Why I (according to some dolt) Don’t Believe in God

“Semper Fi Parents”‘ blog is supposedly about chronicling the Marine career of their daughter, which I think is an awesome thing to do. Apparently it’s also occasionally about screedifying about “those Liberals.” (That the underlying Blogspot site is called “RightWingWizKid” might betray a certain bias). So join us on this journey to discover why I (as an avowed Liberal) don’t believe in God. Which is the actual headline of the post: Why Liberals Don’t Believe in God:

There is a reason why many liberals don’t believe in God. It’s because he has been unfair to them. He gave something to the rest of us that liberals don’t have. It’s the only conclusion I can come to. In thinking over some basic liberal beliefs, the only logical conclusion is that liberals are missing a few brain cells, mainly the ones that give the rest of us common sense and prevent us from being hypocrites. Otherwise, how can they believe the following?:

So, just to be clear, the reason Liberals don’t believe in God is because they’re idiots, so they’re resentful of God for treating them unfairly. I’ll assume this is going to be part of the “writing about Constitutional and political events that I feel not only affect the men and women of America’s Armed Forces, but the freedoms the rest of us enjoy due to their sacrifice” and, in fact, meant to be … um … humorous. (Ah, wait, “political satire” is included in the list of things written about here — except there’s very little satirical in the rest of the post, unless it’s to be a satire of standard Conservative blogging points.) Ahem.

Note that accusing Liberals of being atheists and Not True Christians and the like is a fairly common calumny on the Right.  They take horrible offense if anyone questions their piety, or their beliefs, but take it for granted that anyone to the left of Glenn Beck is probably suspect in their orthodoxy. That makes this a “ha ha funny” moment that really isn’t, because it’s joking about Liberals all being atheists (which I resent as a Christian and Liberal) in a way that goes right along with the libel that Liberals are all atheists.

Or, maybe, I’m just an overly-sensitive Liberal.

That Al Gore is a hero for speaking out against global warming. As he leaves his home, which has the highest energy consumption in the state, boards a private jet, and then takes a limo to wherever he is promoting his dogma.

Ah, let’s start off with Al Gore, who has the burden of being That Clinton Guy’s VP, The Guy Who Ran Against Dubya, and That Global Warming Dude.  Al Gore is a favorite target of the Right, and, in the grand tradition of shooting at the messenger when the message is bothersome.

As far as the whole “Al’s House is an Energy Hog,” I’ll point to this Snopes article on the subject.

Liberals applaud the ACLU for fighting for the rights of the average American.

Actually, I applaud the ACLU for fighting for the rights of all Americans.  If we only fight for the rights of “average” Americans, or “majority” Americans, or “the ones who think like we do” Americans, we weaken all Americans’ rights.

While they overlook the fact that the ACLU wages war against such traditions as the Boy Scouts of America, the NRA, Christmas, and numerous other decent and moral things.

This makes it sound like the ACLU is particularly targeting the institutions involved just becuse they are “traditions” and “decent and moral things.”  Which, of course, is just goofy.  In the specific cases involved, the ACLU has fought for actual Constitutional principles. They’ve also defended a variety of conservative / traditional institutions on those same principles. The ACLU understands what “liberty and justice for all” means.

The fact that the ACLU lobbies for the “rights” of terrorists and provides legal representation to such groups as the North American Man-Boy Love Association doesn’t bother a liberal in the least.

And they defended the rights of the Nazis to march in Skokie, too.  And it bothers me, insofar as I detest the Nazis.  And NAMBLA. And (actual) terrorsts.

But if we only extend those “inalienable” Constitutional rights to the folks we  agree with, then they aren’t rights, are they?  They’re just majority privileges.  Which means that any time the majority thinks that you or I are on the fringe and undesirable or embarrassing, we can have our privileges taken away, too.

Liberals support abortion on demand.

There’s this odd meme on the Right that Liberals looooove abortion.  That they relish seeing how high they can push the abortion numbers.  That they throw abortion parties and abortion picnics and hold abortion competitions. They want “abortion on demand” delivered to their doorstep as fast as movies on demand are — and they want you to pay for it, bwah-ha-ha! Ugh. Most Liberals I know (self included) aren’t particularly fond of abortion.  We don’t particularly like it.  We really don’t like the circumstances that cause women to think of it as the least worst alternative.  While I am sure there are some Left Fringers who see abortion as a casual birth control method,  that’s not how most Liberals see it. That’s not how most women who’ve had abortions see it.  We’re with Bill Clinton’s desire to make it “safe, legal, and rare.” But as much as we dislike abortion, we’re also reluctant to make that decision for a woman, or to get between a woman and her doctor over whether it’s necessary or desirable.  And we’ve very aware of how abortion restrictions (and the birth control restrictions that too many on the far Right are also  covertly in favor of) have been used to oppress women in ages past, intentionally or just effectively.

