Are Liberals Godless?

[Stace]

I finally decided to look up this Jim Wallis character. I typed his name into the Google search engine. LOL, the first link for this Wallis guy was titled "Are Liberals 'Godless' by ptsdkid. I ptsd kid you not.

Looks like this guy is an editor of liberal rag magazine or something. Probably Mother Jones.

I'm still slightly amused at the many liberals that continue to rag on Ann Coulter and myself without putting up a semblance of debatable fodder. Try to remember that this forum is called 'debate politics'. I assume you liberals still haven't reached the point where you're able to debate the issues, rather than induldging in mild invective.

I've got time, but my patience is running thin with the anti American/Godless crowd.

Well, it's not like you started this "debate" with any debateable fodder, other than for us to try and convince you that Ann's a whackjob, but well, we all already know that that's a dead end avenue, so we have fun at your expense instead.

 

[Stace]

And you really ought to consider those meds the docs want you to take...I plugged Jim Wallis into Google, and the first thing that came up was a hit for sojo.net.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I finally decided to look up this Jim Wallis character. I typed his name into the Google search engine. LOL, the first link for this Wallis guy was titled "Are Liberals 'Godless' by ptsdkid. I ptsd kid you not.

Looks like this guy is an editor of liberal rag magazine or something. Probably Mother Jones.

I'm still slightly amused at the many liberals that continue to rag on Ann Coulter and myself without putting up a semblance of debatable fodder. Try to remember that this forum is called 'debate politics'. I assume you liberals still haven't reached the point where you're able to debate the issues, rather than induldging in mild invective.

I've got time, but my patience is running thin with the anti American/Godless crowd.

That's it. Jim Wallis is the Godless head of Mother Jones. Good research, worthy of Coulter. :2wave:

 

[tecoyah]

***Propaganda and fiction at best? In order for me or anyone else to take you the least bit serious, we will need for you to point out and explain at least one bit of propaganda or fiction coming from Ann's extensive research on liberals.

OK....Part one....The small stuff:

"Coulter engages in a series of deceptive practices in quoting people and sourcing her claims. Most commonly, she distorts the authorship of articles she's citing. Throughout the book, she attributes outside book reviews, magazine profiles and op-eds to media outlets as if they were staff-written news reports, feeding the perception of bias on the part of these institutions. These include a New York Times Week in Review article by historian Richard Gid Powers cited as "According to the Times..." (p. 6); a Washington Post book review by Patricia Aufderheide described as "the Washington Post said..." (p. 97) and "The Washington Post called..." (p. 98); and a New York Times Magazine article by reporter Leslie Gelb cited as "the New York Times reported..." (p. 171). At one point, she cites a single Washington Post magazine article by journalist Orville Schell four separate ways (implying multiple stories to the casual reader), in one case calling it "a two-part, four-billion-column-inch Washington Post story" in which "the Post said..." (p. 92).

Coulter also repeatedly cites quotations out of context from the original source material, implying that reporters reached conclusions that were actually presented by sources quoted in the piece. In one particularly dishonest case, she claims that the New York Times "reminded readers that Reagan was a 'cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat'" after the invasion of Grenada (p. 179). However, the "cowboy" quote is actually from a Reagan administration official quoted in a Week in Review story who said, ''I suppose our biggest minus from the operation is that there now is a resurgence of the caricature of Ronald Reagan, the cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat.''

Coulter goes on to denounce the New York Times for putting terms like "evil empire" in quotes, which she claims "expressed contempt for the idea of winning the Cold War." However, the article she cites as proof of the use of quotation marks is actually directly quoting Reagan saying the term. (p. 158) Later, she condemns the Times for its response to Reagan's invasion of Grenada. "The Times rages that Reagan was 'Making the World "Safe" for Hypocrisy,'" she writes, not mentioning that the quote is the headline on an op-ed by a Times columnist, not an editorial. (p. 179)"

Mind you, these are just examples of blatant misdirection, and can arguably be placed in the realm of simple Bad Research. I will let the Kid digest this before posting the next round of falsehoods, believe me, it gets better.


Stay Tuned

 

[ptsdkid]

Well, it's not like you started this "debate" with any debateable fodder, other than for us to try and convince you that Ann's a whackjob, but well, we all already know that that's a dead end avenue, so we have fun at your expense instead.

***I am encouraged to see that at least one liberal is having fun. You people tend to mask your happiness very well.

I'm sorry for not having posted a few of the liberal anti religious traits. So allow me to present a few of these liberal facts concerning religion. So rather than repeat the liberal mantra of Ann being a whackjob, perhaps you could try to debate some of the following 'godless' traits of the liberal. The following is verbatim from the book jacket of 'Godless'.

