Why do liberals side with Islam and despise Christianity?

Just curious since it make no sense to me.

Don, I have asked that question many times. Not sure why they are that way, they like to dispise America too. I dont get it.

Christians are supposed to be loving and forgiving but it doesn't look that way at all I don't like any religion and think they all are bad. But if you have a nutjob burning Korans to incite the radical Muslims and jeopardizing our troops why should I like it and not call them out?

Im thinking all three of you dont have a clue

..it has nothing to do with islam...it has to do with yang. if a conservative likes ying...then its support yang for the bad guys.

If the conservative run jesus for office...guess who the libs will put up....

...yup Olbermann.....

So you think the nutjob burning the Korans is indicative of Christians?

He isnt killing anyone...its a protected right,,,ala flag burning.. freedom of expression, something the muslims dont understand.

It is a protected right, like carrying loaded weapons and executing people - you know, those "rights" embodied in that hundreds of years old piece of paper.

Boss Strong... Boss Strong... isn't this thread a Flame Bait? Doesn't it pre-suppose that Liberals despise Christianity? Shouldn't you call this to Don's attention and warn him "about the rules"?

Oh, I see you've already posted your opinion... this must be another difference between Conservatives and Liberals?

they dont, (at least i dont), i dispise each equaly,

both sides are populated by religious zealots so blinded by their own percieved correctness that they cant see the wood for the trees, don your opening statement ilustrates my point perfectly.

i wont side with any religion, i simply like to point out hipocracy and call out biggots.

I think it could be perceived that there is more liking for islam amongst liberals, but I dont believe this to be the case. I think more likely it is the case that 'liberals' (as it is put here, misleading I feel) view followers of islam as having the same rights and expectations afforded to the followers of christiantiy, or any other religion, but recognise that islam is simply being used as the latest in a long line of bogeymen as a tool of control. For example, when was the last time any of the members here was threatened, menaced or abused by a muslim - personal experience, not media driven perception? Hasn't happened to me. Nor have I been threatened by christians - until we realise that peoples acts are their personal responsibility, and stop pegging blame upon whichever church you belong to, we will continue to bask in ignorance.

And I don't believe its a liberal issue either, simply an issue of free and independent thought - if you can manage either of those, its seems pretty clear to me that both religions suffer from intolerance to them, and unfortunatley by them. We seem unable to separate for example an act of terrorism from religion. Terrorism=political=power. There is no place for religion, no matter how much the media whores, and their political string-pullers, attempt to brainwash either side.

The USA still has some real strong, in some case rather 'fundamentalist' religoius groups, and has a strong thread of religion running through it, hence the islamic bogeyman is easier to perpetuate there than here in Europe, though mind you, its cetrainly going pretty far thanks to bigoted newspapers. I do sympathise, but also believe that christianity in this context is being used as another tool by those with an agenda to push - many of those I have met who play the christianity card are very far from being christians as I perceive them - I was brought up as a christian. My upbrining was chance - had I been born elsewhere, I would maybe have been a muslim - I am neither now. Religion is being used as control, both 'sides', and my own view is that if we cannot recognise this from a historical perspective, then we are doomed to continue fighting, using 'my gods better than your god' on the surface to control those who do the fighting, whilst underneath its all about power gain.

Take the fun out of fundamentalist and all you are left with is da mentalist.

as far as i can tell, ameruica always needs a vilain to thwart in order to controll the population,

in the early days it was the blacks,
in the 40's it was the nazi's,
in the 50's it was the comunists,
in the 80's it was dictatorships,
in the late 90's - 00's it was WMD's
and in the 10's its islam,

anybody else notice a pattern of controll to keep americans living in fear and remind them why they need a large powerfull central government "to keep you all safe"

mirnin mick, haven't had a chance to say this to you in a while......WRONG....


I am right..........case in point.....eric e new post.

X2!

I remember going to Bible school as a little boys and reading the little books about how Jesus loves all the little children.......Yes He does.........Then when you grow up Jesus hates the little Arab kids. What happened to that happy Jesus?

people with agendas happened to thet happy jesus........

Pat...he joined a union and got the right to vote twice.....empowerment like nothing he had ever experienced before....it was intoxicating....so he stayed pickeled and by day he made the cars and by nite he made the bars............

