Don't kill me, but I think Coulter may be right!

Tonight she was talking about how Liberalism has almost become another religion on Leno. I listened actually pretty intently, and it got me thinking. What if the republicans pulled this card?

Religion: A way to answer some of life's questions. So, if liberalism answers question, such as war, immigration, marriage, and so on, it is a religion. But wait, religion is not supposed to be in government! So then they try to repeal that.

If the republicans were to use that such definition as a way to let religion into the government again, how would our world turn out??? Awful. So yes, I think mAnn has found an item which she has won one, because liberalism is almost definitely probably considered a religion.

after me :evilgrin:

Jenn

accumulate 40 posts and yet learn nothing about liberals?

x(

I don't think that seperation of church and state is necesarily seperation of religion and government. Church and non secular entities will certainly be included as church, but I don't think "liberalism" will.

Liberalism is not preached in a clergy, or congregation and oh god. This is too damn slippery slope for me...

just kidding

See how easy they just make shit up and pass it off as "truthiness". Liberalism is a political philosophy, not a religion. There is no supernatural power or specific 'author' that must be adhered to with liberal philosophy. If liberalism is a religion, so is conservatism and consequently must not be allowed in government either.

Was it really that hard for you to apply critical thinking to debunk her shit? Please, I'm honestly asking and practically begging, WHY? Why oh why can people NOT THINK anymore. :shrug:

..Baldness is a Hair Color" Makes as much sense.. :rofl:

Liberalism is actually a religion after all, just a not actual practiciing, worshiping type one. I am definitly not a republican myself, but what might they do if they consider this to be a religion?

But religion doesn't neccesarily have "higher power" or god to them all the time. They don't also have to worship anything.

I don't believe 'liberlism' even exists.

That's a standard question. "Who do you mean by 'they'?"

"not a republican myself, but what might they do if they consider this to be a religion?"

If you indeed heard that, I would advise you to tell them "go fuck yourself" just as Cheney once said.

...as you seem to be doing in your first post, when you define it as something like "a way to answer some of life's questions."

The fact is that, by that definition, virtually everything is a religion. Philosophy (political or otherwise) of any type, science (hey, physics is a religion!), even some of the arts. Like I said, you can describe anything that answers questions about the world as a religion.

But, in fact, when one speaks of a religion, one of necessity considers it as a system of thought based on faith in an intelligent entity or entities that is/are not empirically perceiveable. And that pretty much diqualifies liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, socialism, or any other political "-ism."

We have a book that defines words. It's called a dictionary. Liberalism is not a religion. Creationism is not a theory. Why in the world would you want to help her distort the meaning of a word???

encompassing the human qualities we generally associate with sanity . . .

"compassionate conservatism" and "faith-based conservatism" became religions long ago. "Conservatives" like Bush are the ones that scorn liberals for being "reality based."

The definition of religion that you mention is way too broad. It could apply to practically anything. Science, for example, answers some of life's questions. Does that make it a religion?

Welcome to DU, dubeskin!

Your premise makes ZERO sense and this is one of the worst sentences ever written:

"So yes, I think mAnn has found an item which she has won one, because liberalism is almost definitely probably considered a religion."


Has found an item which she has won one? :wtf: Almost definitely probably? :puke:

I have alerted on this as complete fame bait and horribly constructed fame bait to boot.

This thread amounts to a big steaming pantload.

I was just thinking that maybe since it was such a widely believed idea, so many people follow it, and that it was fresh in my mind, I would get your guy's opinions on this. APparently I should have brought my flame suit.:hide:

and then explains how it functions as a religion.

Hint: when you adopt a talking point from the likes of Coulter, you should realize that it's nonsense from the start. Clearly you haven't thought it through. Define your terms and explain the thesis.

Welcome to my LIBERALISM! We will anoint you in gayness!

(uh, tell us again what you think liberalism is)

OH YES!! YOU ARE THE GAY MEXICAN IMMIGRANT CHILD whose father is considering DEATH WITH DIGNITY! WELCOME!!

I don't even understand her corollary between "liberalism" and religion, and I doubt that something so esoteric is something your typical American conservative would comprehend.

get flamed ("Don't kill me, but...").

As for your other point about liberalism being a religion... others have made the point very well that it's no more so then conservatism or science if you use the same definition as "it" does.

maybe widely believed among the far right of the spectrum, which, along with the far left, does not amount to a majority.

