Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?

[mountaineer]

Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?
Liberals increasingly want to enforce a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. And they see alternative visions of the good as increasingly intolerable.
By Damon Linker | October 8, 2014   
The Week

Liberalism seems to have an irrational animus against Christianity. Consider these two stories highlighted in the last week by conservative Christian blogger Rod Dreher.

Item 1: In a widely discussed essay in Slate, author Brian Palmer writes about the prevalence of missionary doctors and nurses in Africa and their crucial role in treating those suffering from Ebola. Palmer tries to be fair-minded, but he nonetheless expresses "ambivalence," "suspicion," and "visceral discomfort" about the fact that these men and women are motivated to make "long-term commitments to address the health problems of poor Africans," to "risk their lives," and to accept poor compensation (and sometimes none at all) because of their Christian faith.

The question is why he considers this a problem.

Palmer mentions a lack of data and an absence of regulatory oversight. But he's honest enough to admit that these aren't the real reasons for his concern. The real reason is that he doesn't believe that missionaries are capable "of separating their religious work from their medical work," even when they vow not to proselytize their patients. And that, in his view, is unacceptable — apparently because he's an atheist and religion creeps him out. As he puts it, rather wanly, "It's great that these people are doing God's work, but do they have to talk about Him so much?"

That overriding distaste for religion leads Palmer to propose a radical corollary to the classical liberal ideal of a separation between church and state — one that goes far beyond politics, narrowly construed. Palmer thinks it's necessary to uphold a separation of "religion and health care."

Item 2: Gordon College, a small Christian school north of Boston, is facing the possibility of having its accreditation revoked by the higher education commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, according to an article in the Boston Business Journal. Since accreditation determines a school's eligibility to participate in federal and state financial aid programs, and the eligibility of its students to be accepted into graduate programs and to meet requirements for professional licensure, revoking a school's accreditation is a big deal — and can even be a death sentence.

What has Gordon College done to jeopardize its accreditation? It has chosen to enforce a "life and conduct statement" that forbids "homosexual practice" on campus.

Now, one could imagine a situation in which such a statement might legitimately run afoul of an accreditation board or even anti-discrimination statutes and regulations — if, for example, it stated that being gay is a sign of innate depravity and that students who feel same-sex attraction should be subject to punishment for having such desires.

But that isn't the case here. At all. In accordance with traditional Christian teaching, Gordon College bans all sexual relationships outside of marriage, gay or straight, and it goes out of its way to say that its structures against homosexual acts apply only to behavior and not to same-sex desires or orientation.

The accreditation board is not so much objecting to the college's treatment of gays as it is rejecting the legitimacy of its devoutly Christian sexual beliefs.

The anti-missionary article and the story of Gordon College's troubles are both examples (among many others) of contemporary liberalism's irrational animus against religion in general and traditional forms of Christianity in particular.

My use of the term "irrational animus" isn't arbitrary. The Supreme Court has made "irrational animus" a cornerstone of its jurisprudence on gay rights. A law cannot stand if it can be shown to be motivated by rationally unjustifiable hostility to homosexuals, and on several occasions the court has declared that traditional religious objections to homosexuality are reducible to just such a motive.

But the urge to eliminate Christianity's influence on and legacy within our world can be its own form of irrational animus. The problem is not just the cavalier dismissal of people's long-established beliefs and the ways of life and traditions based on them. The problem is also the dogmatic denial of the beauty and wisdom contained within those beliefs, ways of life, and traditions. (You know, the kind of thing that leads a doctor to risk his life and forego a comfortable stateside livelihood in favor of treating deadly illness in dangerous, impoverished African cities and villages, all out of a love for Jesus Christ.)

Contemporary liberals increasingly think and talk like a class of self-satisfied commissars enforcing a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. The idea that someone, somewhere might devote her life to an alternative vision of the good — one that clashes in some respects with liberalism's moral creed — is increasingly intolerable.

That is a betrayal of what's best in the liberal tradition.

Liberals should be pleased and express gratitude when people do good deeds, whether or not those deeds are motivated by faith. They should also be content to give voluntary associations (like religious colleges) wide latitude to orient themselves to visions of the human good rooted in traditions and experiences that transcend liberal modernity — provided they don't clash in a fundamental way with liberal ideals and institutions.

In the end, what we're seeing is an effort to greatly expand the list of beliefs, traditions, and ways of life that fundamentally clash with liberalism. That is an effort that no genuine liberal should want to succeed.

