During my entire adult life, those in the political opposition have reflexively attached the racist label if they don’t agree with a view on just about any issue. The label almost never fits, but it is so easy and so comfortable to label the opposition narrow-minded bigots. It is sloppy and illogical, but it is an easy argument to execute (you can never lose if arguing against a discredited racist) and it is validated by so many in Leftist circles. It just has to be true–only it almost never is.
I try to understand the Left’s perspective on matters, so I seek opinions of those who disagree and label me. In the process, I am accused of all manner to things which are not true, but I obtain a better understanding. If we cannot come to some accord, the label is almost always applied–even among family or those who know me well. They simply cannot accept I have legitimate and carefully considered reasons for an opposing view. Years ago, I could debate issues more civilly, without all these elevated emotions. How do they arrive at conclusions that seem so far off-base? Do they come to opinions honestly? Have they correctly interpreted facts? Are they misreading or ignoring key points?
This week, Giorgia Meloni, who talks of the importance of family, God, and national identity, was elected as the Italian Prime Minster. We in the US know little of her, but our Leftist, one channel media apparently can’t give her views any legitimacy, so the immediate claim is “racist” (along with fascist, anti-Semite, anti-feminist, etc.). Look up “Meloni and racism” and a host of articles from American media appear. In the paranoid thinking of our one channel media, anyone successfully promoting God, family, and nation must be stopped. The Left has dug themselves a deep hole with this continual attacks on traditional values, and to stop digging means an admission they might be wrong. Better keep digging instead.
Back in the US, President Biden claims he can work with moderate Republicans like Senator Romney, but “moderate” Mitt Romney was attacked for being racist, misogynist (and a dog-hater) when he threatened the Left as a presidential candidate. Today, he is considered a good Republican, but his conservative values are a mere loin cloth on a Sumo wrestler. Romney slobbered for the job of Trump’s Secretary of State, but all is forgiven by the Left now that he has turned on Trump. Once no longer a threat to the Left, such Republicans can be lauded. Former Republican House leader, Liz Cheney, whose father was vilified for years by the Left and later portrayed as a conservative huckster by Hollywood, is another of the good, moderate Republicans for similar reasons. John McCain was the epitome of bad Republicans when he ran for president, but was feted by the Left upon his death (a dead Republican who preserved the ACA sacred cow can be lauded).
Disavow all conservative tendencies, turn against those you once sided with, and you are praised by one channel media. On the other hand, support basic conservative and not-all-dangerous principles like simple declarations of the importance of God, family, and nationality (go so far as to demand actual borders and barriers to entry, perhaps), and you are immediately pounced upon by Leftist media.
During the last three years, the Left has weaved censorship into its attack. It is an immoral tactic, but nonetheless effective. Practicality wins over morality in this instance. Opponents are first discredited with a label from the basket of deplorables, and then are ignored or shut out. Right on cue this week, You Tube’s censored Ms. Meloni. There was no hesitation before censoring; we know little about her, but she effectively smashed all their hot buttons in just a few words, so they can’t risk her popularity spreading:
They said it’s scandalous for people to defend the natural family founded on marriage, to want to increase the birth rate, to want to place the correct value on human life, to support freedom in education, and to say no to gender ideology.
If her ideas are dangerous, why not let her speak and discredit herself? Because the one channel media does not trust you, its audience, and it must protect you from the allure of such demagogues. Must they continually insist on doing all the thinking for us? It is so annoying. Perhaps, they are also just being practical; they have a better chance of winning by shutting down effective and articulate political opposition. Still, censorship raises hackles and provides more sympathy for figures like Meloni (at least, among those who notice).
I have heard little from Meloni myself, but what I have heard so far is on target. She minces no words in attacking hobby horses:
Meloni slammed surrogacy, which she called “degrading and abusive of women,” late-term abortion, and child gender transition hormone therapy. She called the low birth rate one of the “biggest problems facing Europe”.
