[Political] Leftism is a religion?

[Lootifer]

Sorry pedro, but i put a handy dandy tag so you hopefully wont even open the thread

Anyhoo...

Phatscotty, can you please explain this comment? I would like to understand your rationale for calling a poltical stance a religious belief.

Please note im not talking about specifics here; as you'll so helpfully point out at some stage I am not an american so I dont know, nor care, much about US politics; so I would appreciate it if you tried not to use specific, US, details in your rationale.

[Phatscotty]

To be clear: Leftism, not Liberalism...
Leftist's are usually those who get the angriest and bash people who do not agree with them. Liberals are usually the ones I am looking to to start a Tea Party for the Democrats.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... rager?pg=2

Many Americans find it difficult to understand why Jews on the left, including many who would call themselves “liberal” rather than “left,”continued to enthusiastically support President Obama after the revelations about the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the president’s religious mentor and close friend. This confusion is all the greater now that President Obama has humiliated the Israeli prime minister and created the tensest moment in U.S.-Israel relations in memory.

Likewise, many Americans wonder how Democratic congressmen who claim to be faithful, pro-life Catholics could vote for a health-care bill that allows for federal funding of abortions after opposing it up to the last day.

There is an explanation.

Leftism, though secular, must be understood as a religion (which is why I have begun capitalizing it). The Leftist value system’s hold on its adherents is as strong as the hold Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have on theirs. Nancy Pelosi’s belief in expanding the government’s role in American life, which inspired her passion for the health-care bill, is as strong as a pro-life Christian’s belief in the sanctity of the life of the unborn.

Given the religious nature and the emotional power of Leftist values, Jews and Christians on the Left often derive their values from the Left more than from their religion.

Now, most Leftist Jews and Christians will counter that Leftist values cannot trump their religion’s values because Leftist values are identical to their religion’s. But this argument only reinforces my argument that Leftism has conquered the Christianity and the Judaism of Leftist Christians and Jews. If there is no difference between Leftist moral values and those of Judaism or Christianity, then Christianity is little more than Leftism with “Jesus” rhetoric and Judaism is Leftism with Jewish terms — such as “Tikkun Olam” (“repairing the world”) and “Prophetic values.”

But if Christianity is, morally speaking, really Leftism, why didn’t Catholics and Protestants assert these values before 19th century European Leftism came along? And, if Judaism is essentially a set of Left-wing values, does that mean that the Torah and the Talmud are Leftist documents? Or are the two pillars of Judaism generally wrong?

More questions:

Why are almost no Christians and Jews who believe that God is the author of the Bible (or, in the case of Jews, the Torah) on the Left?

Why are so few pro-life Catholics and Protestants on the Left? Do they not care about the poor?

Of course, that is what people on the Left believe. As the former head of the Democratic party, Howard Dean, said, “In contradistinction to the Republicans, we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

They believe such things despite the fact that traditional Protestants and Catholics have created more institutions to take care of the sick and needy than probably any other group in the world, and despite the fact that religious Americans give more charity and volunteer more time than secular Americans do.

And why have the great majority of Orthodox Jews rejected the Left? For Jews on the Left, the explanation is simple: Orthodox Jews have primitive beliefs and, therefore, primitive values.

For the Leftist, all opposition to the Left, secular or religious, is primitive and usually worse (Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Xenophobic, Ignorant, Bigoted, Intolerant, Mean-Spirited, etc.). So this doesn’t tell us much. What might tell us much? This: With a handful of exceptions, Orthodox Jews know Judaism far better than non-Orthodox Jews do. Given how few of them are Leftist, this would suggest that Judaism and Leftism are indeed in conflict.

But that doesn’t matter to most Jews on the Left, because to be a good person (and, to those for whom it matters, to be a good Jew), one need not know Judaism, let alone follow Judaism. One needs only to feel what is right (Leftism is overwhelmingly based on feeling); and, when in doubt, one can determine what is right from the New York Times, not from sacred Jewish texts.

