Why are the Liberals against Religion?

Question

Why do they want to contribute to the moral decay of this country?

Answer 1

With moral decay, children need a replacement to the family element. Thus the government comes in. Liberals want the government to control our lives.

Rush Limbaugh says it best

RUSH: People struggle to define conservatism and liberalism, and you can make it as complicated as you want, and you can take it to the Nth degree if you want. It's actually a little simpler than it appears. At its root, what is life all about? Life is about people, and life is about relationships. Nostalgia generally reminds you of your pleasant memories. Very few people go back and have horrible thoughts about nostalgia. You just have those in your nightmares and your dreams unless you have some kind of problem and dwell on them, but when your life is done and you look back at it, the things that you'll remember that will have defined you and will have contributed to your happiness are the relationships you've had with people you've loved, from family, to friends, to spouses, to children, to whoever. That's what everybody will reflect on near the end of their lives, not what they acquired when, not when they scored their first touchdown. Those things matter at the time, and they're important at the time, but when you reflect on things, that's generally what happens. So people and working with and playing with and dealing with people and interacting with them is the fundamental behavioral aspect of humanity, and everything descends from that.

Now, conservatism, people who are conservative will look at a culture and look at a society, such as ours, and we will have the utmost faith in the individual. We believe that the individual, when properly educated and informed (and, by the way, unshackled), we believe the individual has the ability to triumph over whatever odds that individual faces. We believe that extraordinary people are simply ordinary people could go extraordinary things. The great among us never set out to be great. They became great by virtue of accolades as a result of their achievements. Liberals on the other hand look at the average American with condescension. They don't think the average American has what it takes. The average American is stupider than the liberal. The average American doesn't have the ambition or the wherewithal to overcome these odds -- and besides they make a victim out of everybody, and they do it by saying, "That black doesn't have a chance because of racism and white people. The illegal doesn't have a chance because of the nativist and protectionist among us. Women don't have a chance because of sexism and so forth," and so the liberal mind-set and construct of people is entirely negative. It's condescending; it is arrogant, and it is almost holds people in contempt.

Conservatism is just the opposite. Now, everything descends from that. When liberals get power, politically, and start putting together policy, what's the policy going to be? "Empower government, because those schlubs out there cannot live their lives properly, happily, without us. Senior citizens won't eat; the poor won't get off the soup lines. The only people that make it big are the rich, and we've gotta find a way to take away from them what they've worked for." Conservatism, when it gets power and starts defining policy, you get things like welfare reform, which is rooted in the belief that people who work, which is where many people derive their identity, will experience achievement and pride, will be motivated to go even further. You can take this simple definition of conservatism versus liberalism and apply it to virtually any aspect of the political spectrum, and you'll see that it applies. So it's not complicated at all to explain the difference. This is what has been missing in Republican Party politics, philosophically for way too many years, and needs to return.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I want to expand a little bit on what I was saying in a previous segment about conservatism versus liberalism and how if you want to get independent voters back, do what has worked. How did Reagan Democrats become Reagan Democrats? The left will tell you because Reagan found a way to turn those white racists into Republicans. But that, of course, is typical of liberalism: condescension and arrogance looking down at everybody. It's not what happened. Reagan touched into their souls, or touched their souls, and Reagan found a way to connect with them in ways they related to. Basically that's conservatism. If you missed the previous segment, let me just set it up -- recap it, actually -- by very briefly telling you what it is. Conservatism and liberals can be defined very simply.

Conservatism looks at average people and sees mountains of potential, wants only the best for everybody because that's how you get a great country. Liberalism looks at the average American with contempt, sees hopelessness, no chance whatsoever of that person becoming anything without the assistance of liberals and big government and so forth. Now, I want to illustrate this in another way, just to show you how conservatism and liberalism actually are and how the liberals end up in succeeding, in some cases, in misdefining conservatism. We are working on a special premium offering for new subscribers for the Limbaugh Letter, the most widely read political newsletter in America today.