What happened to a liberalism of skepticism, modesty, humility, and openness to conflicting notions of the highest good? What happened to a liberalism of pluralism that recognizes that when people are allowed to search for truth in freedom, they are liable to seek and find it in a multitude of values, beliefs, and traditions? What happened to a liberalism that sees this diversity as one of the finest flowers of a free society rather than a threat to the liberal democratic order?

I don't have answers to these questions — and frankly, not a lot hinges on figuring out how we got here. What matters is that we acknowledge that something in the liberal mind has changed, and that we act to recover what has been lost.

[Cyber Liberty]

They don't understand love, only hate.  They confuse "love" with "lust."  They're pretty clear about what they mean by "hate."

[Scottftlc]

Because American liberals are not really liberal, they are power-mad fascists that are interested in dominating society and getting rich off of other people's labors.  It is sort of like asking why Hitler or Mussolini despised Christianity...the answer is obvious.

[GourmetDan]

The battle is demonic.

Dragging as many souls to hell is the goal.

It's not difficult given the human propensity for evil...

[mountaineer]

Liberals from days gone by (we now have to use the term "classical liberal" to keep things straight) would be appalled at the intolerance, hatred and complete closedmindedness of those of today who falsely adopt the moniker.

[truth_seeker]

Where is the proof that "so many" liberals despise Christianity? How many is "so many?"

[mountaineer]

It's an opinion piece. The author believes - and has described some instances - that liberals are intolerant of Christianity. Within the piece is a link to a related essay. Would it have helped if he had cited a particular number of hateful liberals? If so, how many would suffice?

[Cyber Liberty]

Liberals from days gone by (we now have to use the term "classical liberal" to keep things straight) would be appalled at the intolerance, hatred and complete closedmindedness of those of today who falsely adopt the moniker.

Your Avatar made me hungry...

Mrs. Liberty and I are having hot dogs tonight....

[Dexter]

It's an opinion piece. The author believes - and has described some instances - that liberals are intolerant of Christianity. Within the piece is a link to a related essay. Would it have helped if he had cited a particular number of hateful liberals? If so, how many would suffice?

There are a lot of left leaning Christians. Making blanket statements and distorting the truth isn't doing anybody any good.

[evadR]

In true Rumsfeld speak, I don't accept your premise.

[Atomic Cow]

The modern, rabid liberal despises Christianity and if they could, would kill every single Christian.  Why?

Christians are the antithesis of everything they stand for and liberals cannot stand any opposition.  It's not just good enough for them to silence it; they must eradicate it just like the Nazis, Soviets, and Chicoms did.

Also, deep down most people know right from wrong, and Christians remind liberals that they are wrong, especially when it comes to morality.  They just cannot stand this which is why anything about God (but strangely enough not Allah) is like sunlight to a vampire.

[SPQR]

There are a few here who would fall into that category.

[SPQR]

There are a few here who would fall into that category.

I promise I will not name names.

[mountaineer]

There are a lot of left leaning Christians. Making blanket statements and distorting the truth isn't doing anybody any good.

I doubt he's talking about left-leaning Christians. Left-leaning Christians do not hate Christianity. I would guess the writer is talking about leftists who,  through the force of law, attempt to limit Christians' rights, e.g., the Gordon College case.

[Relic]

There are a lot of left leaning Christians. Making blanket statements and distorting the truth isn't doing anybody any good.

And most left leaning Christians are barely Christians if Christian at all. My own brother is a Democrat, and calls himself Catholic. But has no problem supporting candidates who are "pro choice". That's not cafeteria Christian. That's not a negotiable point for a true Catholic. My brother still believes he's a Catholic.

[massadvj]

Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses."  That pretty much summarizes the liberal view.

[GourmetDan]

Also, deep down most people know right from wrong, and Christians remind liberals that they are wrong, especially when it comes to morality.  They just cannot stand this which is why anything about God (but strangely enough not Allah) is like sunlight to a vampire.

That's because Allah is not God.

The claim that Allah and Jehovah are the same god is simply a lie...

[Relic]

Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses."  That pretty much summarizes the liberal view.

It's been well discussed, but I'll summarize it again. :)

Liberals want the ultimate authority to be the state. Christians hold God as the ultimate authority. If rights come from God, liberals cannot freely change them to suit their agenda. If the state is what gives the individual rights, then this frees liberals to do things that they would not imagine doing in a Christian environment.