One of the many fundamental differences between Leftism and Judaism concerns evil. Jews and others on the Left (everywhere, not just in America) have a real problem identifying, let alone confronting, evil. Yet, for Judaism, identifying and confronting evil is as basic a Jewish value as exists. That is why, for example, there is no pacifist tradition in Judaism.

Regarding evil, the Psalmist writes — and this is recited in synagogue every Sabbath — “Those who love God — hate evil.” As regards pacifism, one of the Prophets, Joel (3:10), inverts what became the much more famous quotation of Isaiah and Micah: “Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears.” And later, the Talmud, almost equivalent in importance to the Bible, teaches (Berakhot 58a): “The Torah has said: If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first.”

In contrast, Leftists, including Leftist Jews and Christians:

Were the loudest in condemning Pres. Ronald Reagan when he labeled the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”

Devoted much of their lives to opposing the war in Vietnam, which they labeled immoral even though it was a war against Stalinist tyranny.

Opposed deposing the mass murderer Saddam Hussein; many even opposed the Gulf War.

Believe that the moral wasteland known as the United Nations, not the United States, is, or must be, the greatest force for good on earth.

Oppose allowing the American military to recruit on campuses.

And the farther Left one goes, the more one sees demonization of free Israel and support for the dictatorships that wish to destroy Israel.

Indeed, Israel provides the clearest proof of how Leftism is stronger than the Jewishness of most Jews on the Left. Israel is threatened with a Holocaust by Iran and tens of millions of Islamic supporters outside of Iran, and Palestinian society is saturated with the most virulent Jew-hatred since that of the Nazis. Yet while today’s Jew- and Israel-haters call the Left home, Jews on the Left continue to be proud members of the Left. Such is the power of Leftism, the most dynamic religion in the world for the last 150 years.

And that explains Bart Stupak’s vote, too. In his inner conflict between Catholicism and Leftism, the more dynamic religion won.

[Woodruff]

Sorry pedro, but i put a handy dandy tag so you hopefully wont even open the thread

Pedro probably appreciates it, actually. Though he might tell you to throw a US in there too. <grin>

[Woodruff]

To be clear: Leftism, not Liberalism...
Leftist's are usually those who get the angriest and bash people who do not agree with them. Liberals are usually the ones I am looking to to start a Tea Party for the Democrats.

We already have one...it's called Occupy Wall Street, and you bash it almost as much as you do liberals and Democrats. If the Tea Party had any integrity to it any more, they would have welcomed Occupy Wall Street with open arms. Actually, the real Tea Partiers did.

[Phatscotty]

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/05/2 ... -religion/

more

As Prager writes, “The Left craves power not money, and that makes it much more frightening:”*

You cannot understand the Left if you do not understand that leftism is a religion. It is not God-based (some left-wing Christians’ and Jews’ claims notwithstanding), but otherwise it has every characteristic of a religion. The most blatant of those characteristics is dogma. People who believe in leftism have as many dogmas as the most fundamentalist Christian.

One of them is material equality as the preeminent moral goal. Another is the villainy of corporations. The bigger the corporation, the greater the villainy. Thus, instead of the devil, the Left has Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Oil, the “military-industrial complex,” and the like. Meanwhile, Big Labor, Big Trial Lawyers, and — of course — Big Government are left-wing angels.

And why is that? Why, to be specific, does the Left fear big corporations but not big government?

The answer is dogma — a belief system that transcends reason. No rational person can deny that big governments have caused almost all the great evils of the last century, arguably the bloodiest in history. Who killed the 20 to 30 million Soviet citizens in the Gulag Archipelago — big government or big business? Hint: There were no private businesses in the Soviet Union. Who deliberately caused 75 million Chinese to starve to death — big government or big business? Hint: See previous hint. Did Coca-Cola kill 5 million Ukrainians? Did Big Oil slaughter a quarter of the Cambodian population? Would there have been a Holocaust without the huge Nazi state?

