Liberals love to force their religious beliefs on others

*I’m going to discuss liberals. Let it be understood that the modern liberal holds absolutely no resemblance to, and is actually the diametric opposite of, the Jeffersonian classical liberal. The modern liberal follows the track laid out by other political thinkers like Karl Marx and Alec Baldwin. For that reason, they should be more accurately referred to as “neo-liberals” or “post modern liberals” or “the dumb kind of liberals,” so as not to sully the good name of the old school, Revolution era type. For the sake of brevity however, I’ll be calling them just “liberals” in this post, with this prologue always in mind.*


Liberals don’t like to debate. They generally prefer to shout slogans at you and tell you to kill yourself. It’s not exactly the Socratic method, but I guess it works for them. They’re sort of like a really vulgar bumper sticker that has come to life and dedicated itself to draining the substance and constructive potential out of every discussion. Of all their inane slogans, this is probably their most common go-to: “Stop forcing your religion on me!” Now, this they will only use against a conservative Christian. Strangely, they rarely say it when the conversation turns to fundamentalist Islam, where, in some countries, you can be stoned to death in the middle of the street for committing the crime of being not Muslim.

So, brutalizing and decapitating a non-believer = not forcing your religion. Placing a plastic nativity scene outside of a courthouse in the Bible Belt = forcing your religion. See how this works? Yeah, me neither. Like I said, it ain’t Socrates we’re dealing with here.

Maybe they give the militant Muslims a pass because they actually quite admire their methods. In truth, it’s liberals who do the forcing of religious beliefs in this country. Don’t believe me? You think liberals aren’t “religious”? You think they actually subscribe to some sort of “live and let live” philosophy? Well, you, my friend, haven’t been paying attention. Nor have you read a dictionary recently. Let’s define out terms.

Here is the dictionary definition of “force“: To compel, constrain or oblige someone to do something.

Here is the dictionary definition of “religion“: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe; A moral code governing the conduct of human affairs; A specific set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of people or sects.

One is only forced to do something if they are compelled or obliged, and that compulsion or obligation would clearly have to come from a powerful authority of some kind. One is part of a religion if they share a certain set of beliefs and a moral code with a number of people. Notice, the word “religion” does not intrinsically necessitate any kind of faith in the supernatural, although it has that characteristic in some cases. In order to “force your religion” you must first be compelling, or advocating compulsion, and that compulsion must be fueled by a belief, rather than an objective observation of a physical reality.

With that in mind, let’s examine who, precisely, forces their religion around these parts. We’ll look take it issue by issue.

Taxes and welfare.

Liberals believe that in the interest of fairness — a subjective concept if ever there was one — the government must see to it that nobody ever gets too rich or too poor. Therefore, they believe, your property and the fruits of your labor do not belong to you. This cultish dogma even bestows on some a mysterious and unexplained “entitlement,” whereby certain members of society are “owed” the money and property of other members. The entire system of redistribution, which is central to their religion, must be facilitated through force by government.

Liberals FORCE their religious BELIEF in entitlement onto the rest of us.


Liberals believe that an infant child is a human but not a person, a distinction also made by slave owners in reference to blacks, and by the Nazis in reference to Jews. Just like those examples, their doctrine about unborn children is not at all supported by medical evidence, and is, in fact, rejected by most practitioners of medicine. Biology finds the relationship between mother and unborn child to be natural and life giving, whereas a liberal believes it to be parasitic. Again, this belief is not supported by the objective reality, nor by the dictionary, which defines “parasite” as “an organism that lives on an organism of another species.” An unborn human is not of another species, according to science, but the faith of the liberal cares little of science. Because of these wild beliefs, the liberal believes it acceptable to exterminate the baby, a process that most assuredly involves brutal force.

Liberals FORCE their religious BELIEF in the non-personhood of the unborn onto babies, and onto society in general through absurd court rulings like Roe V Wade.


