Who has the real extremist mobs? The right or the left?

It looks like Obama isn’t very happy with community-organizing when the shoe is on the other foot.

The Republicans have released a new ad about Obama’s public option plan. (H/T Hot Air)

But look at this Democrat ad about those who disagree with Obama’s policies. (H/T Hot Air)

Are people who dissent from Obama’s takeover of health care really as bad as the Democrats say?

Michelle Malkin has 6 different videos of real mobs in action, including:

  • suppressing free speech and freedom of assembly
  • interfering with military operations
  • breaking into people’s homes illegally
  • chasing Christian evangelists in the streets
  • and attacking supporters of traditional marriage

It seems to me that real mobs are on the left.

Please tell Big Brother who is dissenting

The Democrats are now asking people to report dissent against their plan to take over health care.The secular-left knows how to handle dissenters, comrade!

It’s right here on the White House web site. (H/T Michelle Malkin)

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Let’s face it. The secular-left in the USA is no different than the secular-left throughout history. This is what they do.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reports that Senator John Cornyn has asked Obama to stop asking citizens to report dissent to the White House from their fellow citizens. Read Cornyn’s statement here.

16 thoughts on “Who has the real extremist mobs? The right or the left?”

  1. you forgot a few:

    * abortion opponents sniping doctors
    * abortion opponents blowing up clinics
    * religous zealots shooting people of differing religions and burning down their houses.
    * religious nuts destroying skyscrapers (not christians this time, but still religion)
    * religious nuts strapping bombs to themselves and running into crowds

    so lets redo the math – the left protesting, the right murdering, exploding, and burning…hmmm.

    Like

  2. I wonder Jerry, do you think that any violence propogated by atheists or agnostics is automatically and appropriately labellable as a direct consequence of atheism or agnosticism? The Tamil Tigers comes to mind.

    Also, is it fair to conflate right and religious? Unless I missed a connection point, you show religious people blowing themselves up and then say that right people are murdering and blowing up. Are there no leftist groups tied by direct funding to Islamic fundamentalists who are engaged in violence?

    There is no lack of truth that each of the acts you describe is horrible. I’m just not sure if the connections you’ve made are logical or reasonable.

    Like

    1. The Tamil Tigers are/were not atheist. The Tamil people are mostly Hindu, but there are also Christian, Muslim and Buddhist Tamils. The Tamil Tigers were a nationalist and political group with no unifying religious (or areligious) sentiment.

      Like

  3. I think that’s technically correct, from a “what do they say about themselves” standpoint.

    However, they are a marxist socialist group, and marxism has atheism at it’s core. They have also actively disavowed hindu practice (the predominant regional religion). both by act and in political statements.

    Or am I wrong about marxism and atheism? Are there active marxist movements that refute what Marx said about religion?

    Like

  4. Bah, previous comment submitted by accident.

    WK: Please explain why any of these things are morally wrong on atheism. Where is the standard?

    There seem to be a number of ethical systems which don’t rely upon the Christian deity for a “standard”, and which don’t fall prey to the worst claims of “relativity” and “subjectivity”.

    WK: No, you’re right about that. Atheism is at the core of marxism, and it shows in many if not all of the places it’s been tried.

    The old “Atheism leads to bad things” canard.
    How about “totalitarian governments lead to bad things”? It would seem to reflect reality a little more closely.

    Like

      1. WK: What is the means of existence of this objective moral standard on atheism, and what is its origin?

        I could go for some kind of Platonic ideal, or some kind of “fact” about the world (as in Desire Utilitarianism). I’m sure there are other options available (not sure if social contract models fall into the latter camp above, or would be something different).

        Communist governments of the Soviet, etc model are totalitarian. I’m sure we could both find examples of totalitarian govts which do not have atheism as a part of their ideology, which was just as bad.
        In fact, North Korea seems to have ancestor worship as a core part of their ideology, and I think we’d both agree that that government is pretty abusive :-)

        As above, with or without belief in a deity, morality can be based without refering to the commands or nature of said deity for a standard.

        (And here we could here go into the incoherence of using the will/nature of Yahweh|Jesus, as demonstrated in the Christian bible, and also shown through the psychological phenomena of the “holy spirit”, as an objective standard of morality, though it would derail this thread) :-)

        Like

        1. I was a Platonist before I became a Christian, so I think it’s a good view. It answers ONE of the FIVE minimal requirements for morality.