Yes, I agree totally. Malthus has been discredited repeatedly since the Industrial Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus); the population bomb predicted in the 1960’s never exploded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb). I agree also the demand for acceptance of any sexually deviant behavior along with the attack on traditional institutions, like family and faith, which by their very existence stand in opposition to today’s never-ending slippery slope, are the underlying contemporary problems. You want to build a better world? Quit talking about climate change which matters not a whit to developing countries (and is much overblown), quit searching for racists behind every tree, and quit demanding no standards for individual behavior in the name of the suspect value of “tolerance”. Update your theories as new information rolls in and quit pressing ideas long after they are disproven; quit pretending we have a president who is actually in control of the country, much less his own basic faculties (I am so embarrassed by this fact). Return your individual lives to supporting basic values which made Western Civilization the greatest ever. Make Western Civilization Great Again (MWCGA)!
Ms. Meloni provides a clear and concise defense of conservative institutions; she does not waste a single word in effectively stating the opposing case. If allowed to make her case in an open environment (like a democratic election in her own country), she might make many converts. OMG! Still, American one-channel media decided its better to shut her down immediately and lock in a bad impression among their followers. Maybe because they see she is the real thing and a grave threat to their power? Truth and reality can still win.
I know nothing more about this woman other than these words which have been shared by many the last few days. Her clarity and directness in attacking the real problems we face is refreshing. Few politicians have the willingness to state the case so clearly. I have been disappointed by many politicians who sounded good initially but fizzled later, so I want to hear more from her before elevating her further. I want to see what she actually does as a leader. I also want the Left to stop censoring her and give her a fair shake (fat chance of that).
Faith is the “Problem”
The real problem, from the Left’s perspective, is Meloni’s willingness to discuss matters important to those of faith and traditional values. Their own lack of faith leads to downright irreligious, prejudicial, and immoral attacks on religious institutions and people who promote such values. As I engage folks on the Left recently, they also do not hesitate to declare my faith as the problem.
The environment is far different today than it was even a few years ago. Many on the Left remain religious, but polls show an increasing divide among the political parties, with those of faith far more prevalent on the Right. Any view which hints I am person of faith or my own views might align with the views of my Church, my faith instantly becomes the reason for my backward (i.e non-progressive) views.
The standard and inaccurate, knee-jerk “ism” attacks still come, but faith has become their new hobby horse. My critics know little of my personal views or the role faith plays in my life, but any whiff of faith is enough to instantly discredit me. They label folks like me as superstitious people hopelessly waiting for a miracle. We are stupid for believing in fairy tales. Religion has been sufficiently discredited among enough people these days, that the label becomes an effective counter.
Gallup first asked this question in 1944, repeating it again in 1947 and twice each in the 1950s and 1960s. In those latter four surveys, a consistent 98% said they believed in God. When Gallup asked the question nearly five decades later, in 2011, 92% of Americans said they believed in God.
The overall drop of belief in God from 98% to 81%, is significant. Believing in God, no matter your religion, used to be a commonality that united the country. The big gap between Liberals and Conservatives (94% vs 62%) also stands out.
There is no doubt in the minds of liberals I engage that conservatives are imposing religion on them. We are no different than those who instituted the Spanish Inquisition or instigated wars in the name of religion. Apparently, we would do the same today if we only could. I have been taken aback by this line of attack. I have never thought to impose my faith on another, nor do I support others who do. Evangelization means to bring the word of God and its hope to others, but it has never meant to compel another to believe (despite what some may have mistakenly believed in the past). As Mother Teresa said this is not between you and me. I am merely a messenger; I follow my conscience in an attempt to enlighten you. If you don’t wish to be enlightened, I shake the dust my feet and go to the next town. It is no longer my problem.
Give the world the best you have,
and it may never be enough.
Give the best you’ve got anyway.
in the final analysis it is between you and God;
it was never between you and them anyway.
I recently read a post about John Gibbs, a Republican running for Congress. It was written by one who declares herself progressive and not-at-all religious. She tells us Gibbs expressed the following many years ago:
As a student at Stanford University in the early 2000s, Gibbs founded a self-described “think tank” called the Society for the Critique of Feminism.
The views expressed (further quoted in the post) do seem problematic, although modern feminism (not the feminism of Susan B. Anthony) does indeed have many problems. As with Meloni, I knew nothing more of Gibbs before last week, so I went to his campaign site to learn more.