This premium is called, "What's at Stake for '08." We're still putting it together, we're still writing it. We're still conceiving it, actually. We're trying to identify those things issue-wise, cultural and politically that are at stake in the presidential race in 2008, and on, and beyond. Now, we've got a number of subjects that we are looking at. We're looking at foreign policy and domestic policy and these kinds of things. But let me just focus in one. I think it's clear to say that we have a cultural rot in this country, and we have had for a while. Every time we think we can't be shocked, we are shocked. Every time we think we've descended to the depths of which there are no more depths, we find and plunge into a new one. The latest example I guess would be the O.J. Simpson TV show and the book that has everybody outraged.

Now, you can look at that as an isolated incident, and you can say, "Whoa, wow, that's horrible," and you get all bent out of shape about it, or you can take the larger view. There are small minds and big minds, and I think the small minds react to individual episodes as though that's all they are. They don't put them in context and look at what came before them and what the current episode of cultural rot, whatever it is, may lead to next. But there is clearly a cumulative effect of the declining cultural rot that is existing in this country. Now, you can lay blame for it on a number of things. I don't want to go there right now. But let me just give you an example.

I'm going to take a big risk mentioning this, as you know, because this program is not listened to by critics. It is reported on by critics who will report only what they think can damage this program if they get it out to people, but I'm going to say it anyway because I do the program for you, not for them. One of the things that has always bothered me in this country is the whole notion of racism, the fact that it's our original sin, and we're never going to solve the problem.

The reason we're never going to become a problem is because it's become a business to people. Race has become a business. It's become a way for people to get wealthy; it's become a way for people to become famous; it has become a way for people to have positions of power or seats at a political party's table of power. In other words, there are people that don't want the problem solved because they profit from it too much. But if you're a true conservative, and you see cultural rot anywhere, it has to bother you because it's your country that you're looking at. So you have this optimism about you and you know it doesn't have to be this way, so how can this change? The first thing to do is be honest in identifying the problem.
Now, I read a piece by Stanley Crouch. It's posted on the Drudge Report (he is a columnist for the New York Daily News) and it's entitled, "Memo to black men: Grow up." Stanley Crouch is black. He's a musician, music critic, renaissance man. He's accomplished. He probably doesn't like me saying this. I'm ruining his career by praising him. But he has been writing for the longest time of his horror and disgust over the lack of ambition and maturity in the young black male population. Eighteen to 35 is, I think, the age-group that he categorized it in his column today. And one of the things he points out is that the role models that are available for these people are the wrong ones: rap stars, athletes, Hollywood actors and actresses. It seems to him that their pursuit in life equals a fancy car, a big crib, a big house, having some way to relate to rappers and so forth. He says it's tearing the culture apart, and he's talked to a number of black women in the same age-group that say there's a shortage of decent black men out there because they're just perpetually 15.

Now, in mentioning this, had I not quoted Stanley Crouch, had I used my own words for this, the immediate reaction of liberals, "You racist. You're looking at black people and look how you're seating them." That stunts conversation about this because nobody wants to be called a racist and nobody wants to be called names and have their character assassinated or assaulted in this way. It's never stopped me, as you know -- and it won't. But the fact is, it's distressing and, by the way, it's not just them. There are all kinds of examples of this that you can give and say for people. But it's distressing that with all of the successful black people -- all the successful Americans, forget race -- that for some reason those who ought to be role models around. In fact, they are impugned and laughed at and made fun of.

The left, the liberals among us will never, ever dare criticize any of this because it's exactly what they want. They like the chaos. They like the failure. They like people not reaching their potential, because they make their grade by blaming all this not on those people, but on others such as conservatives, for being racist and having circumstances set in place where people can't succeed because of their race so they have to go the direction that they are going. Now, in the process of discussing this, what gets missed is and what gets lost is that people like me -- and I think Stanley Crouch, I don't know what his political ideology is -- we look at this and don't like what we see and wish it were better, because there's far more opportunity in this country.

