clear to me. Are you saying that Fox political commentators are average, and their viewers are morons; or that Fox pits moron liberal commentators against average intelligent conservatives ones? In either case, I don’t think Maura Liason and Juan Williams are only average or even morons. Then again, perhaps I’m the moron.
Re: “…a moderate looks like a liberal to a conservative. The so-called ‘liberal’ media is actually moderate.”
That statement is self-refuting.
Look at PBS’s News Hour, a program I use to watch religiously [if I can use that term]. I quit watching it when they did a complete makeover of their staff [save one] to hard Leftists who sat around and endlessly discussed only those questions of interest to them.
Methinks that those who say Fox is not “fair and balanced” and that Big Media is "moderate" are liberals/Leftists who would just as soon not hear certain questions addressed, and a “conservative” program is one in which a conservative guest actually gets to express an opinion.
"Here’s a parting thought: Jesus was a liberal. Honest. Think it through."
Nice try, you fail. If Jesus was a liberal, then why don't the liberals try to woo over the Jesus crowd with their similarities?
Jesus was apolitical. His messages were of love and compassion, not of big government and redistribution of wealth. In other words, he wanted us to help the poor, not make everyone poor.
LambKabobWithFeta:
How was Jesus liberal?
[...] Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy FFRF is wrong when they claim that religion is responsible for the worst events in history. There has been more bloodshed under the name of atheism than under the worst Christian hypocrites. There are several recent examples. Hitler called Christianity a disease and predicted he would see its demise. Under the Third Reich, 11 million people were slaughtered. Karl Marx started communism based on an atheist philosophy. Stalin and Mao Tse Tsung adopted Marx's communist rule, killing tens of millions. Under the atheist Pol Pot regime, around 2 million lost their lives, about one quarter of the population of Cambodia. [...]
Anderson:
Jesus was not a liberal. If you think he was, show me in the Bible where he was for:
Abolition of private property
Abolition of tradition
Abortion
Adultery
Affirmative Action
Aid and comfort for America’s enemies
"Alternative lifestyles"
Anti-Americanism
Anti-democracy
Anti conservative speech
Anti school-choice
Anti-subsidiarity
Appeasement of America’s enemies
Assisted suicide
Bondage and sado-masochism workshops in universities
Citizenship for known terrorists
Coddling of Criminals
Death taxes
Defeat for the U.S. (Priority #1)
Defiance of any and all authority
Distribution of condoms in K-12
Diversity (except viewpoint)
Drug legalization
Euthanasia
Female masturbation workshops in universities
Forcing liberal beliefs on others
Fornication
Glorification of debauchery
Godless Marxism
Gun Control
"Hate" crimes laws
Hate for the Christian religion
Hate for those of faith (except Islamics and Islamic bombers)
Homosexual special rights
Individual human will (will to power) being the ultimate good
Intolerance of the good
Isolationism
K-12 Indoctrination into Godless Marxism
K-12 Indoctrination into homosexuality
K-12 sex education
Lack of moral clarity
Moral equivalency
Moral Relativism
Multi-culturalism
Nietzscheism
Obliteration of God from the public square
Parole of vicious criminals
Pedophilia (except by Catholic priests and Republicans)
Polylogism
Pornography
Pornography in public schools
Pro-Europeanism
Racial quotas
Radical egalitarianism
Redistribution of OTHER peoples’ money
Revisionism
Release of known terrorists
Same-sex "marriage"
Sodomy (again, except by Catholic priests and Republicans)
Speech codes
Tolerance of evil
Tolerance Über Alles
UN one-world government
Unlimited government
Unlimited taxation
"Victimless" crimes
Voting rights for aliens (legal or otherwise)
Voting rights for felons
Sedonaman, you misread my comment. I was responding to LambKabobWithFeta by quoting his parting thought. However, your response to his "Jesus was a liberal" is much stronger than mine.
Which brings up the obvious question: Why hasn't he responded to our request for information?
Anderson:
Thanks for your kind words and for pointing out my error.
Do people even know what "liberal" means anymore? The list that sedonaman gave reeks of paranoia and…just out and out craziness. Are the hardcore right conservatives in the U.S. that desperate?
I mean, look at some of these things:
"Abolition of private property"
Liberals want to abolish private property? News to me.
"Abortion"
This is a conservative vs liberal issue?
"Adultery"
Liberals are for adultery? Really?
