Nothing Exposes Blatant Left-Wing Hypocrisy Quite Like Christianity

THE LEFT’S SELECTIVE OUTRAGE OVER THE DEPICTION OF JESUS CHRIST IS ASTONISHING

Selective outrage and blatant hypocrisy have been equal parts of liberalism for decades.

As I wrote in a January 31 post, Democratic analyst Bob Beckel got his self-righteous panties in knot over recent comments made by Allen West – yet we’ve heard nary a word of disgust from Mr. Beckel over the countless vicious attacks on Sarah Palin. Barack Obama rails against “the rich” on a daily basis, yet he plays countless rounds of golf, the family Obama takes extravagant vacations on a regular basis, and Mishy goes on $50,000 shopping sprees.

Remember the famous case of Teddy Chappaquiddick Kennedy’s opposition to wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, (six miles from shore and not visible from the Kennedy compound) while he vigorously supported the development of solar, hydrogen, and wind as alternatives to oil and coal? The late senator’s nephew, Robert Kennedy Jr., who had also been an avid supporter of alternative sources of energy for more than a decade, complained that the project would be built in one of the family’s favorite sailing and yachting areas.

Or, how about John Kerry’s attempt to avoid paying $500,000 in Massachusetts sales tax by docking his new $7 million yacht in neighboring Rhode Island? A Kerry spokesman later said that  the “Isabel” was being moored at Newport Shipyard not to evade taxes, but“for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes.” Uh huh.

However blatant these examples may be, nothing quite brings out the selective outrage and blatant hypocrisy in liberals as does religion. Christian religion, that is. And when it comes to Jesus Christ? Game on. Here are two cases in point:

Our pals at the Freedom from Religion foundation have been fighting vociferously for several months to have a Jesus statue removed from a WWII memorial on government-owned land atop a Montana mountain. While U.S. Forestry Service initially gave the atheists a small victory by announcing that it would remove the statue, it subsequently withdrew its decision, pending further consideration.

Yesterday, the Forestry Service announced that it would in renew the Knights of Columbus special-use permit for the display of the Jesus statue – which has been in place since the 1950′s. Needless to say, aheists have their collective hair on fire over the case – which suggests we’re likely to hear more about this case in the future.

Liberals have always walked a not-too fine line between “freedom from religion” and “freedom of expression.” As is always the case with “progressives,” their indignation is selective. The situation surrounding the movie “Visions of Ecstasy”  is a perfect example:

The controversial short film has finally been cleared for release in Great Britain – 23 years after its production. So, what’s been the problem, you ask? Visions of Ecstasy contains a scene in which St. Teresa of Avila interacts sexually with Christ – while he is being crucified on the cross. Imagine, for a moment, Muhammad being portrayed similarly.

Freedom of expression finally won out; after all, this is “art.”

By the way, the film’s director has set up Redemption Films - which specializes in occult and fetish horror films – for distribution of Visions of Ecstasy. How fitting.

While this vile and disgusting imagery is offensive to Christians the world over, it’s also nothing new -just another example of the relentess attack on Christianity. Who could forget Piss Christ and its creator’s claim that it was “not intended to denounce religion?”

Freedom from religion – freedom of speech: Such confusing concepts to Liberals.

^

Drawing a blank here trying to remember any vile depictions of Muhammad I’ve seen. Nope, got nothin’.

About these ads


Categories: Atheism, Freedom of Speech

Tags: , , , , ,

39 replies

  1. The problem you seem to have is understanding the difference between an individual’s rights and what the government does. Individuals have freedom of and freedom from religion. The government does not, which is why it shouldn’t be displaying any religious symbols. You, as a person, can display or promote any kind of religious symbols you like.

    Freedom of expression. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you get to stop it.

    • See my comment below. I said nothing of “rights” in the article.

      • Really?

        So you didn’t write:

        “Liberals have always walked a not-too fine line between “freedom from religion” and “freedom of expression.””

        Those are rights being discussed, and to clarify, they are the rights contained in the 1st Amendment.

      • Let’s see if you can grasp it this way:

        Liberals cry and scream about an image – or statue in this case – being visible ANYWHERE on government property, correct? Why do we not hear the same histrionics when “art” like “Anty Christ” and other equally disgusting crap shows up at the Smithsonian?

        P.S. Of COURSE I referenced those rights, but again – the gist of the article was NOT about whether of those rights is “right,” or not. I focused on selective liberal outrage. Why were they not equally outraged by “Anty Christ?”

      • Those items are NOT unconstitutional, if you want to argue that they are, then go for it.

        You still can’t get that the argument is over the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the actions.

      • THE ARTICLE WAS NOT ABOUT CONSTITUTIONALITY. IT WAS ABOUT SELECTIVE LIBERAL OUTRAGE. THE “ANTY CHRIST” REFERENCE MADE THAT POINT CLEARLY.