What are the odds you're going to grow up to be a rap star? And if you succeed, what's the odds you're going to end up be being in a gangsta rap gang or whatever? What are the odds that you're going to become the big, high-paid athlete? The odds are slim to none, given the percentages of people in this country who make it in such is areas, and yet those aspirations seem to be the dominant ones. Well, there are far better aspirations to have, as we all know, and when talking about this and encouraging this, this is the quintessential definition of what I mean conservatives want the best for everybody. But it's misinterpreted. "Ah, he's condemning black culture! Racism! Not understanding that these people have had a tough life and a tough existence ever since slavery. They have no other recourse, Mr. Limbaugh, they have no other choice." It's not true, because there are millions of other blacks who have gone a different route, they are in a minority, and they, too, are criticized and laughed at, put down, called Uncle Toms or what have you. It's a frustrating thing, but I think it's a distinction that necessitates accurate speaking and writing about it.
When you have two competing ideologies, one which wants to perpetuate the chaos, perpetuate the less-than-possible achievement -- versus one who seeks the best, hopes for the best, and wants to establish the circumstances so all can achieve the best whatever that is for them, based on their ambition or their desire, it seems to be a no-brainer. Yet people on my side of the aisle are called the mean ones. We're called the extremists and the racists and the bigots and the homophobes and so forth, when it is just the exact opposite. But when people hear this properly explained, everybody wants the best for their country. Well, again, not everybody does, and that's the point. But there are still enough people who do that you can make a majority out of them when it comes to elections and then implementing policy.

The left is never going to go away and they're never going to change their tactics and they're never going to change the definition of who they are. But there are people out there who float, who are not ideologically committed every day, and you can attract them with the right set of philosophical sentences, words, articles, what have you. This is what Ronald Reagan tapped into in creating the so-called Reagan Democrats. They were conservative all along. It's just that nobody in their party was, and Reagan came along and touched their souls and touched their hearts as Americans, "shining city on the hill, we have "a rendezvous with destiny." The definition of America is greatness, the concept of America and exceptionalism, liberals will refute that and shoot that down at every opportunity, because they think it's the exact opposite.

So we're putting a number of these different ideas together in this special report, this premium for the next issue of the Limbaugh Letter. It's a holiday premium called "What's at Stake in '08?" Another thing that we're talking about is this. We have had four basic wars, four major wars in this country. We had the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the two world wars. If you look at the first two, we were fighting ourselves. Civil War was against each other, Revolutionary War, parts of us were fighting ourselves. World War I and World War II, that's where a lot of people learned, "Hey, there are a lot of things in life larger than just me. There are things larger in life than just us."

In Iraq, what has happened, and even to a certain extent the war on terror -- and we will develop this in much greater detail in this special report. But what's happened is that the left has succeeded in taking a concept, the war on terror and the war in Iraq, as something larger than ourselves -- and the vision of it certainly is a peaceful world, a world where declared, stated enemy is brought to justify, and that enemy's power is reined in. All of a sudden that's not what this is about anymore. The left has succeeded, once again, while all the while claiming Iraq is in a civil war, they've actually created one here amongst the American people. We're at all with ourselves over the whole concept of defending ourselves, which is sad, and it's a bit sick.

Well, these are the kind of things that need to be discussed and talked about within a conservative ideological framework. A: it's interesting; B: it's informative; C: it's educational, and D: Done right, it's inspirational and can be a winner again. It just burns me up that the people who got elected on this whole belief system of conservatism failed to articulate it after they got elected, failed to govern using it and basically failed to even talk about it in this last election. The philosophical discussion of all these things was nowhere near what it should have been in this last campaign. It can be again, and it should be, and it will be a winner.

Answer 2

They are not against religion; they are just for equal expression. This is not a debate of liberal and conservative, because on both lines there are people who believe in religion and people who don’t. Personally speaking, you have your religion and your beliefs and are happy with your life, why do you feel everyone should have the same "beliefs and morals". Everyone can believe and live however they want, so long as they do not force the belief or lifestyle upon someone else. Be happy that you are strong in your faith and let go of the fact that others might not believe in the same views. Also are you concerned that they are against "religion", or just against YOUR religion (I’m guessing you are Christian). Also remember there are many religions, and non documented belief styles, do those add to the "moral decay". Basically get over yourself. Besides organized religion is nothing more than a hypocrisy and a cult. Individual beliefs that one truly believes in without feeling the need to preach are genuine and strong, but when one follows a mass like a sheep, trying to convert everyone to their beliefs, they are nothing more than a useless drone. Besides those that are the most "pure in religion", are usually the ones who are the most "morally corrupt".

