Mad As Hell

Liberal

I am getting sick of the bullshit lately on Facebook.  I literally can't open it anymore without seeing some attack on Liberals, claiming we are un-American.  Traitors. Evil.  Post after post about how Liberals are offended by the American Flag, offended by expecting people to work, and offended by Christianity.  How we hate everything "American."

And to this I have to say: shut the fuck up.

I love my country.  Every Liberal I know loves their country.  We can be disappointed in it, want it to be better than it is, and be pissed off at the things it does, and still love it.   Stop beating us with the traitor stick just because we don't agree with you.  (And also, stop waving in our faces that the Democrats were behind the Civil War.  Of course they were, we know that, but we also know that the two parties have changed significantly since Lincoln.)

Let me give you a brief of my family history.  My family has been here since the 1650's.  I have ancestors who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.  My family has fought in EVERY war America has been involved in, and has since before the United States was the United States.  They have pioneered the West, and built cities in the East.

I had an uncle who was immortalized in the Band of Brothers; he was the soldier who got shot in the ass.  My Grandfather sacrificed his lungs and his health working in the shipyards during World War II.  My father served in the A Shau valley, where he earned a Bronze Star.  And he wasn't drafted, he signed up willingly as an enlisted man, and then went to college to reenlist as on officer.   Then, working for the Department of Defense after retiring from a 20 year military career, he was the arms negotiator for the Camp David Accords.

On the Civilian front, My great Aunt Winifred was one of the first Doctors to research a cure for Polio, funded personally by Franklin Roosevelt.  My Great Uncle was the Vice President of Caterpillar Tractors.    My mother served as a deputy Press Secretary for two Governors, a US Senator and a two US Representatives. 

And all of them, EVERY SINGLE ONE, as far back as we go in this country, was a Liberal. 

So, I have to say, I'm sick of it.  Sick of being accused of being a traitor, just because I believe in the Social Compact, Equality and Justice, because I am sick to death of war, because I don't believe that apologizing for atrocities committed by the government equals hatred for my country, because my heart is torn apart every time I see a black man executed without trial by an out of control police officer.

But apparently, these views and beliefs are no longer acceptable thoughts for a true American.

So I'll tell you what is not acceptable, the Confederate Flag.  It is a flag of treason.  It is a symbol of hate, and in my opinion, ANYONE who proudly flies it is a traitor to America.  It's simple.  It is a symbol of taking up arms against the lawful government of this country, and of disdain for the US Constitution.

But even more, what is not acceptable is the fetishization of rebellion and revolution.

If you hate an America that allows people like me to be citizens of this country, please have your revolution, build camps and execute us all.  We had a chance in this country to finally start to move the dialog forward on the inherent racism of the Confederate flag, and of the systemic discrimination that still plagues our country.  We had a chance to come together as one nation and say, enough, no more.  We had a chance to finally start healing the festering wound that has refused to heal for a hundred and fifty years.

But what do we get?  The nincompoops on Fox not-news claiming the Charleston Terrorist Attack is not racially motivated, but is better understood as an anti-Christian Crime, perpetrated by a person who hates America.  Yes he hates America, in that he hates seeing a Black Man walk down the street unbound and unshackled.  We get a massive condemnation of any company that exercises their right to refuse to sell anything related to the Civil War.  We get outrage that the left dares to be outraged by racism, discrimination and symbols of hate.

I see the Right in this country shred both the constitution and every single human dignity, while claiming to be the only TRUE Americans.  I see the Fundamentalists eviscerate the message of Jesus, all the while claiming that "GOD HATES FAGS."  I see the Neo-Confederate traitors call for revolution, all the while screaming "I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK."

So I will put it out there.  If you don't think that I am a good American, if you think I am damned to hell because of what I believe, if you think this world would be better off if I was dead, then FUCKING DO IT.

Quit your whining, and pull the GODDAMN trigger.  Round us up and stick us in those camps that you claim are being built to execute YOU.  Have your Kristallnacht and your Reichstag Fire to paint us as the enemy, and lock us into Ghettoes to prevent us from committing race treason.  And then live with what you have done.  Own it, revel in it.  You will get to write the history to paint yourselves as the saviors of America, and since we will all be dead, we won't be able to contradict you.