      • YOU DID TALK ABOUT RIGHTS IN YOUR ARTICLE, THE MAIN EXAMPLE IN YOUR ARTICLE (THE JESUS STATUE ON GOVT PROPERTY) DOES CONCERN CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.

        GET A GRIP.

      • This your first and final warning: I will delete future comments from you on both of these articles. I wrote – which I have explained numerous times – of the selective outrage of liberals over the depiction of Christian images. The Smithsonian example I referenced is a valid one: It is a statue of Jesus on government property, to which we heard no objection from the left.

      • **Comment deleted due to thread-jacking violation.**

  2. In this country we have the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion. Our secular and atheistic friends seem to forget that simple truth even as they wage their war to drive all references of religion from the public square and culture in general.

    • You missed it, an individual has the right to speech and religion, the govt does not have the right to promote a religion.

      • Now Lefty are you sure the government has to be so selective? Why did it have a Christian church service in the Capitol Building for at least 62 years? Why did the President and VP go to church there? Why did the Justice Building allow Christan services in it and why did the government print thousands of King James Bibles? Why is there a chaplain in the House and Senate and why are prayers lead in each chamber? Yet, it is unconstitutional to have a statue on government property in the mountains? Come now. Surely if it is unconstitutional for the statue to be there, it was unconstitutional for these other things – yet no one, including the administration, Congress and Supreme Court seemed to think it was. Perhaps if you understood what reconceptualize means, you would understand why it is now thought to be unconstitutional.

    • The government does not have the right to compel you to join or fund a state church etc. From the very beginning government was involved with Christian activities, services, Bible studies, prayers etc. This notion of a pure secular society is an extremely recent development in this country.

      • Was going to respond to Um, but you hit the nail on the head, Dave.

        Oh hell, I can’t help myself: YOU missed it, Um – my article said NOTHING about the “right” to do ANYTHING. The article focuses SOLELY on the selective outrage and blatant hypocrisy of LIBERALS.

        Nice try – thanks for playing.

        P.S. Won’t be responding to you further, Um – per my comment on the SNAP article.

      • I agree, the govt can not “compel”.

        That is not the argument.

        The argument is that govt cannot promote any specific religion.

        When the govt has a Christian symbol on its property, it is supporting that religion, that is unconstitutional, that has been found by the fed courts many times already.

  3. Well, of course it’s selective. EVERYONE is selective about what they object to.

    And the liberals are being selective in that they are responding to what is illegal and unconstitutional. Seems like a particularly good thing to be selective about, when the other things you don’t like are protected Constitutionally and legal.

    • Wonder why we don’t see – nor hear – liberals attacking Islam as they do Christianity? If you need further help, click on the link – January 31 post – in the article.

      Is Beckel’s selective outrage about what’s illegal or unconstitutional? Gimme a break.

      • Because you can’t do much about what happens in other countries. The amount of Muslims in America is negligible, so you aren’t going to hear anyone who cares about things that actually will happen in the country talking about them.

        Beckel’s outrage is about something he disagrees with politically. So what?

      • “Beckel’s outrage is about something he disagrees with politically.”

        That’s EXACTLY the point of the article, thanks for helping me make the case.

        “The amount of Muslims in America is negligible, so you aren’t going to hear anyone who cares about things that actually will happen in the country talking about them.”

        This is not only a naive “observation,” it flies in the face of liberalism.

        Excellent work!

      • I am not aware that the govt is supporting Islam by having monuments to Mohammed erected on govt property.

        Got any other apple/orange comparisons?

        Are you going to address the main argument against the Jesus statue?

  4. Definitely a comprehension issue.

    Regarding the statue, nope. You tackle it for me, okay Um?

    • Again, you brought it up as the main point of your article, you don’t realize that the govt cannot promote a religion, that this same issue has gone through the courts already….and when you get into a debate about the very issue you bring up, you decide to walk away from it.

      Good job.

      • See my other comment, Um.

      • Your other arguments AVOID the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS issue the the Jesus statue brings up.

        All of your comments avoid it, you want to focus on a “hypocrisy” that does not exist. You are taking the arguments out of their context. An art display at the Smithsonian is not a promotion of a religion, a Jesus statue on govt property is.

      • “An art display at the Smithsonian is not a promotion of a religion.”

        Incredible. This “art” was a small statue of Jesus on GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. Why were liberals not up in arms over THAT statue?

        You’re messing with us, right?

      • FFS Rat, the VIDEO IMAGE of ants on a Crucifix is NOT a PROMOTION of Christianity.

        You have no grip on the issues at hand, you are grasping at straws.