Answer 3

Organized religion too often is a political body that has $$$ as its priority and recruits the lost in order to exploit them. Look at the Catholic Church in Mexico where the peasants are given no alternative but to keep the babies coming. Irresponsible! In other venues the Catholic church is a blessing. When you say "religion" you are including all the whack jobs out there taking people's money, especially selling them products that they cannot benefit from. You have to be specific: Why is it that Liberals are against Methodists?" I am an independent and will be "for" or "against" any institution (specific) that is money motivated only or power motivated only. That is the majority thinking of Liberals, Independents and Conservatives. And the three of us are always Right and never Left behind to question the Independent thought processes that find the truth.

Answer 4

Depends on which liberals you are talking about.

Some love religion and hate the moral decay the conservatives spread in the name of religion.

Conservatives focus on weird causes like abortion to 'prove' they are moral, while they spread death and hatred many times more than their liberal counterparts. With the exception of South Dakota, it has been a while since any politician has done anything about the abortion issue, yet people elect their representatives based on this cause that politicians don't ever do anything about!

And there are some that just can't stand religion. I think they are a little prejudiced and short-sighted, but with some of the evil done in the name of religion, I get their point. Taking "under God" out of the pledge of allegance makes more sense than a gay marraige ban, even though neither one makes much sense at all. But people fight over this crap as if it matters.

It is time Americans stopped looking to Washington to make social rules, and took responsibility for their own morality.

Answer 5

Freedom of religion is not the same as separation of the church and state. Religion when used in politics causes wars wars and rumors of wars. It is suck a shame that Conservatives don't get it .. We have all these tax exempt organized church groups pushing policies that will divide the American people even more. I don't care what your religion is but I do care about the bigotry you try to push on others. When you take away any of the basic freedoms from any other group the is not a criminal group you are putting all freedoms in jeopardy. You can not have church group telling the government to regulate morality in a free country. You cant have church groups attacking with hatred and bigotry and defend them because they have religion. Common sense say religion has no place in government because one man religion may be another mans reason to call to arms.

Answer 6

I'd wager that most liberals are religious but against ORGANIZED religion, because they are the moral decay of this country where mindless denizens follow the will of those who will gladly lead them over the cliff for their own benefit.

Answer 7

Not all of them, but many, and many more who are so desperate to separate church and state, that they run to the ACLU and their scrawny lawyers! They want to take God out of everything, but let's not allow it. Do this:

Wanna have some fun this CHRISTMAS? Send the ACLU a CHRISTMAS CARD!

As they are working so very hard to get rid of the CHRISTMAS part of this holiday, we should all send them a nice, CHRISTIAN, card to brighten up their dark, sad, little world.

Make sure it says "Merry Christmas" on it.

Here's the Address, just don't be rude or crude.
(It's Not the Christian Way, ya know?)

ACLU
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

Two tons of Christmas cards would freeze their operations because they wouldn't know if any were regular mail containing contributions.. So spend 39 cents and tell the ACLU to leave Christmas alone. Also tell them that there is no such thing as a Holiday Tree. . . . It's a Christmas Tree! Also, send this to your e-mail buddies.

Answer 8

Contrary to popular misconceptions many liberals are deeply religious. Many of the are deeply committed to Jesus, as well. The conflict is following the teachings of Jesus, as opposed to following the teachings of men (presuming that one hold that Jesus was more then a man). See links:

Answer 9

It's funny how a lack of religion equals automatic moral decay in your mind. You do know that's only in your mind, right?

Answer 10

They are not against religion. They just happen to think outside the box, which just so happens to scare the sh*t out of the likes of YOU ;0

Answer 11

Why do you care? We don't have to be for religion. I'm not religious, I am spiritual.