Coulter throws open the doors of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).
Then of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
Liberal's absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.

The mere fact that liberalism seeks to abort God's children, and insists that evolution (Not God) gives us life itself--is more than enough reason to factually state that liberalism is truly 'Godless'. Care to debate those facts?

 

[tecoyah]

The mere fact that liberalism seeks to abort God's children, and insists that evolution (Not God) gives us life itself--is more than enough reason to factually state that liberalism is truly 'Godless'. Care to debate those facts?

I'll be your Huckleberry:

Both You....and she it seems, are completely confused as to the Concept, Let alone the Theory of Evolution. Evolution has absolutely no bearing on Creation....none , Zip, Nada. At no point in this theory is the creation of initial life even discussed or contemplated. Evolution attempts to explain what happened....AFTER, life appeared. I would recommend Kid, if you ever decide to debate something on this forum, rather than spew ignorance.....you at the very least, try Non-Fiction as a means of research. I really does make you seem smarter.


Heres a little something from your imaginary love slave:

"John Hawkins: If you were to pick three concepts, facts, or ideas that most undercut the theory of evolution, what would they be?

Ann Coulter: 1. It's illogical. 2. There's no physical evidence for it. 3. There's physical evidence that directly contradicts it. Apart from those three concerns I'd say it's a pretty solid theory.

John Hawkins: If the science behind evolution doesn't stand-up, why do you think so many people who should know better so fervently believe in evolution?

Ann Coulter: A century of brain-washing combined with a desperate need to not believe in an intelligent designer.

John Hawkins: Do you think evolution, intelligent design, or something else should be taught in schools?

Ann Coulter: I would say teach them the one that has the strongest scientific basis to it, and if there's any time left over at the end of the day you could also teach them about the theory of evolution. "

Obviously....a very intellectual person...heh.

 

[Navy Pride]

I don't think all Liberals are Godless...........Confused, misinformed but not Godless........

 

[MSgt]

Wonderful thread.:roll:

Hows this...

All Conservatives are religious control freaks and all Liberals are godless anarchists.

That about sum it up?

 

[aquapub]

Asking if liberals are godless is like asking if Charles Manson is rude. It's kind of an understatement. They're the freaking anti-god.

 

[Paladin]

... perhaps you could try to debate some of the following 'godless' traits of the liberal. The following is verbatim from the book jacket of 'Godless'.

These come from a book jacket. A biased book jacket at that. A book jacket that espouses hatred of dem/libs. How could you possibly attribute any credibility to it at all?

its clergy (public school teachers)

Cool! I'm a man of the cloth!

its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)

Sorry, tough guy, those two are no more my spokespeople than Duke Cunningham is yours.

and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Oh man, is she silly! :rofl I have been reading science fiction for so long that I have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the belief that humans are special. And unique. And American humans at the forefront of that specialness and uniqueness.

Then of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
Liberal's absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.

Nice generalization and stereotypes. I'd be willing to bet that there are just as many atheistic and agnostic rep/cons as there are dem/libs. The difference, as I see it, is that most dem/libs are more likely to embrace change and difference (not always smart or safe) and most rep/cons want to proceed at a slower pace and are less accepting of change (not always smart or progressive)

The mere fact that liberalism seeks to abort God's children, and insists that evolution (Not God) gives us life itself--is more than enough reason to factually state that liberalism is truly 'Godless'. Care to debate those facts?

More generalization and stereotypes. What do you want dem/libs to say? You wont take what we say as honest attempts to prove ourselves. Much like your "Are Liberals Anti-American" poll. When it doesn't suit your purpose, you'll post some unkind topic about us that gets moved to the basement and then complain about it.

I am not godless. I attend church regularly. I help out at my churches monthly dinner for those on fixed incomes. I love Christmas, not for the gifts, but because of the spirit that drives it.
ted

 

[Stace]

Asking if liberals are godless is like asking if Charles Manson is rude. It's kind of an understatement. They're the freaking anti-god.

Oh yes, because we all know that everyone fits into these neat little boxed stereotypes. :roll:

 

[tecoyah]

OK....since it seems the Kid is too busy spanking his Ann Doll....I will go onto phase two, in which we see her amazing ability to use footnotes as an afterthought, likely knowing most of her readers wont go there....let alone understand what the term actually means:

"

Coulter Claim: The New York Times columnist Frank Rich "demanded that Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists." (p. 5)

Footnote: She cites an October 27, 2001 column in which Rich makes no such demands. He does chastise Ashcroft for not meeting with Planned Parenthood, which sought to offer tips on combating anthrax scares, based on its own experience with them.