  5. “That’s EXACTLY the point of the article, thanks for helping me make the case.”

    ?

    You’re objecting to political people objecting to things they politically disagree with?

    Who DOESN’T do that?

  6. People, seriously: get a grip. You liberals keep trying to drag us conservative into a rights debate. Speaking for myself, not gonna bite.

    Perhaps you can answer the question I asked Um: Why are liberals outraged over the Montana mountain Jesus statue – yet we hear NOTHING from them over an ant-covered Jesus on display in the Smithsonian?

    Please avoid describing Anty Christ” as “art.”

    • **Comment deleted due to thread-jacking violation**

    • Sorry, but it’s art. It might not be art you like, but it is still art.

      And do you really not know the difference between art and obvious religious expression?

      That being said, I don’t oppose art that is religious expression (a statue of Jesus or Buddha, for example) being in a museum. As long as the purpose isn’t obviously to promote a particular religion, there’s no problem.

      • Your answer is illogical. You – and other liberals – can call it “art” all you want, but here’s the deal: It is STILL a Jesus statue – albeit a small one – on GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

        By you definition, ANYONE could call a religious icon “art” an legally display it on government property.

        Your final paragraph is laughable.

      • **Comment deleted due to thread-jacking violation.**

  7. Lefty, Lefty. You said having a statue on government property was making a state religion yet there is a religious mural decorating the backside of the Justice Building, wouldn’t the government have torn that out and replaced it. Is the Supreme Court and government advocating a special religion by that being there? No it isn’t. Nor was a religion established by the government with church services in the Capitol Building and printing of the King James Version of the Bible. Reconceptualize, reconeptualize. Changing the meaning of the Consitution one and a half centuries later in order to institute change.Your change is either or both progressive or socialism. Two hundred years ago, one hundred years ago and fifty years ago what you are complaining about was accepted practice. It did not make Christianity the state religion nor did imply a state approved religion. But, the efforts of progressive socialist wanting to change the type of government has worked through the courts to accomplish it.. Perhaps you need to start a movement to have all the crosses in the Arlington Cementay removed. Isn’t that saying that the government is advocating Christianity. Shouldn’t President Obama be reprimanded for have a Islam prayer session at the White House. He does quote those Islamic prayer very smoothly and by memory. Have you complained about that? Wouldn’t that mean that he is making Islam the national religion. If so, then we need to replace the crosses with a crescent moon, right.

  8. Hmnn..I have to disagree with friend Rat before agreeing with him this time. Taxpayer John Kerry’s perfectly legal avoidance of government’s extortion of taxes on his property, the yacht, seems to me admirable and to be emulated where possible. Nobody -even liberals- should be expected to pay taxes that aren’t legally due.

    On religion, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” doesn’t say to me that government can’t use religious symbols; their presence on government buildings makes it clear that it didn’t say that to many others either. That’s a more recent addition by the courts, not the Constitution, following the social trend away from the Christianity generally accepted by the Founders and most early citizens and formalized in the Declaration of Independence.

    Note: The building decor, the general acceptance, the court cases and the statement in the Declaration are facts, no opinions, our friends who prefer facts can verify them easily should that be doubted. Our Rat’s amusement at political hypocrisy on religion simply illuminates what happens when people in power want changes in a constitutional republic but have to go around the constitution since they can’t change it. In fairness, the tendency isn’t limited to the Left, but since they’ve been in charge most of the time, they hold the spotlight.

    • Jack, my man – let’s think this through:

      To extrapolate your “Kerry argument,” we should all register our automobiles in non-resident states if the plates are cheaper, (Indiana adds a hefty excise tax to license plate fees) and park our yachts out-of-state as well? What would this accomplish? If said state needed additional revenue, (due to tax-dodging), they’d just hit us somewhere else, would they not?

      Dude, c’mon – you’re scarin’ me!

  9. I don’t believe it should be up there. That said, it’s beautiful, and seeing it makes me happy.

  10. Lefty keeps arguing from the assumption that having religious symbols are the government promoting a religion which is arguable. Consider a man bringing pictures of his family to work,or putting a cross on his desk. That’s what people in the government do. They are not imposing their religion on anyone else through laws or decrees or in any other fashion. By your logic they shouldn’t even be able to wear cross necklaces. These people are expressing their religion in their workplace, that workplace happens to be a government building. The fact that they work for government shouldn’t prohibit them from expressing their religion.

    • There is a difference between wearing a cross necklace to work at a government building and displaying the “Anty Christ” video at the Smithsonian.

      To say that the video is “art,” and should therefore be exempt from display is ludicrous. (Funny how Jesus “art” usually defiles him, isn’t it? “Piss Christ” and “Visions of Ecstasy” are simply two more examples.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,307 other followers

%d bloggers like this: