| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Belmont Club: Intellectual fraud on the Left |
| 2006-10-31 |
Matthew Yglesias has some advice for Liberal campaigners.Now Amy's right. It would be useful, for the purposes of electoral politics, for liberals in the media to avoid expressing the view that the belief -- adhered to by millions of Americans -- that failure to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior will result in eternal damnation is daft. On the other hand, the evangelical view of this matter is, in fact, completely absurd. And not just absurd in a virgin birth, water-into-wine, I-believe-an-angel-watches-over-me kind of way. On this view, a person who led an entirely exemplary life in terms of his impact on the world (would an example help? Gandhi, maybe?) but who didn't accept Jesus as his personal savior would be subjected to a life of eternal torment after his death and we're supposed to understand that as a right and just outcome. That, I think, is seriously messed up. But why not? If Liberals as a whole truly believe that the central tenet of a religious belief is a bunch of absurd crap, then why wait until after the elections to say so? In naval warfare in the sailing age even pirates flew their true colors at the moment of engagement. . . . People old enough to remember Communism will remember when the most important thing for any proud Communist to hide was the fact that he was Communist. It was the original closet and the largest one in history. Part of the problem, I suspect, is not that Liberals disdain religion but simply that they have very strong religious views of their own. And like the pirate ship of the Captain Blood movies they are the very opposite of ships without a flag. They have a flag, all right, but simply one which is impolitic to fly until the other ship is boarded and captured. But I think that ultimately, it is counterproductive for political organizations which are secretly contemptuous of religions to hide their disdain. It is ultimately better to march openly against beliefs contrary to their convictions instead of waiting until the last moment to unfurl their banners. You can always respect an intellectual opponent, but there is little regard owed to a fraud. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #8 We have more than a generation of people whose roots in Western culture are so shallow they are non-functional. That is not by accident, IMO -- many on the left labored long and hard to produce just that result. well said, lopt. |
| Posted by: Clkethel OHlkdj 2006-10-31 21:23 |
| #7 Rob Crawford: Gandhi was a racist. That was the least of his faults. Here is a real eye-opening article on "Saint" Gandhi. |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2006-10-31 21:23 |
| #6 What strikes me the most about Yglesias' article is how totally ignorant he is of 2000 years of Western theology and philosophy. Note that I'm not saying he is ignorant because he doesn't believe -- rather, he has absolutely no idea of the long intellectual history within which the issues he raises have been discussed, both by Christians and by those hostile to Christianity. We have more than a generation of people whose roots in Western culture are so shallow they are non-functional. That is not by accident, IMO -- many on the left labored long and hard to produce just that result. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-31 19:20 |
| #5 The funniest thing is the attribution of the belief in the necessity of accepting Christ as an "evangelical" belief. It's not. It's a basic Christian belief, no? Dante put the "virtuous pagans" in Hell. Granted, the least unpleasant part, but they were still in Hell. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-10-31 18:42 |
| #4 I read the comments at Belmnont Club and was not surprised by the venom towards evangelicals. Hate towards a group of others whom you do not know for slights that attributed to the group rather than to the individuals that perpetrated them. What's the word for that? They remind me of the Palestinians - at a time when liberals, Jews, Christians and anyone who believes in non-violence should be working together to defeat Islamic radicals - they take the opportunity to spew hate towards groups less threatening. Just like the Palestinians throw rocks at Jews because they are confident they won't shoot back, the enlightened at the Belmont club rage at Christian evangelicals they have never met, have no clue what they think or do on a daily basis - but the enlightened at the Belmont Club are just sure they deserve it cause they don't support gay marriage and are geeky squares. They make a very safe group of "others" to blame for the worlds ills. Just like Palestinians can't embrace democracy because they can't get past their hatred of Jews - some of those posters over there gladly focus on the peaceful evangelicals, claiming that they deserve it because they believe others won't get to heaven - and they ignore the REAL threats to women, homosexuals, freedom, democracy and instead and dig up the hatchet to bully a less threatening group that won't fight back. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-10-31 17:41 |
| #3 On the other hand, the evangelical view of this matter is, in fact, completely absurd Well of course it's absurd to them. They still think they are pretty great folks. The vast chasm that separates a holy God from sinful man cannot be breached by intellectual argument however. a person who led an entirely exemplary life in terms of his impact on the world Red herring. Again, this assumes that God is keeping a scorecard. He isn't. He's perfect. How can he let imperfection into his realm? That's the basic Christian argument. Only through the sacrifice of Christ can man be made fit for heaven, no matter how good he or others think he is. Absurd? Perhaps to most. Biblical? Absolutely. As to the libs pandering to evangelicals before the election, we see right through that. Who cares. Next story. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-10-31 17:15 |
| #2 On this view, a person who led an entirely exemplary life in terms of his impact on the world (would an example help? Gandhi, maybe?) Gandhi was a racist. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-10-31 16:21 |
| #1 I'd accept their opinion if they'd stand up and say they think Jews, Muslims and Wiccans are mythology I'd at least believe them intellectually consistant and honest about it. If they are just gonna pick on one they come off as children rebelling against authority. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-10-31 13:21 |