OR, SHUT THE FUCK UP, and admit that even though we disagree, we can agree to do so, and still respect each other.  Work with us to heal the wounds that have now bled for a century and a half.  Admit that we care as passionate as you do about this nation, and join with us to make the country better and stronger.  Meet us halfway, and we will do the same.

The country stands at a precipice like none since the Civil War, and just like then, our side cannot stop what is coming.  No matter how hard we might try to change the course of the ship,  there's still a madman at the wheel trying to crash into the iceberg.

And if we do so, the whole ship will sink, not just the liberal half.  

The choice is in your hands.

And Will There Be Passion Plays About Liberals?

Demonization

There is a truly frightening trend emerging in the politics of the 21^st century, declarations of your political opponents as icons of pure evil.  We see this in the casual comparisons of leaders to Hitler, Stalin, Eichmann or others just as evil.  (I’m just waiting to see someone compared to Cthulu, because I’m tired of them going for the Lesser Evil.)

All joking aside, the most appalling name calling is saying someone, especially the President, is the Anti-Christ.  Not an accusation of behaving in an un-Christlike manner, but actually saying they ARE the Anti-Christ.  This is something that has cropped up from time to time in history. (And thank you Nostradamus for this little gift)  But it is especially prevalent in certain circles in modern America.

Before I go any further, I want to make something perfectly clear, the Anti-Christ was Nero.  End of story.  Most true biblical scholars agree that the entirety of Revelations was an allegory about the Christian persecution at the hands of Rome and its emperor. 

Revelations was an apocalypse, a term which has completely lost its meaning.  An Apocalypse means literally “lifting of the veil” or “revelation.”  To say that the Book of Revelations describes the Apocalypse is a recursive statement, it is saying the same thing.  You might as well say the Book of Revelations describes the Revelation.  It makes no sense.   The apocalypse described in Revelations is the lifting of the veil on the evil and corruption of the Roman Empire.

The Apocalypse referring to the actual end of the world is a product of later theology.  And while we are at it, since the world didn’t end today, I also want to state that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the Rapture in the Bible.  That has no true Biblical origins.  The entire story about the Rapture was developed by the Dispensationalists in the era just prior to the Civil War; it grew out of the writings of John Nelson Darby.  At best it might be considered a Christian version of Midrash.  And unlike Midrash, where they are reinterpreting existing stories to have a deeper understanding, the Rapture has no legitimate biblical lineage.

Now back to the regularly scheduled rant.

Calling someone the Anti-Christ is not playing with fire, it is lighting a fire under an armed nuclear device, while pounding it with sledge hammers.  It is an absolute call to action for devout Christians.  The Anti-Christ, as an agent of pure evil, must be destroyed.  (See any number of cheesy Hollywood films from the last 50 years.)  You cannot be a “good” person and not try to kill or at least hope for the death of the Anti-Christ.  It is a call for Presidential Assassination, wrapped up in Christian Drag.

Imagine if the Left had openly called for Bush’s assassination.  They would currently have lifetime accommodations in Gitmo.  It was branded un-American and evil to accuse Bush of being a war criminal, and saying he should be arrested and tried for crimes against the Constitution.  Calling someone a war criminal is small potatoes compared to calling them the agent of Satan.

I do not understand this phenomenon.  Trying to do good (bring universal health care, fix the economy, and rejoin the world community) is considered to be evil, while actually doing evil (starting wars that are illegal under international law, torturing in violation of the Geneva Convention, and shredding the Constitution) are held up as paragons of good.  (Did someone declare this the Opposites Millennium when I wasn’t looking?)

You can disagree with the President, you can think his policies are bad for the country.  This is not beyond the bounds of decorum.  You can even say they are one of the worst Presidents in history.  But when you begin to compare the President to some of the worst characters in history (fictional or real) you have crossed a line that should never be crossed.