[code]

[/code]

just filling out the hate list . . .

in the early days it was the black
in the 40's it was the nazi's
in the 50's it was the comunists
in the 60's it was the hippies
in the 70's it was the puerto ricans and women who get abortions
in the 80's it was the russians, gay w/AIDS
in the early 90's it was the poor
in the mid 90's it was gays again
in the late 90's it was "family values"
in the early/mid 2000's it was the gays again
in the mid/late 2000's it was the terrorists
in the 2000's the Mexicans
and in the 2010's its the Muslims

is there a pattern as to which party leads these missions of hate?

Rod, fair enough. OK let me be more specific.

Godless liberals praise Islam and dispise Christians.

Or course not all, but many.

just a question...... but what happens if somebody is islamic but holds some right wing ideals i.e. votes tory? (from the conservative muslim gentleman sitting next to me :S)

I googled the topic and found this....


January 27, 2007
Paradise Lost; Why the Left Loves Muhammad
By Timothy Birdnow


Conservatives seem baffled by the animosity held by liberals towards Christians and Jews. Christianity requires the believer submit to authority, accept the rule of government, be charitable to his fellow; in short, be a model citizen. Ditto the Jews, who held these requirements even longer than the Christians. Why are liberals so hostile to both? For that matter, why do liberals seem so smitten with that 7th century holdover known as Islam? Why do those on the Left seem less than eager to defend our freedom and way of life from the ravages of Islamic Jihad?

To understand this, it is necessary to examine the intellectual underpinnings of modern Liberal thought. We must begin with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Godfather of modern liberalism, in his treatise The Social Contract:

"MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains."

Why? George Bush, of course, but also because

"It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. As the new idea of a kingdom of the other world could never have occurred to pagans, they always looked on the Christians as really rebels, who, while feigning to submit, were only waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and their masters, and to usurp by guile the authority they pretended in their weakness to respect. This was the cause of the persecutions.

"What the pagans had feared took place. Then everything changed its aspect: the humble Christians changed their language, and soon this so-called kingdom of the other world turned, under a visible leader, into the most violent of earthly despotisms.

"Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighborhood, have desired without success to preserve or restore the old system: but the spirit of Christianity has everywhere prevailed. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the Sovereign, and there has been no necessary link between it and the body of the State. Mahomet held very sane views, and linked his political system well together; and, as long as the form of his government continued under the caliphs who succeeded him, that government was indeed one, and so far good."
So, Christianity and Judaism, by giving the World Separation of Church and State, destroyed the old pagan order and splintered the power of the collective will. To those who believe in this collective and the exercise of the will of society over the individual, there can be no worse crime. The results were ‘the most violent of earthly despotisms' while the Islamic world, that model of theocratic benevolence, offered a government ‘so far good'".


(It is ironic that the Left would use that very Christian concept of separation between Church and State as a tool to eliminate the author of this division.)


Those who would revolutionize society, who would remake America in their own neo-pagan, atheistic mold, find the fundamental weakening of the power of the State intolerable (since it is only by that power that their will can triumph), and would prefer to institute a system more akin to that of Muhammad. They admire Islam for maintaining the ancient regime, although they ultimately plan to displace Allah with a Man-centered deity.


Of course, the liberal also hates being constrained in any way, and traditional morality flows, as they perceive it, from the Church down. By raising Islam as an alternative to Christendom, the liberal hopes to bludgeon the keepers of morality. Islam can help with the dirty work of crushing the usurper ideologies of Christianity and Judaism, and then, of course, their turn will come.


Then, too, we can look to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, who believed not in the rationality of Christendom, but in a mythical Greek paradise ruled by "Dionysian" creative forces - emotionalism and irrationality. These forces were vanquished by the rise of Socratic intellectualism and the coming of Christianity. Nietzsche argued further against a fixed reality in his unpublished work `On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense', claiming that what we think of as truth is merely a convention agreed upon by society, thus freeing Man from the tyranny of concrete reality.


This wild spirit, this vision of the anti-mind slithers throughout liberal thought and can be seen in numerous left-wing positions; being soft on crime, spiritual environmentalism, their admiration for dictators such as Castro and Mao, and in their current love affair with radical Islam. Terrorism is the ultimate irrational force, a violence aimed at random destruction and mayhem. It holds kinship with the bloodlust of the Marxists and Nazis, and, as such, is a ``creative force`` by Nietzschean standards. (Oh, and Nietzsche also hated Christians and Jews, and was a prime inspiration for National Socialism; copies of Thus Spoke Zarathustra were issued to German soldiers during World War One, gaining the interest of a certain corporal...)