And they oppose the death penalty.

So, somehow it’s okay to say “Liberals love abortion, but  hate the death penalty” and not note the converse of “Conservatives hate abortion, but love the death penalty.” I give kudos to the Catholic Church for, on principle, opposing both.

Now I can understand an argument that “the unborn are innocent; the condemned are guilty.” That does draw a distinction — but many Liberals object to capital punishment, less over the idea of taking a life (though some folks’ eagerness to do so gets a little creepy), than over the idea that our justice system (especially when it comes to capital crimes) is so flawed that we can have little confidence that, in fact, the condemned are guilty. Anybody who claims they are against the killing of innocents would have to be willfully blind to think that doesn’t happen on Death Row in this country.  Not everyone executed, certainly, doesn’t deserve it.  But not everyone does — and that’s an unjust killing that’s done on behalf of all of us.

Liberals feel that it is fine for such experts as Danny Glover, Sean Penn, George Clooney and the like to air their views on American political policies. But when Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck share their thoughts, they should be restricted by a “Fairness” Doctrine.

I am not a particular fan of the “Fairness Doctrine,” but, regardless, there are no actual effort from the Left to re-impose it. Even if there was, it cuts both ways.  It means that if Sean Penn gets to blather on the air for an hour, then Glenn Beck does.  And, frankly, Sean Penn gives me hives.  But I don’t think he’s any less intellectually, educationally, or tempermentally unqualified to shoot off his mouth than Limbaugh, Coulter, or Beck.

Honestly, I wish they’d all shut up — but I defend their rights to bloviate as they see fit and/or profitable.

Liberals openly support gay rights parades. Yet feel that Christmas Nativity scenes should be illegal.

Um … no. If any organization wants to apply for a parade permit — be it the Ultra Gay Leather Boys of Downtown Denver, or the Devout Christian Nativity Reenactors of Our Lady of Perpetual Motion — that’s fine.  As long as everyone gets the opportunity and everyone abides by the rules, that’s what makes this nation great. My objection (and that  of such whacko groups as the ACLU) to Nativity Scenes only involves their display on public land with public funding, and in circumstances where other religious (or irreligious groups) don’t get the same opportunity. In other words, where Christianity, exclusively, is being supported by the taxpayer.

My family has a nativity scene.  We have it in our house.  My church has one that it will display by the altar. Heck, if my church decided  to display it on their front lawn (as some of my neighbors do), that’d be fine by me. But why should I be asking people who don’t believe in the Nativity to fund, through their taxes, the display of a nativity scene on government property?

That “racial profiling” of Muslims is wrong. But that returning war vets are “potential domestic terrorists.”

Again, a lovely mix-and-mismatch of different issues. Profiling of Muslims and/or Arabs (or Semites other than Israelis) is “wrong” because (a) it sweeps up a whole group of people based on the actions of a tiny minority (e.g., why not, then, profile Caucasians or Gun Owners based on the terrorist activities of Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, and the Huttaree?). (b) it’s ineffective (it assumes that all Islamicist terrorists are swarthy Middle Easterners, ignoring the various cases where that has not been the case), let alone the opportunity that such a profiling regime would provide actual terrorists to bypass security by coming up with fellow-travelers, mules, and others who would not trigger the “OMG HE’S AN AYRAB!” profile. (c) it encourages group prejudice, something we all (except for the proverbial WASP) have fine historical reasons to reject.

As to the whole veteran meme — yeesh.  The DHS, after having issued a report about possible left-wing extremist groups in the US posing a domestic terror threat, has a report in the pipeline (initiated under the George W. Bush administration) about possible right-wing extremist terror … and the Right, once Obama is in office, goes ape-shit. It’s worth noting that the report suggests, as one element, returning veterans, as combat troops, might be targeted by right-wing extremist groups for recruitment.  It didn’t suggest that all veterans were possible terrorists — it simply said that right-wing terrorists might see combat-trained veterans as possible recruits. Duh.

That it’s fine for a kid to bring a book about Adolph Hitler or Karl Marx to school. Yet that a kid carrying a Bible should be expelled.

I’m not sure what’s wrong about a kid bringing a book about Hitler or Marx, as historical subjects, to school. A kid obsessively reading books about Hitler would be more disturbing. I doubt any kid (or most adults) would be interested in reading much by Marx. The Bible-carrying kid expulsion does sound pretty outrageous.  And, um, unrealistic. If someone would actually point to a case of the latter, I’d be more than happy to condemn it.