"conservatism" to be a religion as well? If liberalism is, then conservatism has to be too, using Coulter's definition. How will this help the Republicans?

The entire concept is ridiculous.

The conservatives are Christian and worship God and liberals don't and so liberalism is their religion. Is that clear? :crazy:

That, for one thing, is a false dichotomy.

:hug:

Kako kaj? :hi:

:)

Check out these puppies! Now these are some GD shoes. Bow down before the sparkles. NOW!

Thank you, I'm here every night.

But you might enjoy the veal. Tip the wait staff!

Fabulous!

Peyton & I in Leeds

you both look Fab!

love the handbag.

and you were wearing them!

You took the sun with you when you went back to Sicily, and my world is not as bright as it was last week. I miss you guys!!!

Peyton & I before meeting you and our subsequent 4 hour five bottles of wine lunch! (Ray drank too!)



WE MISS YOU SOOO MUCH!!!! See exclamation points!!!

since Liberals tend to attract a rather large diversity of religions, some of which are polytheistic and pantheistic, I'd say if anything we have a whole lot more Gods and Goddess' then the Conservatives do. :evilgrin:

Everybody knows that not one single liberal believes in God or has anything resembling family values.

In addition to that, we're all wealthy elitists and, at the same time, unemployed layabouts who live in mom and dad's basement, worshipping at the altar of liberalism.

For every good religion, there's a bad one. There's a satan, an evil, an all tempting force that's ready to devour those that stray from the flock.

The powerful organized religions made their name on playing on that second religion and using it to fear their hordes into servitude and as a cause to kill and destroy those who don't walk the same walk and talk the same talk.

Coultergeist calling "liberalism" (WTF that is) as a religion is to put it up to her wingnut asshats as being the embodiment of satan on earth. She's just playing the same meme that has turned many churches into power center and money pits...preying on those who only see or want to see the world in black and white.

Religion works best where education is the least available...thus their power in the South and their disdain for the intelligencia. You can't manipulate a mind that thinks for itself.

There are some on this side who play right into that cartoon she's created...and their reaction is what she uses as "testimony" to the other side as to how evil thing are. This is the original strawman game. Be alert to it or be suckered by it.

was their talking-point back then.

Basically, the fundies came up with the idiot idea that
they could bundle every viewpoint they disagreed with,
give it a name, (secular humanism), and then call it a "religion".

They weren't "right' then, and Ann isn't "right" when she plagairises it
30 years later. Dishonest bullshit propaganda is what it is,
no matter how many times they change their preferred label for it.

Take a refresher course in 'logic', and step away from the propaganda.

:-)

The only ones usually dumb enough to fall for them are Republicans and the mainstream media.

In this case it is saying that: religion is a belief system, so therefore any belief system is a religion.

That sounds "may be right" to you? How about this: horses are mammals, therefore all mammals are horses?

Or maybe this: skanky, loudmouth fascists are human, therefore all humans are skanky, loudmouth fascists?

If any of that sounds reasonable to you, you might have a high-paying job waiting for you in mainstream journalism.

Preshishely, as Sean Connery would say ;)

I swear I read this exact post, word for word or very near to it, over a year ago on DU :P

:thumbsup:

......for being able to set and look at the Mann's face on a TV screen.

I'm not sure if anyone went over the rules with you or not, so here goes. :sarcasm: NEVER, under any conditions drink any water you got from that other place.:sarcasm: Second, ALWAYS take everything a neocon says with a bowl of salt, forget the grains of salt some people need the whole bowl. :sarcasm:

We will forgive you though, with only 42 posts to your credit you've obviously got a lot to learn. Welcome to DU:grouphug:

religion
One entry found for religion.


Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion

liberalism
One entry found for liberalism.


Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
- lib·er·al·ist /-b(&-)r&-list/ noun or adjective
- lib·er·al·is·tic /"li-b(&-)r&-'lis-tik/ adjective
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberalism

so if the shoe fits cinderella, wear it. Enjoy your stay.

1. How can a political philosophy be reconciled with a theologic premise or lack thereof (atheism)? Where is the creed, the faith (belief without evidence), societal grouping (groupings and gatherings) the infallibility of its system?

2. What's wrong with being "godless"? Why is it a "bad" or inadequate state of mind or organization for autonomous or collective individuals? Why is it harmful to others?

