Saturday, December 18, 2010

The Secular Religion of Radical Progressivism

It's been almost two weeks since Elizabeth Edwards died. And the reaction to my comments are still reverberating around the web. Details on that below, but first it's worth sharing this quote from David Horowitz, at NewsReal Blog, "The Surreal World of the Progressive Left":


It is not for nothing that George Orwell had to invent terms like “double-think” and “double-speak” to describe the universe totalitarians created. Those who have watched the left as long as I have, understand the impossible task that progressives confront in conducting their crusades. Rhetorically, they are passionate proponents of “equality” but in practice they are committed enthusiasts of a hierarchy of privilege in which the highest ranks are reserved for themselves as the guardians of righteousness, and then for those they designate “victims” and “oppressed,” who are thus worthy of their redemption. Rhetorically they are secularists and avatars of tolerance, but in fact they are religious fanatics who regard their opponents as sinners and miscreants and agents of civil darkness. Therefore, when they engage an opponent it is rarely to examine and refute his argument but rather to destroy the bearer of the argument and remove him from the plain of battle.
I've written much on the totalizing secular religion of the progressive left, most recently, for example, at "Totalitarian Faith." But I've learned much more since Elizabeth Edwards died. I think by now it's fair say that my essay, "Elizabeth Edwards' Parting Statement Omits Mention of Faith in God," has received more attention on the radical left than anything else I've written. And I know why: My concluding paragraph at the post was like hitting a grand slam. Not only did I find it odd that Mrs. Edwards had abandoned God but I made an explicit connection between her views and those of the progressives, and I pulled those together by noting my surprise at how high "God is dead" nihilism had reached into the "precincts" of neo-communism. The reaction has been unreal, perhaps animalistic, even demonic. It was like waving a crucifix in the face of the progressive left. Retaliation for deviating from the accepted narrative came swiftly. The evil monkeys swarmed my comments. I got hate mail. And then angry atheists contacted the department chair at my college. The resident demons at that atheist blog were enraged when my colleague handled the incident professionally. One suggested that they get the complaint "Pharyngulated." That would be a campaign of viral hatred and intimidation akin to a DDoS attack, although the term didn't ring a bell initially. But yesterday PZ Myers linked, and the bell went off. Myers publishes Pharyngula, which was proclaimed by the journal Nature as "the top-ranked blog written by a scientist." The blog is obviously revered across the God-hating world. And Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, and one of the most famous atheist avatars on the scene, linked to Myers' post — and the commenters there appended my entry to the thread.

That's pretty astounding — no doubt an epic badge of honor for a Christian warrior! My only regret is that Tintin, the demonic prick at Sadly No!, didn't link the post. Now THAT really would have made my day, because, you know, there's no such thing REAL atheistic communism.

P.S. I just noticed that Huffington Post still features
the Thanksgiving essay from 2006 praying for Dick Cheney to have another heart attack, "to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor."


Praying for the death of the Vice President of the United States. Hmm ... intolerance of competing opinion, campaigns of retaliation and workplace harassment, with the prototypical example of leftist death-wish hypocrisy? Behold the secular religion of radical progressivism.


Anonymous said...

It was wrong for anyone to pray for Cheney's death. That is not a prayer that Jesus Christ would approve.

I can't speak for others but I find it incongruous that you talk about having faith in God given the topics of some of your posts. A number of your posts do not reflect your professed faith in God.

I think that a number of people would see your statements regarding Elizabeth Edwards are contrary to the statements of a true follower of Jesus Christ. I don't think it has much to do with politics. At least, not as far as my reaction goes.

Anonymous said...

I'm a bit late to the Edwards discussion, but in reading your original article I'd note that her statements could be viewed as entirely consistent with a Deist form of belief. Deists certainly believe in God, but often reject the notions of revelation or divine intervention.

Not that there is enough evidence to conclude that is her belief system, she could just as easily be an atheists, just that it ultimately remains unclear based on the information at hand.

What is clear is that she had no faith in God.

AmPowerBlog said...

Y = X: Look man, I'm not an evangelical running around telling everyone how to do right by God. I worry about my behavior. If posting hotties is immoral I'll be judged by Him (and my wife). There's certainly a demand for it, and thus utility in maintaining readership. And don't tell me that Jesus wouldn't want me to judge, because that's not true.

Anonymous said...

Donald, I agree that it is OK to judge people. This is a necessary thing to do. We must make judgments on who to trust and whatnot.

1 Timothy 6:10

Dave said...

Perhaps if Elizabeth Edwards hadn't married the Silky Pony ambulance-chasing Breck Girl, she wouldn't have lost her faith in God.

That is truly sad.

As for the babes, keep posting them Dr. D.

Given the hideous ugliness we are descending into as a nation, we need all the beauty we can get.


Ken W. said...

I'm also new to the Edwards discussion and to your blog in general. This post continues a pattern I'm seeing of unnecessary context.

So Mrs. (Ms.?) Edwards didn't explicitly mention God or Jesus in some parting statements. That's far from a textbook case of nihilism. It's not even leftist. It might be Unitarian. It's as if you were comparing communion wafers with baklava because they both contained flour.

And here in this post, you only make mention of the reaction after burying it in the context of political tribal warfare. Which isn't wrong, because you were a focus of Two Minute Hate. But a post like this won't help matters.

You weren't singled out because of who you are. You were singled out because a lot of people think your post was factually wrong. And not only factually wrong, but
tying it in with philosophies that don't apply. And on top of that, tarring it all with the notion that her behavior fell short of a standard that doesn't apply to all (or even most) Americans.

From where I sit, you were found guilty by the Internet subculture of writing truthiness instead of truth. But (as another Internet saying goes), your mileage may vary.