          But you have to ask yourself – where do these non-material forms come from on atheism? Who made them?

          Also, what is in it for you to following these forms? What difference does it make in the long run if you and everyone else dies eventually of old age or in the heat death of the universe?

          Suppose you do decide to follow the forms even when it goes against your self-interest. If you die, what is your reward for going against your own self-interest? It isn’t enough to say “it makes me feel good” – that is not morality.

          Also, free will is required in order to make moral choices. How do you square that on a materialistic universe? If you are a machine, how do you have free will or even consciousness? My computer cannot make moral choices.

          Re: communism
          I need the name of a totalitarian regime that murdered at least a million people that has not been atheist.

          Keep the Bible out of it, unless you can justify the the origin of the non-material objective moral standard that allows you to judge what’s in the Bible.

          Like

  5. WK: But you have to ask yourself – where do these non-material forms come from on atheism? Who made them?

    If I were a platonist (which I’m not), I could claim they just are. There no requirement for them to have been made, they’d simply be brute facts.

    WK: Also, what is in it for you to following these forms?

    So moral actions are only worthwhile if they come with a reward?

    WK: What difference does it make in the long run if you and everyone else dies eventually of old age or in the heat death of the universe?

    It makes a different to me and those around me now. There doesn’t need to be some kind of ultimate reward or reason, as far as I can tell, simply reason enough now :-)

    WK: Suppose you do decide to follow the forms even when it goes against your self-interest. If you die, what is your reward for going against your own self-interest? It isn’t enough to say “it makes me feel good” – that is not morality.

    Hmm, you seem to have a perverse sense of morality. You’re saying you only do good things because you’ll get a reward, and yet in a Christian world view, works get you nothing, it’s all about grace through faith, right?

    WK: Also, free will is required in order to make moral choices. How do you square that on a materialistic universe? If you are a machine, how do you have free will or even consciousness?

    Contra-causal/libertarian free will is incoherent, and doesn’t square with current knowledge of the mind. Seems you’ve got the choice of being a hard determinist, a compatibalist, or you ignore the mind/brain. I don’t see why moral choices are impossible without libertarian free will, and even if they were, that doesn’t mean libertarian free will is the case, it more likely means that we don’t make moral choices.

    WK: My computer cannot make moral choices.

    Though I dare say it could sometime in the future. Since investigation very strongly suggests the mind is what the brain does, with no need to invoke some kind of non-material substance, there seems no reason computers couldn’t “think” and therefore make moral choices, unless you think only organic devices are able to “think”.

    WK: I need the name of a totalitarian regime that murdered at least a million people that has not been atheist.

    Do the German National Socialists (Nazi party) count? Seems they killed an awful lot of people in concentration camps, and their ideology certainly didn’t contain atheism. In fact, it seems that Christianity was part of the core of that particular political experiment.

    WK: Keep the Bible out of it, unless you can justify the the origin of the non-material objective moral standard that allows you to judge what’s in the Bible.

    Who said anything about a moral standard having to be “non-material”? I’ve not seen this justified, nor did I agree that it was the case.
    If I held to some social contract ethics or Desire Utilitarianism, I could judge the bible by that standard without the need for anything non-material. I could also go the Platonist route (as above, I’d claim their existence is a brute fact) and critique biblical morality from there. Perhaps I could claim my morality from Ahura Mazda and work from there?

    Like

    1. On the Christian view, there is a consilience of prudence, gratitude for Jesus’ atoning death, and the desire for virtue.

      I hope we now agree that given what you said, morality is irrational on atheism. Too many leaps are needed. There are 5 requirements. Platonism gets you ONE of five. Utilitarianism gets you ZERO of five. You need all five for rational morality.

      Read more here:
      Was Hitler a Christian? Is Nazism Christian?

      Like

  6. WK: I hope we now agree that given what you said, morality is irrational on atheism. Too many leaps are needed.

    Huh? You seem to have jumped straight to your prefered result here.

    WK: There are 5 requirements.

    Incorrect. There are 5 requirements for you.

    WK: Platonism gets you ONE of five. Utilitarianism gets you ZERO of five. You need all five for rational morality.

    As my comments on minimal requirements thread argues, you’re being less than charitable with regards to competing moral theories.

    Whether Hitler was or was not a Christian, the majority of Germans at the time were,

    Like

  7. I’m curious Havok, what standard would you propose for evaluating if for a moral system that is rationally grounded?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s