Skip to main content

"Godless" Liberals?

That's the most recent garbage spewed out by this neocon hatemonger, Anne Coulter. I can't stand her and her racist, bigoted rantings, and neither could any liberal or centrist for that matter... that is, provided that the centrists like myself lean more towards liberal values. I was surfing today on the net, just to find a loud of quotes from the rightwing femme fool.

Let's just take a look at some of them. Regarding her comment about John Kerry's anti-war position, she said,
"By 1973, John Kerry had already accused American soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam, thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress."
Ok... the last part was uncalled for. It has to do with Kerry's personal life, so no politics there. The Vietnam War was in my opinion one of America's biggest losses, morally and materialistically, and the army has committed a grave number of war crimes against the Vietnamese. The throwing of medals on the ground was probably a way of saying that medals are not given to war criminals, though I doubt that most soldiers in that war committed something worthy of a war crime. Yet, Coulter shuns such opposition, like most rightwingers do when their policies and views are being met with legitimate criticism.

Here's another gem of a quote:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
Wow... I can't believe that she wants more people to die. It's just that these short-minded neoconservatives want to polarize one's thinking into supporting them. This is evident in the last quote on the bottom of the page:
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."
It's that she's repeating the supposed rhetoric that Bin Laden and his crazy bunch spout out. Coulter, Pat Robertson, Bin Laden and loads of other extremists, I believe, are two sides of the same coin: extremists who just want war.

Now, when you take a look at the quotes above, do you believe that it comes from someone who seriously believes in Godly values? Does "carpet-bombing" and "convert" sound like tolerance and peace? Does criticizing someone for speaking out what he considers a mistake that his country's former presidents have committed make someone a traitor? Does it show compassion and respect towards those who oppose your views? Does making everyone else who does not support American policies an "enemy" who should be killed represent any ounce of humanity?

Granted, a lot of you who read this don't believe in God in the first place, and I respect your beliefs. But frankly speaking, if anything, it's the neoconservative rightwing extremists who hold such vile views who are seriously Godless. In that sense, I, a liberal, believe in more freedom, and a seriously strict policy of non-aggression against sovereign nations, even when they're being ruled by dictators. I am of the opinion that a multicultural society with absolutely NO discrimination can succeed. I am also against gun control, like a lot of liberals are, and am also against big government in general. Abortion should be of moral question, but that's a topic I will talk about later. As a believer in God, freedom of religion shouldn't be brought up for debate: it should be taken as a default. Also, such policies like affirmative action and (gag sounds) "positive" racism should be stamped out, because they are a precursor to discrimination.

So, tell me: who's Godless now?

Salaam, from
Saracen


Coulter, if you read this, I hope you come to your senses.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

On "Leviathan", by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (Part 1: On Man)

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan , or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil,  is a veritable juggernaut (pun intended) of a book. It is Hobbes' magnum opus, having been circulated widely by the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries at a time when England was plunged into civil war. Rather than rebel against the new political order (a war crime according to Hobbes which I will revisit later in this post), Hobbes' central thesis is to submit to the absolute authority of an established commonwealth (preferably, in Hobbes' point of view, a "Christian" one), which he compares to the overwhelming biblical sea monster, the Leviathan. Having just finished reading it, I would like to convey my thoughts on his central themes in as short a post as allowed by the breadth of the knowledge he passed on with this read. For this post, I will stick to part 1 (On Man), and deal with the subsequent parts of the book in later posts. Summary of P...