Liberals believe that human beings are “destroying the planet.” They prophesy an imminent apocalypse where polar ice caps melt and flood our cities, while entire islands capsize under the weight of a mythical “overpopulation.” In anticipation of this utter impossibility, they have come up with a strict set of rules and regulations to which all must abide. They wish to force companies to adhere to an arbitrary “carbon emissions cap.” They force citizens to give their money to “green energy companies,” which then promptly go bankrupt. They advocate for laws forcing individuals to buy certain lightbulbs and drive certain cars. They even push their religion on children in the schools, strictly forbidding any teacher to stray from the tenets of their faith’s teachings about the environment.

Liberals FORCE their religious BELIEFS about the environment onto all people through taxes, regulations and one sided educational curriculum.


Liberals believe that restrictions on guns will lead to a decrease in violence. Empirical evidence belies this notion, but their creed does not make room for actualities. They use intensely dogmatic phrases like “nobody needs this gun” and “guns are dangerous.” Their liberal moral code requires a person to be defenseless and to submit to an attack from a violent force, where the prey must bide his time and hope for the onslaught to end before serious or fatal injuries are incurred, rather than precipitate its conclusion through the judicious use of a firearm. This belief in the moral imperative of defenseless leads them to reject not only logic, common sense, and statistical facts, but constitutional law as well.

Liberals FORCE their religious BELIEF in the inherent evil of guns onto all men and women through gun control laws.

I could go on. Compulsory schooling, anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, Title IX, smoking bans, Obamacare, “public health,” and the list continues. In fact, on almost every issue, liberals believe in ruthlessly forcing compliance to their dogmatic beliefs. Much like the cheating spouse who becomes suspicious of the one he’s cheating on, liberals project the hideous features of their ideology onto their opponents. They scream about religion being “forced on them” anytime a Christian merely speaks or displays his faith publicly. Yet they work diligently to literally compel conformity to their own ideology through force of government, or — if government fails — litigation, threats and intimidation.

They’ve thrown so many stones in that glass house that now the glass is all shattered. They’re left standing out in the open, in the cold, vulnerable and exposed as the blathering hypocrites they’ve always been.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Liberals love to force their religious beliefs on others

  1. Will you please run for president!!!!!

  2. Sarah B says:

    Stumbled upon this blog this weekend (via a link on facebook about the 29 year old genius), and love you! Read post after post for entertainment with my hubby the other night. Thank you for being a voice (a keenly coherent voice) in this dark world. We need more like you!

  3. Dave Kartzman says:

    I don’t have an issue with Progressives who believe what they do, and are willing to go head-to-head using facts. I do enjoy Verbal jousts with a small minority of the left that are willing to be civil.

    However, with respect to those of the left who do not fall into the above category… We shouldn’t deceive ourselves by referring them to liberals or progressives. Very simply, they are fascists of the left. They cannot argue with facts. Rather they disparage anyone who dares to disagree with them via ad hominem attacks which have no bearing on the subject. They work at silencing any dissent to what they believe. Free speech to the left is only valid if you would adhere to their views. Otherwise you don’t “deserve” the right to speak.

    With the current media so complicit in giving these verbal fascists a voice, it is very difficult to combat them, as we are regularly derided or denigrated for our views, or ignored completely by the media.

    Until more people speak up against these verbal fascists, little is going to be done. Until balance is restored the media, little will change as well.

  4. Brendan says:

    I call it, “Liberal Fascism.”

  5. Debbi Spencer says:

    I. too. just found your blog thru the same facebook link as Sarah B and am delighted! Loved your reply in the former, and this post is exactly what I have thought about “liberals” for years, just couldn’t have put it into words quite as well as you did. Thanks! I am now a follower!
    OK. Gotta go read the rest of your archives now.

  6. Jo Hargis says:

    Oh, holy crap, what a crock of spew that was! I only got about halfway through and I couldn’t stop laughing. But let me just throw one thing out and I’ll be done.