Which leads to the other scary thing going on in America today.  Not only is the President being denounced as the Anti-Christ, the left is generally being accused of treason or worse.  Herman Cain is saying Liberals killed Jesus.  In saying that the Left killed the Christian Savior, it is not hyperbolic to compare this to the Nazi propaganda about the Jews.  The Nazis, and all anti-Semites, point to the Jews killing Jesus as one of the root sins of their people.  This is the core point of most of the Passion Plays, and most of them were written, in part, to stir up anti-Jewish fervor.

The Nazis stirred up animosity toward the Jews, blamed them for everything bad in Germany, and created general hatred of one segment of the population to unify the rest of the country.  The Liberals are the new Jews.  Liberals are the one group that it is culturally acceptable to hate.  And term Liberal is now so politically toxic that even Liberals shun the word.  They describe themselves as Progressive.  

It should be noted as a sideline that the term Progressive used to be a term applied to socially conscious Republicans.  Teddy Roosevelt was regularly termed a Progressive.  Liberal was the Democratic equivalent.  Now liberals wrap themselves in Republican terms, because they have been so marginalized in the national discourse.

Liberals are being so demonized in society today that they are considered de facto traitors and criminals.  Liberals are evil, they even killed Jesus.  At MiniTrue, the Liberal point of view is condemned.  This condemnation resounds through the echo chamber of the mainstream media.  The left is denounced from the speaker’s podium and the pulpit.  Liberal Christian has become an oxymoron. 

To illustrate this comparison, I am going to quote Hitler, changing the word Jew to Liberal.  (The book I am quoting from is ‘Lunacy Becomes Us’)  “If the Liberal wins, his crown will be humanity’s funeral wreath… I believe I fight today in the spirit of our Almighty Creator.  When I fight against Liberals, I am doing the work of the Lord.”  I am not making this statement to be offensive and perpetuate the Hitler meme, I am doing it to make a very specific point.  The parallels with the statements coming out of a Glenn Beck type are very ominous.  There is a segment of the population on the right who, rather than debate Liberals on their views, and criticize them for their positions, resort to blatant hate speech to turn them to the enemy.

It's called de-personalization. When you de-personalize someone, you make them sub-human and worthy of hate.  You don't just minimize a view, you minimize a person or  group.  You remove any compulsion of human dignity toward the targeted population.   

   

This demonization of the President and the Left in general needs to stop.  The rhetoric will only lead to tragedy.  How many Oklahoma Cities and dead Presidents do we need before we understand that this sort of out of control behavior will tear the country apart?  We barely survived one Civil War.  I don’t think we can survive another.

Did Liberals Kill Jesus?

Labels

Herman Cain, and Republicans in general, consistently display a complete lack of understanding of what words mean.  Republicans keep referring to Jesus as a conservative, and all but directly state that if he was alive today, he would be a Republican.

From the Huffington Post, “Cain wrote last December in a RedState column titled ‘The Perfect Conservative’ that Jesus was killed by a ‘liberal court.’”  From the same article: “The column claims Jesus as a conservative. ‘He helped the poor without one government program. He healed the sick without a government health care system. He feed the hungry without food stamps,’ wrote Cain. ‘For three years He was unemployed, and never collected an unemployment check.’”

He wrote in the article the mind blowing description of Jesus’ death:

“But they made Him walk when He was arrested and taken to jail, and no, He was not read any Miranda Rights. He was arrested for just being who He was and doing nothing wrong. And when they tried Him in court, He never said a mumbling word.

He didn’t have a lawyer, nor did He care about who judged Him.

His judge was a higher power.

The liberal court found Him guilty of false offences and sentenced Him to death, all because He changed the hearts and minds of men with an army of 12.”

I’m going to leave the issue of Jesus being the perfect Republican for the time (I’ll blog about that later.)  Right now I want to focus on the complete lack of understanding of what terms mean, and why what Cain said makes no actual sense.

First, a couple of dictionary definitions:

lib·er·al adj.

1.       a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

2.       a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

3.       Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.

4.       Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

5.       a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.

b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.

con·ser·va·tive adj.

1.       Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

2.       Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

3.       Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

4.       a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.

b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

5.       Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.

