Why the Left despises Religion

[Deornwulf]

The reaction of the Left to the upswing in religious values has a very simple reaction. The Left despises religion and God because it puts into place an authority higher than them. The Leftist movement was founded on the premise of destroying the Establishment so their attacks on Organized Religion are a continuation of their battle against Authority Figures.

One could say the it is a refusal on the part of the Left to mature and become adults. The Anti-Establishment view is very egocentric. Using Kohlberg's Moral Stages of Development, those on the Left are stuck at stage 2, the key to this interpretation being the Left's preponderance to resort to moral relativism in their reasoning behind actions.

 

[Comrade]

On the other hand, they might hate religion because the left know deep down inside they are going to HELL! :dev1:

 

[dilloduck]

Fricken ACLU--claim they are "protect" us from government intrusion but sticking their own damn agendas into everything. Arrogant bastards! How stupid do they really think we are??

 

[nakedemperor]

The reaction of the Left to the upswing in religious values has a very simple reaction. The Left despises religion and God because it puts into place an authority higher than them. The Leftist movement was founded on the premise of destroying the Establishment so their attacks on Organized Religion are a continuation of their battle against Authority Figures.

One could say the it is a refusal on the part of the Left to mature and become adults. The Anti-Establishment view is very egocentric. Using Kohlberg's Moral Stages of Development, those on the Left are stuck at stage 2, the key to this interpretation being the Left's preponderance to resort to moral relativism in their reasoning behind actions.

Invoking Kohlberg really doesn't help to lend any legitimacy to "liberals want to tear down the establishment because they hate The Man for imposing rules and regulations and morals so". Ha. Kind of antithetical to the whole big government argument, is it not? Morality without religion, anyone? No?

I'm on the left. I don't despise religion or God. And I also don't spew invective non-sequitors like "anti-establishment".

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Invoking Kohlberg really doesn't help to lend any legitimacy to "liberals want to tear down the establishment because they hate The Man for imposing rules and regulations and morals so". Ha. Kind of antithetical to the whole big government argument, is it not? Morality without religion, anyone? No?

I'm on the left. I don't despise religion or God. And I also don't spew invective non-sequitors like "anti-establishment".

More accurately. You want to replace the naturally evolved institutions, practices, and general way of things, with a radically stupid and idiotic paradigm. The only way you can do this is complete control of society through totalitarianism, because your theories of how things "should" be is completely out of touch and unnatural. So yes. You are rebelling against the status quo, preferring even more levels of totalitarianism to institute the lunacy which you're convinced is morally superior.

 

[nakedemperor]

More accurately. You want to replace the naturally evolved institutions, practices, and general way of things, with a radically stupid and idiotic paradigm. The only way you can do this is complete control of society through totalitarianism, because your theories of how things "should" be is completely out of touch and unnatural. So yes. You are rebelling against the status quo, preferring even more levels of totalitarianism to institute the lunacy which you're convinced is morally superior.

Ok, what do I want to replace? What are my theories on how things "should be"?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Ok, what do I want to replace? What are my theories on how things "should be"?

typical lib crap. socialism. income redistribution. corporations sued for the irresponsibility of their customers. Judicial activist judges rewriting law from the bench, villification of christians, rich people, white people, men, israelis.. on and on. shall i continue?

 

[Deornwulf]

Naked - I think it is perfectly valid to view attacks on Organized Religion by some elements of the left as an immature reaction to an authority figure. Most of the left-wingers with whom I attempt to discuss religion resort to childish and immature diversionary tactics in their argumentation.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Look how maturely naked accepts his decimation in debating.

 

[nakedemperor]

typical lib crap. socialism. income redistribution. corporations sued for the irresponsibility of their customers. Judicial activist judges rewriting law from the bench, villification of christians, rich people, white people, men, israelis.. on and on. shall i continue?

I've been decimated in debate my generalizations and prejudgements! OW!! My...PRIDE.


I'm not a socialist. I believe in tax cuts and I didnt like the death (dum dum DUUUMMM) tax; why? Because I'm from a Christian household, I'm rich, I'm white, and I'm a man.

That being said, religion is for people who are scared of their shadows, rich people should be forced to give their money to lazy people, white people are elitists, and men are pigs.

JUST KIDDING. I don't believe any of that crap. You've done pegged all the shit that seperates me from the 'typical libs' you hate so much. I fart in your general direction.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I've been decimated in debate my generalizations and prejudgements! OW!! My...PRIDE.


I'm not a socialist. I believe in tax cuts and I didnt like the death (dum dum DUUUMMM) tax; why? Because I'm from a Christian household, I'm rich, I'm white, and I'm a man.

That being said, religion is for people who are scared of their shadows, rich people should be forced to give their money to lazy people, white people are elitists, and men are pigs.

