Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Liberals hate God or conservatives hate people…you choose (by anon)

Last week, NBC decided to omit the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance when it was aired during the U.S. Open Championship.  This event prompted Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) to say, “Well, I think NBC has a long record of being very liberal and at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God. And so they’ve had a long history of not being at all favorable toward many of things that have been such a blessing to our country.”

So liberals hate God.  I knew it!  Those bastards, thinking that they make their own laws and have to organize and work for their own existence.  Damn them.  Damn them all!

Ok, so I don’t believe that.  But I’m trying to make sense of this guy’s statement.  Liberals hate God.  Let’s run with this.  If liberals hate God, that must mean that they love themselves (i.e., people) more.  Hate God, but love humanity (since it would be pretty silly to say that liberals hate God AND hate people too – of course, Michele Bachmann will probably say that about Obama in a day or so). 

Now I don’t believe that “liberals hate God, but love humanity” really to be accurate because there are lots of liberals I know who love both (God and humanity).  But from my perspective this appears to mirror conservatives inversely.  In other words, from what I understand of conservative policies, conservatives love God, but HATE humanity.  Why do I say that??  Here’s the evidence: 99% of conservative politicians endorse: the assault on Planned Parenthood, cutting social programs like they are the plague, slashing education, allowing concealed weapons, anti-immigrant legislation, anti-gay legislation, taking from public employees to give to the businesses, and opposing universal healthcare. And I’m sure I missed something.  Conservatives love God, but HATE humanity.  How else should I understand what they are doing over there in Madison, Wash DC, and the rest of the states?  I mean, really?  How else?  I understand perfectly well that loving God does not entail hating humanity, but conservative politicians just don’t sway that way.

So who would I rather have running my government?  Pols who hate God/love humanity or pols who love God/hate humanity?  I side with the former because at least they are looking out for me.  My question to Rep. Akin and his statement is then, “So what?”  But…

This leads to what I really want to say.  Why is it even relevant what a politician’s position is on God?  Frankly, I just don’t care.  Rep. Akin wants us to care.  Many conservatives want us to care.  Yet it is unclear why belief in God is relevant to running a government.  If you love humanity and are wicked smart and have the power to be an effective leader, that is what I’m looking for.  Belief in God?  Take it, leave it, that shouldn’t even be an issue on the campaign trail.  But the conservatives make it one, and a big one too.  Weird.

Here’s one explanation for that: I bet they trumpet their belief in God so that no one pays attention to just how much they don’t like people.  Any other explanation?


  1. Oh, this post is so over the top!

    First you said that you did not believe that liberals hate God but love humanity because you know some liberals.

    Do you know any conservatives? I know several and none of them match your narrow stereotype. Take Ron Paul for example, he is a member of the GOP but I like some of his arguments.

    Your post suggest that the GOP's position on a range of New Deal social programs provides you with enough evidence to make a judgement (conservatives love God and hate humanity) on 99 percent of conservative politicians in the US?

    This is quite a leap, especially in light of the fact that many conservative politicians support some of the programs listed in your post. For example, the "GOP" controlled New York Legislature recently passed the same sex marriage law.

    By the way, this is a representative democracy where we elect our representatives. Thus, the conservative politicians you are hating on WERE elected by their constituents. Wisconsinites may be sorry now, but Scott Walker was elected as our next governor.

    Let us be clear about it, America is a conservative nation. A poll conducted in 2007 showed that 41% of the country self-identifies as “conservative,” 34% as “moderate,” and only 21% as “liberal.” Further, 14% consider themselves “strong conservatives” compared to only 6% “strong liberals.” So, not only are there twice as many who consider themselves “conservatives” as “liberals,” but two thirds as many “strong conservatives” as “liberals,” period.

    In short, be careful in using any kind of general statements in an argument.

    Conclusion: Conservatives love God but hate humanity

    Evidence: Their positions on New Deal social programs.

    So how did you move from the evidence to the general conclusion. Their positions on SEVERAL social programs tells you nothing about their "feelings" towards God and humanity.

    Besides, love is a nebulous concept, very difficult to measure. It is one of the most misused words in the English language. How do we measure it?

    Another vague concept is humanity? What it it? Does it include everyone living and dead? The Humane Society does not deal with humans, but with animals. Opps, we are animals!

    You appear to suggest that humanity is limited to the recipients of the social programs listed in your post, but what about the families, friends, and neighbors of the conservatives you are hating on?

    Do you consider them as a part of humanity? Sure you do! I am certain that conservatives love their families and friends, so to say that they hate humanity is not exactly true.