"Anti-democracy"
Liberals are anti-democratic? Huh?
"Defeat for the U.S. (Priority #1)"
Liberals want to destroy the US? *snicker*
"Defiance of any and all authority"
Zuh?
"Diversity (except viewpoint)"
How can diversity not include that of viewpoints?
"Hate for the Christian religion"
Really? Like what?
"Forcing liberal beliefs on others"
What are these beliefs? Forcing them how?
"Homosexual special rights"
What special rights? Be specific
"K-12 Indoctrination into Godless Marxism
K-12 Indoctrination into homosexuality"
What indoctrination? The schools are teaching godless marxism and forcing the kids to be homosexual or something? Please.
"Lack of moral clarity
Moral equivalency
Moral Relativism"
Whose morals, precisely, should we follow and why?
"Multi-culturalism"
This is bad why? Who gets to decide on what the one, perfect, proper culture should be? Which culture is that?
"Obliteration of God from the public square"
The US is a secular country. It was set up that way from the beginning. Or maybe you don't like church state separation?
"Pedophilia (except by Catholic priests and Republicans)"
Who is condoning pedophilia by Catholics and Republicans?
"Pornography"
What is the conservative hangup about sex?
"Pornography in public schools"
There's pornography in public schools? Details please.
"Sodomy (again, except by Catholic priests and Republicans)"
Who is condoning sodomy by Catholic priests and Republicans? Then again, I guess this depends on your definiton of sodomy. Are we living in the Old Testament now?
Some of this is so far out in left field it's beyond ridiculous.
Uima,
I'm only guessing what sedonaman might mean by some of what he's written, but your responses (actually, non-responses)are less than intellectuat. Typing the word "huh," "really," and "news to me" do not constitute an engagement of ideas.
Private property: Any thinking person can discern that Leftists (I prefer this term to "Liberals") are attacking property rights. Kelo. Anti-smoking laws. Open space requirements. Sidewalk requirements. Nature trail set asides. Further, income tax is an abridgement of property rights, since it forces law abiding citizens to part with the fruit of their labor (labor is also property).
Abortion is a conservative issue, since social conservatives are conservative. Leftists love to kill pre-born babies, while social conservatives love life.
Anti-democracy: Leftists don't like people deciding for themselves how to vote. That's why leftists use the courts to force through their agenda without bothering with the inconvenience of putting their ideas up for a vote. Google Acorn to see how much leftists hate the democratic process.
Diversity of viewpoint: Again, thousands of examples are available to any inquiring mind. Speech codes, censoring religious expression, shouting down conservative speakers on college campuses, preventing coaches from praying along with their teams, Fairness Doctrine, etc, etc.
"The US is a secular country." No it isn't. Uima, an unsupported assertion on your part only requires a summary denial on mine. Make you case from history.
"What is the conservative hangup about sex?" Conservatives aren't hung up about sex. What is the leftist obsession with sex?
I guess I could go on, but Leftists seldom see reality, only their carefully constructed straw men.
I saw 'Religulous' because my dad wanted to. I wasn't terribly impressed. He showed a lot of weirdos, but didn't really relate it to his thesis the religion itself was bad, he didn't show a causal link. Something he should have understood was Larry Niven's quip, "There is no cause so noble that it will not attract some kooks." You can't use the kooks to discredit a position (e.g. Ashley Todd).
On the other hand, those who treat 'Religulous' as the pinnace of atheistic argument would do well to remember that, too…
Mountain Man:
Pretty close to what I had in mind. Thx.
Let me address just a few others for Uima.
“This [abortion] is a conservative vs. liberal issue?”
Yes. Conservatives maintain the human person as made in the image and likeness of God. This is where we get the idea that all are created equal. You cannot maintain the human dignity of all and at the same time destroy the most helpless. Liberals / Leftists on the other hand, do not believe this.
It’s no secret that liberals / Leftists run the universities. That is where ideas originate and migrate out to the society at large. Only they would come up with female student masturbation workshops and call them “academic studies” so they could get funding http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2006/01/30/why_i_don%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2t_take_feminists_seriously,_part_iv . If you page down to reason #13, you will find a link to Grinnell College. Click on the link and you will get the following message: “Note: The Article entitled ‘How To Love Your Body’ has been removed due to it [sic] being used without permission, an infringement of copyright. If you would like the article, please contact the webmaster.” Go to http://www.amazon.com/Feminists-Say-Darndest-Things-Politically/dp/1595230424 and read the paragraph “From Publishers Weekly” for additional comments. This is only one of the more outrageous things promoted by the liberals / Leftists.