Whatever bad things big corporations have done is dwarfed by the monstrous crimes — the mass enslavement of people, the deprivation of the most basic human rights, not to mention the mass murder and torture and genocide — committed by big governments.

How can anyone who thinks rationally believe that big corporations rather than big governments pose the greatest threat to humanity? The answer is that it takes a mind distorted by leftist dogma. If there is another explanation, I do not know what it is.

In The Tyranny of Cliches, Jonah Goldberg wrote:

When man loses God he sets about to make new gods. Or as the philosopher Eric Voegelin puts it, “[ W] hen God is invisible behind the world, the contents of the world will become new gods; when the symbols of transcendent religiosity are banned, new symbols develop from the inner-worldly language of science to take their place.”

Likewise man creates dogmas because man needs dogmas. The light of reason illuminates the darkness and science provides us compasses to find our way. But it does not provide us with reasons to get out of bed in the first place. As John Dos Passos said, “The mind cannot support moral chaos for long. Men are under as strong a compulsion to invent an ethical setting for their behavior as spiders are to weave webs.”

[Lootifer]

Ah right, I see how it goes:

- Take right wing stance
- Define left wing politics as you see fit
- Point out that in your definition left wing politics represents similar traits to that of religion
- Claim the left end of the political spectrum is a fanatical religion

This is what you call cognitive bias im afraid PS and doesnt not constitute a valid argument/rationale to my initial issue.

[Woodruff]

Ah right, I see how it goes:

- Take right wing stance
- Define left wing politics as you see fit
- Point out that in your definition left wing politics represents similar traits to that of religion
- Claim the left end of the political spectrum is a fanatical religion

This is what you call cognitive bias im afraid PS and doesnt not constitute a valid argument/rationale to my initial issue.

Phatscotty bounces back and forth between congitive bias and cognitive dissonance.

[Phatscotty]

Ah right, I see how it goes:

- Take right wing stance
- Define left wing politics as you see fit
- Point out that in your definition left wing politics represents similar traits to that of religion
- Claim the left end of the political spectrum is a fanatical religion

This is what you call cognitive bias im afraid PS and doesnt not constitute a valid argument/rationale to my initial issue.

You asked for an explanation, I found some that could hopefully communicate the ideas behind the statement clearly.

did you have anything to say about the information you asked for and received?

[Lootifer]

Sure, but you wont like it.

The person (you quoted) who has aligned leftism with religion has improperly defined (as well as poorly generalised) left wing politics. This completely undermines their argument; thus leftism is not a religion.

[Phatscotty]

Sure, but you wont like it.

The person (you quoted) who has aligned leftism with religion has improperly defined (as well as poorly generalised) left wing politics. This completely undermines their argument; thus leftism is not a religion.

leftism is more than just a wing of politics....

[Woodruff]

Sure, but you wont like it.

The person (you quoted) who has aligned leftism with religion has improperly defined (as well as poorly generalised) left wing politics. This completely undermines their argument; thus leftism is not a religion.

leftism is more than just a wing of politics....

"Leftism" isn't EVEN a wing of politics.

[BigBallinStalin]

LEFTISM IS A LIFESTYLE WHICH IS A CHOICE AND I OPPOSE THEM BOTH AND ALL OF THEM!

[Lootifer]

LEFTISM IS A LIFESTYLE WHICH IS A CHOICE AND I OPPOSE THEM BOTH AND ALL OF THEM!

Who is that in ur avatar?

[BigBallinStalin]

[john9blue]

To be clear: Leftism, not Liberalism...
Leftist's are usually those who get the angriest and bash people who do not agree with them. Liberals are usually the ones I am looking to to start a Tea Party for the Democrats.

We already have one...it's called Occupy Wall Street, and you bash it almost as much as you do liberals and Democrats. If the Tea Party had any integrity to it any more, they would have welcomed Occupy Wall Street with open arms. Actually, the real Tea Partiers did.

^ basically this

scotty, between this and the "should this cop be charged with assault" thread, you are sounding more and more like a neocon lately. and this is coming from someone who hates most forms of modern liberalism

[Phatscotty]

To be clear: Leftism, not Liberalism...
Leftist's are usually those who get the angriest and bash people who do not agree with them. Liberals are usually the ones I am looking to to start a Tea Party for the Democrats.

We already have one...it's called Occupy Wall Street, and you bash it almost as much as you do liberals and Democrats. If the Tea Party had any integrity to it any more, they would have welcomed Occupy Wall Street with open arms. Actually, the real Tea Partiers did.

^ basically this

scotty, between this and the "should this cop be charged with assault" thread, you are sounding more and more like a neocon lately. and this is coming from someone who hates most forms of modern liberalism

What did I say in the assault thread? What is wrong with "this"? And if Occupy is the answer to the Tea Party, then all we have to do to wait for victory is for all the Occupiers to get thrown in jail. Occupy Wall Street looked like the answer to the Tea Party for the first 2 weeks. Since then they have been all about socialism, redistribution of wealth, higher taxes. bigger government, class warfare etc.

What liberals I am talking about is the one's who notice the debt and agree spending is way out of hand. They also recognize that cutting taxes can help the economy grow and create more jobs. They used to be called Reagan Democrats. In my OP, I was referring to a fiscally conservative movement on the left, not just "the response" to the Tea Party.

[john9blue]

^ basically this

scotty, between this and the "should this cop be charged with assault" thread, you are sounding more and more like a neocon lately. and this is coming from someone who hates most forms of modern liberalism

What did I say in the assault thread? What is wrong with "this"? And if Occupy is the answer to the Tea Party, then all we have to do to wait for victory is for all the Occupiers to get thrown in jail. Occupy Wall Street looked like the answer to the Tea Party for the first 2 weeks. Since then they have been all about socialism, redistribution of wealth, higher taxes. bigger government, class warfare etc.

What liberals I am talking about is the one's who notice the debt and agree spending is way out of hand. They also recognize that cutting taxes can help the economy grow and create more jobs. They used to be called Reagan Democrats.

in that thread you put a great deal of trust in the police, much more than i would expect from a libertarian.

and you've gotta admit that the "tea party movement" turned to shit just like OWS did; now they're all about warhawkishness and anti-gay marriage and basically the rest of the neocon platform. it sucks, but that's how it goes. we either attempt to take back the label by rejecting the "new tea party", or we drop the label ourselves.

[Phatscotty]

^ basically this

scotty, between this and the "should this cop be charged with assault" thread, you are sounding more and more like a neocon lately. and this is coming from someone who hates most forms of modern liberalism

What did I say in the assault thread? What is wrong with "this"? And if Occupy is the answer to the Tea Party, then all we have to do to wait for victory is for all the Occupiers to get thrown in jail. Occupy Wall Street looked like the answer to the Tea Party for the first 2 weeks. Since then they have been all about socialism, redistribution of wealth, higher taxes. bigger government, class warfare etc.

What liberals I am talking about is the one's who notice the debt and agree spending is way out of hand. They also recognize that cutting taxes can help the economy grow and create more jobs. They used to be called Reagan Democrats.

in that thread you put a great deal of trust in the police, much more than i would expect from a libertarian.

and you've gotta admit that the "tea party movement" turned to shit just like OWS did; now they're all about warhawkishness and anti-gay marriage and basically the rest of the neocon platform. it sucks, but that's how it goes. we either attempt to take back the label by rejecting the "new tea party", or we drop the label ourselves.

I do have a certain amount of trust for the police. I trust that if someone needs help, they can call the police and the officer will put their life on the line for the safety of a complete stranger.

There were a lot of copy-cats who used the Tea Party to get elected, as well as some people who were co-opted. Yes I know and I understand. However, today there are a lot more people like Ron Paul in the Senate and the House. Sure, not 100% of the tea party people elected stayed true to the principles they preached, but overall we have increased our REAL libertarian presence in government, especially at the state levels by huge proportions.

