Liberal Hate

February 25, 2012 | Filed under Hatemongers,Leftist Tolerance,Liberals,The Looney Left,The Religious Left | Posted by

Liberalism comes in two forms, each having its own origin.  Material (or fiscal) liberalism is born out of the desire to avoid competing for resources, goods and services. Social liberalism is born out of the desire to do whatever is emotionally pleasing. The post that follows pertains specifically to social liberalism.

* * * * * * *

In a post of his, Paul made an excellent point that became lost in the ruckus pertaining to another post. Here is what he said:

We live in a world where liberals have set themselves up as the ultimate moral authority. They and they alone (and certainly not the church) are allowed to say what is moral and what is not. They say who is virtuous and who is to be hated. And the liberals have said it is ok to hate religious people. Sadly we as a nation have largely adopted their skewed morality.

Paul’s point is illustrated whenever liberals claim that hatred is the motivation behind some conservative beliefs. As it turns out, that claim of hatred is nothing but projection on the part of liberals.

[Wikipedia defines projection as "a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings."]

For example, plenty of conservatives have expressed opposition to same-sex marriage. A common liberal response to that opposition is the claim that the opposition is the result of a hatred of homosexuals. Indeed, should a conservative express a disaproval of a same-gender sexual relationship, that conservative will be accused of being homophobic.

Yet, opposition to sex-gender sexual activity isn’t the result of hate. Instead, it is the result of a person using a particular standard to judge morality, to judge right from wrong. For many American conservatives, that particular standard is the Bible.  Both the Tanak (the standard of practicing Jews) and the New Testament (the standard of practicing Christians) speak ill of same-gender sexual relationships. So, Jews (in general) and Christians (in general) disapprove of same-gender sexual relationships because their standard of morality disapproves of such sexual relationships.

For religious conservatives, the only hate pertaining to the issue of same-gender sexual behavior is the hate that liberals have for the standard of morality used by religious conservatives.

Recently, Rick Santorum was criticized for his opinion about birth control. As he sees it, the availability of contraceptives has encouraged people to engage in sexual activity that goes against the standard of morality used by Santorum, and that particular standard is religious in origin.

Mitt Romney was verbally attacked by Charles Blow because Romney dared to suggest that out-of-wedlock births cause problems for society.  Romney’s opposition to out-of-wedlock births is influenced (at least in part) by the standard of morality used by Mormons, which is probably why Blow took a jab at Romney’s Mormon faith.

As I see it, liberal hate is born out of a liberal’s desire to do whatever pleases the liberal, to give the liberal’s flesh what it wants.  Whenever a conservative uses a standard of morality that conflicts with the liberal’s desire, the liberal will accuse the conservative of hatred, when in reality it is the liberal who hates the standard of morality used by the conservative. If that standard originates from a particular religion, then the liberal is prone to attack someone who practices that religion. That is why some liberals act as if it were OK to hate religious people. That is why left-leaning publications will pay attention to an attack on people of a particular race or ethnicity, but pay no attention to an attack on people of a particular faith.

Of course, what I have said here is a generalization of liberal hate. It is always possible that a liberal will have a just cause to hate something, but if it is a just cause, then a conservative will hate it, too.

I would like for someone in the national media to start asking liberals what standard of morality that they judge conservatives by.  How liberals respond to that inquiry ought to be amusing.

« « VIDEO: Brian K. Hill for U.S. Senate From Connecticut
Liberal Opposition To Natural Law » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 25, 2012.
Filed under Hatemongers, Leftist Tolerance, Liberals, The Looney Left, The Religious Left.
A refugee from Planet Melmac masquerading as a human. Loves cats*. In fair condition. A fixer-upper. Warranty still good. Not necessarily sane.[*Joke in reference to the TV sit-com "Alf", which featured a space alien who liked to eat cats. Disclaimer: No cats were harmed in the writing and posting of this profile.]

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • DonaldDouglas

    Well, nice posting. I don’t even call the liberals any more — they’re progressives. 

  • jim_m

    Social liberalism is born out of the desire to do whatever is emotionally pleasing.

    It’s also connected to progressivism, which believes that man can be improved or perfected by enacting social policy.  If we can just force people into the right behaviors then we can have a perfect utopian society.  Ultimately the ideology is about controlling people and bending them to the will of the progressive elite. 

    • Walter_Cronanty

       ”Ultimately the ideology is about controlling people and bending them to the will of the progressive elite.”
      When you replace God with government, this is the natural progression, especially when you realize that if you and your ideological brethren control the government, then you are, indeed, god.  

  • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

    Modern “Liberalism” is no such thing.  It was a deliberate re-branding of Progressivism following the horrors the child philosophies of Progressivism (Socialism, Communism, Stalinism, Fascism, National Socialism) produced in the 20th Century.

    Modern “Conservatism” is far closer to the traditional or classical “liberal” values than the Progressives (whatever they may call themselves this decade) ever were or will be.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      I’m more of a classical liberal than are the spawn of Sanger.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

         Just about everyone here on Wizbang is “…more of a classical liberal than are the spawn of Sanger.”  Including most of our trolls.

        • Walter_Cronanty

           Well, I certainly HATE to agree with your last sentence, but you’re right.

          • jim_m

             But since they support the progressives and defend them and vote for them the practical difference is what exactly?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             Degree.  Evil is not a binary set.

          • jim_m

             I’m not suggesting that it is.  I am asking the question that when it comes to real world actions is there a difference between the one who violates your rights and the one who votes for him and stands by silently when your rights are taken away?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             Yes, and again it is degree.  Those who actually violate the rights of another are more reprehensible than those who enable them or who stand silently by.

            All are reprehensible, but to different degrees.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             Yes, and again it is degree.  Those who actually violate the rights of another are more reprehensible than those who enable them or who stand silently by.

            All are reprehensible, but to different degrees.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            It never has been.  And ‘evil’ is another word that’s been badly overused for its shock value.

          • Walter_Cronanty

             I believe that most of them would not forcibly silence us.  I think the majority of progressives definitely would – who shouts down speakers on college campuses?  What do CAGW scientists try to do?  Again, I don’t think most of the “progressive” commenters on Wizbang would do that.  Now, please don’t make me defend them anymore.

          • jim_m

             No I think you are correct in that.  I just suspect that they would stand silently by while someone else did.

            We’ve been through this with the discussion on the religious exemption.  They are perfectly happy to see the rights of others with whom they disagree trampled, but hen they demand that we stand up for their rights.  Freedom of others is not something they have demonstrated means anything to them.  It’s apparently only worth fighting for when they agree with you.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You may have a point, but when I think of those who comment a lot and with whom I disagree even more, say a Chico or a BruceHenry, I think you’re wrong.  There are others, however, who probably “would stand silently by while someone else did.”

          • jim_m

             I’d like to think so too, but Bruce came down pretty decisively against preserving religious liberty so I don’t have the same confidence that you do,

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            You may HATE to agree with my last sentence, but you had the intellectual honesty to do so.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Stan25 Stan Brewer

    Then why don’t the commies attack the Muslim faith? They hold the same values on homosexuality and abortion, as the Christians do. Only the Muslims put these people to death. Yet the commies think that is okay in their books, as long as it is not done to them or their friends.

    Seems to me that the commies are trying to curry favor with the so-called religion of peace, to keep their heads attached to their shoulders. They don’t seem to realize that the practitioners of the so-called religion of peace will cut off their (the commies) heads for blasphemy against the teachings of the Koran.

    • jim_m

       I think they function on the concept that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.  So they see that the muslims hate Christians and and the US and they give the muslims a pass on everything else.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      I waver between believing as Jim does, and believing that they’re feeding the Islamist crocodile hoping to be the last one eaten.

      • jim_m

         I’m of the opinion that being the last eaten is plan B.

        • Walter_Cronanty

           I guess there is no Plan C, or are they so clueless……

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

       Can you say Chechnya?  I knew you could…

    • Evil Otto

      I believe it’s about the victim/oppressor dynamic that makes up much of progressive thinking. As long as Muslims are viewed as “victims,” (usually of Western imperialism and/or racism) they are granted special status which gives them immunity to criticism and mockery. They keep this special status only so long as they are “victims.”

      Look at progressive treatment of minorities who are successful, either as individuals or as groups. Jews, for example, enjoyed “victim” status for a few years after World War 2, but as soon as Israel was founded and the Jews refused to be victims again they were put in the “oppressor” category and the Palestinians became the new “victims.” Now, we have the irony of a European-socialist-style nation with Western freedoms, equal treatment of women, common-law gay marriage, “free” health care, and other values progressives supposedly admire… and they’re oppressors. On the other side we have the Palestinians, who strap bombs to their children, engage in daily terrorist acts, flood their people with propaganda that would make Goebbels smile, wish to commit genocide, allow no freedom of speech or religion, murder homosexuals, and treat their women like cattle… and they’re victims.

