The Purpose-Driven Left

[Adam's Apple]

Good one by Ann Coulter.

THE PURPOSE-DRIVEN LEFT
April 6, 2005

It's been a tough year for the secularist crowd. There was Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," the moral values election, the Christian hostage subduing her kidnapper by reading from "The Purpose Driven Life," and the Christian effort to save Terri Schiavo. Not only that, but earlier this year the Rev. James Dobson insulted the Democrats' mascot, SpongeBob SquarePants, with impunity.

And now, for all the hullabaloo in the media, you'd think the Pope had died.

The liberal take on Catholicism is that it's a controversial religion because of its positions on abortion, sodomy and various other crucial planks of the Democratic platform (curiously, positions that are shared by all three of the world's major religions).

In defense of the Catholic Church's most "controversial" position (meaning "contrary to the clearly stated opinion of CNN"), I wanted to return to a story from a few weeks ago that passed from the headlines far too quickly. The "controversial" Catholic position is the ban on girl priests.

I'll leave it to the Catholics to explain the theological details, but we have a beautiful pair of bookmarks to the exact same incident illustrating women's special skills and deficits. The escape and capture of Brian Nichols shows women playing roles they should not (escorting dangerous criminals) and women playing roles they do best (making men better people).

http://www.anncoulter.org/

 

[Edward]

It's been a tough year for the secularist crowd. There was Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," the moral values election, the Christian hostage subduing her kidnapper by reading from "The Purpose Driven Life," and the Christian effort to save Terri Schiavo.

It is easy to label these people secularists but the label does not fit, anymore than your generalized statement to the effect that it was a "Christian effort to save Terri Schiavo" fits. It would be easy to make theses issues about whether someone was a Christian or a secularist but it simply does not work.

The liberal take on Catholicism is that it's a controversial religion because of its positions on abortion, sodomy and various other crucial planks of the Democratic platform (curiously, positions that are shared by all three of the world's major religions).

Interesting. I'm a liberal and I agree with some of those positions. What! Could it be? A liberal agrees with the Catholic position and at that a non-Catholic agreeing with the Catholics. Its the end of the world. What has the world come to? Tolerance actually be espoused by a person on this forum.

 

[Edward]

Hey libs are welcome here along with their opinions, however they do much better without the typical attitude that follows them onto this forum!

Which attitude would this be? I am just interested in another generalization regarding liberals and what their attitudes are. Maybe someone else who is inclined to could make a generalization regarding the "typical attitude that follows conservatives onto this forum." That way it can at least be fair, since both conservatives and liberals are being treated generally and not individually.

 

[Edward]

we have a few liberals here who can discuss like adults without stating something stupid. The lack of libs here is due to the fact that they have nothing remotely interesting to offer outside of outlandish claims and a bunch of criticism. Just be a good little lib and you will get along just fine!

I would suggest you reverse that a little and come at this from a liberal viewpoint, some liberals (myself not included) would argue that conservatives have "nothing remotely interesting to offer outside of outlandish claims and a bunch of criticism." Liberalism (by this I am denoting the Democratic party) at this time is the minority party within our government and therefore they must be the party of no, and not the party of yes. The reasons democrats do not have any solutions right now is because President Bush and the Republican Congress believes as you do, so Democrats wouldn't be wise to voice their opinion or to articulate it clearly or concisely. If no one is going to listen to you or try to understand what you believe and why you believe it then there is little use for dialogue or discussion. That's sad, and that is why many families break up. The two parties (mother and father) do not seek to understand the other, so they divide and they sow discord.

We see this on a greater scale in terms of the Republican and Democratic parties. As for me being a good little lib that isn't very likely. I am probably going to incur the wrath of my fellow liberals here on some issues and I am likely to do the same with republicans. Why? Because I am a person first, and a liberal second. This is true of everyone. It would be hard to find someone who agrees with either party completely, and if you did find them you would be able to conclude quickly that they have a low intellectual capacity. I am not speaking of education either. Even some of the most educated people (liberals included) have a low intellectual capacity when it comes to following the party line.

 

[Edward]

well that's the ticket right there! use intellect and common sense when posting and you will do fine. However your suggestion hold no water with me, there is a reason the democratic party is the minority now and instead of looking to come together on issues they would rather go against the grain. I would say they will be the minority for sometimes if things stay the same.

You are only allowed to say that because the President and the majority of the members of Congress are not Democrats. If the shoe was on the other foot you would hear about how the Republicans are obstructionists, and how that party does not seek to come together and to work on the issues. It seems to me that at least Senate Democrats are willing to work with the Republican party (not necessarily agree with them) on such things as Judicial nominations, and it seems right now like the Republican party is actually considering telling the Democrats to shove off (i.e., the "nuclear option). This in my mind actually goes to show that at least in this instance it is the Republicans who aren't "looking to come together on the issues."

It isn't likely that Democrats will agree with Republicans or Republicans with Democrats. I am not suggesting that they should. It would be unwise if both parties were to agree on an issue so totally that those who disagree with that position would find themselves without any party to go to. By coming together I do not mean that Democrats should agree with or vote for bills which the Republicans support, instead I mean they should get together and seek to work out a mutually beneficial bill, but telling Democrats that you will use a nuclear option if they are so adamantly against one nominee is an insult. It means that you are willing to force a vote even though every Democrat in the Senate is against you. That unity shows that the nominee doesn't have the approval of 55 members of the Senate.

Do not get me wrong, I disagree with Democrats on several major issues and find myself in conflict with the party on other minor issues as well; I still consider myself a Democrat though. I am not asking for Republicans to agree with Democrats (and vice versa) whether I am asking that Republicans just settle down and listen. If they really wanted to get their way right now they could. That's not the point though. Civil people don't use their power to railroad others. They allow for free and open debate and discussion and then they vote on it.

Democrats may always be in the minority but Republicans should seriously consider not pissing democrats off just because they are in the minority. It leads to civil war, maybe not in a hot war but definately in a cold war, a war of words, etc. That is not wise.

I personally believe the Civil War could have been averted, in fact, both northerners and southerners had offered solutions to end slavery in a mutually beneficial way. That would have came about, but in the Senate, House and in the states people were doing what is now taking place. That resulted in a war, but one incident leading up to that war was the violence that erupted at the Senate floor, where a member of the House took his cane to a Senator and beat him so badly that he was unable to return to the Senate for years. That is what democracy brings you if you aren't willing to listen to others. It doesn't matter if you agree, it only matters that you listen, seek to understand them, and then tell them your concerns and help them to understand you. When you do that, you will without a doubt come up with a mutually beneficial solution.

I believe this to be true even on the hotly debated issues of abortion, same-sex marriage, war in Iraq, etc. Everyone will not get everything they want, but everyone will feel happy with the outcome. So don't piss the Democrats off, or a Democratic Senator may take a cane to a Republican Senator.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The reasons democrats do not have any solutions right now is because President Bush and the Republican Congress believes as you do, so Democrats wouldn't be wise to voice their opinion or to articulate it clearly or concisely. If no one is going to listen to you or try to understand what you believe and why you believe it then there is little use for dialogue or discussion. .

Yes. Keep shutting up. You will lose every election. The truth is we know what you stand for and reject it.