Road to Hell Is Paved With … Liberals?

[Issele]

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Conservatives are more secure in their beliefs that they will not go to hell and that they know someone who also won't suffer eternally, according to a June poll of 10,000 Beliefnet members.

Liberals expressed less confidence in their chances of escaping the underworld and in their ability to identify the damned, the poll shows.

Of those who identified themselves as conservatives, 46 percent replied "not a chance" in rating their likelihood of meeting a fiery end, as compared with 28 percent of liberals. Among born-again Christians, the most confident of their prospects of avoiding hell, 55 percent replied "not a chance," as compared with 21 percent of Roman Catholics.

More than half of those polled believe they know at least one person headed for Satan's clutches. Among conservatives, 64 percent say they do, and among liberals, 47 percent.

Of respondents who think they know someone on the highway to hell, 61 percent are men and 54 percent are women. Nearly 25 percent of those polled believe their family members are on a path to perdition, Beliefnet reports.

In addition, those same people think hell is a place of fire and torment.


source: FoxNews  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200624,00.html

[schild]

Politics, Religion and FoxNews. Truly a match made in heaven. Well played, Issele, well played.

[stray]

Anyways....I think the only thing to be deduced from that poll is that Liberals simply are less proud of themselves.

[Ironwood]

Surely some comment about either Pride going before a fall, or the sin of Hubris should be inserted in here.

But honestly ?  Don't give a fuck.

[Strazos]

Or maybe Liberals don't try to escape reality and simply admit that the vast majority of us are going to Hell.

It might not be a bad place after all. All the cool kids are going there, and I wouldn't mind catching up to a Satan that looked like Elizabeth Hurley.

[Sky]

The concept of hell makes me chuckle.

As a theoretical physicist once said "I find good atheists are more altruistic than good christians, because christians are being good for a reward or to avoid a punishment in the afterlife."

lol carrot/stick/invisibleman, That was a funny link, thanks.

[stray]

"Good Christians" (whoever they may be...) try to be good for the same reason any other person tries to be good. It's a reward unto itself. To write off so many people otherwise is being self righteous yourself. No different than some heartless televangelist.

I know very few of you know a lot of about the history or breadth of Christianity, but believe me, not every one of them is a bible beating Evangelical. Believe or disbelieve what you want, but step outside your shell if you really want to judge it intelligently. Not everyone of them even believes in the entire Bible. Or even has the same Bible. Or even the same God or Jesus. Just like they all don't have the same length in fingernails, or hair color, or ear shape.

[edlavallee]

Butt, but, but... Stereotypes are fun! They allow you to disengage your brain and leave original thought behind.

[WayAbvPar]

Butt, but, but... Stereotypes are fun! They allow you to disengage your brain and leave original thought behind.

Just like religion!

[Righ]

[stray]

Butt, but, but... Stereotypes are fun! They allow you to disengage your brain and leave original thought behind.

Fair enough, I guess. I've been guilty of the same thing plenty.

Needless to say though, but there many Christians who are Explorers and Socializers, not Achievers ;)

Unforunately, many are Killers too.

[Murgos]

I'm sure there are plenty of christians who are altruistic without trying to score points with the Big-Daddy-O but, unfortunately, the most vocal and persistent ones are purely in it to be ass kissers.

[Sky]

I'm speaking from personal experience. I grew up in the church.

[sarius]

Anyways....I think the only thing to be deduced from that poll is that Liberals simply are less proud of themselves.

Too funny that you would call MLK a liberal.  He wouldn't.  Just my opinion.

[Righ]

This is useless news.

[Yegolev]

As a theoretical physicist once said "I find good atheists are more altruistic than good christians, because christians are being good for a reward or to avoid a punishment in the afterlife."

QFT

My notion of various types of people comes primarily from interacting with said people.

[stray]

Too funny that you would call MLK a liberal.  He wouldn't.  Just my opinion.

Huh? He was a lifelong Democrat, from a family of Democrats, who not only made conservatives uncomfortable, but was extreme enough to make the Left uncomfortable at times too. I've read just about every single word that man wrote or spoke, and there's no possible way whatsoever that he wasn't a liberal.

And if he's not a "liberal", then he's even more. He's a radical.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. ... A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

In "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community" he constantly proposes liberal ideals such "guaranteed minimum wage", "pegged to the median income of society" that would "automatically increase as total social income grows".

In an interview with Playboy (the fact that he was a preacher who didn't mind Playboy should say enough), he outright says the Black population should get finanical reparations for slavery.

King also worked with communists. Most important among them being Bayard Rustin, protest organizer and the man who introduced King to the Gandhian principles that became associated with him.

[sarius]

Too funny that you would call MLK a liberal.  He wouldn't.  Just my opinion.

Huh? He was a lifelong Democrat, from a family of Democrats, who not only made conservatives uncomfortable, but was extreme enough to make the Left uncomfortable at times too. I've read just about every single word that man wrote or spoke, and there's no possible way whatsoever that he wasn't a liberal.

And if he's not a "liberal", then he's even more. He's a radical.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. ... A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

In "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community" he constantly proposes liberal ideals such "guaranteed minimum wage", "pegged to the median income of society" that would "automatically increase as total social income grows".

In an interview with Playboy (the fact that he was a preacher who didn't mind Playboy should say enough), he outright says the Black population should get finanical reparations for slavery.

King also worked with communists. Most important among them being Bayard Rustin, protest organizer and the man who introduced King to the Gandhian principles that became associated with him.