I agree with the views expressed on his current page; however, campaign snippets do not provide the full measure of the man. All politicians echo themes popular among their base; the real test is support for them once in office. Furthermore, problematic language as a student twenty years ago is not definitive in defining Gibbs today. Still, for this blogger and her audience, Gibbs is just a crazy religious person. Religious folks are all the same apparently. It doesn’t matter if the comments quoted are not aligned with my Church’s views, my own views, and frankly the views of all I know within my Church.
These two insist those of us influenced by our faith are not only stupidly following fairy tales, but we are also dangerous:
Religion is the single most dangerous thing man has ever invented. Just look at history. It says it all.
I am 100% agreement with you on that!!
I was compelled to respond to such parochial and prejudicial comments, not because I am attempting to impose my religion, but because I must defend what is good and true.
I am not defending these comments by Gibbs, but your comment is problematic as well.
He seems to have much misunderstanding of Christian teaching. He also has a rather anachronistic view of the world. The Bible talked about the world as it was in its day. It should not be applied so literally to today as if the circumstances are exactly the same today.
The article also said it was written when he was a student. I didn’t hear what he thinks today.
I don’t agree with his critique of feminism nor with what you said either. You are painting all religious folks with the same brush: this is what you get from religion and religious folks; you can’t fix these people; etc. What is the purpose of such comments other than to get pats on the back from those agree with you? This type of comment only makes the conversation worse. Much commentary in the past on this blog discusses the need for national unity and reform. How does this facilitate that?
A man in North Dakota ran down and killed a Republican “extremist”, a teenager, with his car last week. He got in a political debate with this man and then killed him shortly after. At his court hearing, he seemed to have trouble understanding why his life should be changed because of this action. This is the kind of thing that happens to ordinary people when they fail to see the humanity in others. Dangerous rhetoric leads to people holding de-humanizing views about others; certain individuals, like the North Dakota man, cannot rationally respond to such rhetoric. He is the extreme example, and I am sure not representative of folks like you, but still you should not dismiss religion so blithely and so completely.
Two things can be true at once: 1) Gibbs words (from twenty years ago) are not representative of the overwhelming majority of Christian’s views and should not be assumed to be so. If he still believes these things, I wouldn’t vote for him, and 2) Your comment about religion having no value is also very radical and prejudicial; it accomplishes no good.
I don’t condone either statement.
However, what if you are wrong about God? Would that not be a tragic failing? St. Thomas Aquinas provided five proofs for the existence of God. Did you even know? Would you even consider them or chalk them up as more fairy tales?
In another comment I said I consider myself both MAGA (which for me means exactly what is says: believing in the greatness of America) and Christian. I received this response:
You said: “I am a Christian and I believe in MAGA”
So what is one to think? I don’t mind the Christian part, but you can’t be a Christian and support Trump. It’s simply not possible.
Why not? I cannot be a Christian and vote for a politician you don’t endorse? This seems a silly interpretation from you who doesn’t practice Christianity yourself. You want nothing to do with Christianity, but you tell me how I should behave as a Christian? I need to be the kind of Christian you want me to be?
I know Trump is problematic for many, but every politician has some failings. I didn’t agree with many positions Trump took and many things he said and did. I also recognized character flaws. Yet, I can still vote for someone who I don’t fully agree with. I do have lines I won’t cross, but on balance I liked the job he did. I don’t like the politicians you vote for, yet I allow we have differences of opinions. I don’t say you can’t be a liberal and vote for someone I don’t like. Please, find the humanity in all of us.
Such criticisms are continual. A conversation often begins as political, not religious, yet at some point I am told my Christian beliefs are corrupting my views on the matter. I simply express my opinion, yet because that opinion might be influenced by my Christian beliefs, my views are considered problematic. I cannot keep my Christianity separate from all else in my life. LGBTQ(LMNOP) folks daily make their lifestyles central to their politics. Christians must somehow be different? Why?
My criticism can be summarized this way: these folks continually promote diversity with regard to identity (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), but there is little tolerance for diversity of opinion. These folks and I have starkly different opinions, but that sort of diversity is not celebrated as it is in other instances.
