In case you don't know, "Genetic_Code" is that one conservative christain that made that topic attacking liberalism yesterday (or today morning? Sorry I was on vacation so I'm not sure). Anyway, I didn't agree with all his views, but it struck me that much of what he said makes senses, and I can myself point out problems in liberalist philosophy (particularly in the US, since I live here and don't know "liberals" outside of it):
1) Unending assaults on Christianity:
This one really annoys me. We all believe in religious freedom, in the right for someone to choice to follow thee God, or to believe there is no God, and live as they choice. Thats great and all, except when liberals feel the need to attack Christianity at every turn. From attempting to ban all forms of religious expression in schools (I read on the news that a little boy got sent home for drawing a crucifix!), to turning "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays" its unbelievable. In 2005, some guy in Denmark made a cartoon insulting Muhammad. I personally have a muslim friend (liberal herself) who was appalled. And rightfully so. Yet in the middle east churches were burned and some christians killed, where for all we know the cartoon could have been published by an atheist (I forgot who did it exactly, so forgive me if I'm wrong). Now, where is the religious freedom? You can't insult hinduism, islam, judiaism, or any oriental religion, hell any native american religion, but Christianity, one of the basis for western society, is beat down at every turn. And this leads to my second point:
2) Misinterpretation of separation of church and state:
We are all taught in grade school or high school important things our country did over its history, often given to us in honeyed words and patriotic ferver. One of these important "things" is the separation of church and state that took place in the 1780s-1790s when Thomas Jefferson had states end their support of state-churches. I believe that this separation-where the state is unaffiliated with the church and does not control it, and vice versa-is one of the most beautiful things about this country. NO LONGER CAN ANY ONE VIEW DOMINATE ANOTHER! But that DOES NOT MEAN, as it has come to mean in the 1960s, that religion should be pulverized from the public sphere. So what if we say "In God we trust?" So what if the supreme court has the Ten Commandments hanging from its walls? Who cares if Christmas invovles a baby Jesus (which was and is its intended "reason for the season")? Why is their such a hate for religion in the public sphere? I though religious freedom meant we all have the freedom to choice or reject? Why is it that when citizens want to express themselves, w/o imposing on another their views, are they dejected? Separation of church and state does not mean that any interaction therein by one's religion and one's political or social views is dangerous: all it means is that NO ONE CHURCH CAN DOMINATE THE GOVERNMENT, NOR ONE VIEW!!!! Not any religion, any social theory, and philosophical approach! What has happened to this idea of separation of church and state? Why has it become a playground of mulitcultural lunacy? Speaking of which.......
3) Insistence on Muliculturalism
Now, I'm all for being a global citizen. But I want to know that I have my feet planned "at home." Liberals have this incessent need to pretend like the US has no culture outside the accepting, secular, and at all times universal. Forget "Merry Christmas" for a second. Liberals somehow believe that we do not have to force immigrants to learn english. No, we should adapt to them by learning spanish! Well thats just dandy, except for the fact that my family has emmigrated from egypt, and we have arabic and english under our belt. Another language to learn at this point is absurd. And pointless. Shouldn''t I come to a country and except to integrate to its way of life w/o compromising my views? Whats compromising about learning to speak a different language? Are you going to go to paris and complain why they all speak french!?
And here is a point Genetic_Code hit on: moral relativity. It would seem that "moral relativity" only applies to other's views. As for theres, anyone whose rich has to pay more taxes, anyone who is poor/drop out is in general always the victim of a "corrupt" and "weak" and "unfair' system (aka capitalism). Now, I'm all for a progressive tax (a consumer tax, in my opinion, best forces the rich to pay taxes rather than look for loopholes). However, it would seem that this is how they view the world. Not in truth, but in their own lens. Why, they are just as ready to say (in advocacy for minorities) that a lack of a father figure has broken down many households, yet by that same token can easily say that homosexual relationships can lead to a stable enviornment for raising kids. Its all absurd. Abortion is "right" b/c your just killing a "collection of cells." WOW! WHAT A REVELATION! Imagine, can't you say that about EVERY LIVING THING IN EXISTENCE? I'm just a collection of cells, and when one nerve fires and the sodium and potassium pumps do their stuff, i feel pain. But its really just a bunch of cells, so my death is meaningless.
Now, I recognize the ability of liberals to really help society (aka I'm not some Rush or Glen Beck). When conservatives underrepresent minorities, there are always advocacy groups on the other side. Whenever conservatives get too patriotic or militaristic, liberals demand peace and moral authority (ironically, as it turns out). They always point out what needs to be improved in a society. But their philosophy just reeks of weakness and contradiction. I just had to put that out there. For a view that prides itself on being "academic" or for the well educated, it seems to be horribly in-cohesive
Log in to comment