Liberals are much, much better than conservatives at pushing a message, indoctrination, and employing Alinsky tactics. Liberals have made Republicans toxic. If you tell people you're a Republican, you'll be met with odd looks, and some will actually shun you. Liberals are doing the same thing to religion. I can't tell you how many places online I've read posts belittling Christians and their "invisible friend". I don't hear that so much in person, because someone saying such a thing would at the very least get a dressing down, perhaps more.

[240B]

Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses."  That pretty much summarizes the liberal view.

Maybe, but that statement was intended to point out to rulers a means of control. I am not sure this statement was intended to be anti-religion but rather pro-religion under State control.
 
Leftists love 'opiate of the masses'. Comedy central, Xbox, iPad, all of this keeps people stupified. It is the modern day soma of the new order.
 
But have to agree with the others. Liberal's 'freakish hate' of Chistianity is because the teaching at least, if not always the teachers, is moral, enlightening, elevating, and empowering. And Leftist will not tolerate any of these things for the dirty masses.

[Dexter]

And most left leaning Christians are barely Christians if Christian at all. My own brother is a Democrat, and calls himself Catholic. But has no problem supporting candidates who are "pro choice". That's not cafeteria Christian. That's not a negotiable point for a true Catholic. My brother still believes he's a Catholic.

You don't get to decide who is or isn't a real Christian based on their political views.

[musiclady]

You don't get to decide who is or isn't a real Christian based on their political views.

Relic didn't do that.  What he said was absolutely true, however.

Anyone calling himself a "Catholic" and supporting abortion, is not a practicing Catholic.  He/she has abandoned something the Church has clearly condemned.

There are plenty of people who are Christians and lean left, but they do so based on the fundamental error that Liberals "care" more than Conservatives do.  It's an outright lie, but they have been so inculcated with that view by academia and don't think enough for themselves, so that they think liberalism and Christianity are compatible, whereas in reality, they are not.

[240B]

If you want a real explosion, mix one part Muslim with any part of Liberalism. But, you better stand back, because it is going to be epic.

[Relic]

You don't get to decide who is or isn't a real Christian based on their political views.

If you can't tell a Christian value from a political view, you shouldn't offer an opinion.
You simply embarrass yourself.

[truth_seeker]

Relic didn't do that.  What he said was absolutely true, however.

Anyone calling himself a "Catholic" and supporting abortion, is not a practicing Catholic.  He/she has abandoned something the Church has clearly condemned.

There are plenty of people who are Christians and lean left, but they do so based on the fundamental error that Liberals "care" more than Conservatives do.  It's an outright lie, but they have been so inculcated with that view by academia and don't think enough for themselves, so that they think liberalism and Christianity are compatible, whereas in reality, they are not.

It is so hard to qualify these days to be a "true Christian" or "true conservative."

Few people subscribe to the full list of required beliefs and positions.

[Cyber Liberty]

And most left leaning Christians are barely Christians if Christian at all. My own brother is a Democrat, and calls himself Catholic. But has no problem supporting candidates who are "pro choice". That's not cafeteria Christian. That's not a negotiable point for a true Catholic. My brother still believes he's a Catholic.

The church itself is not being very consistent about abortion.  The bloodiest hands in the House belong to Nancy Pelosi, and she's still allowed to take Communion, last I heard.  (I am not a Catholic, so I'm on thin ice here.)  Dittos for a lot of Dems.

[Relic]

It is so hard to qualify these days to be a "true Christian" or "true conservative."

Few people subscribe to the full list of required beliefs and positions.

It's not that hard. The Catholic Church is steadfast anti abortion. It's not a suggestion, it's fundamental to being Catholic, you know, the folks who were hardline against contraception. Don't like that? Fine, pick a Protestant denomination that fits your belief system.

Only divisive folks get all hung up on "true" this, or "true" that. You know?

[Relic]

The church itself is not being very consistent about abortion.  The bloodiest hands in the House belong to Nancy Pelosi, and she's still allowed to take Communion, last I heard.  (I am not a Catholic, so I'm on thin ice here.)  Dittos for a lot of Dems.

Well, that is another kettle of fish. The Catholic Church has enough problems. That would help explain why my brother is Catholic, and I'm Methodist.

[240B]

It is so hard to qualify these days to be a "true Christian" or "true conservative."

Few people subscribe to the full list of required beliefs and positions.

That may be true. But I think you are over-qualifying it. You are making it too complex. There are basics in everything.
 
If you are not in the most basic form a dinosaur bone, then you are not a dinosaur bone. It is reality that is the bitch, in this scenario.
 
As another poster said, "reality is what it is. it is not what you perceive it to be."