    “So, brutalizing and decapitating a non-believer = not forcing your religion. Placing a plastic nativity scene outside of a courthouse in the Bible Belt = forcing your religion.”

    REALLY? Is the author really that stupid? The first thing isn’t happening in the US, the second thing is and is called Separation of Church and State. There’s your difference. I know, you have that re-written cherry-picked Constitution that says there’s no such thing, but hey, you actually cannot change facts. From what body orifice did the author pull out that tidbit of non-fact that liberals think “brutalizing and decapitating a non-believer” isn’t forcing religion? Of course it is. I know, I know, you guys all hate the Mooslums so much that you froth at the mouth and scream that we should go over and just obliterate their countries and people because, after all, their religion is so barbaric n’stuff, right?. So exactly how is advocating for the destruction of a society because of its religion not the same thing as forcing your religion on them? There are countries all over this world that are doing things that are morally wrong in your warped view, from Africa to the Middle East to those dratted socialists in Scandinavia and Canada. I bet you’d like to just go obliterate all those folks too, right? Ahh, right. Facts hurt, don’t they. You people are so wrapped in your hatred that you can’t even see very basic, simple facts. They completely whistle over the top of your heads.

    • Ted Harrell says:

      There is NO mandate in the Constitution for “separation of church and state.” It simply forbids the FEDERAL government from establishing a national religion, as in the “Church of England” that was so powerful in Great Britain, backed by the power of the government.

      There’s no call to advocate “the destruction of a society because of its religion.” We just want to be able to freely express our beliefs as they are allowed to express theirs. We “have to be tolerant” of their expression of beliefs, but we have to keep our expression of religion private…according to the politically correct marxists who are forcing their religion of “equality through extortion.”

    • Jane says:

      “You people are so wrapped in your hatred” says the person who just hatefully stereotyped all readers of Matt’s blog as NeoCons who want to bomb all “Mooslum” countries. Hate to break it you, but I’m a pacifist. Maybe take a look at the hate and anger in your own heart before projecting it out onto others.

    • e newman says:

      ” The first thing isn’t happening in the US,” Actually, this does happen in the US.

    • cyclops911 says:

      Straw man, Jo, straw man.
      And you forgot to tell Matt to go kill himself.

  7. Jason says:

    Thank you, Jo, for proving Matt’s point in the first paragraph.

  8. Dave Kartzman says:

    Jo, congratulations for making Matt’s point. Your invectives and overall irrational tone only demonstrates how incapable you are of arguing facts, which is also indicative of the others of your ‘tolerant’ persuasion. Perhaps one day you will realize that your arrogant attitude is nothing more than compensating for your lack of intelligent counterpoint.

    One last point.. Read your own words…who is the one spewing hatred?

  9. Rob says:

    So, Jo, our “re-written cherry picked Constitution” omits “Separation of Church and State”? On the contrary, the actual text reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That’s it folks. No mention of the Wall. Yet somehow a nativity scene on a county courthouse lawn violates the Constitution? Those nativity scenes are not placed by acts of Congress. Hence, no violation. These are the facts. Sorry for the inconvenience.

    • scotchnsota says:

      Rob, “Establishment” can also mean “promotion of”.

      Outside of that – why not just leave the Nativity for the church lawn???

      • Jane says:

        In Santa Monica, every year, there were nativity scenes placed by local Christian groups on the public park by the ocean along Ocean Blvd. Then the militant atheists got their panties in a twist and tried to get the nativity scenes removed. The last I heard, they can only be up there now if some Christian is standing there along with them, which they did on purpose to try to keep them from being displayed because mostly they are displayed at night with all the lights. So this isn’t really about the *government* putting up nativity scenes, it’s about atheists blocking any religious group from putting up any sort of religious items for display in a “public park.” Which is silly, because Christians are Americans too.