A return to the "good old days" of the 7th Century, to a time before paradise was lost to the tyranny of Judeo-Christian intellectualism seems preferable to modern liberals, who have flatly rejected Hobbes` view of primitive life as solitary poor, hard, nasty, brutish, and short. We especially see this in the neo-paganism of the environmentalist movement; they dream of a lost pastoral Eden where mankind could be free of the drudgery of industrial life and the endless intellectual toil. A great many on the Left wish to overthrow the current order, replacing it with this twisted Nietzschean/Rousseauian mirage stolen from the Book of Genesis.


Of course, to those who do not believe in a concrete reality, as many liberals do not, one system is as good as another, and we have no right to judge the Moslem on how he conducts his affairs. Since the Jihadist's reality is equally valid as the Westerner's, we are practicing moral Imperialism if we force our Judeo-Christian moral law on them. This is exacerbated by the fact that they are Third World peoples; many liberals, deep in their hearts, are pulling for what they perceive as the underdog - in this case the terrorist murdering thug-at the expense of their own culture. A racist, sexist, homophobic, power-mad society such as ours deserves to be taught a lesson! Even if the teacher is racist, sexist, homophobic, and power-mad, they aren't Western, Christian, or White! They aren't Dick Cheney! Power to the people!


There is a strain of masochism involved here as well; the white liberal perceives himself as having unfairly benefited from his station in life, having lived well on the backs of the poor. Somebody must be punished for this! He will flagellate himself in his mind, and will support those who will punish his country, because justice demands retribution, and America has lived far too well. If we must endure terrorist attacks to atone for our sins, so be it! Perhaps we should do the decent thing and die; let others have their turn at the table.


Here Socialist thinking comes into play; there is only so much to go around, and we have been hogging it for too long. For those in the Arab world to live better, we must exit the stage. It's only fair!


The Liberal ultimately believes that the culture we have built, the triumph of Judeo-Christian values, is diseased and must be erased. If Islam can do their work for them, so be it. Islam, like the State under Marx, will ultimately wither away, and the paradise which predated Christ and Abraham can be restored. At least they like to think so.


Much like Milton's fallen angels, they believe they have been dispossessed of their rightful station by a tyrannical spiritual entity, and they are determined to repossess their native seat-the fallen pastoral paradise promised them by Rousseau and Nietzsche-via the triumph of their Collective Will. This is their prime mover, their principle motivation. It is why they were so enraged at the loss of their political power, and why they hate the ``usurper`` George W. Bush; they were driven out before they could attain paradise. This concept-lifted from Christian doctrine-that History has an ultimate end in a Humanistic Eden cannot be overstressed; the Left is consumed with this. They feel that, by losing their political power, they have been cast into the Lake of Fire.


"They, looking back, all the eastern side beheld
of Paradise, so late their happy seat,
waved over by that flaming brand, the gate
with dreadful faces throng`d, and fiery arms."

Paradise Lost
(Book XVII, verses 642-644)

We are controlled by fear.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#


The first minute says it all. "The Power of Nightmares"

I am just asking for Don to produce something that holds up his claim...

The same applies to you Chuckles,,not some wierd left wing conspiracy website or newspaper.

Chuck.. in case you missed it.. here is WTC 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

no plane
no jet fuel
isolated small office fires


Complete collapse at freefall speed, which was predicted by Jane Standley, BBC news 25 minutes before it occured, even as the building she identified by name was standing behind her in her camera interview.

Heres... JANE!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI&feature=fvw

perhaps she can predict the powerball numbers for the next drawing.. amazing powers she has

has anyone interviewed these people? did they say where they got their information?

Well it is sure as hell crystal clear that the building she mentions by name and the BBC's ticker is referring to is still standing in the background!


Just an example of why I question... not to mention the debris pile underneath had molten steel running like a foundry!

JW...a short list
http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html
you hate unjustified war...
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/US/Wilson.htm
you disapprove of consetvative judges...how bout a liberal one
The ruling was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. In support of his argument that the interest of the states in a "pure" gene pool outweighed the interest of individuals in their bodily integrity, he argued:
“ We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. ”

Holmes concluded his argument by declaring that "Three generations of imbeciles are enough".[5] The sole dissenter in the court, Justice Pierce Butler, declined to write a minority opinion.
union supporter???
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-017.html
vhttp://www.stoptheaclu.com/2010/08/27/afl-cio-joins-communists-la-raza-aclu-other-unions-in-voter-registration-drive/

enough for now...I have a spray gum full of paint that I have to get back too...I ask that you check out your side too...its full of skeletons

1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition at World Trade Center on 9/11


PRNewswire
September 9, 2010

Former US Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) and Richard Gage, AIA, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Discuss Scientific Findings

National Press Club, Washington DC, 2:00 pm, Thursday, September 9, 2010

On Thursday September 9, 2010, Gravel and Gage will host a central press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, presenting hard evidence that all three WTC skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, in NYC were destroyed by explosive controlled demolition.