[musiclady]

It is so hard to qualify these days to be a "true Christian" or "true conservative."

Few people subscribe to the full list of required beliefs and positions.

I'm not quite sure how that relates to the points I made.

I don't use the words "true" preceding either Christian or Conservative.

What I was saying is that most leftist tenets are incompatible with Christian theology, and that most leftists who are Christians are unaware of that fact because they think their intention to "care" makes everything else OK.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, that is another kettle of fish. The Catholic Church has enough problems. That would help explain why my brother is Catholic, and I'm Methodist.

Interesting.  So...to your bro, you're the Anti-Christ?  (Please laugh at that.  It's supposed to be a bit of a joke.  My wife is pre-Vatican II Catholic, and I was raised a Methodist.)

[Relic]

Interesting.  So...to your bro, you're the Anti-Christ?  (Please laugh at that.  It's supposed to be a bit of a joke.  My wife is pre-Vatican II Catholic, and I was raised a Methodist.)

I take no offense. My brother is an MSNBC drone. We were once close, but now barely speak, and rarely see each other, (we live in the same town). I prefer not to talk politics, he can't help throwing barbs about how great Obama is, etc. Last time we were together, I called him on it, and well, I don't see too many more events I'll be attending with him.

It's his choice, I feel sorry for him, because he must be miserable. Someone who is constantly stirring the pot in such a fashion, can't be happy.

[massadvj]

I think there is a religious justification for being pro-choice, but not pro-abortion.  Thus, I can rationalize being pro-choice, but I cannot come up with a Christian rationalization for public funding of abortion.

Clearly, abortion is sin.  But God gave humans free will in order that they may distinguish between sins and non-sins.  The nation's laws may or may not comport with God's laws.  It is not necessary, or even always desirable, that they do.  So long as I have free will, knowing God's laws I can take care of my own soul, and use my powers of persuasion to convince others of the error in their thinking.  In fact, it would be preferable if abortion were so taboo in our society that we did not have to pass laws to prevent it.  Like cannibalism.

I cannot similarly reconcile public funding of abortion.  Forcing people of conscience to pay for an abomination is completely antithetical to Christian beliefs, as far as I know them. 

[GourmetDan]

I think there is a religious justification for being pro-choice, but not pro-abortion.  Thus, I can rationalize being pro-choice, but I cannot come up with a Christian rationalization for public funding of abortion.

In fact, it would be preferable if abortion were so taboo in our society that we did not have to pass laws to prevent it.  Like cannibalism.

I suppose there could also be religious rationalization for being pro-choice cannibalism, but not pro-cannibalism.

All you would have to do is change the societal taboo... and the rest would be history...

[Cyber Liberty]

I take no offense. My brother is an MSNBC drone. We were once close, but now barely speak, and rarely see each other, (we live in the same town). I prefer not to talk politics, he can't help throwing barbs about how great Obama is, etc. Last time we were together, I called him on it, and well, I don't see too many more events I'll be attending with him.

It's his choice, I feel sorry for him, because he must be miserable. Someone who is constantly stirring the pot in such a fashion, can't be happy.

I think people who can't laugh at themselves are the most miserable.  When you can laugh at yourself, it's like having a little book of jokes you can carry anywhere.

[MACVSOG68]

The church itself is not being very consistent about abortion.  The bloodiest hands in the House belong to Nancy Pelosi, and she's still allowed to take Communion, last I heard.  (I am not a Catholic, so I'm on thin ice here.)  Dittos for a lot of Dems.

The Catholic Church has gone through a lot of "rule changes" over the years even during my lifetime.  As for abortion, it's not been all that long (150 years+/-) that early stage abortion was formally considered killing a human by the Church.  It's gone from a conservative pope to what may be one of the most liberal popes in only one change.  Catholic dogma is not immune from societal changes.

[massadvj]

I suppose there could also be religious rationalization for being pro-choice cannibalism, but not pro-cannibalism.

I wonder if there were early African missionaries who adopted this position, even as the pot boiled under their very hides.   

All you would have to do is change the societal taboo... and the rest would be history...

True.  But if you think laws change culture, you are mistaken.  Culture changes the law.

[aligncare]

"Culture changes the law"

Exactly. Just look at the changing laws regarding marijuana. In a few more years most states will soften sanctions against personal use.

[truth_seeker]

"Culture changes the law"

Exactly. Just look at the changing laws regarding marijuana. In a few more years most states will soften sanctions against personal use.

And alcohol.