      The level of cognitive dissonance it takes to be a progressive is astounding.

      • MichaelLaprarie

        Yes, I think you’re spot-on here.  A liberal friend of mine likes to sum it up using the terminology of Marx – history is a class struggle – but that is basically the same thing, a struggle between haves and have-nots, between oppressors and victims.  If someone is a victim (particularly of Western society and its evils rooted in dominance and exploitation) then whatever other sins they may commit are simply ignored.  Being victimized imparts a certain nobility on a culture that seems to make it irreproachable.  That is incredibly dangerous.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

           Those who argue in those dialectic terms are the enemies of society.

  • ackwired

    Liberals are evil and Conservatives are virtuous.  Doesn’t that make you feel good?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    Wow, did Andrew Breitbart write this?

    It’s as funny as his performance at the CPAC meeting.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    Wow, did Andrew Breitbart write this?

    It’s as funny as his performance at the CPAC meeting.

    • Evil Otto

      Is that all you’ve got, Jay?

  • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

    I did say “most.”

  • Brucehenry

    Well, gentlemen, I read David’s rather mealy-mouth (admittedly) generalization above, and the comments so far, and I must say I’m pleased to be defended by name by guys I disagree with on a regular basis. (Even if Jim mischaracterised my position on contraception.) Here’s where I think y’all are getting it wrong:

    1. Paul’s observation that “liberals have set themselves up as the ultimate moral authority” is simply wrong. Certainly any partisan tries to frame the terms of the debate, but one side’s claim to moral authority isn’t done any more often than another’s. That’s why liberals call it “marriage equality” and conservatives say “same-sex marriage.” Liberals say “de-funding the war” and conservatives say “de-funding the troops.” Both sides are attempting to claim the moral high ground by defining terms. 

    That’s why MLK found justification in Scripture for his stance, and segregationists did, too.

    And in what communities do you guys live in which liberal are the ultimate moral authorities? A majority of the people I work with and do business with are, or pretend to be, practicing, wear-it-on-their-sleeves conservative or moderate Christians who, I assure you, judge me and everyone else by their own standards, not necessarily the ones I would wish to be judged by. If you want to get ahead (or get by) in my world, you’d better keep your “non-Christian” lifestyle or “unconventional” opinions to yourself. Yes, in 2012!

    2. This “projection” thing you guys are always slinging around doesn’t mean what you claim it means. Projection applies in individual cases, like a cheating husband who claims his non-cheating wife is unfaithful, or a dishonest employer accusing an employee of stealing. But please, give people a little credit in political matters. At least to some degree, respect that political opinions your fellow voters may have can differ from your own for legitimate, logical, well-thought-out reasons. Are YOUR political opinions nothing but emotion based nonsense? No? Then why do you assume those of your fellow Americans ARE?

    This constant use of the “projection” argument is nothing more than “I’m rubber you’re glue.” It’s silly, and you should stop.

    3. For myself at least, (and many of the *liberals, progressives, whatever* I know), our stance is more about fairness, equality of opportunity, and an abhorrence of bullying. I don’t think the economy should be rigged so that “those that got” get more at the expense of “those that don’t got.” I don’t think that marriage should be reserved for those YOU approve of, but that all people should have the right to marry the person they love (if that person is willing!). I don’t think that those who subscribe to one set of religious beliefs should dictate to others what they can do in their personal lives.

    I don’t give a damn what conservatives approve of or disapprove of. All I’m asking is that their disapproval not be enshrined in law if it conflicts with the rights of others. In short, I don’t “hate” conservatives (edit: or religious people); but I do fear what they might do if given too much power and are not restrained by constitutional safeguards.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

      So, Bruce, do you think Liberals disapproval should not be enshrined into law either?  Or do you hypocritically apply that standard only one direction?>  If you support democrats, you must.

      YOu think the economy should be rigged so that those who earn have to give what they earn to those who don’t.  You think your personal belief should be enforced by the government.  You think the government should be able to FORCE a church to marry someone they do not want to marry.  You think the government shoudl be able to tell religious institutions and people following them what to do in THEIR personal lives.  You think that the government should be able to tell people what to eat, what healthcare to have. . .

      Really, you can HONESTLY type that paragraph and not burst out laughing?  Really?|

      • jim_m

          Or do you hypocritically apply that standard only one direction?

        Din, ding, ding, ding, ding!  We have a winner!