  2. Anon 4:46 - kind of harsh.
    When the poster made the conclusion, I feel it was meant to be more of a half-serious "well, if this is what one conservative says about liberals, then here's what I say about conservatives", rather than whatever you took it for.
    Now, if you think the word "love" is misused, what about the word "hate"?
    We have someone claiming there's a hatred for God within liberalism, under which viewpoint, it is preferred to drop "under God" from the pledge.
    Let's deal with this craziness before YOU go crazy over all of the other stuff that was written after that, ok?
    1) How does one prove there exists hatred for anything, when we can't measure hate (just like we can't measure love)?
    2) To claim there is a hatred (as it is defined in a dictionary, let's say) for an imaginary figure at the heart of anything, is just plain ridiculous, and it is a pointless accusation that is inevitably merit-less because what might be considered "hatred" for God to one person, could certainly be considered something totally different for another person, because God is not something that everyone even believes in (or sees the same), for obvious reasons. "Hatred for God" does not exist for someone who doesn't even believe God exists in the first place (or simply has a different concept of God in mind).
    3) How can anyone say that "hatred for God" is at the heart of liberalism? That is a bombastic statement that must be laughed at more than anything.
    4) The claim is made that what is also at the heart of liberalism is a belief that God should be replaced by government. What a strange and confusing statement (and a conundrum I might add, for various reasons)!
    It is difficult to tackle what is wrong about the statement, purely due to its illogical nature. However, I will say that God is private and personal, and government is the antithesis of privacy, and to claim someone is trying to replace God with government is like claiming someone is trying to replace dreams with reality. It just doesn't make sense (unless you mean the belief in working to make dreams become reality, if you catch my drift).
    Overall, we're in a country where one of our constitutional rights is freedom of religion. If I use that freedom and my religion does not involve God, as in the Christian religion, saying "under God" in the pledge might be a little weird and uncomfortable for me, and I might feel out of place, or some pressure to change my belief if I am to continue living in this country, listening to and saying the pledge.
    By removing God from the pledge (and being liberal in general I guess), the doors are open, and everyone can feel comfortable being a citizen of this country, regardless of their religious beliefs. There is no "hatred" involved, only open mindedness and consideration for others who hold differing views.
    It makes sense now to say, well then, conservatives must just "love" God and "hate" humanity if they prefer shoving God in people's faces, over showing consideration and respect for fellow citizens asserting their freedom of religion, who may not believe in God at all.
    Think about what actually brought this person to post such an "over the top" blog, instead of commenting profusely about their poor argument and lack of knowledge that you carry in opposition to this poster's claims.
    Ok the post isn't perfect, so what? If you break it down to the basic elements, I think it makes sense, and it makes me smile.

  3. Anon 4:46, your criticism of this post is crap. You want a level of preciseness in which THAT is too over the top. Define love? Define humanity? Trumping feelings over overt action? Taking Ron Paul as a representative conservative? That, my friend, is taking it too far.

    As I read the post, it is a backhand to conservatives. It calls them out on turning their backs to whole groups of Americans, not to mention that the Republicans are about to turn their backs on the whole country by carelessly insisting on not raising any taxes to stave off the debt ceiling crisis. I happen to agree that they can talk about God all they want, but I want real leaders who are FOR the people.

    The post could have been more precise in that Republicans in office do not hate all of humanity. They love their own kind, which dominantly means Christian, white, relatively educated, and relatively wealthy. They do love their own families. But by saying that Republicans possibly hate humanity, it means that they are not out for the good of all people in general.

    You must be a philosopher because only philosophers can get so mired in the details that they lose sight of the bigger picture - as ironic as that sounds.

  4. I am thinking about "brought" the person to post in the first place and now I am focusing more on the big picture! Later for the actual arguments!

    Thanks for the advice.

    Anything else?

  5. I guess because a core statement in our law document says all our rights and liberties come from God, not the State (so no man can take it away). Just look at history and you will see the bloodbaths godless regimes have achieved, all because they thought our only hope is humanity. The man-made utopia always comes at the price of selling many souls. When you don't believe you are accountable to any Higher Being, the implications are TANGIBLE. Get too much power and you start believing you own people--it's human nature and out Constitution was written well area of that fact. The laws it espouses exist to restrain the government, not the people. Separation of Church and State is to keep the government off the church's back so it doesn't become a state religion or theocracy like the mess they left in Europe.

    I believe both parties contain elements that society needs. Social welfare for those who need help, but also facilitating economic independence and innovation with the people. I believe we have been heading in the dangerous direction of a Welfare State. It's happened in my country and that is why we have been unable to lift ourselves out of 3rd world status. The government makes sure to keep a poor, ignorant set in the slums they can depend on for votes and throw guns at they so they can shoot each other up. When you go bawling to the government to fix EVERYTHING instead of taking ownership at the State level, it cripples the people from taking ownership and standing on their own two feet.