The following discussion between me and my liberal sister actually took place last week. It clearly illustrates the way liberals think.
In response to this facebook image about a Christian t-shirt:
My sister: If we let religion make the rules for everyone no matter their faith how is it different? People keep making rules they think only apply to
Christianity and are appalled when other religions try to make use of the benefits.
Me: I am aware of the problems inherent in having a diverse and multicultural republic. Treating faith like a dark and ugly thing and insisting it
have no role in a voter's choices is not reasonable. Your post is bigoted and outrageously offensive. Additionally, there is no comparison between
Sharia and the American Christian who votes his conscience. None.
Me: Furthermore, even if it were true that American Christians were trying to take over America and create a Christian government and a Bible based
court system (which is so far from the truth it's laughable) the outcome would look nothing like Sharia. Nothing. This is another reason why thus
offends me. Fundamental Islam and devout Christianity are NOT comparable.
My sister:Not in their choices but definitely in the legislation. When you are an elected official you represent your entire constituency. It is very
improper to make the bible the law of the land or any other book of faith.
My sister: Why not, the old testament is the source of both religion's fundamentalist ideals.
Me: Your post shows a marked lack of understanding of Christian theology. But then you are not a Christian, so I guess that's to be expected.
My sister: Extremism looks the same either way. Most Muslims are not fundamentalists and most Christians are not fundamentalists.
Me: Then why lump average Christians in with Sharia law? That's what your post does. It would be like me comparing you to Mao Tse Tung or Kruschev.
Me: Wanting to vote in accordance with your faith is not extremism. Wanting everyone to be an atheist, treating people of faith as a menace to
society, and insisting they pretend to have no God at the ballot box - IS extremism.
My sister: If I say I don't want a religious government I really don't think that is extreme. I don't want Thomas Jefferson written out of the history
books by Christians that don't like the separation of church and state. And I never want to live under religious rule of any sect.
Me: It's a straw man argument. Sets up a false premise at the outset. The fact remains that there is no comparison between the t-shirt slogan and
Me: At times you post things which are extremist but you somehow think your ideas are centrist, probably because you live in an envelope of liberalism
in a somewhat more conservative greater society. But you don't seem to realize, I would never ask ANYONE to suspend their faith at the ballot box.
Ever. Many American Christians, the kind who would wear this tee shirt, have died for your secular humanist right to insult them in this way.
Me: This post is bigoted and offensive. Take it from someone who it offended. You can spend all day telling the offended person why they should not be
offended or try to explain that you aren't a bigot because you really, really think you are right.
Me: If I posted outrageous statements about gays taking over the government because they get out the vote, wouldn't you think I was a bigot? "I don't
want to live under a gay government!" What a ridiculous thing it would be to say. IT'S THE SAME THING.
My sister: Why do you think I think my views are centrist? I may be as stupid as you think I am but I know that my politics are quite far left.
Me: I guess I thought that because you are always posting against extremism as if you did not know that you yourself are an extremist. It seemed
hypocritical. Now I realize it is because you know your views are extreme but you really believe (like all extremists) that your extremism is a better
kind of extremism.
You will notice that for the most part my sister never directly addressed any of the issues I brought up. She skirted them by injecting straw-man
arguments into the discussion. It is the liberals' favorite method of evasion of discourse. The only way to talk to a liberal is one on one and with
reasoned discussion, but even then it usually doesn't work.
My sister eventually conceded that she was an extremist and that she thought her kind of extremism was best. But she never conceded that her post was
offensive, nor did she apologize for being a bigot -- and she still considers herself a tolerant and open-minded person. It's a peculiar disconnect in
the atheist liberal psyche which allows them to insult, offend (and ultimately outlaw) faith while claiming to be tolerant.
 I guess on further reflection my post is a bit off-topic. It still does demonstrate a logical disconnect. [/edit]
edit on 23-2-2013 by
OuttaHere because: (no reason given)