Coulter Claim: Liberals called the American flag "very, very dumb." (p. 4)

Footnote: She cites a New York Times story in which a liberal history professor, Daniel Boylan, makes no claim about the intelligence of the flag. He does criticize — as "acting very, very dumb in their patriotism" — those who have criticized Hawaii for not flying an American flag over Iolani Palace, the nineteenth century seat of the Hawaiian monarchy.

Coulter Claim: She introduces a New York Times editorial on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas headlined the youngest, cruelest justice, then writes: "Thomas is not engaged on the substance of his judicial philosophy. He is called 'a colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests,' 'race traitor,' 'black snake,' 'chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom' . . . ." (p. 12)

Footnote: The passage is constructed to suggest that the Times authored these epithets, but the footnote refers readers to comments made in a Playboy article, which goes unmentioned in the book's text."


Hopefully....ptsdKid manages to take his meds (which I pay for), and gets off his a$$ long enough to tell us all none of this matters.....cause she is an animal in the fantasy sack.

 

[Blitz]

I don't think all Liberals are Godless...........Confused, misinformed but not Godless........

Don't you mean the conservatives?:mrgreen:

 

[Navy Pride]

Wonderful thread.:roll:

Hows this...

All Conservatives are religious control freaks and all Liberals are godless anarchists.

That about sum it up?

Nope, I am a die hard Conservative but not that religeous.......

 

[ptsdkid]

These come from a book jacket. A biased book jacket at that. A book jacket that espouses hatred of dem/libs. How could you possibly attribute any credibility to it at all?


****Its simply amazing that you and other liberals continue to sidestep the facts here. Forget your hang up on this bias; try addressing her points. The Democratic platform along with the liberal media support everything Ann states in the book. Can't you debate the liberal agenda without referring to name calling? So Ann is bias. Who isn't bias when it comes to debating politics? You cannot stand behind or defend liberal policy, therefore you resort to the pathetic attempt to skew the facts.


Nice generalization and stereotypes. I'd be willing to bet that there are just as many atheistic and agnostic rep/cons as there are dem/libs.

****Just as many atheistic/agnostic republicans/conservatives as there are dems/libs? Wow, you might want to take a survey on this belief by asking the over 90% of the red-stated Evangelical Christian Americans as to whether they believe in God or not.


More generalization and stereotypes. What do you want dem/libs to say? You wont take what we say as honest attempts to prove ourselves. Much like your "Are Liberals Anti-American" poll. When it doesn't suit your purpose, you'll post some unkind topic about us that gets moved to the basement and then complain about it.

What do I want you to say? Well, for starters, you may want to admit that you're liberal. You may also want to clearly state this liberal agenda. So far, each one of you liberals have run as far away from your political position as possible. Again, start by telling us how and where Ann is wrong in her factual presentation of Godless liberalism. For instance, supporting abortion rights is Godlessness....is it not? Therefore, those who support abortion (liberals) are Godless. I feel like this is the first grade; a step by step approach.

I am not godless. I attend church regularly. I help out at my churches monthly dinner for those on fixed incomes. I love Christmas, not for the gifts, but because of the spirit that drives it.
ted

****You're apparent dedication of church going is not quite compatible with the Godlessness of liberal politics. Even the Catholic John Kerry has flip-flopped on his stance on abortion etc, so as to possibly garner votes from Evangelical America. Can you say two-faced reprobate?

 

[Red_Dave]

****Who is Jim Wallis?

Did i not link to the wikipedia article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wallis

 

[Paladin]

****Its simply amazing that you and other liberals continue to sidestep the facts here. Forget your hang up on this bias; try addressing her points. The Democratic platform along with the liberal media support everything Ann states in the book. Can't you debate the liberal agenda without referring to name calling? So Ann is bias. Who isn't bias when it comes to debating politics? You cannot stand behind or defend liberal policy, therefore you resort to the pathetic attempt to skew the facts.

What points would you like us to address? Here is your opportunity to steer the debate to your talking points.
What name-calling? The book is promoted by hatred of dem/libs and their ideals. That's a fact. As much as the "fact" that liberals are godless.
I got no problem with bias. It makes for good debate. It is when it is driven by relentless rage and loathing that makes me take issue. Another fact.

****Just as many atheistic/agnostic republicans/conservatives as there are dems/libs? Wow, you might want to take a survey on this belief by asking the over 90% of the red-stated Evangelical Christian Americans as to whether they believe in God or not.

