|
Nnanji -> RE: Cake Is His Art. So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? (9/17/2017 3:02:41 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
I "taunt" people with townhall blinker, because a half dozen or so of you comrades bitch about the site. had you kept your yaps shut about it, I probably wouldn't. although, there is a very high degree to where its like holy water to a vampire and I like it very much because of that.
meanwhile, I originally posted this to explain the contrasting difference between the lefts response to islam and its response to Christianity. I edited it a little to be more pertinent here, and hopefully it'll just speak to why the leftists hate the church. looking right at you blinker.
quote:
As secular, liberalism understood itself as embracing this world as the highest good, advocating a self-conscious return to ancient pagan this-worldliness. But this embrace took place within a Christianized culture. Consequently liberalism tended to define itself directly against that which it was (in its own particular historical context) rejecting.
Modern liberalism thereby developed with a deep antagonism toward Christianity, rather than religion in general. It was culturally powerful Christianity that stood in the way of liberal secular progress in the West—not Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Druidism, etc.
And so, radical Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire rallied his fellow secular soldiers with what would become the battle cry of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment: écrasez l’infâme, “destroy the infamous thing.” It was a cry directed, not against religion in general, but (as historian Peter Gay rightly notes) “against Christianity itself, against Christian dogma in all its forms, Christian institutions, Christian ethics, and the Christian view of man.”
Liberals therefore tended to approve of anything but Christianity. Deism was fine, or even pantheism. The eminent liberal Rousseau praised Islam and declared Christianity incompatible with good government. Hinduism and Buddhism were exotic and tantalizing among the edge-cutting intelligentsia of the 19th century. Christianity, by contrast, was the religion against which actual liberal progress had to be made.
So, other religions were whitewashed even while Christianity was continually tarred. The tarring was part of the liberal strategy aimed at unseating Christianity from its privileged cultural-legal-moral position in the West. The whitewashing of other religions was part of the strategy too, since elevating them helped deflate the privileged status of Christianity.
And so, for liberalism, nothing could be as bad as Christianity. If something goes wrong, blame Christianity first and all of Western culture that is based upon it.
This view remains integral to liberalism today, and it affects how liberals treat Islam.
That’s why liberals are disposed to interpret the Crusades as the result of Christian aggression, rather than, as it actually was, a response to Islamic aggression. That’s why Christian organizations are regularly maltreated on our liberal college campuses while Islamic student organizations and needs are graciously met. And the liberal media—ever wonder why you didn’t hear last February of the imam of the Arlington, VA mosque calling for Muslims to wage war against the enemies of Allah? Nor should we wonder why, for liberals, contemporary jihadist movements in Islam must be seen as justified reactions to Western policies—chickens coming home to roost. Or when a bomb goes off, that’s why a liberal must hope that it was perpetrated by some fundamentalist patriotic Christian group.
http://humanevents.com/2013/04/25/liberalism-and-islam/
The thing I find interesting about this is how inculcated with this some of the supposedly free thinkers are. They do have blinkers on while they quaff at the kool aid trough and shout how stupid everyone else is for not thinking like them.
|
|
|
|