6.       Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.

7.       Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

Now in light of these definitions, let’s figure out what Jesus was.  From the liberal side: Jesus went against the priests and hierarchy of Jerusalem and Israel, Definition 1a; He reinterpreted the Torah, and laid down a new Covenant, Definition 1b and 3; He gave freely to the poor, healing and feeding them, Definition 2a; He turned water into wine and loaves into fishes, giving those in need plenty, Definition 2b; and by all accounts, He was a gentleman and freeborn and was not born into slavery, Definition 5a.  We do not know if he was highly educated, but there are hints in the Bible that he was very knowledgeable about a wide variety of subjects, so Definition 4 is a distinct possibility.  By all of these definitions, He fits Definition 1c.  Since none of the countries in Definition 1d existed at the time of Jesus, that definition cannot apply to him.  Therefore, it looks like he fits almost every single different definition of Liberal.

To be fair, let’s look at how Jesus stacks up on the conservative side: He threw the Moneylenders out of the Temple, turned the social order on its ear and replaced the Old Covenant with a new one, which means Definition 1 DOES NOT apply; He did dress simply, by all accounts, but we do not know if that was normal in his society, so Definition 2 is undetermined; He preached passionately, even though it put his life in danger, therefore Definition 3 DOES NOT apply; political philosophy was all but non-existent at the time, except for the Greeks and a few Romans, but given that he was overturning the social order, Definition 4a and 4b are unlikely; as stated previously, the countries listed in Definition 5 did not exist, that definition is irrelevant; By traditional Christian beliefs (its not actually stated in the Bible) He was unmarried and celibate, which contradicted traditional Jewish life at the time, so Definition 6 is probably not applicable; and finally since he never spoke on environmental issues, we do not know how he would fall on Definition 7.  Therefore on the Conservative side, we have two definite no’s, two probable no’s, and two unknowns.

By this tally, Jesus fits all of the definitions of a Liberal, and none (or almost none) of the definitions of a Conservative.   Therefore, by dictionary definitions, Jesus was a Liberal.

But was he condemned by a Liberal court as Cain insists?  (As a side note, remember, Jesus was condemned by the Priests, Pilate just ordered the execution.  I’m not saying this out of any anti-Semitism, I’m merely quoting the text of the Bible.  I personally think the Jews are being blamed for things they had no part in: the Romans would have been far more likely to want to shut Jesus up.  But when you are arguing Biblical Semantics, you must be texturally accurate.)

Now, let’s look back at our definitions.  First we will look if they fit the conservative model; the Kohen (the term for the Priests of the temple) at the time of Jesus were rigid and inflexible, which fits definition 1 and 3; they were the heart of traditional Judaic thought, therefore Definition 6 certainly applies; we would assume that they dressed in exactly the manner that the Torah prescribes, so Definition 2 probably applies; Definition 4 and 5 are as irrelevant as they are for Jesus; and just like with Jesus, we don’t know how they stood on environmental issues, so Definition 7 is unknown.  Therefore the Court that condemned Jesus fit the definition of conservative.

How do they stack up on the liberal side?  Lets see: they were Orthodox in their beliefs, Definition 1 is out across the board, except for the part that talks about countries that didn’t exist then; they allowed the Moneylenders into the Temple, which implies a certain lack of generosity, So Definition 2 is not likely; They applied strict interpretations of the Torah, so no on Definition 3; Priests tend to be educated inside of the Temple, and that education focuses on religious studies, so probably no on Definition 4.  All of these are in the Negative column, which seems to indicate that they were not Liberal.

By this examination, they seem to be able to be defined as conservative, with only one possible way out.

That leads us to the difficult one, Definition 5b, which is an obsolete definition of Liberal.  If you consider deciding to execute the Son of God to be morally unrestrained or licentious (which I am sad to say generations of Christians have done, much to the detriment of the Jews) then the court was Liberal, IN THAT ONE SENSE OF THE WORD.

Therefore, if you use an obsolete definition of the word liberal to apply to the court, that is how you can define them as a Liberal Court.  How truly Conservative.