One More Critic
I engaged in an extensive discussion with another calling himself a professor on this same post. He quotes the founding fathers, and implies they were more aligned with today’s views of the increasingly non-religious Left rather than the more religious Right. He quotes the Bible extensively and says he was also a seminarian at one point in his life, so he is well-versed in religious teachings. He has moved beyond the simple-mindedness of religion that folks like me are still trapped in.
A series of posts is needed for all the criticisms received, including an entire one for the professor’s lengthy arguments. Interestingly, the professor too said the following:
You cannot vote for Trump and be a Christian. I suppose you can vote for others and be a Christian. Personally, I have a hard time seeing how a Christian, or one of my faith, can vote for a politician who supports abortion.
Again, why can’t a Christian vote for Trump (millions did)? As you see, this is common theme among my critics.
I do agree with the professor that a pro-abortion view is a red-line. Still, that doesn’t mean I condemn those who support abortion. It does not mean I want to punish those who have had abortions or support abortion via the political process. It doesn’t mean I want to compel them to change their minds. I might even vote for an abortion supporter if that person is aligned with me on many other issues. After all, very few have the strict “life begins at conception” point of view I espouse (I definitely avoid those who would end life at 40 weeks). As Mother Teresa said the issue is between thee and God. Please do not condemn me for voting for Trump or some other politician you find problematic.
The professor is also of the mind that Republicans want to impose their religious views on everyone else; he believes the Right’s ultimate goal is to turn the USA into a theocracy. However, the Republican politicians that religious conservatives have helped to elect often won’t even support the issues which matter to us, the folks in their own base. The professor believes these weak-kneed politicians, who are mainly interested in getting elected (and not so interested in solving problems), are going to make enemies of both the Left and the Right by imposing a theocracy? I just don’t see it. He is convinced nonetheless: we want a theocracy to force the whole country to live by our own religious values.
Do I demand others perform the sign of the Cross? Do I demand they confess sins to the nearest Catholic priest? Do I demand they follow the rituals of my faith? No, to all of these. We have so many different religions in America today that this notion makes no sense. Many politicians talk about their own values, but they are appealing to folks with similar values, not compelling others to do anything against their will.
The professor summarizes his main argument in this way:
Therefore, to conclude, obviously by our nation’s Charters of Freedom, our Core Founding Fathers public and private views, and past SCOTUS decisions, “too much religion” is indeed a bad thing for all peoples’ belief-systems, especially if only or too much Judeo-Christian. And a lack of it/them—within tolerance, as defined by Thomas Paine—is actually a very good and stable thing!
In my next post, I will cover the detail of our discussion. His points need to be heard and rebutted. We need to show where he and other Leftists have gone astray.
3 thoughts on “Giorgia Meloni and Defending Faith and Values”
Thank you for your post. I know little about Meloni but she was at least passionate and hit hard at some of the lies directed at her and her party. I believe that Italy will come out of the EU next year or at least vote to leave. Certainly things are starting to look that way.
I see you have been to Jill Dennison’s site. She is a bigot and hypocrite but how she ended up like that is difficult to assess. She has had to raise children on her own, but so have others without becoming like her.
I tried to tell her about the vaccines and that they were pointless at best and would be harmful or deadly at worst (not my exact words). She didn’t believe me and I had the drug addled mentally disturbed Rawgod attack me on her site, despite the fact I hadn’t addressed him on the matter.
She even seems to have undergone treatment under doctors which has caused problems yet she trusts the vaccines . Unbelievable.
I don’t think I have engaged her on other matters but I have read with incredulity her bias and vitriol towards Donald Trump with no balanced assessment of the Democrats flaws, let alone Sleepy Joe the puppet manipulated by the evil forces behind the scenes.
I am sorry to say I think she is a very unpleasant woman, although there are probably those who are far worse. She entertains many commentators who are also very biased and bigoted.
I sometimes wonder if the medications people take causes mental breakdown of their faculties. It is very sad. And I think they may well have taken narcotics when young -not that most big pharma drugs are any better.