If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   How the left is more driven by crazy political fundamentalism than the right   (theweek.com) divider line 39
    More: Interesting, political agenda, american liberalism, mainline protestants, fundamentalists, social historian, elites, Joseph Bottum, spiritual experience  
•       •       •

807 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Mar 2014 at 9:56 AM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-27 08:47:32 AM
Eh. Subby's "no you" style headline sucks. Yeah, there's a history of the religious left as well as a religious right. Contrariwise, not all religion is fundamentalism, and showing that there is some crazy is necessary but not sufficient to show there is more crazy.

Nohow, interesting article behind the horrible Fark headine.
 
2014-03-27 08:51:23 AM
how liberals are dumb and have farty faces
 
2014-03-27 09:44:42 AM
Beside the military-industrial complex, who was it that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech? The collective of experts, each in their own right, who would begin to rule the daily lives of people from a position of protecting them, as he said:

"Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
 
2014-03-27 09:53:48 AM
All this talk about bottoms is getting me excited.
 
2014-03-27 10:00:21 AM
Helping others - crazy
Helping yourself - not crazy

I get it.
 
2014-03-27 10:01:59 AM
Sure, why not? They also created income inequality by pointing out that it exists.
 
2014-03-27 10:02:38 AM

InterruptingQuirk: Beside the military-industrial complex, who was it that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech? The collective of experts, each in their own right, who would begin to rule the daily lives of people from a position of protecting them, as he said:

"Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."


The Religious-Jesus Industrial Complex?
 
2014-03-27 10:04:07 AM
img.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-27 10:04:45 AM
What Left?

/dnrtfa
 
2014-03-27 10:05:15 AM
The right is primarily driven by religious fundamentalism.
 
2014-03-27 10:05:48 AM
He is the founder and editor of The Slurve, a newsletter about baseball.
 
2014-03-27 10:05:59 AM
As a crazy leftist I regret to report that my comrades are irritatingly non-crazy.
 
2014-03-27 10:07:23 AM
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-27 10:09:39 AM
Are you saying that both sides are bad? Why, what an amazing brand new totally original concept that's definitely never only trotted out to downplay the right's constant screw-ups and bullshiat.

'Both sides are bad' really means 'Please excuse and ignore this stupid thing the right did.'
 
2014-03-27 10:10:54 AM
Jonah Goldberg said that the American Left are just like the Nazis. That proves it.  Such a smart man.
 
2014-03-27 10:19:21 AM
I got about one sentence into that and thought, "Wow, this sounds like one of the Marxist literary/social criticisms I had to read in college." In the very next paragraph he drops the M bomb and identifies it--somehow--with neoconservatism. It is precisely the same kind of true believer-ism that infused Marxist criticism--working from the assumption that I am right and those that disagree with me are bad, and working back to a theory that will support that conclusion. Parenthetically, the causes for this particular intellectual trope are the same: embarrassment over the obvious moral failure of your preferred political philosophy. There's just not that much difference between a 1960's Marxist trying to excuse the excesses of Stalin or the Cultural Revolution and a modern neoconservative trying to justify the invasion of Iraq or the catastrophic failure of deregulation.
 
2014-03-27 10:19:29 AM
Despite subby's trolling headline it isn't actually a BSABSVR article. It's pointing out the religious roots of American Progressives. But now the religious liberal tradition has mostly collapsed so the main political religious groups are the conservative ones. There aren't many liberal Christian groups out there on the level of, say, Focus on the Family.
 
2014-03-27 10:21:29 AM

Pharque-it: InterruptingQuirk: Beside the military-industrial complex, who was it that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech? The collective of experts, each in their own right, who would begin to rule the daily lives of people from a position of protecting them, as he said:

"Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

The Religious-Jesus Industrial Complex?


You equate those two things as being one and the same? Really?
 
2014-03-27 10:22:10 AM

abb3w: Eh. Subby's "no you" style headline sucks. Yeah, there's a history of the religious left as well as a religious right. Contrariwise, not all religion is fundamentalism, and showing that there is some crazy is necessary but not sufficient to show there is more crazy.