Telluwut! You do some research on how many atheistic and agnostic dem/libs there are in, say Iowa, and I'll do some research on atheistic and agnostic rep/cons in, say New Hampshire. I'll bet the percentage is close. Oh, and do it without posting your opinion about them doing it as a facade.

****What do I want you to say? Well, for starters, you may want to admit that you're liberal. You may also want to clearly state this liberal agenda. So far, each one of you liberals have run as far away from your political position as possible. Again, start by telling us how and where Ann is wrong in her factual presentation of Godless liberalism. For instance, supporting abortion rights is Godlessness....is it not? Therefore, those who support abortion (liberals) are Godless. I feel like this is the first grade; a step by step approach.

I'm liberal.
The liberal platform isn't as linear as you seem to believe. Anymore than the conservative platform is a staid as some liberals feel.
I don't support abortion on demand, I do support a woman's right to choose, again within parameters.
I don't support invading another country on flimsy evidence. I do support the troops (who, by the by, are liberal and conservative ). I do support a strong military. I also support good funding of public education. And I think exclusion of religious observances in school are stupid. Go figure! :shrug:

****You're apparent dedication of church going is not quite compatible with the Godlessness of liberal politics. Even the Catholic John Kerry has flip-flopped on his stance on abortion etc, so as to possibly garner votes from Evangelical America. Can you say two-faced reprobate?

And Richard Nixon bugged the Watergate Hotel to head-off some dem/lib votes. He also had a convicted felon as his Veep. Can you say high-level thugs? Politicians do naughty things to win elections.
What's your point?
ted

 

[ptsdkid]

What points would you like us to address? Here is your opportunity to steer the debate to your talking points.
What name-calling? The book is promoted by hatred of dem/libs and their ideals. That's a fact. As much as the "fact" that liberals are godless.
I got no problem with bias. It makes for good debate. It is when it is driven by relentless rage and loathing that makes me take issue. Another fact.


*****Address 'any' point regarding the godlessness of liberalism. You could start with abortion. Liberals favor abortion (which is the killing of God's children). Rather than play semantics with saying 'not all liberals favor this sin', explain to me why it is you liberals run from taking a firm stand for or agin aborting/killing.
There is zero of this relentless rage and loathing that you mention. Ann hits hard with the facts underlying policy and ideology of liberalism--yet you liberals cannot even own up to or support your own beliefs. So again, start with abortion, and try not to spin or play semantics with the liberal agenda here.



Telluwut! You do some research on how many atheistic and agnostic dem/libs there are in, say Iowa, and I'll do some research on atheistic and agnostic rep/cons in, say New Hampshire. I'll bet the percentage is close. Oh, and do it without posting your opinion about them doing it as a facade.

***Lets compare a true liberal blue state like Massachusetts with a true Conservative red state like Kansas to get a legitimate reading on your survey. There is no such thing as an atheist or agnostic true Conservative, whereas, a true liberal supporting his or her's Democratic platform would be living a lie if they said they were not an atheist or agnostic, i.e. as with John Kerry.



I'm liberal.
The liberal platform isn't as linear as you seem to believe. Anymore than the conservative platform is a staid as some liberals feel.
I don't support abortion on demand, I do support a woman's right to choose, again within parameters.
I don't support invading another country on flimsy evidence. I do support the troops (who, by the by, are liberal and conservative ). I do support a strong military. I also support good funding of public education. And I think exclusion of religious observances in school are stupid. Go figure! :shrug:


****Again, your need to rely on a convuluted approach to religion leaves you suspect at best. Either you're for or against the killing of God's children. There is no gray area here in which to contemplate a flip flop or hedging belief.



And Richard Nixon bugged the Watergate Hotel to head-off some dem/lib votes. He also had a convicted felon as his Veep. Can you say high-level thugs? Politicians do naughty things to win elections.
What's your point?
ted

****I praised Nixon for his attempt to stifle the dangerous Dems. That political manuever has nothing to do with his belief in God, rather, it had more to do with keeping America on the straight and narrow, (politically speaking, of course). Too bad it backfired on him, for eventually we had to put up with the most inept presidency of our time in Jimmy Carter. So swings the political pendulum of doom.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

****I praised Nixon for his attempt to stifle the dangerous Dems....

So you bend over for Nixon as well as Coulter, total shocker...

People of opposing views are dangerous? I think people like you are the real danger...

 

[::Major_Baker::]

So you bend over for Nixon as well as Coulter, total shocker...