“Whose morals, precisely…”
This itself kinda answers its own question.
“Who is condoning pedophilia by Catholics and Republicans?”
You misread my statement. I meant that liberals support pedophilia [except by Catholics and Republicans].
“Who is condoning sodomy by Catholic priests and Republicans?”
Again, you misread my statement. I meant that liberals support sodomy [except by Catholics and Republicans].
"Defiance of any and all authority"
Yes. Revolution is at the heart of Leftism. You haven’t heard them complain about hierarchy in society? (E.g., “Schools should not create differences between students who know more and those who know less.” – Leftist complaint about an academic recognition program.)
“How can diversity not include that of viewpoints?”
Easy. You just establish a speech code. E.g., criticize Obama, and you are a racist. If there is a college or university that doesn’t have one, I’d like to know which one it is. These codes are universally selectively enforce against Christians and conservatives in general. Affirmative action bake sales are a method of protest against affirmative action http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/4133.html?PHPSESSID=6698c8eaf05314e02fffd28172917276 . Universities, again run by liberals / Leftists have tried to shut them down.
"Hate for the Christian religion Really? Like what?"
You must not have read the part about Bill Maher above. He is making a career out of Catholic bashing http://www.catholicleague.org/release_quarter.php?year=2008&month_begin=4&month_end=6 .
"Forcing liberal beliefs on others. What are these beliefs? Forcing them how?"
That all the things I’ve listed are “acceptable”. They are being forced through “hate crimes” laws, for one, and speech codes as I’ve stated above, for another.
I could go on, but space and time limit. Let me close by stating that the liberal/Leftist message is one Big Lie because it sets up man as the arbiter of morality. This lie must be propagated, that’s why they fight so hard to prevent things like school vouchers.
Religulous might not be the pinnacle of the anti-atheist argument, but Bill Maher might be.
Anderson,
Well said!
I would go further and say that Maher's "arguments" are simply a little less elegant anti-theism, but the same substance in a coarser form. It's still the typical atheist tripe.
sedonaman:
"Yes. Conservatives maintain the human person as made in the image and likeness of God. This is where we get the idea that all are created equal. You cannot maintain the human dignity of all and at the same time destroy the most helpless. Liberals / Leftists on the other hand, do not believe this."
Um, this doesn't sound like a conservative/liberal thing at all, but rather trying to legislate particular religious beliefs as law. What about conservatives that don't believe in god? Which god are we talking about anyway?
Your thing about female student masturbation workshops is bizarre. I don't see how that fits in anywhere. Why does people learning about their sexuality bother you so much?
"“Whose morals, precisely…”
This itself kinda answers its own question."
Not really. The question of whose morals we follow and why is a good one. I think they should be based on reason and be open for critique. The morals should preserve everyone's freedom to do what they want without hurting someone else unnecessarily. They should allow society to function smoothly. Is this a problem? You mention moral relativism as a leftist boogeyman, but exactly what do you mean by that? Is it that you don't like the idea of humans deciding what morals should be in a human society?
""Hate for the Christian religion Really? Like what?"
You must not have read the part about Bill Maher above. He is making a career out of Catholic bashing"
Oh sure, some people, liberal or not, don't like the Christian religion. A lot of conservative Christians don't like other religions either. Anyone has free speech to say what they like or don't like personally. What I don't see is any *political* effort by the left to institute hate for Christianity or any other religion.
""Forcing liberal beliefs on others. What are these beliefs? Forcing them how?"
That all the things I’ve listed are “acceptable”. They are being forced through “hate crimes” laws, for one, and speech codes as I’ve stated above, for another."
I don't see where you've shown this to be the case. Could you give a specific example of a 'liberal' belief that's forced on you?
"I could go on, but space and time limit. Let me close by stating that the liberal/Leftist message is one Big Lie because it sets up man as the arbiter of morality. This lie must be propagated, that’s why they fight so hard to prevent things like school vouchers."
That's too bad since you didn't get around to some of the things I hoped you would. I have to say, I'm not sure I get your complaint of man being the arbiter of morality. We live in a society of humans and we humans govern ourselves. Who should let be the arbiter of our morality?