Nohow, interesting article behind the horrible Fark headine.


Pretty much this. Unlike some other ITT, I found TFA quite interesting.

/bad subby
 
2014-03-27 10:22:14 AM
Please...
 
2014-03-27 10:24:46 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Sure, why not? They also created income inequality by pointing out that it exists.


They also created racism by pointing out it exists.
 
2014-03-27 10:26:15 AM

clambam: There's just not that much difference between a 1960's Marxist trying to excuse the excesses of Stalin or the Cultural Revolution and a modern neoconservative trying to justify the invasion of Iraq or the catastrophic failure of deregulation.


That's a valid parallel. I'm so left I'm practically a commie, but I once had a professor that fit your description of a 60's Marxist and the guy frustrated the hell out of me. Reason doesn't work with people like that; it really is exactly like a religion with them.
 
2014-03-27 10:30:59 AM
Article:  Liberals used to push for social justice through their churches.  Now, they do the same thing but not with churches.

Headline: Liberals are crazy religious fiends!!!  Not conservatives!!  You guys!
 
2014-03-27 10:51:09 AM
Let's use the crude definitions
Liberalism = concerns about community
Conservatism = concerns about individuals

I you want the true roots of religious liberalism in the US you would have to point to the Quakers. They were the only founder group that understood freedom as freedom from other people telling you what to believe.

Puritans - community organized where the group decided what everybody had to believe.
Cavaliers - feudal organized where the word of the rich had to be obeyed.
Scotch-Irish - individual organized with no outside constraints to prevent one person from dominating another.

The Quakers and Puritans mostly died out with many converting to Episcopalians (though strangely Mormons are a direct descendant of Puritans). The Cavaliers were Anglicans (Episcopalian), at least the elite who could tell everybody else what to believe - their serfs mainly became Evangelicals. Scotch-Irish when religious were Presbyterian though many became more fundamentalist.

So anyway religious liberalism mostly has its roots in the Quakers and to some lesser extent the Puritans.
 
2014-03-27 11:15:11 AM

theknuckler_33: abb3w: Eh. Subby's "no you" style headline sucks. Yeah, there's a history of the religious left as well as a religious right. Contrariwise, not all religion is fundamentalism, and showing that there is some crazy is necessary but not sufficient to show there is more crazy.

Nohow, interesting article behind the horrible Fark headine.

Pretty much this. Unlike some other ITT, I found TFA quite interesting.

/bad subby


Now subby will come running in complaining that they desperately wanted a green so bad that they HAD to make a bullshiat headline, ruin an interesting article's debate, spread lies and hurt their own stances because green lights are just that important and those 1000+ green-light jerk Farkers are jerks.
 
2014-03-27 11:27:56 AM
Liberals believe that the six social sins are "bigotry, the arrogance of power, the corruption of justice for personal ends, the madness of the mob, militarism, and class contempt."

So vote Republican if you love these things.
 
2014-03-27 12:15:42 PM
Im driven crazy by the fact that the media (and I mean ALL of them) feel that right-wing fundamentalists are on equal footing with facts because they really REALLY believe in somethng. Specifically, they believe that liberals are preventing them from doing whatever they want all the time.
 
2014-03-27 01:11:53 PM
New theory (stolen from a fellow Farker): There is really just one guy named "Liberals" and Republicans have terrible grammar.
 
2014-03-27 01:19:00 PM
Nate Silver might have a point.
 
2014-03-27 01:51:43 PM

HighZoolander: Liberals believe that the six social sins are "bigotry, the arrogance of power, the corruption of justice for personal ends, the madness of the mob, militarism, and class contempt."

So vote Republican if you love these things.


So basically, vote Republican if you hate America. Actually, that pretty much explains everything.
 
2014-03-27 02:11:14 PM

Chameleon: Article:  Liberals used to push for social justice through their churches.  Now, they do the same thing but not with churches.