People of opposing views are dangerous? I think people like you are the real danger...

not surprising, PSTDkid supporting a crook, i gotta say. As long as the crook was acting out against those with liberal intentions...

 

[Spartacus FPV]

So I guess to him, it is better to be insane or a theif than a liberal.

 

[talloulou]

Are all liberals Godless? Clearly not. However only a whacked out completely over the top liberal city will wage political wars against children like the Sea Scouts in the name of fairness to atheists. :roll: Ann Coulter is clearly over the top but liberals do keep handing her material....I mean most of her crap practically writes itself as evidenced by the accusations that she plagerizes the news! :rofl

 

[Paladin]

*****Address 'any' point regarding the godlessness of liberalism. You could start with abortion. Liberals favor abortion (which is the killing of God's children). Rather than play semantics with saying 'not all liberals favor this sin', explain to me why it is you liberals run from taking a firm stand for or agin aborting/killing.

You're kidding, right? It's not semantics, it's called using an adverb. Not all liberals favor abortion. Even some conservatives favor abortion. I guess by your reasoning, since there are no gray areas, conservatives are godless.
You say '' 'any' point", yet you want to focus on abortion. I already said it; I don't support abortion on demand. I support a woman's right to choose. Sorry, there is a difference. You don't want to accept that, it's you playing with semantics. I always find it funny, rep/cons like you oppose abortion yet you support the death penalty. Killing is killing.

There is zero of this relentless rage and loathing that you mention. Ann hits hard with the facts underlying policy and ideology of liberalism--yet you liberals cannot even own up to or support your own beliefs. So again, start with abortion, and try not to spin or play semantics with the liberal agenda here.

Coulter has books calling liberals godless, and telling rep/cons how to talk to liberals (if they must). That sounds like hatred. Relentless hatred.
Where is Coulter's, or your, proof that all liberals won't support their beliefs? Most dem/libs have a very strong belief system. No matter how you or she try, not all dem/libs are the same.

***Lets compare a true liberal blue state like Massachusetts with a true Conservative red state like Kansas to get a legitimate reading on your survey.

Why compare extremes? That is not the true face of the democratic or republican party. Using the first in the nation caucus state (Iowa) and the first in the nation primary state (New Hampshire) would provide a more true representation.

There is no such thing as an atheist or agnostic true Conservative

Uhh, no. There is at least one rep/con at these forums who is a atheist.

a true liberal supporting his or her's Democratic platform would be living a lie if they said they were not an atheist or agnostic, i.e. as with John Kerry.

Uhh, again you're wrong. I can probably name a couple of dem/libs who support the platform, yet are totally Christian.

****Again, your need to rely on a convuluted approach to religion leaves you suspect at best. Either you're for or against the killing of God's children. There is no gray area here in which to contemplate a flip flop or hedging belief.

Try to prove I have a convoluted approach to my religion. I was born and raised Catholic, but the incessant harping against people who have abortions drove me away. I still support their efforts to feed children and their efforts to educate third world countries, but I have converted to the Lutheran approach. Most rep/cons condemn the people instead of the action.

****I praised Nixon for his attempt to stifle the dangerous Dems. That political manuever has nothing to do with his belief in God, rather, it had more to do with keeping America on the straight and narrow, (politically speaking, of course). Too bad it backfired on him, for eventually we had to put up with the most inept presidency of our time in Jimmy Carter. So swings the political pendulum of doom.

You praise him for acting criminally against his fellow Americans. And you totally neglect how he opened China to American business. You have a twisted sense of righteousness. :shock:
And if Carter had the support of Congress, he might have been able to rescue the Americans in Iran. And we wouldn't have had to put up with the smarmy glad-hander, Reagan. The great communicator who thought ketchup and pickle relish would serve as vegetables for school lunches.
ted

 

[Doremus Jessup]

What a dumb question. Of course liberals are godless because everyone knows that only the true followers of God would: start a war based on lies, refer to the Constitution as "a ******* piece of paper", and attempt to implement a police state upon their own country.:roll:

:rofl
The kid said she was a diva?:rofl :rofl
I think of her as the Paris Hilton of the GOP. Not very attractive and always running her mouth.

 

[ptsdkid]

not surprising, PSTDkid supporting a crook, i gotta say. As long as the crook was acting out against those with liberal intentions...

Nixon a crook? What did he steal? But you are right in that anyone opposing the liberal agenda gets my vote.

Joe McCarthy was my man back when he exposed all those government liberal communist hacks. We all owe Mr. McCarthy a debt of gratitude for helping to oust those anti American liberal/communists of yesteryear.