3. What's wrong with being "liberal"? Why is it incessantly seen as destructive without a single virtue? Why isn't it conceded that liberalism even has a single positive contribution to be made in the political debate?

Besides Coulter's mixed metaphors of atheism and liberalism, why not address her argument of total and complete invalidation of both versus carefully discussing both or either deficits? (No, I haven't read her book, but plan to.)

"because liberalism is almost definitely probably considered a religion" - those are your words. Please flesh this out a little for me, and explain what "almost, definitely, probably" means exactly. Those words don't work together all that well. And please point to the group or groups of the population who consider liberalism a religion in support of your statement.

That Ann Coulter would call it such just shows how clueless she is--not about liberalism, which is obvious, but about religion.

To be a religion, all these things have to be in place.

1. There is a belief system shared among its adherents.
Liberalism has no shared belief system. Put a PETA or veganism thread up here and you'll know this in a second.

There are people who are stridently anti-abortion who hew to liberalism because they believe in union labor. There are anti-tax liberals. Anti-minimum-wage liberals. There are many stripes of liberalism.

Conservatism meets this tenet of religion because most conservatives believe that taxes are too high, welfare too prevalent, homosexual marriage is bad, Jesus in the public square is good...

2. Adherents to the religion gather in a community. Your continued welcome in this community is predicated on living within the tenets of the community.
We don't do this either. As long as you maintain largely a liberal outlook on life, we'll continue to accept you as a liberal.

We also don't have a unified "community." Take a group of organized labor people and a group of welfare advocates, lock them in a room, and come back in three hours. It's very possible you'll need a mop for all the blood on the floor. Both groups are comprised mainly of liberals, but they have very little in common.

If you're a conservative and you suddenly start calling for higher taxes or more food stamps, consider yourself ostracized. They're kinda lockstep over there.

3. The religion is centered on a supernatural being.
This is what kills both conservatism and liberalism as religions. Christians center their belief system on Jesus, Jews on Moses, Muslims on Allah. Liberals center theirs on concepts like equality and justice. There's probably a "Captain Justice" but if there is he's a comic book superhero. (Considering his nom de guerre, he's probably a freeper.)

Conservatism, while closer to a religion than liberalism is, still isn't a religion. They believe in tax cuts and banning abortion--both of which are conceptual. "Captain Pro-Life," who flies around padlocking abortion clinics, would be a terrible comic book. No one would buy it. (I know, I know, he'd sell a brazillion copies to Richard Mellon Scaife...and three weeks later, you'd find Captain Pro-Life being blown into people's attics.)

The only political belief system that comes close to centering itself on a supernatural being is big-L Libertarianism. They worship Ayn Rand, but Ayn Rand isn't a supernatural being; she's just dead.

Don't agree with Ann Coulter. It will infect your soul, curve your spine, and keep the country from winning the war.

You were only listening intently because her Adam's apple had you hypnotized.

a person who advocated assinating federal judges?
If anything is a religin it would be todays republlican who worships the almighty dollar over any true God.

The conservatives are the ones in bed with the religious fanatics. They are the ones trying to force their agenda on the rest of the world, like it or not.

Ann Coulter is just trying to sell books. She's going to say anything she can to create a fuss, all in the name of making money. I hope the people who had their work plagiarized by Coulter sue the shit out of her, and her publisher. And I also hope the wives of the 9/11 victims end up having the final say.

Ann Coulter is not a Christian, she is a demon. She is evil. No good Christian would go around saying or doing the things she's said and done. The Bible has warned us to beware a wolf in sheep's clothing. Ann is just another wolf pretending to be a sheep. A whore for the GOP.

Big tent, my ass. Why doesn't DU just invite Ann and Rush, et al. to join up and give their side of the story. Ya know? Fair and balanced. Oh, maybe Hannity can be a new Moderator, too.

And her words are beyond contempt. She says that you can't criticize them, why is she trying to criticize them? She could disagree with their message, and therefor disagree with them, but why does she have to attack them personally? Because it is the neocon way. "If you disagree with us, we will drag you and your reputation through the mud, tell lies about you, and ruin you completely". Its what they did to Dan Rather, John Kerry, and I'm sure many others. It backfired on them with John Murtha, but they are still trying on that one.

:(

Um, that is not the definition of religion. Try reading a dictionary.