Headline: Liberals are crazy religious fiends!!!  Not conservatives!!  You guys!


Cognitive disonance? The criticism is that liberal ideas are born of and based on Christian virtues, which is bad because the Right Wing HATES everything Liberal. But the Right is "more Christian".

Has Obama endorsed breathing yet?
 
2014-03-27 02:51:08 PM
I was expecting an article about how the left lets its leaders get away with whatever the fark they want because the only other option are the crazy fundamentalists on the right.

This article was not that.
 
2014-03-27 05:13:42 PM

clambam: I got about one sentence into that and thought, "Wow, this sounds like one of the Marxist literary/social criticisms I had to read in college." In the very next paragraph he drops the M bomb and identifies it--somehow--with neoconservatism. It is precisely the same kind of true believer-ism that infused Marxist criticism--working from the assumption that I am right and those that disagree with me are bad, and working back to a theory that will support that conclusion. Parenthetically, the causes for this particular intellectual trope are the same: embarrassment over the obvious moral failure of your preferred political philosophy. There's just not that much difference between a 1960's Marxist trying to excuse the excesses of Stalin or the Cultural Revolution and a modern neoconservative trying to justify the invasion of Iraq or the catastrophic failure of deregulation.


Should have used trickle down as your last example.
 
2014-03-27 05:24:28 PM
Hmmm....

1. Select author name from article
2. Right click
3. Select "Search Google for 'Michael Brendan Dougherty '"
4. Find top results as 'The American Conservative' and 'Business Insider'
5. Become 4000% more suspicious of the words that follow.
 
2014-03-27 05:44:46 PM
Religious left = the good parts of religion
Religious right = the bad parts of religion
 
2014-03-27 06:25:48 PM

CourtroomWolf: Religious left = the good parts of religion
Religious right = the bad parts of religion


I don't know if you can really define the 'good' parts of religion or separate them out.. Better equivalences are:

Religious left = nice people
Religious right or fundamentalists = assholes

but this is far from totally accurate. I've known people on the religious right who are really nice (women in particular), maybe because they know little about the actual doctrines they are supposedly guided by. When asked about something like gay rights they feel they are supposed to be against them but when pressed for reasons say they need to ask their spiritual leaders.

Mormons can be frighteningly nice - to the point that they sometime seem on the verge of cracking trying to maintain their niceness.
 
2014-03-27 07:34:59 PM

InterruptingQuirk: Pharque-it: InterruptingQuirk: Beside the military-industrial complex, who was it that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech? The collective of experts, each in their own right, who would begin to rule the daily lives of people from a position of protecting them, as he said:

"Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

The Religious-Jesus Industrial Complex?

You equate those two things as being one and the same? Really?


Somebody's looking for a flimsy excuse to pretend our surveillance state is a result of technological development and not a bunch of politicians cementing their own authority while pimping out Jesus to do it.
 
2014-03-27 08:04:05 PM
That's a might interesting theory with some interesting parallels.  Religion was extremely important to our founders, important enough to place it in the constitution.  Even the Declaration of Independence uses religious faith as a key point in its argument to King George III.  The fact that there might be a religious principle or undertone to the wacko leftistas makes a certain amount of sense when you compare it to leftistas in Europe and the fanaticism of some members of the liberal/progressive movement.  I won't expect most of the Fark Liberals™ to agree with that since that would probably compare them to religious conservatives, which would cause them to have a collective aneurism.  Of course, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, either.
 
2014-03-28 07:19:50 AM
I blame it all on the legacy of Roman Catholicism...  honestly.  Protestantism always promoted a do it yourself approach to going out and helping the poor and needy. Whereas Roman Catholicism has always promoted the concept of giving them all your money because they know better.  I am not saying than protestantism is free of this bogus concept either since it has its roots in Roman Catholicism.

As our society grows more content sitting in front of the tube and being entertained instead of going out and getting involved, its going to get worse.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report