Religion, Religion, Religion

Monday, December 11, 2006 Religion, Religion, Religion Many on the Left would consider those on the Right as being beholden to Religion. Conservatism can be secular. Most of the basic principles of Conservatism are ancient and accepted human values: Self-sufficiency, Freedom, Personal Empowerment.

Most on the Left will throw out the term "far right religious extremist" when they are intellectually stumped in an argument. Their own rejection of many of the greatest religious values in history has blinded their ability to see that Conservatism represents both secular AND religious freedom.

Leftism clearly has religious undertones. Worship of the State as a "care-giver" Entity is paramount to Liberals. Anything that represents individuality is repressed and repudiated. Can anyone in the Democratic Party have an alternative idea and still be respected by them? Ask Joe Lieberman what happens if you hold a few disparate ideas compared to their national agenda.

Liberals adhere to an "Earth worship" form of religion. They view any human activity on Earth that alters the natural state of being to be evil. Creating farm land destroys the forests, so therefore farmers are evil. Drilling in ANWR defaces the Earth and displaces migrating animals, so therefore that is also evil. They don't take into account that humans have an equal right to the planet's resources. Humans are the top species on the planet and naturally will change the environment to their liking. This should be done in a sensible way of course...but for Liberals, there is no middle ground. Elephants can substantially alter their surroundings, as anyone familiar with African habitats will attest to. Are elephants therefore evil animals who must be stopped before they further offend the Earth-Deity?

The ideals of many religions are valuable. However, religiousness in other senses of the word is negative. Leftists are definitely religious, in a twisted, confused, and demented sort of way.

Well stated
******

There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.' "
The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature", but beavers and their dams are.
But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity.
In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "Naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race, i.e. his own self-hatred.
In the case,of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot.
But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women, it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural."

ROBERT HEINLEIN

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.