It was the best of shows, it was the worst of shows
I have to say, as an effective progressive liberal (well, given a perfect world I would be a moderate since I have some capital-c Conservative views, like I do believe in the way that many traditions deserve preservation), the most entertaining and disheartening show on TV is one and the same.
I just watched a quick scene of The O'Reilly Factor where Mr. O'Reilly stated that the secularists want to forward a progressive agenda, but they know that the progressive cause cannot succeed without first removing religion from the public eye, and from life in general. As an example, he pointed to Canada, where 79% of the populace believed that religion should play a part in public life in 1980, whereas now it's 61%. Also, in 1980 1% of Canadians admitted to having no religion, whereas now it's 16%. This trend coincided with a progressive agenda so now most people are accepting of gay marriage and the lack of a military in Canada. Also, to follow the Canadian model, secularists want to scale back Christmas, but since most people like Christmas just the way it is, we need to fight back to preserve our traditions. Especially since we cannot fight evil without a clear description of right and wrong (the last two sentences are more paraphrased; the former ones are more or less what he said).
Now, this is funny, because how much of Christmas is still about religion? Or is it more about sales now? Also, just because two things coincide doesn't necessarily mean they are cause-and-effect. Moreover, from whom would a Canadian army defend against? A march over the Artic Circle or the US?
Yet the disturbing thing is that (well, disturbing for a liberal anyway) conservatives and Conservatives actually believe him, and that people out there actually, well, believe the hype.
BTW, I learned in history this semester to distinguish between "small-c conservatives", who believe in democracy, capitalism, and a free market system, and "capital-c Conservatives", who believe in centralized government to preserve tradition and morals through regulations. Of course, the regulation of morals would sometimes be counter to the free market, but nonetheless these two conservative groups have united in recent years to form the neo-con government that rules us now. That's a very quick summary of an hour-and-a-half lecture summary of political science.
I just watched a quick scene of The O'Reilly Factor where Mr. O'Reilly stated that the secularists want to forward a progressive agenda, but they know that the progressive cause cannot succeed without first removing religion from the public eye, and from life in general. As an example, he pointed to Canada, where 79% of the populace believed that religion should play a part in public life in 1980, whereas now it's 61%. Also, in 1980 1% of Canadians admitted to having no religion, whereas now it's 16%. This trend coincided with a progressive agenda so now most people are accepting of gay marriage and the lack of a military in Canada. Also, to follow the Canadian model, secularists want to scale back Christmas, but since most people like Christmas just the way it is, we need to fight back to preserve our traditions. Especially since we cannot fight evil without a clear description of right and wrong (the last two sentences are more paraphrased; the former ones are more or less what he said).
Now, this is funny, because how much of Christmas is still about religion? Or is it more about sales now? Also, just because two things coincide doesn't necessarily mean they are cause-and-effect. Moreover, from whom would a Canadian army defend against? A march over the Artic Circle or the US?
Yet the disturbing thing is that (well, disturbing for a liberal anyway) conservatives and Conservatives actually believe him, and that people out there actually, well, believe the hype.
BTW, I learned in history this semester to distinguish between "small-c conservatives", who believe in democracy, capitalism, and a free market system, and "capital-c Conservatives", who believe in centralized government to preserve tradition and morals through regulations. Of course, the regulation of morals would sometimes be counter to the free market, but nonetheless these two conservative groups have united in recent years to form the neo-con government that rules us now. That's a very quick summary of an hour-and-a-half lecture summary of political science.