Senator Gravel notes, “Critically important evidence has come forward after the original government building reports were completed.”

This press conference will be webcast at AE911Truth.org and hosted concurrently in cities throughout the world.

Good find Wyatt, you are amazing. They wont listen but Holmes was right.

Chuck, you and your fellow conspirator loving friends, will never convince me that any branch of the US government has anything to do with 911. Your mental faculties are in question each time you make that accusation without substantial proof that would hold up in court, which of course you have none.

All the Arabs who did it are in caves or flirting with virgins.

Well qualified engineers, architects, and scientists have provided you all you need to know, yet you defy their reasoning and defend the illogic.

...are you 911?

Yes, the future is shaping up nice.

Charles, your new, welcome to the "Cesspool"

What u dont know is we have debated 911 truthers for years and years...and years.

sorda dead topic but knock yourself out.


so it goes

Wyatt it took you this long to figure it out?

Why do Liberals side with Islam and despise Christianity?

You accuse about half the population of this country of "despising" Christianity and the only supporting evidence you offer is a very biased opinion article by an Ultra Right Wing (and I use the word loosely) Conservative.

Let's ask the question this way ... Why do Conservatives, the holders of everything rightious in our Constitution, despise a religious group three times the size of all Christians combined? Why does half our population reject our constitutional rights when it comes to Islam? Do you really believe that our Constitution is there only for the convenience of the Christian faith?

Just curious since it makes no sense to me ...

hiya Charles...Patrick...yer an old guy too...so cut me some slack....I never really look at names......

god dammit chuck, I can't stop looking at your avatar ! this is clearly your best yet

Don, you still have lost me. You say "Godless liberals praise Islam", but Islam is a monotheistic religion that is centered on God.

Godless liberals would be more likely to praise humanism, the sciences, nature, or something like that, not a religion...especially one that believes in God.

Sorry, I'm not reading this whole thread so maybe I missed something.

You can't ask for slack when you don't give any Wyatt.

..here ya go Pat....slack you.......................

Rod, I thought one of Don's posts created a theory of why a liberal would support Islam and that is because it does not allow the individualism and individual freedom. Therefore there are but two entities, the Central control and their rulers (Inmans) and then everyone else who are kept in line by the rulers. Kind of fits much like Mao, Fidel and Hugo, standard bearer of the far left, if I read what he was saying. Not sure I am sold on it but I thought that is what he was implying.

Ricardo...nope......but it makes a good story......and may be applicable in other liberal circumstances, but not the islam issue.....it's the enemy of my enemy is my friend theory........

damn
1. to declare (something) to be bad, unfit, invalid, or illegal.

more accurate than ironic

...good point RodH...it should be remembered that when fierce partisan talk and opine they mostly mean other fierce partisans as their examples.

Odd that we live in a country that has seperation of church and state but no seperation of church and politics. OBTW, I don't care for Islam or Christianity. Guess that leaves me without a policical affiliation.

Dave

Rod, a liberal is all for his liberty, just not yours, and that is the difference.

The Muslim theologian Amanullah De Sondy said recently that the vast majority of Muslims were "deeply homophobic", and a survey carried out this summer among British Muslims reported that 0% of those questioned thought homosexuality was "morally acceptable". http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/29/gay-muslims-britain

Charles, how could it be said about a Conservative when the foundation of a conservative is individual rights and equal rights.

Can you explain the inconsistency.

Joe,

X2

but teach one thing and believe another

Dave

liberals always side with muslims? you have a short memory. i recall that in the months after 30 september 1965 there were many staunch conservatives cheering for the muslims in indonesia. and i am sure that many of them loved christianity.

and more recently, many conservatives certainly supported, and continue to support, the (muslim)kosovars....and from conversations, it is clear that they have little love or respect for the christians who murdered many of them.

i respectfully suggest that you check the defintion of always.

Is it legislating morality vs supporting or legislating imoral behavior. Gay marraige does not apply in this case because it is not a legal right at this point. Where the people vote that right into law then why would a conservative care. You have to do a little better than these two.

the Gov't?.... Kurt....be careful what you wish for.........history is chock full of moral legislation.....always....education over legislation is what makes a truly free and just society.

Does this imply that the opposite is also true, Don? (going all the way back to your original question)