Oops, missed a couple:
"You misread my statement. I meant that liberals support pedophilia [except by Catholics and Republicans]."
No, that's exactly how I read it. And…you must not be serious. Come on. "Liberals support pedophilia." Does this even deserve a response.
"Again, you misread my statement. I meant that liberals support sodomy [except by Catholics and Republicans]."
As above.
""Defiance of any and all authority"
Yes. Revolution is at the heart of Leftism. You haven’t heard them complain about hierarchy in society? (E.g., “Schools should not create differences between students who know more and those who know less.” – Leftist complaint about an academic recognition program.)"
The statement that liberals deny any and all authority is completely ludicrous. You mean there's no "liberal" working for anyone else? No liberals in government? The country is just one big pot of anarchy with no laws or courts or anything?
Oh, and I don't see what's necessarily so bad about revolution when it's needed. In fact, I think your country was initially formed from such a process, no? Too bad you live in a place created by those nasty anti-authoritarian revolutionary liberals.
"“How can diversity not include that of viewpoints?”
Easy. You just establish a speech code. E.g., criticize Obama, and you are a racist. If there is a college or university that doesn’t have one, I’d like to know which one it is. These codes are universally selectively enforce against Christians and conservatives in general. Affirmative action bake sales are a method of protest against affirmative action http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/4133.html?PHPSESSID=6698c8eaf05314e02fffd28172917276 . Universities, again run by liberals / Leftists have tried to shut them down."
I don't really like affirmative action myself, but I don't see how your response addresses my question. I was asking about liberalism and viewpoints, and you apparently contend that "liberals" curtail viewpoints, or something (while simultaneously promoting diversity). I'm not aware of these speech codes. Could you give an example of one that says if you criticize Obama then you're a racist?
Uima:
“…liberals deny any and all authority… The country is just one big pot of anarchy with no laws or courts or anything?”
I didn’t say liberals “deny any and all authority;” I said they are DEFIANT to any and all authority; nor did I say that “the country is just one big pot of anarchy with no laws or courts or anything.” Ever hear of the Weather Underground?
“In fact, I think your country was initially formed from such a [revolution] process, no?”
I love this argument. The American Revolutionary War was not a Leftist revolution; the French Revolution was a Leftist revolution. Nor were the American founding fathers “liberal” by today’s understanding of the word “liberal”. When President George Washington left office, he was proud of the fact that the average citizen had no contact with the federal government. Today, liberals are proud of saying such things as, “Liberalism is how we come together through government.”
“…you apparently contend that ‘liberals’ curtail viewpoints, or something (while simultaneously promoting diversity). I'm not aware of these speech codes. Could you give an example of one that says if you criticize Obama then you're a racist?”
The Obama example is an informal one. Anyone critical of Obama has been labeled a racist. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/11/AR2008101102216.html?hpid=topnews .
College/university speech codes are legion in this country.
There is a cottage industry that has sprung up to defend student free speech rights. Here is an organization I have contributed to for the last 3 or 4 years. http://www.thefire.org
They have a section http://www.thefire.org/index.php/redalert?PHPSESSID=c60fa75f25d23c244281b378a715790c where a prospective student can learn about a school’s speech code before he applies and then make a decision.
“Promotion of ‘tolerance’ has bred aggressive intolerance for any individual who does not endorse and approve any behavior, no matter how immoral it may be. These attacks often come in the form of so-called ‘anti-discrimination’ policies which attempt to force campus ministries to compromise their Biblical standards…” http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/ReligiousFreedom/UniversityLife.aspx These speech codes have been, and are still being, used to silence Christian student clubs on campus. Tearing them down is like dismantling the Great Pyramid one block at a time.
While this is not really an example of a speech code, the University of Delaware runs a shocking example of an attempted indoctrination into the “correct” attitudes, and part of it involves students being asked by their resident advisors such personal questions as, “When did you become aware of your sexuality.”
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8555.html .
You refered to my country. I assume by that you live outside the U.S. Did you know that you could go to jail in England if you said to a mounted police officer so much as, “Did you know your horse is gay?” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4606022.stm . And in Canada there is some sort of Ministry that watches out for politically incorrect speech.
[...] – “Imagine No Religion,” Bill Maher, and “Religulous” saved by kurotepuweb2008-10-27 – OSI/FCO Chevening/University of Nottingham Scholarship saved by [...]