      • Brucehenry

        See what you did there, Ryan? You are attempting to reframe the argument to claim the moral high ground, and are characterizing my positions in disparaging terms. Sound familiar? But to answer your specific points:

        Nope. I do believe in progressive taxation, such that those who derive the greatest benefit from government pay the greatest share.

        I don’t think, and neither do most liberals, that the government should force any church to marry anyone. Churches should be free to marry or not marry anyone they choose. As a CIVIL matter, though, the government should not deny the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples. And since our laws grant those legal benefits only to married couples, the government should not stand in the way if a church DOES wish to marry gay couples.

        If by, “you think the government should be able to tell religious institutions and people following them what to do in THEIR personal lives,” you are talking about abortion, again, nope. If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. No one, including government, is forcing anyone to abort their babies.

         I don’t think the government should tell people what to eat or what “healthcare to have”, but that government has an economic and national-security interest in a healthy populace and as such has assumed certain duties to regulate health and safety of its citizenry. And that the healthcare system that has evolved is unsustainable and must be reformed. The unfettered “free market” has not worked here. I disagree with many aspects of “Obamacare,” but not that I can continue to cover my 20-year old kid or that I can’t be denied coverage if I switch jobs because of a pre-existing condition.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

          Except, that position on eating and health care necessitates the government doing exactly that inexorably.  So you really cannot, full stop, support one without supporting the other.
          And the unfettered free market in health care doesn’t exist, Bruce.  Which if you were being intellectually honest here is obvious;  there hasn’t been a free market in health care since they disallowed policies across state lines and started mandating coverage within plans.

          • Brucehenry

            I admit I’m no expert in the history of healthcare policy, Ryan. But I have watched for 30 years as my premiums and co-pays have risen and my coverage has shrunk, and more of my fellow citizens have gone uncovered. So, unfettered free market or no, what has evolved in the US has not worked and must be reformed. Obamacare is a deeply flawed attempt at that reform. I’m afraid MY prescription would be even more of an anathema to you, though.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            The solution is for government to BUTT OUT.  The rising expenses are CAUSED BY an increased role from government.  Increasing a governmental role A: Necessitates, by nature, more interference in personal medical decisions by the state. and B: Will, inevitably WITHOUT EXCEPTION cause either a decline in quality or an increase in cost.  And has everywhere its been tried.

            The solution to health care is less interference, not more.  Allow young people who want a bare bones catastrophic illness coverage to be able to have that instead of something comprehensive.  Allow people to actually exercise some self responsibility. . something which the liberal mindset seems to find anathema.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, I understand that this is the conservative/libertarian view. Others differ.

            Your point B is particularly open to factual refutation, especially the “and has everywhere it’s been tried” part.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            The ONLY places it has SOMEWHAT worked is in smaller and rather homogeneous countries. Its not just a viewpoint, however, Bruce.  Its inevitable.  You put government in chanrge of health care, they WILL start making decisions for you.  perhaps right now, you will like the decisions, but what happens if someone very anti abortion gets in charge of the machinery of nationalized healthcare?  

            Tell me with a straight face that the bureaucratic machine of a nationalized healthcare would not act exactly the same as the bureaucratic machine of every single other governmental entity.

          • Brucehenry

            As opposed to the bureaucratic machinery of Big Insurance?

             And please, don’t give me any nonsense about my ability to shop around for other plans. I, like most, get insurance through my employer. I have no other realistic option. By the time my employer makes a decision to change insurers because of employee complaints, my particular grievance will be moot.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            Gee.  Sounds like a case where if government got out of the issue and didn’t make insurance be a thing that mostly ran through employers, then there would be more freedom of choice – especially if, say, you could also shop across state lines – which you also can’t do due to government.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            And if you have a complaint to the Nationalize health care system who exactly are you going to go to?  Your ONE representative, who probably holds even less sway over the monolithic bureaucracy than you have now with your insurance company?  A president who, really, will overall have about as much influence over that bureaucratic machine as any other president does over any other agency”  Little to none?  Only in that case there will be LITERALLY nowhere else to go, period. . no matter how hard you try.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

          As far as your argument, I am pointing out a central flaw in that argument;  you think its a bad thing to enforce morality. . but YOUR morality, well, thats not REALLY enforcing morality, its just ‘being fair’ so that doesn’t count.  Be mentally honest here.  Most laws dealing with the interaction between people are enforcing morality ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.  That is, in fact, what laws DO.  So claiming that somehow one side is pure and doesn’t enforce their morality or worldview on others through the force of government is sophistry of the first water. 