      • Mark says:

        No it can’t Scotch, you people have completely lost sight of the obvious. Since when is any religious oriented display on the grounds of any state or local government property the federal government establishing a state religion?

  10. Chris says:

    I’m not sure what dictionary you found that definition of religion in. By your definition, anyone and everyone would be considered “religious” since everyone has a “set of beliefs” and “a moral code”. I looked up “religion” on Merriam Websters and the first definition listed was: (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.” Religion, as a matter of history, has always involved deity worship of some kind. A “set of beliefs” and “a moral code” alone do not constitute a religion. They may constitute a philosophy, but not a religion since there is no deity worship involved or supernatural claims being made. Everyone has beliefs. It’s where your beliefs are derived from that makes them “religious” beliefs or not. Everyone has secular beliefs that they arrived at using their own common sense and intuition. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are always derived from a religious text, religious dogma, or church creed.

    The problem with your argument is that it ignores the distinction between religious and secular beliefs. Most liberals/progressives have secular justifications for their beliefs wheres religious conservatives typically only invoke religious justifications for their beliefs. Take the religious right’s objections to gay marriage, for example. I’ve yet to hear a single valid, non-religious argument used against gay marriage. It’s always “well the Bible says it’s wrong” or “it goes against my religion”. If you ask them for one non-religious reason why gay marriage should be banned, they are stumped. While religious conservatives use ancient religious texts written by bronze-age sheep herders as the basis for their morality, the modern liberal uses utilitarian common sense, reason, and logic. We do not invoke a deity which may or may not exist, when attempting to validate our arguments like religious conservatives do. Our beliefs are derived from logic and reason, not on our interpretation of an ancient book dictated by a supernatural sky-daddy.

    • Karen Black says:

      not everyone who is opposed to gay marriage does so because of religion. I’m sorry that you’ve only encountered those who do. Personally, I’m opposed to it for many reasons that I don’t have time to enumerate at the moment, and I’m frustrated with this phenomenon as well. I live in a very religious community, and most of my friends don’t understand the idea of supporting their politics with more than just scriptures and quotes from church leaders, and it drives me absolutely mad–people like them make the rest of us (who actually used logic and reason to form our opinions) look like idiots.

      For a starter in non-religious reasons, Google “opine editorials” or look up the French Parliament’s “Report on the Family and the Rights of Children”.

    • Jane says:

      OK, then, let’s call the progressive movement a “cult” then, and instead of worshiping the sky daddy, they worship “big government daddy.” BTW, there’s a prolific anti-gay marriage activist who posts regularly on, who is actually a gay man who was raised by lesbians, and he believes that gay marriage will promote child trafficking due to all the increased demand for designer “babies” for otherwise childless gay couples. I’m not against gay marriage myself but there are plenty secular reasons against it, one of them being that children naturally will do better being raised by both opposite sex parents, which is common sense and based on Mother Nature, not “Sky-Daddy.”

    • Martin says:

      Many progressive beliefs are just as detached from physical science as are many conservative beliefs. The progressive stance on when life begins is just one example. Putting that aside, here is a simple solution to the same-sex marriage controversy: Simply remove marriage from the government. The legal construct of a civil union can suffice for everyone, whether gay, lesbian, straight, polygamist, etc. Everyone who enters into the contract gets whatever is accorded to them by the government. As for quote-unquote marriage, make that strictly a religious affair. For couples who want to be married and not just “united”, they can go to the house of worship of their choice and have their marriage. By itself, a marriage will have no legal force; it is a demonstration of faith and love.
      By the way, this will also throw up a roadblock for any groups that want to demand that a congregation break its own tenets by marrying a same-sex couple (be it Christian, Jewish or Muslim), which respects the First Amendment.
      This all seems to be a rational and sensible solution to me. However, I’ve noticed that when I suggest it to progressive liberals, they seem to get uneasy, as if I’m suggesting we move the goal posts (despite their insistence that they don’t want to see the government forcing religions to perform same-sex marriages). Why do you suppose that is?