What most call liberalism today, again IMO, I don't believe he would accept.  Being a democrat at that time in history certainly didn't qualify you as a liberal.  All of the points you attribute to liberalism do have points within historical context, but I would associate with activistism during that time period based upon his fight of white supremacy inherent to the entire culture.  I don't think we need to digress that separation of the (supposed) races was damn near universal within American society for the majority of our shared heritage.  Having dealt with Oregon and California liberals and conservatives for sometime, I seriously doubt that Dr. King would put up with most of the crap liberals champion today, but again I would guess that a pretty subjective stance. 

For example, recently in Los Angeles, liberals protested a man's right to sell his own land after regaining it from the city who erroneously condemned it.  While he was force to pay taxes on the property when it was contested in court, illegal aliens rented the property to other illegal aliens to farm.  So when he legally evicted them liberals showed up to trespass on his land and try to force the city to take the land back.  To me, this is the shining example of liberalism today, where illegal aliens get to impugn citizens and are supported by people who don't seem to want to donate their homes to the cause.

Sorry, didn't mean for it to come to a debate.  You have a point -- I just chose to believe there's a difference between activism for justice and what I see in the liberal agendas today.

[Righ]

All of this sort of "liberal agendas" stuff is what is known as the fallacy of guilt by association, and continuing to perpetrate it in your rhetoric shows you to be weak at arguing a point. All IMO, of course.

[sarius]

All of this sort of "liberal agendas" stuff is what is known as the fallacy of guilt by association, and continuing to perpetrate it in your rhetoric shows you to be weak at arguing a point. All IMO, of course.

Sorry, I forgot to bring my e-peen.  Thanks for bringing yours.

[Engels]

Although you are right in saying that the Democratic party of King's time was rife with racist mofos who then fled in droves to the Republican party, I think its fair to say that what was left behind was 'purged' of most racist elements, with the exception of Byrd from W.Va. The racist infection switched sides, is all. It seems to finally being purged from both parties, with the demise of Strom Thurmond et al.

That said, your suggestion that King wouldn't be in favor of migrant worker rights seems ill-fated.

Furthermore, one pack of reactionary retards in California doesn't define 'liberalism today' anymore than any self-styled conservative would like to be equated with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, NewsMax or Pat Robertson.

[Righ]

All of this sort of "liberal agendas" stuff is what is known as the fallacy of guilt by association, and continuing to perpetrate it in your rhetoric shows you to be weak at arguing a point. All IMO, of course.

Sorry, I forgot to bring my e-peen.  Thanks for bringing yours.

Typically the term "e-peen" is applied to indicate somebody who is showing off, not somebody who is making a salient point. Let me give you an example:

DL380 Dual Xeon 3.4Ghz cpus, 16GB DDR2 ECC RAM and RAID 5.

[Signe]

All of this sort of "liberal agendas" stuff is what is known as the fallacy of guilt by association, and continuing to perpetrate it in your rhetoric shows you to be weak at arguing a point. All IMO, of course.

Sorry, I forgot to bring my e-peen.  Thanks for bringing yours.

First you have the temerity to argue Martin Luther King stuff with Stray, of all people... I'm not even that foolhardy... then you accuse my husband of waving his electronic penis about.  Everyone knows I'm the one with the electronic penis in our house! 

[sarius]

Although you are right in saying that the Democratic party of King's time was rife with racist mofos who then fled in droves to the Republican party, I think its fair to say that what was left behind was 'purged' of most racist elements, with the exception of Byrd from W.Va. The racist infection switched sides, is all. It seems to finally being purged from both parties, with the demise of Strom Thurmond et al.

That said, your suggestion that King wouldn't be in favor of migrant worker rights seems ill-fated.

Furthermore, one pack of reactionary retards in California doesn't define 'liberalism today' anymore than any self-styled conservative would like to be equated with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, NewsMax or Pat Robertson.

No not at all.  Neocons seem to like to try to make MLK a conservative, too.  I'd disagree with that.  MLK favored plenty of socialistic solutions to solve an injustice beyond measure.  I just believe that his activism was centered on that issue, and not on being a liberal, especially the label that today confers almost universal agreement with a slew of ideals that frankly disgust me. Also, steaing a man's land and encouraging anti-semite behavior doesn't smell of workers' rights, nor something that MLK or his mentor, Mr. Rustin, would favor.  My kneejerk comment is more founded in my stance on responsibilities for the individual that go along with the movement then, as to the supposed movement now.

You've a good point about California, though, 12% plus of the populace is a decent number to represent.

[sarius]

All of this sort of "liberal agendas" stuff is what is known as the fallacy of guilt by association, and continuing to perpetrate it in your rhetoric shows you to be weak at arguing a point. All IMO, of course.

Sorry, I forgot to bring my e-peen.  Thanks for bringing yours.

First you have the temerity to argue Martin Luther King stuff with Stray, of all people... I'm not even that foolhardy... then you accuse my husband of waving his electronic penis about.  Everyone knows I'm the one with the electronic penis in our house! 

Yes maam. :)

[Mesozoic]

Are these the same conservatives that think bin Laden was associated with Hussein and that WMDs were found in Iraq?  Because that would make sense.

[Lantyssa]

For convenience's sake we should probably use 'liberal' and 'conservative' as their proper meanings.  We can use Democrat or Republican for the nutjobs that forget their origins.

[Llava]

Too bad Heaven doesn't exist.

 

(Relax. It's a joke. It's AWESOME that you're Christian.)