Thursday, November 16, 2006

No Wonder Liberal is a Dirty Word

Often during the recent election one Republican or another tosses out the label "liberal" as a vile condemnation of their Democrat opponent.

"She's just too Liberal for our state."

"He's a Nancy Pelosi Liberal."

"The good folks around here don't accept those left coast Liberal ideas."

How did Liberal become such a dirty word?

The problem isn't really the name calling of reactionary Republicans. There is ample name calling in every election cycle by both sides.

And the problem really isn't that Liberals are tolerant and even open to new ideas. Or that liberals tend to support alternative concepts, beliefs or even lifestyles. I've learned that most people of all political leanings tend to be tolerant and understanding. Some conservatives actually are compassionate.

The problem is there are a large bunch of tyrannical fascists parading around pretending to be liberals.

I am, as my personal friends and long time readers here know, one of the dreaded Secular Humanists. I am a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church, one of the most liberal religious fellowships on earth. At most of our churches and fellowships, on any given Sunday, you'll find Wiccans, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, even far eastern metaphysical religious followers and all of us secular humanists gathered over coffee, donuts and some of the best soups ever created.


We'll be discussing the upcoming wedding of two of our dear gay friends and the upcoming Christian baptism of our newest member.

Over in the corner there will be a heated discussion about immigration, or Iraq or school uniforms.

O.K., enough of the personal anecdotes. I have a point to make.

Liberals are reviled not because of what they stand for, but because of what some people pretending to be liberal stand against!! Many pseudo-liberals practice so damn much hatred, intolerance, fear mongering and dictatorial control, it's no wonder liberals become hated.

Bill O'Reilly is able to rant against what he calls the secular humanist "agenda" because he sees the constant and unceasing attacks on Christianity around the nation. And if my liberal friends think O'Reilly is just full of Christian paranoia, they need to open their eyes and look at what is really happening.

A real liberal never, ever forbids or denies the open practice of Christianity. We do actually wish our Christian friends "Merry Christmas" and use the actual words.

We accept Christianity as a worthy religion, equal to the world's other great religions (although not better or worse). We may rail against its flaws or disagree with some of its prejudices, but we welcome its followers as friends and companions on the very human journey through life.

Let me finally get to my point.

Today we have another, glaring example of dictatorial tyranny masquerading under the label of liberalism. The narrow minded, prejudiced, despots of the San Francisco School Board have decided to deny their students the option participating in the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC) program.

From the
San Francisco Chronicle:

SAN FRANCISCO
School board votes to dump JROTC program

After 90 years in San Francisco high schools, the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps must go, the San Francisco school board decided Tuesday night.

The Board of Education voted 4-2 to eliminate the popular program, phasing it out over two years.

Dozens of JROTC cadets at the board meeting burst into tears or covered their faces after the votes were cast.

"We're really shocked,'' said fourth-year Cadet Eric Chu, a senior at Lowell High School, his eyes filling with tears. "It provided me with a place to go."

The board's decision was loudly applauded by opponents of the program.

Their position was summed up by a former teacher, Nancy Mancias, who said,
"We need to teach a curriculum of peace."


Ann Coulter in her thought provoking (and very funny) book, Godless, talks about the "religion of liberalism" and how the left is forcing it upon America while denying competing religions.

She is able to make that horrible accusation precisely because there are people operating under the guise of liberalism who want to prohibit competing ideas and concepts. They want to allow only the teaching of ideas that meet their strict moral code.

Coulter gets away with calling liberalism a religion because some folks want it ramed down the throats of others like a over zealous religious prophet.

What San Francisco has done is closer to the Sharia Schools of Saudi Arabia, than the teaching of good liberal schools in America.

What the hell does the San Francisco School Board think a "liberal education is?" One that prohibits the open and free exchange of ideas? One that denies alternative lifestyles? One that prevents students from seeking structure, support and leadership training?

Tyranny of the left is not liberalism. It's tyranny.

TECHNORATI TAGS:

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

10 comments:

Vigilante said...

While waiting for BLOGGER to get off its fooking couch and post my contribution to world wisdom this morning, I thought I'd book on over to FKAP and see what was spinning. Lo and behold, the Wizard is throwing straight fast balls instead of his usual junky spitters. And, what's more, he has perfect control. I know a strike when I see one, so I'm not stepping up to his plate this morning.