      • Raleana S says:

        Actually, I for one would just fine if the government re-categorized civil marriages as civil unions and left marriage entirely up to religious entities. However, in most cases when this idea is brought up, it’s really more of a derailment then an honest suggestion.
        Religious organizations, as a whole, do not want the government to remove their rights to perform state recognized marriages. If such an idea were to gain any significant momentum, the backlash would be intense. Religious organizations want both the power to perform marriages on behalf of the the state AND the power to dictate what sort of unions the state will recognize. Taking the state provided power churches currently hold away from them will not “fix” the problem as far as they are concerned.
        Whether the government calls its legally recognized unions “marriages,” “civil marriages,” “civil unions,” or “registered coupling,” I don’t particularly care. I simply expect the government determine a contract’s validity without any regard to the biological sex of the participants. In issues of morality and law, biological sex should always be a non-factor.

  11. Chris says:

    It is conservative Christian groups such as the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council that have historically gotten involved in politics and have tried to legislate their religious beliefs, thereby “forcing” them onto all Americans. If groups like these had their way, the Ten Commandments would be the law of the United States. On the other hand, Liberals/Progressives seek to maintain a separation of church and state and uphold the non-establishment clause of the 1st Amendment by keeping religion and government separate. Even liberals who are Christians typically have no interest in creating a Christian Theocratic government like many conservative Christians do because they honor the vision of the founding fathers.

    On a side note Rob, the mention of the “wall of separation between church and state” can be found in the letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbarry Baptists. Google it. Also, google Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, which was signed and unanimously ratified by the founding fathers.

    • Mark says:

      Chis, I have a question for you. How did you arrive at the morals and values that define you? I will comment further after your answer.

      • Chris says:

        Mark, It’s quite simple really. I have this radical notion that if I treat others the way that I would want to be treated, then that is usually the “moral” course of action. Would I want to be stolen from? No, so I don’t steal from others. Would I want to be discriminated against? No, so I don’t discriminate against others. Christians call this concept “the golden rule” but it did not originate with Christianity. It is called by many different names by other world relgions. To quote the Dalai Lama, “There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness.”

  12. scotchnsota says:

    Regarding religion: When asked by journalist Robert Sherman regarding possible discrimination against Atheists in the United States, then Vice President cum Candidate for President, George H.W. Bush replied, “No, I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.” Despite the Federal Constitution’s ban on “religious tests” for voting / holding public office, as well as the SCOTUS decision in a case in Maryland – there are at least six other states who currently have enshrined in their Constitutions, laws forbidding Atheists from holding public office. Incidentally – these states are all what we would call “Red” or “GOP” dominated states.

    When and where have Christians experienced like-minded persecution and/or exclusion?

    Introductions? I’m Scott – I’m 46 and I have been active – seriously active in politics since I was 6! I think I have a fairly developed sense of my own politics and I must confess – as a lifelong Progressive Liberal – I don’t/didn’t recognize myself in any of your points on Liberals.

    I looked at your points as being somewhat hyperbolic – exaggerated – out on the fringe. Now – are there some Liberals who might fit some, most, maybe even all of your descriptions? Sure, it’s possible – just as possible of anyone on the Right exuding a list I could create of equally depressing categorizations. After we’re done comparing lists – what have we accomplished??? If both of us think the other side is completely full of crap – and hell bent to destroy the country that, let’s face it – I truly believe that BOTH of us not only just call “home” – but LOVE!

    Incidentally, I have seen your post – worded almost exactly the same – on many Lefty blogs. Do you guys get a deal on hyperbole or something??? 🙂

  13. JackFish says:

    I enjoyed the post on parenting, but I find here you are not as thinking and independent as I thought.

    Instead of “force” use “manipulate.” I am reminded of the mayor of Bradenton, Florida, as he allows a fundamentalist preacher to begin each meeting of the city council with a prayer to Jesus Christ. The city is composed of many more faiths than fundamentalist Christianity, but no one ever starts the meeting except a Baptist, Pentecostal, COC, COG, or similar denomination parson.

