House of Eratosthenes

Leftism, though secular, must be understood as a religion. The Leftist value system’s hold on its adherents is as strong as the hold Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have on theirs. Nancy Pelosi’s belief in expanding the government’s role in American life, which inspired her passion for the health-care bill, is as strong as a pro-life Christian’s belief in the sanctity of the life of the unborn.

Given the religious nature and the emotional power of Leftist values, Jews and Christians on the Left often derive their values from the Left more than from their religion.

Now, most Leftist Jews and Christians will counter that Leftist values cannot trump their religion’s values because Leftist values are identical to their religion’s. But this argument only reinforces my argument that Leftism has conquered the Christianity and the Judaism of Leftist Christians and Jews. If there is no difference between Leftist moral values and those of Judaism or Christianity, then Christianity is little more than Leftism with “Jesus” rhetoric and Judaism is Leftism with Jewish terms — such as “Tikkun Olam” (“repairing the world”) and “Prophetic values.”

But if Christianity is, morally speaking, really Leftism, why didn’t Catholics and Protestants assert these values before 19th century European Leftism came along? And, if Judaism is essentially a set of Left-wing values, does that mean that the Torah and the Talmud are Leftist documents? Or are the two pillars of Judaism generally wrong?

More questions:

Why are almost no Christians and Jews who believe that God is the author of the Bible on the Left?

Why are so few pro-life Catholics and Protestants on the Left? Do they not care about the poor?

Of course, that is what people on the Left believe. As the former head of the Democratic party, Howard Dean, said, “In contradistinction to the Republicans, we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

They believe such things despite the fact that traditional Protestants and Catholics have created more institutions to take care of the sick and needy than probably any other group in the world, and despite the fact that religious Americans give more charity and volunteer more time than secular Americans do.

And why have the great majority of Orthodox Jews rejected the Left? For Jews on the Left, the explanation is simple: Orthodox Jews have primitive beliefs and, therefore, primitive values.

For the Leftist, all opposition to the Left, secular or religious, is primitive and usually worse. So this doesn’t tell us much. What might tell us much? This: With a handful of exceptions, Orthodox Jews know Judaism far better than non-Orthodox Jews do. Given how few of them are Leftist, this would suggest that Judaism and Leftism are indeed in conflict.

But that doesn’t matter to most Jews on the Left, because to be a good person, one need not know Judaism, let alone follow Judaism. One needs only to feel what is right; and, when in doubt, one can determine what is right from the New York Times, not from sacred Jewish texts.

Where the analogy breaks down is here: I’ve met quite a few folks practicing different religions, who were ready, willing and able to believe right down to the marrow of their bones, that whoever was not a member of their creed might be just as decent a person.

That’s just not true of what Prager sees as “Leftism.”

I wrote previously that leftists seem to be driven by an instinct honed by thousands of years of behavioral molding and shaping that comes from living in villages — and sending out, throughout the village, the message that if & when the famine comes, ostracize someone else but Not Me. So much of the time, when you argue with a leftist, it all seems to spiral inward back to the black-hole argument that the leftist is a wonderful person and you’re just a big stinker. Nevermind how distant from this the original topic is. It all just keeps going back to that. My theory is that the village-ostracism-during-famine ritual, by determining which instincts are to be evolved, refined, and carried forward, is what powers that.

I used to think it was just my experience; I am something of a big stinker, after all. Now that it’s a more modern world more intimately connected with itself, I realize many others are having this experience as well. Liberals cannot and will not stick to the subject at hand. They just feel this is the right thing to do — and you don’t. They’re compassionate and you’re not.

This is the real reason why you can’t argue politics at work, folks. This is the real reason why we are so damned contentious. The truth that nobody seems to want to admit, is that it’s the liberals making it that way. Once you define yourself as being morally superior to your opposition, it isn’t enough to make the point, strut like a peacock, “agree-to-disagree” and walk away. That creates a situation of silence-equals-consent. It becomes a moral imperative to do something to destroy your opponent, to stir up the crowd against him. To get the message out that the ostracism needs to take place and that time is of the essence.

Start the cannibalism right now, what’s the point of waiting until we’re hungry?

Prager’s point is actually two-fold, I notice.

One, that secular Leftists have a religion all their own. This is not a new idea. Back in 1992, Rush Limbaugh’s book “The Way Things Ought to Be” noted that in modern times, liberals have replaced God with a man-made god called The State. Untold crimes have been committed in its name, Limbaugh continued, citing Hitler and Stalin among the most egregious examples.

Two – and he’s on-target here as well – that Christianity and Judaism are incompatible with Leftism. It’s something I wish I could get across to my cousin’s wife and all the other silly young women out there who think they can straddle the line. Like any self-proclaimed progressive, she prides herself on how good and decent and kind hearted and compassionate and caring she is. She railed on at me at one point over NObama Care, demanding to know why, as a Christian, I wasn’t willing to throw my support behind this wonderful example of Christian compassion for those who lack health insurance coverage.

I declined to argue with her since I would have completely destroyed her in a debate, which she would have taken personally, which would have then caused a rift between me and her husband, naturally the cousin to which I am closest.

The answer, of course, is, “Because it’s wrong to use the power of the state to redistribute wealth, for any purpose, in the name of Christian charitable giving. It is wrong to take forcibly money from people who may or may not believe in the religious component, and give it to people who may or may not believe in the religious component either.”

This point is so blindingly obvious that I felt like smashing my forehead into the keyboard instead of trying to argue it with her. You don’t measure compassion – Christian or otherwise – by what income-redistribution programs you support. You measure it by what portion of your personal resources you’re willing to devote to same. Period, finito. This holds as true for national health care as it does for AFDC.
- cylarz | 03/31/2010 @ 23:20
[…] speaking here of the Freeberg Village Theory, discussed here and here and here and here and here and here. The process by which, in a season a famine, one or several individuals […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 09/23/2010 @ 06:50

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Leftism, the ReligionWednesday, March 31st, 2010

Leftism, the Religion
Wednesday, March 31st, 2010