Betsy Newmark - of the GREAT BLOG Betsy's Page (a MUST READ EVERYDAY BLOG!) - has a fascinating post about how historically speaking religious presidents are common. Betsy concludes that therefore the Left's current harsh criticism of Bush, because he is religious, is phony and merely partisan. I disagree; I think it is not partisan.
I think most of the Democrats and all of the Left are moral relativists who look down on religious people because the Left believes that religious thinking is stupid, illogical, over-simplified un-nuanced. That's why they like to call themselves the "reality-based" party.
The Left believed this about religious people prior to 9/11 - but it did NOT bug them as much then as it does now. Lincoln, FDR, Truman, MLK Jr., Carter, Reagan and Clinton - for starters- all used a lot of religious language and images in their speeches -- as Betsy's post related - but the Democrats and the Left never complained about it then.
I think that the Democrats and the Left are more afraid of religiousness now because they blame "religious fanaticism" for 9/11 and they conflate the Jihadoterrorists - (who actually perpetrated 9/11, and decades of other less horrific but still horrible terrorism all over the world) - with any and all devoutly religious people of any faith - sects that have NEVER perpetrated any terror anywhere.
To the Left - Christian fundamentalists and Islamic Salafist/Qutbist/Wahabbist Jihadoterrorists are not merely analogical equivalents to each other, they're identical in essence, and they're to be equally feared to the Left. To the Left, it's "THAT you preach," and not "WHAT you preach" that matters.
I think most of the Democrats and all of the Left are moral relativists who look down on religious people because the Left believes that religious thinking is stupid, illogical, over-simplified un-nuanced. That's why they like to call themselves the "reality-based" party.
The Left believed this about religious people prior to 9/11 - but it did NOT bug them as much then as it does now. Lincoln, FDR, Truman, MLK Jr., Carter, Reagan and Clinton - for starters- all used a lot of religious language and images in their speeches -- as Betsy's post related - but the Democrats and the Left never complained about it then.
I think that the Democrats and the Left are more afraid of religiousness now because they blame "religious fanaticism" for 9/11 and they conflate the Jihadoterrorists - (who actually perpetrated 9/11, and decades of other less horrific but still horrible terrorism all over the world) - with any and all devoutly religious people of any faith - sects that have NEVER perpetrated any terror anywhere.
To the Left - Christian fundamentalists and Islamic Salafist/Qutbist/Wahabbist Jihadoterrorists are not merely analogical equivalents to each other, they're identical in essence, and they're to be equally feared to the Left. To the Left, it's "THAT you preach," and not "WHAT you preach" that matters.
Of course: this is ABSURD. But remember, it comes from the folks who call our president "BusHitler" and spell out our AG's name "AshKKKroft." Which is obviously equally absurd.
(On top of this absurd conflation, the Left's post-modernist bent makes them pre-disposed to be less tolerant of Western religious sects, than Eastern or non-Western sects.)
Sure: Many Democrats try to exploit Bush's religiousness for partisan gain - but as the election showed, this can only work among the Left, and the Left isn't enough to carry the nation.
Thank God.
(On top of this absurd conflation, the Left's post-modernist bent makes them pre-disposed to be less tolerant of Western religious sects, than Eastern or non-Western sects.)
Sure: Many Democrats try to exploit Bush's religiousness for partisan gain - but as the election showed, this can only work among the Left, and the Left isn't enough to carry the nation.
Thank God.
No comments:
Post a Comment