    The mayor says this is a great opportunity for people of other faiths: he is giving them a chance to learn about Christianity.

    So, sitting in the meeting about to present a grievance to the council, what do you want to bet on your chances if you are known to be a Buddist? Ba’hia? Muslim?

    Anytime a government “of the People” must acknowledge a Christian god to access that government, then there is something wrong. Religion was not a criteria to access government before, why is it so important now that we all acknowledge the Christian god?

    Because under lying dogma of all fundamentalist Christian faiths is to “spread the word.” To spout the gospel, and to give *everyone* an “opportunity” to take Jesus as their personal savior is part and parcel of all such leaders, whether they state that publicly, or not.

    Your piece above is parroting the conservative fundamentalist line. Think outside the box, Matt. You are a good writer, but need to grow into your own philosophy.

    • Jane says:

      You obviously don’t know any conservative Christians personally. The ones that I know would never use the force of government to discriminate against Buddhists or the Bahai. In fact, the conservatives I know are actually more tolerant of different viewpoints than some of the progressive friends I used to have, who disowned me when I stopped being a Democrat and became independent.

    • Mark says:

      Jack, are all Christians fundamentalist?

    • Jackfish, his philosophy sounds pretty good to me. 🙂

  14. Dave K. says:

    I think, somehow, this discussion got a bit off topic. Maybe I am incorrect, but what Matt was talking about was the leftist ‘beliefs’ as their religion. I didn’t take what Matt was saying was about christianity… Rather, I thought he was pointing out the dogma that the fascist left spews out without particularly citing facts to back it up, as well as the denigration of anyone who disagrees with them.

    Perhaps I was mistaken, but after reading his essay, I still think I was right.

    Just my opinion….


  15. LukeP says:

    The “Dictionary definition” of religion that you use is actually from wikipedia (I had to look it up as you didn’t cite that or any other claims you make), which is paraphrased from a religious studies textbook, apparently. While some dictionaries (like this one do actually imply that belief in the supernatural is necessity, it’s really beside the point. All you’ve done here is manipulate a few definitions, and then liberally (pun intended) combine words to make up terms that have no real basis in reality. Mostly, you’ve built your whole post on some fabricated notion that “liberals” (another word you define for your audience by perpetuating stereotypes) force religion on the general voting public. While I wonder why you can call “liberals” a “religion” and yet “conservatives” are not (I’m sure their definition is much more glorious and complex, according to you), it is, again, beside the point.

    By the end of your introduction you have set up a perfect dichotomy (based on the “liberal” stereotypes I mentioned above) and you have defined both sides of it, preying off of your reader’s emotions and trust in your vocabulary. In short, this is lazy writing. The least you could do is tell a personal story. You could say something like: “The other day I was discussing politics with my “liberal” friend and he said “don’t force your religion on me!”… Something like that. Although, I assume you have few liberal friends. it is evident in your execution of straw men and word play that if you do in fact have friends who call themselves liberals you either don’t listen to them or they don’t trust you enough to have a frank discussion with you about their stances on the issues. I’m not pleased with Barack Obama’s presidency for many reasons. However, If you are a voice for conservative people, I recommend you get comfortable with preaching to your choir and get used to Republicans losing elections. This is the exact rhetoric that more Americans are getting wise to. You over simplify issues, paint your own picture of the opposition, and then name call. It is a tactic used by both sides of the political spectrum, no doubt. It is just a shame that it is so easily done on blog posts and so often seen by a bigger audience than it deserves. But that really doesn’t matter to you, I guess, as long as we share your blog with others.