          Forcing someone to pay for – or – excuse me while I repeat the sophistry that the administration engages in on this “Pay for a insurance company that will happen to provide the service for free while increasing your rates in other areas” is just as much a violation and intrusion.  As far as contraception goes:  Having access to something is not the same as ‘having it for free’.  I don’t “Fail to have access to coke’ if someone doesn’t put a coke machine in my home that dispenses its product for free.
          I’ll continue;  Affirmative action;  That is most definitely forcing someone’s moral view of what should be through the force of government.  Title nine.  Same thing.  Liberals, all over the place, enforce their morality and pretend to be pure while trumpeting that you ‘shouldn’t legislate morality’.  Just because it didn’t originate from a holy book doesn’t mean it doesn’t count as morality.

          You make a law you are declaring one thing “Right” or “Fair” and another thing “Wrong” or “Not fair”.

          • Brucehenry

            Perhaps you have a valid point or two, there, Ryan, but I thought we were talking about hot-button issues that generate “hate.”

            I think we can have a discussion, indeed should have one and do have one, about the role of government in this or that sphere of our lives, without characterizing the other side as haters and hypocrites.

            Again, as I have pointed out to Jim, I have not taken a position on the whole church/contraception issue except to point out that his “money is fungible” argument is claptrap.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            The problem is;  why are liberal hot-button issues automatically “Not legislating morality but just ‘being fair’” where non liberal positions on those exact same issues are ‘legislating morality’.  Its very germane, CENTRALLY germane, to the issue at hand, Bruce.  Why are you allowed to get away with calling what conservatives do ‘Legislating morality’ while you get to pretend that what you are doing is something else entirely, regardless of the validity or not of the position in question?

          • Brucehenry

            Umm, see my comment about how partisans attempt to frame debate. He who defines the terms wins the debate. Every partisan, on every side of every issue, does it. It’s like railing against the tides. The best you can do is point it out.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

          Its like the Monty Python “Dead Parrot: skit;  you just replace the word “Morality” in “Legislating Morality” with the word “Fairness” and pretend that it means something different, when, really, its still the dog license with the word “Dog” crossed out and replaced with ‘Parrot”

    • jim_m

       I don’t believe that I mischaracterized your position.  We have been round and round on this issue.  We disagree.  I have consistently maintained that your position supports the abrogation of religious freedom.  You deny that. 

      And we are not wrong about projection.  Projection is a “psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.”  That is exactly what we accuse the left of.  You deny your own desires and thoughts and accuse the right of wanting then.  You accuse the right of wanting to suppress free speech, but you are the first to call for FOX news to be ejected from the press corps.  You say that the right wants an imperial presidency that is not beholden to the law and yet you support a president who appoints countless czars unanswerable to anyone but himself, who rules by edict, whose admin declares that it does not have to abide by FOIA requests and can lie to congress.  You claim that the right is stealing elections yet the evidence is clear hat the left is doing it far more and the left stands steadfastly in the way of any voter reform demonstrating that hey are the primary beneficiaries of fraud.

      Need I go on?   

      As for your last paragraph we actually agree.  Morality cannot be legislated.  But the left has its own morality that they try to force on everyone else.  Mercury filled light bulbs, school lunch BS, no prayer in public, etc, etc, etc.

      • Brucehenry

        Please go back and re-read the threads in which you allege I took a position supporting the abrogation of religious freedom. Cite a comment I made which can be characterized as such. The last one I remember was something to the effect that I hadn’t taken a position on the whole Church/ contraception/Obama thingie because I wasn’t sure how I felt about it. But I’m getting kinda old and forgetful, so maybe you’ve got a quote.

        As to “projection,” again, as conservatives use the term on Wizbang it boils down to “I’m rubber you’re glue.” I think the psychological mechanism is just a wee bit more complicated than David or yourself would have us believe. And again, slinging that accusation around about your fellow American voters is presumptuous and disrespectful.

        BTW, I don’t want FOX ejected from the press corps. I think FOX deserves about as much respect from the White House as World Net Daily or The Daily Worker, and if they want to treat them similarly, I think that’s their call. Similarly, if a future (God Forbid!!) Romney or Santorum administration wants to treat MSNBC like that, more power to ‘em.

        As to the rest of your czars, election-stealing yadayada, that’s just Talk Radio nonsense, Jim. Have a little respect, huh?

