A Liberal's Stew (published 3-18-2006; article #6)

I have discovered the joys of “blogging;” although, being a linguistic purist, the term does not fit well on my keyboard just yet. Is not “weblog” or, even better, “web log” preferable? However, I digress.

Earlier this week, I came across, via a relative’s web log, a link to the log of someone, with whom I had a religious discussion years ago. Back then, we agreed on some religious aspects but disagreed on others. Still yet, I found the young man polite, objective, lucid in thought, and willing to consider other viewpoints. Despite our disagreements, we had a hearty respect for each other. Therefore, having found his web log serendipitous, I looked forward to stirring the pot again, by having the type of direct but open-minded exchange that we had years before.

To my disappointment, however, I discovered, sadly, that this good man has boiled, in the stew of liberal opinion, too long. The vital nutrients of discussion (i.e., objectivity, courtesy, and logic) have evaporated, in the steam.

Please feel free to visit his site yourself (www.daffodillane.com). He has a lovely family, and many of the entries, by his wife and him, are on that topic, but many articles careen recklessly down the road of political opinion also.

For example, the following is a sample of my friend’s current ingredients, referring either to Republicans or to the Republican Party. To him, Republicans: are “amoral monsters,” “hate America,” are “without values,” seek to “destroy our Constitution,” wish to bring about “slavery,” cause “tyranny,” are not “real Americans,” are “godless Republican animals,” “seek America’s destruction,” are “hypocrites,” have an “amoral Republican ideology,” are “radical America hating Republicans,” are “dumb,” are a “disgraceful people,” are “vile,” have a “simplistic view of the world,” are “evil,” are “worthless cowards,” are a “racist hate group,” are “morally bankrupt,” are “moronic” and “stupid,” and, finally, “[undermine] our way of life.”

He also adds that Republicans (1) seek to “allow children to starve to death and want to throw the elderly out in the streets;” (2) ”are too weak morally and mentally to be allowed to hold office in this country;” (3) “are [sic] danger to our way of life;” (4) “[work] night and day to destroy the country;” (5) “only represent a narrow group of radical extremists;” (6) “hate Americans and especially the poor;” and (7) seek to “[eliminate] the freedom of the press.”

Furthermore, he adds that “corruption is the core defining value of the Republican [sic] party” and that “there are no limits to Republican incompetence and ignorance.” Finally, he concludes, “the Republican [sic] party is the devil's concubine.”

In addition, he labels Christians, by his definition, as a “radical religious minority” (emphasis his). He states, “The Republicans have capitalized on [their agenda] by working within the most radical of the churches and encouraging the new version of the Christian Identity movement to flourish which has labeled itself the born again movement.”

Obviously, my friend is good at casting insults and engaging in ad hominem attacks, but his postings are woefully lacking, in logical reasoning and objective proof, to support his comments.

I feel as if I should apologize, for placing this smelly stew on your plates. I should have tossed it into the garbage. I decided to write about this man’s web log, however, to illustrate the digression of the liberal mind. Years ago, the ingredients for the stew were there, but they were fresh. The young man was courteous, well reasoned, and open to divergent dialogue, despite his liberal, secular leanings. Now, having boiled in the liberal pot for years, the ingredients have putrefied. The man is blinded, by his bias, and closed to disagreement. Such is often the destination of the liberal journey.

Granted, we conservatives, too, can be closed-minded and biased. We cook our own stews at times also. The striking point of contrast, however, is that the secular liberal takes pride in his tolerance. “We must be tolerant,” he says. This tolerance, however, often ends, at the border of his own views and agenda. Tolerance means that you must accept his belief, not that he is willing to accept yours.

Instead of using intellectual reason, the secular liberal often looks down his nose, with disdain, at the “unenlightened and ignorant” conservative before him. Emotion, not reason, holds sway, as the secularist brushes aside facts, to affirm his own perceptions.

In conclusion, biblical conservatives have nothing to fear from secular liberals, such as my friend from years ago. They will only persuade those, with whom they already agree.

I suggest that my friend learn how to eat, from his own kitchen, before he tries to serve his stew to others.

What say you?