    Which brings to my point (again): This is lazy writing. it is clear you have a bit of a flare for writing creatively, but your posts have no basis in fact. You invent definitions and cite no one. We are left to assume that whatever world you live in and perceive that it is based in truth. And you love ranting against whatever it is that you think is destroying the United States of America and destroying “truth” and I’m sure you love even more watching the comments of praise or angry retort roll in. You are preying on other peoples rise in blood pressure for hits. That is what porn sites do. You’re not to blame, entirely (although I’m sure as a neo-con you preach taking responsibility for your reactions). It is an American news epidemic. The sad part is, if you actually were to have a thorough, well contemplated, and original opinion I can’t get on any conservative based political commentary (you haven’t in the posts I’ve seen) on the internet, it may cost you hits. People think they can be given truth on some blog post. They don’t want to actually work for it and discover it for themselves. They would rather read a bunch of buzz words and emotional rhetoric and assume it to be true.

    In closing, I’ll say this: I voted Obama in ’08 and Johnson in ’12. Prefer Obama over Bush (talk about a lesser of evils…), but am open to voting for a decent Republican candidate. Genuinely open. If you are actually interested in REAL discussion about the issues…I’m open to discourse.

  16. Jennifer says:

    Aaughhh! All my feelings in one sharp post. Yowza!

  17. Jennifer says:

    “You love ranting against whatever it is that you think is destroying the United States of America and destroying “truth” and I’m sure you love even more watching the comments of praise or angry retort roll in. You are preying on other peoples rise in blood pressure for hits. That is what porn sites do. You’re not to blame, entirely (although I’m sure as a neo-con you preach taking responsibility for your reactions)”

    Wow, Luke. I haven’t seen this much fancy nothing for a good long while.

    • LukeP says:

      In the context of the rest of my post this is an adequate point about the nature of these political blogger hacks. He has turned political discourse into a series of rants against people who think differently than him, all while creating his own version of the “liberal” arguments and letting the reader do the same. All this does is increase the divide between Americans and deters from gaining a humble understanding of people that are different from him.

  18. Dave K. says:

    Luke, I want to thank you for not descending into ad hominem attacks against those who you disagree with. it is, rather, refreshing to not be called a fascist, or right-wing knuckle dragger, or any other other choice terms that many of the left persuasion have directed at me during the last several political seasons (elections). I have strived to keep a dialog civil and based on facts, but with respect, with rare exceptions, those on the left (or those that are progressive) are incapable of arguing facts, and when confronted with them, tend to react with malice towards me. I do not lose my temper when having to deal with these types. Again, with respect, it is my opinion that most of the people that i have tried to have dialogs with out on the web, who disagree with me, cannot carry on a civil dialog. I know you disagree with Matt and his style of writing, but with respect, I have to agree with his general assertion that when you go counter to the ‘religion’ of the left’s beliefs, there is no tolerance for disagreement.

    if you would like a good example of the left’s tolerance toward difference opinions, simply look on the college campuses.Look at the conduct of the future leaders of our country at Harvard, Columbia, and many other universities when a guest speaker is invited (by a college group or as a commencement speaker) who is politically conservative. Look at the intolerance and the rudeness of the left, the ‘occupy’ movement and contrast that with demonstrations by groups on the right (tea party comes to mind).

    I hope I don’t shock you too much but I have no tolerance for stupidity and intolerance of the right as well. There are nuts of all political persuasions.

    i do take issue with your later comment about Matt creating his own version of the ‘liberal’ arguments. I think if you took the time to listen to youtube for speeches by members of congress, and read news across all of the political spectrums, you might find that much of what Matt said is not his version but rather what the left espouses.

    Lastly, if you wish to criticize those that are seeking to divide our country, I would suggest that you watch the news and see who is driving the wedge. I am reminded well of a comment by a person I went to high school with prior to the 2012 election. I pointed out that many of the comments I was seeing out in the media seemed to be very biased in favor of the president. During the debates, it also seemed like the moderators in several of the debates went out of their way to buttress the president’s comments, or deliberately contradict what Romney said (Candy Crowley – which she turned out to be wrong). I asked him how he could justify the bias that was so prevalent. His response was very simple and to the point – the end justifies the means. If you are complaining that the country is divided because of those on the right, I would counter that it is the left that is intolerant and the only unity they will accept is on their terms.