Except to say, I wear the same uniform he does. The letters on it are "UUC".

Peace, Brother.

The Emerson Avenger said...

Wow! I am awestruck!

Finally a Unitarian*Universalist, secular humanist or otherwise. . . openly admitting that "there are a large bunch of tyrannical fascists parading around pretending to be liberals.

I've been saying that for years but U*Us are in total denial of the fact that there are a certain number of tyrannical fascists parading around pretending to be Unitarian*Universalists. . .

BTW I have no problem with secular humanists in general but I do have a serious problem with tyrannical anti-religious fundamentalist atheist U*U "Humanists".

Vigilante said...

Wizard, I was about to post something, but the intervening comment has completely distracted me. I have no idea what the point of its thrusts is but I hope the author comes back to elucidate.

No Matter. May I continue?

Vigilante said...

Wizard, I was about to send you some grist for your formidable mill, but then held back. It's not that I didn't want to share with you. As you know, that's always the case. It's just that it occurred to me that the item in question might trigger an impulse in me that would later prove too much for you to contain. All the better to retain my responsibilty for my own self-restraint, eh?

But I did want to invite you to participate, as fully as you wish, in my new site: Vigilante Justice.

Still in its formative stages. All suggestions will be entertained (and some will be welcomed)!

The Emerson Avenger said...

Hi VJ,

My point was very simple.

Amongst the "large bunch of tyrannical fascists parading around pretending to be liberals" there are a certain number of "tyrannical fascists parading around pretending to be U*U religious liberals".

Interestingly enough a former member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal who was a prominent human rights worker from an Eastern European background once described the tyrannical behaviour of Montreal Unitarians towards yours truly as "Stalinistic". . .

I have very good reason to believe that he was highly justified in making that characterzation of oh so "liberal" Montreal Unitarians. He was certainly in a position to know what he was talking about.

The Emerson Avenger said...

To be fair I should clarify that not all of the tyrannical fascists parading around pretending to be Unitarian*Universalists are from the anti-religious fundamentalist atheist faction of U*U Humanists. Some self-identify as Christian U*Us although just how "Christian" they are is open to some dispute. . .

the WIZARD, fkap said...

Vigilante, I assume you already knew that Juan Cole is a Unitarian....

Please send or refer me to whatever information you wish to share...

As to your new Vigilante Justice blog, I'll keep an eye on it. Your first case is interesting, but I didn't feel like I had enough information to comment... yet

the emerson avenger, I read your blog and much of the historical information provided by the Google links.

In regard to your on-going dispute with the Montreal UU Church, I'll give you credit... you are holding your own and certainly winning the PR battle. It is a shame that the situation became so heated.

Thank you for participating here and thank you for complimenting my observations.

the Wizard.....

The Emerson Avenger said...

You're most welcome Wizard and I will definitely be back to carry o this conversation. You have hit on a topic that is dear to my heart and which I can expound on not only in terms of observation but direct personal experience. I don't have time to add anything more right now but will do so a bit later. Your acknowledgement that I am holding my own and certainly winning the PR battle means a lot to me. If only a few other U*Us would perceive that and realize that the time for Montreal Unitarians, and indeed the UUA and greater U*U religious community, to throw in the proverbial towel and take responsible steps to provide some genuine restorative justice, equity and compassion in this matter is long overdue. . .

The Emerson Avenger said...

OK Well I guess I do have time to say this. You are absolutely right that it is a shame that this conflict became so heated, to say nothing of protracted and drawn out to ludicrous extremes. . . The very reason that this occurred is because the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and the Unitarian*Universalist Association and it's Ministerial Fellowship Committee under the leadership of UUA President John A* Buehrens and Rev. Diane Miller behaved like tyrannical fascists. . .

The Emerson Avenger said...

Well I have read and reread your post a few times now and I would say that we are very much on the same wavelength. I don't want to monopolize discussion but I know that I can provide some very clear examples of how your criticism of pseudo-liberals applies very well to pseudo-U*Us. For now I will just wait and see if anyone else chimes in.