One of the fundamental characteristics of the Left is it's disdain for religion, especially Christianity (but not Islam; religions that inspire their followers to kill Americans are A-ok). Liberals love to mock people of faith, i.e. Christians, and proclaim their commitment to reason and science as the sources of their understanding of the world. No trusting in revelation for them! How interesting, then, to find that liberals themselves are not only people of faith, but the irrational kind of people of faith: those who put their faith in man. And that man is Barack Obama.
While watching Fox News and listening to talk radio I've seen and heard left-wingers expressing the deepest faith in their Anointed One. Liberal pundits and deluded Democrats from Bob Beckel to Alan Colmes are absolutely convinced that Obama is virtually infallible and is saving the country. Seriously.
Bob Beckel, a Dem strategist who appears regularly on Sean Hannity's show, has said at least three times that Obama has saved the economy. Last year Kirsten Powers, another Dem strategist and Fox News regular, said Obama's anti-terrorism policies made her feel "very safe". Ellis Henican, a Newsday columnist and, like Beckel and Powers, a Fox News pundit, was giddy with optimism about Obama's America on a recent episode of The O'Reilly Factor. And it's not just prominent liberals who worship the Big O. Ordinary, no-name ones do, too.
On Michael Medved's talk radio show a Black woman called in incensed that Medved had criticized Obama. She credited Obama with saving her and her unemployed husband's personal economy, even though her husband lost his job after Obama took office. When Medved pressed her on that fact and the dismal state of the national economy, this woman claimed Obama said things would get worse before they got better. And she was certain that things would get better. No matter the reality, Medved's caller saw Obama as the bringer of nothing but good. And, as we've seen, she's not alone in that opinion.
So, how do we explain this phenomenon? Beckel, Powers, Henican, Medved's caller, and the rest of the liberal horde aren't basing their assessment of Obama on the facts. Double digit unemployment, multiple terrorist attacks, ballooning deficits, none of that has any bearing on liberals' judgment of their Messiah. For them it's all about faith. Faith in Barack Obama.
Obama's far-left ideology coupled with his race make him the perfect savior to liberals. Whatever happens in the real world is irrelevant to their view of him. Obama can only do good and be good because that's what the progressive paradigm says. Liberal people of color are endowed with an innate wisdom and moral purity totally absent from even liberal Whites. Whites, however, can access this wisdom and purity by doting on non-Whites. Hence, Obamamania. It will occur to few liberals to question this paradigm, no matter how much Obama screws up. He's Black, he's liberal; therefore, he can do no wrong. Liberals just know it. No facts necessary.
People of faith indeed.
7 comments:
Libtards' faith is based in an irrational belief in their ideology of choice; Barry is merely the latest incarnation of a historically failed system, time and again. Bill Clinton was the "first black president". Before we knew that "is" had all kinds of different definitions, as did what constituted oral sex, there was the economic and national security disaster that was the racist, Jimmah Cartuh. Libtards are desperate for a messiah who can make their broken system work.
Ain't gonna happen. Barry will prove to be even more devastating to America's economic and national security future than the previous dunce of dunces, Cartuh.
In the libtard view, that makes me racist; have it your way, but I don't like Barry's white half, either. It isn't the man or the color; it's the failed ideology that I don't like or trust.
You left one thing out here though my friend. They do have a faith in Obama, the man, the man of color, the man of Muslim faith. The thing you left out is, the person of color has to be liberal themselves. Remember when the Republicans put up a minority for a high office? The democrats were all over themselves with incredulity that this would happen. There are more than one or two examples of this. But you are right. They are a people of faith. Faith in one man But he has to be of color *or a minority* and most of all......LIBERAL. Put that one in there and he is exactly as you say. Great post my friend.
I consider myself a "rookie" Christian, but for as long as my journey has been, I can see it has not been a matter of blind faith. I see it in my children and in the mechanics and dynamics of life in general.
Such validation will never be provided by some guy sitting in the Whitehouse...especially a hope-monger like Obama.
"Do [liberal Christians] hate themselves?" Sadly, Mr. Stark, they do. And I dispute your assertion that the majority of liberals are Christians. They're not; how else do you explain the almost exclusively left-wing-in-origin campaign against our Judeo-Christian heritage and Judeo-Christian values? And while YOU may "personally criticize" Islam the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of your leftie brethren don't. And that, too, is sad.
Why do liberal Christians hate themselves? Because you said so? Because that sounds "edgy"? I see you making a lot of extreme statements on your blog, but not backing them up. Not to mention that many of the "evils" you are slamming the left for in your entries can just as easily be pointed out in the conservative side, too.
According to the CIA World Factbook, 78.5% of the United States is Christian and 1.7% is Jewish. That means that 80.2% of the use is "Judeo-Christian."
If we were to (falsely) assume that every member of the remaining 19.8% of America was liberal, it would not be nearly enough to form the majority of the "left."
In other words, there are not enough non-Christians in this country for the majority of the left to be non-Christian.
Where is your source of this "overwhelming majority?" Talk radio? Paid entertainers like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, and Bill O'Reilly? Other blogs?
Mr. Stark, perhaps you've never heard of nominalism. That's when someone is a Christian--or some other religion--in name only; hence the term nominalism.
I posit that a large swathe of the American public--conservative, liberal, and other--is Christian in name only, but that such nominalism is higher among liberals.
Again, I point you to the antiJudeo-Christian campaign that's been going full force in our culture for at least a generation. It's almost totally leftist in origin. Liberals, generally speaking, ARE less religious than conservatives. And considering that I'm a generation older than you, Mr. Stark, I think I should know.
Your first paragraph is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You are bending the definition of "Christian" to fit your argument by saying that the Christians on the left are not real Christians so they don't count.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/
And then this begs the question, what is the definition of "real Christian?" Because I know many Christians, both liberal and conservative, who would argue that you are not a real Christian because of all the hate you post on your blog. And again who is to say they are right? It sounds to me like "real Christian" is defined as "whoever it is convenient for me to exclude."
Your last paragraph is interesting. First, what anti-Judeo-Christian campaign? Churches are still packed, religious freedom still exists, and no one is being stabbed in the streets for believing in God. All I see are a bunch of people on the far right upset over the fact that not everyone wants to be Christian anymore. Second, your last line is an appeal to tradition fallacy.
Older doesn't necessarily mean better or smarter. For example, if the old person spends a lot of time in isolation while the younger person is out and about, then the younger person will more likely have the better perspective.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html
Post a Comment