    Again, I thank you for not acting like so many of your peers when having a conversation with people you disagree with.


  19. LukeP says:

    Nice post Dave. Thanks for the civility on your end as well. In a lot of the discussions I’ve been involved in and been spectator in (in the general public/social networks/blogs like this) I notice that the right tends to lean on a given principle (i.e. welfare is enabling the lazy/abortion is murder, etc.) and refusing to acknowledge the complexities of the issues. Which, to me, is what I thought of when I read the opening line of Matt’s blog post: slogans. “It’s my second amendment right!”, “don’t tread on me!” and so on.

    Now, the left is CERTAINLY not an exception to this either. Both sides often rely on simple rhetoric that doesn’t hold much water in genuine discourse. Now, before I go further, let me back up a second. I don’t consider myself a liberal (though some might). in fact, I would say I have right leanings on 3 of the 4 issues Matt mentions. I am however, understanding of both sides of the argument and I find the more I engage people, the less of a divide there is between us. I respect that many people in red states hold their conservative beliefs on social issues due to interpretation of religious text even if we disagree. I respect that many people on the left hold their beliefs because of a respect for the earth and humanity on issues involving environmentalism, health care, welfare, etc.

    Now, as for Matt creating the liberal argument, I revert back to my saying that the more I engage people, the less of a divide I see between us. Hence, I find that while those straw men arguments that Matt has ranted on are attributed to the left, in a genuine discussion they fail to be exhaustive, and upon engaging them I find their arguments to be much more complex (the same goes with the right.). For instance, on taxes, welfare, etc. I think the left argue a much better case than “in interest of fairness, the government must see to it that nobody gets too rich or too poor.” If I were going to dumb it down to a simple one sentence phrase as Matt does, I might word it this way: “In interest of a general concern for the well being of humanity, the government should see to it that the poorest Americans have decent quality of life.” Now I’m sure we can agree that this representation of the argument has it’s problems, it’s misconceptions, and it’s points of disagreement. Have I encountered this argument? Definitely. And honestly, I’ve never heard the “no one should get to rich or too poor” coming from the left. It is usually an attempt by the right to simplify the argument to better fit their retort (or it is built into their retort). Does that mean that the left doesn’t make the argument? No. I’m sure it exists. What I DO see from the left is a misplaced disdain for the wealthy, and simlilar rhetoric used by matt in simplifying a complex issue and creating further divide.

    My question is, if Matt is a responsible writer, and those arguments exist on the internet, why not find them, post them, and refute them? At least then you put a face on a bad argument. I find it incredibly lazy to put words in the mouth a group of people that encompass half of the country without any reference, ranting about how they “force their beliefs on us.” and then publish it for the general public to read. Now, if this were an actual political forum (a neutral site) with comparable amounts of libs and dems, then fine, post your rubbish and let the argument be refuted publicly. There is a certain lack of respect for the audience’s intelligence here that is disheartening.

    As per your final paragraph about media: Which media? The CNN’s that largely ignore the red state demographic, or the Fox News that paints the left out to be destroying the country? They are all guilty of creating a dichotomy that doesn’t exist. Each time I read this sort of stuff, though, it’s clear that many people believe that it does.

    Good discussion, Dave. I look forward to hearing from you.

  20. Lisa Reynoso says:

    Whenever someone talks about being an environmentalist, I ask them if they are a vegetarian. If they aren’t, the meat they eat is using more planetary resources than their neighbor’s Hummer. My mom says environmentalists who want to ban logging shouldn’t live in houses made from trees.

    I hate it when people make absolute statements about things. There is always room for opinion. But yeah, Matt, I agree with you.

Comments are closed.