JUST KIDDING. I don't believe any of that crap. You've done pegged all the shit that seperates me from the 'typical libs' you hate so much. I fart in your general direction.

Everything you said jokingly is what libs think in general. Maybe you aren't a lib, or maybe you're lying.

You're wrong in almost every argument you endeavor to make. Aren't you tiring of looking foolish?

 

[nakedemperor]

Naked - I think it is perfectly valid to view attacks on Organized Religion by some elements of the left as an immature reaction to an authority figure. Most of the left-wingers with whom I attempt to discuss religion resort to childish and immature diversionary tactics in their argumentation.

I mean, its perfectly valid to view attacks on organized religion by use of childish and immature diversionary tactics as immature-- that being a reaction to an 'authority figure' is a dubious claim. And seems to be to be more of a poorly thought out way to attack the "attackers"; mostly people attack organized religion because it doesn't make sense to them, or because it occasionally threatens to impinge on their freedom from religion (yes, I believe freedom *of* religion implies the choice to choose *no* religion).

But when you just say "the left" is immature and abhors authority figures as opposed to "some elements of the left" (which is probably true), it doesn't really hold water.

 

[Deornwulf]

Naked - I don't think you are a typical liberal. You appear to be an intellectual who believes in social reform and compassion for the human condition.

However, on other sites, I have witnessed Christians and Jews being blasted by those from the left for daring to stand up for their rights.

 

[nakedemperor]

Everything you said jokingly is what libs think in general. Maybe you aren't a lib, or maybe you're lying.

You're wrong in almost every argument you endeavor to make. Aren't you tiring of looking foolish?

I disagree that libs think all that crap "in general". That's a "generalization" that you feel comfortable making. I'm not wrong in almost every argument I endeavour make, LEAST of all because you've proven it; but then again its hard to have an argument with someone who takes liberties in assuming what their opponent believes, and when told otherwise says "well you're abnormal or lying". Who looks foolish?

 

[nakedemperor]

Naked - I don't think you are a typical liberal. You appear to be an intellectual who believes in social reform and compassion for the human condition.

However, on other sites, I have witnessed Christians and Jews being blasted by those from the left for daring to stand up for their rights.

I've seen it happen. Just ignore it, its generally ignorance speaking. Or you could blow them up. Here's a diagram:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I mean, its perfectly valid to view attacks on organized religion by use of childish and immature diversionary tactics as immature-- that being a reaction to an 'authority figure' is a dubious claim. And seems to be to be more of a poorly thought out way to attack the "attackers"; mostly people attack organized religion because it doesn't make sense to them, or because it occasionally threatens to impinge on their freedom from religion (yes, I believe freedom *of* religion implies the choice to choose *no* religion).

But when you just say "the left" is immature and abhors authority figures as opposed to "some elements of the left" (which is probably true), it doesn't really hold water.

You're totally immature. You make wild general allegations "even i can see your many attempts to ignore variables etc." remember from yesterday? ANd then you cannot name one that's been ignored. The word salad that comes out of your brain is more aptly identified as a stream of crap.

Christianity has never been forced on people in this country.

Tolerance means you DON"t attack another's religion because you don't understand it. Can you get that through your tiny little cranium?

 

[nakedemperor]

Christianity has never been forced on people in this country.

Tolerance means you DON"t attack another's religion because you don't understand it. Can you get that through your tiny little cranium?

You mean other than when we kidnapped Africans and forced our religion upon them? Would pre-abolition not count as "never" in your book?

And in case you've been reading with your eyes closed, I don't DWolf that attacking religion because you don't understand it is "ignorance".

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You mean other than when we kidnapped Africans and forced our religion upon them? Would pre-abolition not count as "never" in your book?

And in case you've been reading with your eyes closed, I don't DWolf that attacking religion because you don't understand it is "ignorance".

I guess I mean recently. There is no constiutional guarantee to a society free of religion.

Care to tell me what DWolf really means?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

mostly people attack organized religion because it doesn't make sense to them

This is textbook intolerance.

 

[nakedemperor]

I guess I mean recently. There is no constiutional guarantee to a society free of religion.

Care to tell me what DWolf really means?

The constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Doesn't that guaranteed the freedom to choose no religion? In which case, people should have to swear allegiance to "god" in the pledge of allegiance, nor should people be forced to pray when they don't believe in prayer, per se. I could care less if the 10 commandments are in a court house; if you don't want it there, don't look at it. It doesn't affect you. But when a teacher asks a student (for example) to acknowledge a god's existence, that's impinging upon his/her choice of "no thank you" when he exercised his right to choose a religion.

Also, do you want me to tell you what "DWolf" means or what the guy was trying to say?