Not everything I say is a Tea Party position. For example, my view on gay marriage can be considered a Bill Clinton view, since all I basically say is that states rights is the way to go on that issue, and is basically what DOMA (defense of marriage act) is, which was Clinton's, and until recently, Obama held the same views as me. You didn't see any of these trolls attacking Obama did you? They just have anger and meanness in their hearts and want to take it out on someone.

In short, don't get all caught up in what other trolls say I say. They don't have a clue. Sure part of that is me not communicating the clearest at times, but mostly it's people taking what I say and then layering a couple incorrect assumptions of what that must mean on top of it.

The bottom line in the assault thread is I condemn the police actions 100%, and I have said all along they went way too far. However, the fact that I have also said that the victim was not blameless either and was looking for a fight and asking for a fight with the police somehow erases the previous acknowledgement.

[Phatscotty]

Sure, but you wont like it.

The person (you quoted) who has aligned leftism with religion has improperly defined (as well as poorly generalised) left wing politics. This completely undermines their argument; thus leftism is not a religion.

Okay then, what makes a religion a religion?

[Woodruff]

To be clear: Leftism, not Liberalism...
Leftist's are usually those who get the angriest and bash people who do not agree with them. Liberals are usually the ones I am looking to to start a Tea Party for the Democrats.

We already have one...it's called Occupy Wall Street, and you bash it almost as much as you do liberals and Democrats. If the Tea Party had any integrity to it any more, they would have welcomed Occupy Wall Street with open arms. Actually, the real Tea Partiers did.

^ basically this

scotty, between this and the "should this cop be charged with assault" thread, you are sounding more and more like a neocon lately. and this is coming from someone who hates most forms of modern liberalism

What did I say in the assault thread? What is wrong with "this"? And if Occupy is the answer to the Tea Party, then all we have to do to wait for victory is for all the Occupiers to get thrown in jail. Occupy Wall Street looked like the answer to the Tea Party for the first 2 weeks. Since then they have been all about socialism, redistribution of wealth, higher taxes. bigger government, class warfare etc.

Thank you for precisely making my point. You really are a neocon, aren't you?

What liberals I am talking about is the one's who notice the debt and agree spending is way out of hand. They also recognize that cutting taxes can help the economy grow and create more jobs. They used to be called Reagan Democrats. In my OP, I was referring to a fiscally conservative movement on the left, not just "the response" to the Tea Party.

It's funny you bring up Reagan. He's probably be horrified at today's Republican Party and yourself.

[Phatscotty]

Reagan Democrat -

The term to describe moderate Democrats who are more conservative than liberal on certain issues like national security, deficit spending, and immigration. The term Reagan Democrat also refers to the vast sway that Reagan held over the House of Representatives during his presidency, even though Democrats held a majority in the house (thus holding control of spending and taxation) during both of his terms

[Lootifer]

Okay then, what makes a religion a religion?

I agree with dictionary.com's version.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

[Phatscotty]

What if I said "right-wing fundamentalists practice their politics like a religion".

Would you disagree with that?

[Baron Von PWN]

What if I said "right-wing fundamentalists practice their politics like a religion".

Would you disagree with that?

Often their politics are the same as their religion, so its hard to tell the difference.

[Lootifer]

I think you're labelling political passion/zeal/fervor (and its resulting bias and public/argument manipulation) as a religion. It's not, and the only reason you would say it is is to sling some good old fashioned mud ("dem crazy leftist zeolots!!").

If it was a religion I could also say the following about myself... Note you'll see it gets rediculous very quickly...

- My wife is my religion
- The All Blacks are my religion
- The Waikato Chiefs are my religion
- The New Zealand Cricket team is my religion (Worst. Religion. Ever.)
- My actively devoid religious attitude (agnostic) is my religion (inb4 J9B)
- Epic (tm) Pale Ale is my religion
- MMORPGs are my religion
- Arguing with conservative americans on pointless forum boards is my religion
etc etc.

We all feel passionate about some things, and yes we all let that passion distort and bias our outlook; but lets leave the name calling to the retarded media eh?