The Sliming of Amercian Conservatism by US Left Wing Media

…But You Will Never Hear a Peep About Black Churches!

The slandering of the American conservative movement has begun

By Tim Stanley TelegraphUS politics Last updated: September 5th, 2011

The slandering of the conservative movement has begun. For the past month, American newspapers have been awash with stories about the religion of various Republican presidential candidates. Michele Bachmann was portrayed in the New Yorker as a fanatical wingnut. Like Rick Perry, she has been labelled a follower of Dominionism – the belief that God gave Christians authority over all the Earth. Writing for the Daily Beast, Michelle Golberg compared Dominionism to fundamentalist Islam and warned that the GOP was engaged in an “all-out assault” on the separation of church and state. This Sunday, the liberal economist Paul Krugman’s grand thesis that the Republicans are now the “anti-science” party was republished in The Observer. By questioning evolution and global warming, Krugman says, the GOP has lost its right to rule.

Krugman’s article is a good example of what’s wrong with this hogwash reporting. It is true that Rick Perry called evolution “just a theory”, but who cares? He’s running to be President of the United States, not an eighth grade biology teacher. He will have no influence over what textbooks schools buy or what is taught in classrooms. His views on evolution are as relevant to the presidential race as the price of petrol in Timbuktu. The fact that they are shared by millions of Americans has done nothing to dent the country’s advances in science and technology. Nor are they any more irrational than the belief that Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine. Gospel stories are not only believed by many religious liberals, they are frequently quoted by Democratic presidential candidates. By the way, evolution is a theory. It is a theory constructed from individual scraps of evidence – a way of amalgamating observations into a grand design. Ergo: whenever the US deficit goes up, Paul Krugman calls for more spending – therefore we might theorise that he’s a drooling idiot. Remember: that’s just a theory, not a fact.

The assault on Dominionism is equally pernicious. In an expose piece in the New York Times, Bill Keller tells us that “I care a lot if a candidate is going to be a Trojan horse for a sect that believes it has divine instructions on how we should be governed.” He trots out the usual innuendos about evangelical Christians (they love slavery and hate evolution, and every church picnic climaxes in the ritual beheading of a transvestite). But he sneakily adds, “Neither Bachmann nor Perry has, as far as I know, pledged allegiance to the Dominionists.” Exactly. But doesn’t it make life more interesting to infer that they have?

Let’s imagine for a moment that Bachmann and Perry are Dominionists. Compare that wild and crazy faith with those held by two Democrats. Hank Johnson is the congressman from DeKalb County in Georgia and he’s a Buddhist. Specifically, he’s a follower of Daishonin Buddhism. Adherents gather regularly in large groups to sit cross-legged and chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo at a portable shrine. The idea is that if they say these divine words while visualising their deepest desires, they’ll get what they’ve always wanted. Like evolution, it’s just a theory – but it’s much, much more cool.

Harry Reid, leader of the Senate Democrats, is a Mormon. Many readers probably won’t know that because the mainstream media oddly doesn’t talk about it. It’s okay to call Mitt Romney a polytheist with twelve wives, but Reid is untouchable because he’s a Democrat. And yet it’s reasonable to theorise that the leader of the Senate wears the magic underwear associated with Mormonism. Is his belief that Jesus walked on American soil, anti-science? Geographers and historians would probably object.

Democratic presidential candidates regularly visit black churches, Nancy Pelosi has invoked her Catholicism so many times you might think she was a nun, and Barack Obama was married by a pastor who actively hates America. Yet Krugman suggests that only the GOP uses and abuses religion every election. More sickening is the innuendo that there is a uniquely violent subtext to conservative faith, as if every Right-winger wants to shoot an abortionist. There is no comparison between fundamentalist Islam and Dominionism: one kills and the other doesn’t. The conflation of the two is ugly and deceitful.

God and Country. Newsweek shows there is still plenty of that old time religion in US.

