Guilt by Association - Liberal Secularists are Bloodthirsty Monsters!

Deprogramming Liberalism ^ | 2012 | Jim Autio

[DeprogramLiberalism]

[(DIRECT LINK to original entry) This post is the intro to a compendium essay on liberal hate, demagoguery and violence in America. It is written to liberals in the first person, but is illuminating for conservatives as well.] 

Using guilt by historic association is a popular demagogic tool of contemporary liberals to demonize conservative opponents. As an example let’s examine the animus contemporary liberals have towards Christianity. Yes, of course, many liberals claim to be Christians, but they seem to have a hard time standing up for Christianity when it is demagogued by secular liberals. They often seem to be ashamed of their faith to the point that they feel they have to hide or even overtly criticize their own professed religion to prove to secular liberals that they would never let their beliefs in Christianity take them off the liberal reservation. Let’s deal with one of these arguments.

Secular liberals are compulsively paranoid about Christianity, with delusions about tyrannical theocracies and witch burnings. They love to demonize Christianity by asserting that it is a barbaric world view that leads to mass murder. To make their point they, of course, bring up the Crusades, claiming that barbarous Christians slaughtered unbelievers in the name of Christianity, but my question to them is, “So what is your point?” Sure Christians killed mostly Muslim invaders that had first killed Christians when overrunning peaceful Christian countries. Liberals have a problem with that?!? If Christianity had not reacted to the Muslim invaders, but turned the other cheek as these secular liberals seem to suggest they should have, the West would not currently exist and neither would secular liberals. We would all be Muslims still living in an extended Medieval age. Is that what secular liberals would have preferred?!? [/incredulousness]

And what’s with liberals having to stretch back to Medieval times to make a dubious claim about Christianity being a religion of mass murder? Estimates of deaths over the period of two centuries that encompass most of the Crusades go from one million to as high as five million (this high estimate by an author with obvious animosity toward Christianity, and probably bias in his numbers). And many of those deaths were Christians who died at the hands of the Muslim invaders. [4v64kpz] [1]

On the other hand, let’s take a look at secularism’s rich history of mass murder, and we need not go back a thousand years to make the point. Here are the 800 pound gorilla death totals from some notable secular leaders from the recent past (from the book Death by Government by R.J. Rummel):

.

Here we have the most murderous tyrants in history, all secularists. Just seven of them managed to kill 122 million people, most of them their own fellow citizens. (And new research suggests that these numbers are conservative in the cases of Stalin and Mao who may have been responsible for more than 60 million deaths each.) [mfjc78] [2] None of them genuinely killed in the name of any religion (Hitler shrewdly used his Aryan superiority delusion and Christian knowledge from his upbringing as religious propaganda tools to cater to a largely Christian German populous, separating himself from the openly atheistic communists, while at the same time planning the ultimate destruction of the church – as outlined in The Nazi Master Plan). All were ideological and killed to advance their own power (or in the case of Hideki Tojo, his emperor’s power). Additionally, Kim Jong Il and his father Kim Il-sung in North Korea doubtlessly killed millions and should also be added to the list. Millions more have been killed by a multitude of less prominent secular tin pot dictators in Asia, Africa and South America, including liberal hero, Che Guevara. So, for you secular liberals who go around stamping your little feet insisting that Christians condemn their own religion for something done a thousand years ago, try looking in a mirror at your own world view first. If we play your own game of guilt by historic association, the person looking back at you is a bloodthirsty monster! (Besides being very delusionally paranoid.)

[DeprogramLiberalism]

Yes some liberals (maybe even most) are lazy, but that doesn't make them liberals. You are confusing a symptom with a cause. Unfortunately, your theory has the same problem as trubolotta's from earlier in the thread. It does not satisfy the four adequacy conditions. Read this MUST-READ slideshow: Explaining the Liberal/Conservative Divide In America

[hosepipe]

The only thing that will cure laziness is HUNGER... or thirst..
Liberals fear being found out that they are lazy..
A lazy conservative is not conservative.. he is liberal..
Usually a journalist, professor.. or a Union member..