That Fox News is nothing more that an offshoot of the Republican Party.

Never mind that pretty much the entire active list of potential Republican candidates for President in 2012 have gigs with Fox. Never mind that Fox has openly declared itself “the voice of the opposition” to the Democratic Administration. Never mind that Fox’s owner, News Corp, contributed under orders of its president, Rupert Murdoch, significant sums to to Republican causes in this last election, and that Murdoch made significant personal contributions to GOP leaders’ campaigns.

And that Keith Olbermann, Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, etc. simply report the news without any personal bias.

I don’t know any Liberal who would make that statement about Keith Olbermann. They may like him (or not), but he’s clearly got a Point of View.  And, in fact, he’s not actually hired as a newscaster, but as someone with a personal opinion.  As is Chris Matthews. (And, for that matter, as is Bill O’Reilly.) Criticisms about Katie Couric are mostly because she managed to point out, through her interviews, that Sarah Palin is a dolt. And she did it by letting the subject’s words speak for themselves.

Liberals will cite the U.S. Constitution when they speak about the “separation of church and state. Despite the fact that that phrase is not included in the Constitution.

Well, no.  I don’t know any Liberal who will claim the phrase “separation of church and state” is actually, word for word, in the Constitution.  Really, can we have a citation here?

That said, the phrase was coined by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, and echoed by Founding Father James Madison, and is clearly the sentiment of a number of the Founders as to what the First Amendment was meant to do. The term “separation of powers” isn’t in text of the Constitution, either, but I don’t hear anyone protesting that as a bogus concept.  Well, except for for the folks who dislike the judiciary.

Liberals believe that Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. In spite of the fact that he has done nothing to earn it, and he was only in office for a month or two when he was nominated.

Actually, most Liberals I know would agree that Obama had not done much to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize  (except to be Not George W. Bush).  In fact, that was my reaction when it came out. Ironically, many Liberals would think it even less deserved currently. (Personally, the Nobel Peace Prize is … of dubious distinction, in terms of some of the folks to whom it’s been awarded.)

They believe Obama and Pelosi when they say that universal health care will lead to a reduction in the federal deficit. They never ask how insuring the (supposedly) 45 million Americans without health insurance will make money.

Obama and Pelosi assert it because the Congressional Budget Office asserts it. Here’s why that works (hints: free competition, getting away from an “emergency room as baseline medical care” culture for the poor, seeking efficiencies in Medicare, taxation of “Cadillac” plans).

Liberals will repeatedly bash Judaism and Christianity.

Liberals dislike the assertive claims of cultural ownership and exceptional virtue and righteous dominance by Christianity in America.   To the extent that Christianists claim “We’re Number One (and the government should give us money because of that, and, oh, our religious laws should be national laws, too), I will feel free to “bash” those Christian groups (while still being a regular churchgoer).

Liberals tend to support Judaism as a minority religion, though they also tend to reject American foreign policy knee-jerkingly supporting Israel no matter what it does.  (As a Liberal, I support Israel’s right to exist and be secure; I reject its territorial aggrandizement and oppression of the Palestinian populations; I also reject the conservative elements of Israeli culture that seek to run it as a conservative Jewish theocracy).

But they become angry if they hear anyone say anything bad about Islam.

Nice blanket statement. I get angry when people assert that all Muslims are out to TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY AND CUT OFF OUR HEADS AND MAKE THIS THE UNITED STATES OF SHARIA.  That’s just a xenophobia to go along with previous American cultural/immigration shifts (along the lines of “ALL IRISH AND ITALIANS ARE OUT TO TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY AND COMPEL US  TAKE COMMUNION AND MAKE THIS INTO THE UNITED STATES OF THE POPE”).

On the other hand, I  (and other Liberals) are more than happy to criticize theocratic Islamic regimes and societies that impose cruel punishment upon (e.g.) rape victims and homosexuals (and, for that matter, Christians).  And we do.

Ironically, I feel that Liberals (at least as I consider myself one) take the concept of “Don’t Tread on Me” more seriously than many Conservatives.  We believe in inclusion (don’t tread on anyone) and protection for all, not just for the people we approve of.

So the next time you hear a liberal spouting off with some stupid statement, try and keep in mind that it’s not entirely their fault.

Yeah. We’ve probably been goaded into it by some conservative telling us we’re liberal idiots who hate God.

Note: in response to a comment on his original post, the author posted a full-length “defense” — which basically just restates all the points he originally made above.