Why has America kept her faith while many of the Western Europeans have lost theirs? Religion is filled with contradictions as someone has to be right and some others must be wrong. Or is that not true? Why are the coasts of the US more secular than the mid section and the south or is that a myth? An interesting poll from Newsweek:

God’s Numbers

By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 3:04 p.m. ET March 31, 2007
March 30, 2007 -

A belief in God and an identification with an organized religion are widespread throughout the country, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Nine in 10 (91 percent) of American adults say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. Christians far outnumber members of any other faith in the country, with 82 percent of the poll’s respondents identifying themselves as such. Another 5 percent say they follow a non-Christian faith, such as Judaism or Islam. Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.

Although one in ten (10 percent) of Americans identify themselves as having "no religion," only six percent said they don’t believe in a God at all. Just 3 percent of the public self-identifies as atheist, suggesting that the term may carry some stigma. Still, the poll suggests that the public’s tolerance of this small minority has increased in recent years. Nearly half (47 percent) of the respondents felt the country is more accepting of atheists today that it used to be and slightly more (49 percent) reported personally knowing an atheist. Those numbers are higher among respondents under 30 years old, 62 percent of whom report knowing an atheist (compared to just 43 percent of those 50 and older). Sixty-one percent of the under-30 cohort view society as more accepting of atheists (compared to 40 percent of the Americans 50 and older).

Still, it is unlikely that a political candidate would serve him or herself well by declaring their atheism. Six in ten (62 percent) registered voters say they would not vote for a candidate who is an atheist. Majorities of each major party — 78 percent of Repulicans and 60 percent of Democrats — rule out such an option. Just under half (45 percent) of registered independents would not vote for an atheist. Still more than a third (36 percent) of Americans think the influence of organized religion on American politics has increased in recent years. But the public is still split over whether religion has too much (32 percent) or too little (31 percent) influence on American politics. Democrats tend to fall in the "too much" camp (42 percent of them, as opposed to 29 percent who see too little influence) as Republicans take the opposite view (42 percent too little; 14 percent too much). In the poll, 68 percent of respondents said they believed someone could be moral and an atheist, compared to 26 percent who said it was not possible.

PETA - Serving the Creature,

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Romans 1:20 thru 1:25

---

Here's PETA summed up in a nutshell:

The madness of the animal rights movement
David Kupelinan, World Net Daily

Elevating animals up to the level of human beings -- as actor Steven Segal, one of PETA's celebrity advocates, puts it, "We have to view all life as equal" -- is a round about way of saying that human beings are no more than animals and therefore have no souls.

Why would anyone deny that human beings have a soul, you might ask. Why would that notion that we have a divine spark within us be repugnant? After all, whatever goodness we humans can muster, whatever kindness and consideration we have for each other, is based on the fact that we know we are dealing with another soul. If we are faithful to our spouse, honorable in business, truthful to each other, willing to sacrifice for our children - whatever we consider to be virtuous and noble is tied up in this conviction that we are more than animals, that we are spiritual beings also, esteemed by God.

For many, there is a great comfort and "freedom" in believing that there is no soul, because if there is no soul, there is no God, no divine judgment, no accountability -- you get the picture. We're animals, so we act like animals, we do what animals do. They eat each other, mate in the street, run around naked - kind of like the '60s again, with "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll."

The radical animal rights folks are exactly like the multiculturalists. Do you think the multiculturalists really care about Eskimo music or how the Ubangis make their lips as big as pancakes? Do they really care that much about cultures that worship rats, cows and sex organs? No, their interest is not really in elevating other cultures, nor in celebrating diversity.

Their interest is in tearing down Western civilization, in denying God, in denying the immortal soul of man -- denying that we will be judged one day by One greater than us.

In the same way, the animal rights radicals don't really love animals. They don't even know the meaning of the word love. They just want to be their own gods. And the way you become your own god in this life is to deny the real One.

Animal-rights radicals loathe the idea of man having an immortal soul, of his being superior to the animals, because if we are superior to animals it is because we have a soul, and that reality makes us subservient to something greater than ourselves. And, as I said, some people just want to be their own god.

Besides, many people just don't get along with other people. After all, people give you a hard time, they can criticize you, they can even tell you the truth when you don't want to hear it. Animals never do that.