        • jim_m

           Dammit, we’ve talked about this before and it was not you that was taking the position against religious freedom.  My bad.  You lefties all look alike on Wizbang.  ;)

    • Wild_Willie

       fairness, equality of opportunity-Bruce

      You liberals throw that line around but never seem to define it. Because they are feel good words with no true definition. You proved the point of the post. IT makes you feel good.  ww

  • Brian_R_Allen

    Liberal Hate Rage Envy Fascist Socialist Imperialist Theft Marxist Robbery Leninist Totalitarian Statist Mercantilist Dictator – So many words – One meaning – No  reason.
     

  • Commander_Chico

    This is just a polemic populated by a plethora of strawmen which is an implicit defense of religious authoritarianism.

    In your one concrete example you say “liberal” opposition to religious-based opposition to same-sex marriage is somehow “hatred.”

    Let me break down and fix your passage:

    liberal hate is born out of a liberal’s desire to do whatever pleases the liberal, to give the liberal’s flesh what it wants.

    How about this: People get pissed off and angry when others interfere with their pursuit of happiness based on rules in Bronze Age religious texts not adopted universally.  Those other people may feel “hated,” but it is their own fault for interfering with other’s personal lives and freedom of contract.

    Whenever a conservative uses a standard of morality that conflicts with the liberal’s desire, the liberal will accuse the conservative of hatred, when in reality it is the liberal who hates the standard of morality used by the conservative.

    How about this:  Whenever a religious authoritarian attempts to impose standards of conduct interfering with others’ pursuit of happiness based on rules in Bronze Age religious texts not adopted universally, those other people may react with anger in defending and asserting their freedom to live as they wish.

    • Brucehenry

      Bravo, Commander.

  • http://www.ethnografix.blogspot.com/ ryan a

    “We live in a world where liberals have set themselves up as the ultimate moral authority.”

    Well…we actually live in a world where there are multiple groups who have competing claims to moral authority, US liberals among them.  The difficulty lies in trying to reconcile all those competing moral claims under one political/legal system.  Not easy.  

    “For religious conservatives, the only hate pertaining to the issue of same-gender sexual behavior is the hate that liberals have for the standard of morality used by religious conservatives.”

    Nope.  It’s not that liberals necessarily hate those standards of morality.  Many “liberals” just don’t want to have someone else’s morals imposed upon them.  But then, who does?

    “Whenever a conservative uses a standard of morality that conflicts with the liberal’s desire, the liberal will accuse the conservative of hatred, when in reality it is the liberal who hates the standard of morality used by the conservative.”

    What a weird argument.  Not wanting to have some other morality imposed upon you doesn’t mean that you automatically “hate” the other morality.  It might just mean that you see things differently, and you don’t want anyone to force you act according to someone else’s moral codes and rules.  Hatred and conflict seem to come about when different groups are unwilling to cooperate, communicate, and, basically, engage in some sort of mutual respect.

  • The_Weege_99

    The anger is not so much because they disagree with the moral standards, but because they dislike the shame and guilt they feel over violating those moral standards. They know they’re wrong, but they dislike the feelings that result from knowingly doing wrong, so the blame goes to those who uphold the moral standard, and thus the anger.

    If it were simply a matter of disagreement, there would be little reason for anger.

    There is a vast, vast difference between liberty and the licentiousness embraced by, say, Chico – the “whatever feels good, do it” school of social deviancy. They think there are no problems that come from this public licentiousness, this defining deviancy down. And they are wrong.

    Throughout human history, as deviancy becomes mainstream, society loses cohesion, which leads to either collapse of the state or to a totalitarian state. The founders were well read, and they knew their Greek and Roman histories, and they, unlike so many today, did not confuse liberty with license.

    • Commander_Chico

      Why don’t you fill us in and give us separate lists of “liberty,” ”license” and “deviancy?”  Is Desperate Housewives “liberty” or “license?”  How about commercials for Coors Light?  Gangsta rap?  South Park, Family Guy?  The L Word, Sex in the City? Old-fashioned sodomy?  The adventures of Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameison?

      Same-o argument given by theocrats who want to ban “un-Islamic” dress and media.

  • FedSec

    “Throughout human history, as deviancy becomes mainstream, society loses cohesion, which leads to either collapse of the state or to a totalitarian state.”
    Yeah, because the morality police inevitably arrive to enforce their will with the inevitable use of violence. Funny how that works.

  • FedSec

     ”It is always possible that a liberal will have a just cause to hate something, but if it is a just cause, then a conservative will hate it, too.” 
    The implication being that, when a conservative hates something, the cause is always just, is that correct?