About a month ago, I wrote an article which I highly encouraged liberals to share with as many conservatives as possible. It was basically my take on a lot of right-wing ignorance I see coming from conservatives. But in my efforts to keep it from being a 20 page dissertation on the blatant avoidance of reality by many who support the Republican Party, I didn’t include everything.
So I’ve decided to do a Part 2.
In my first article I covered topics like gun rights, same-sex marriage, Christian values, conservatives for “small, fiscally conservative government,” abortion, the debt ceiling and tax cuts. If you didn’t get to read that one, I’d highly encourage you to click this link and check it out.
I know that often when debating conservatives you can’t say certain things because they’re friends or family, which is why I decided to do articles such as this one—I’m going to say them for you.
I’ll start with a topic that’s been in the news a lot lately:
I’ll make this simple. If you voted for a man who sent over 5,000 Americans to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan (that’s not even counting the thousands who are permanently disabled or the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi and Afghan civilians), then was President during 11 different terrorist attacks on American embassies, stop pretending to be “outraged” over 4 American deaths in Libya.
And if you really can’t see that Republicans are only pretending to care about Benghazi because they need something to attack Hillary Clinton with in 2016—you’re completely blind.
The Second Amendment and an “Armed Revolution Against Tyranny”
Answer me this—if the Second Amendment is meant to arm citizens for a possible revolution against the government, why does Article Three Section 3 of the United States Constitution state: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Wouldn’t an armed revolt constitute “levying war” against the United States? Meaning that those arming themselves for a possible “revolution” are not patriots, but in fact—traitors?
Spending on National Defense
This goes along with the “armed revolution” the Second Amendment apparently supports. The same party which has millions of supporters who believe our Second Amendment gives citizens the right to rise up against the “tyrannical federal government,” is also the party which often supports hundreds of billions of dollars in new defense spending to better equip the United States military—which is controlled by the federal government. I can’t be the only one who finds this a little ironic.
Nothing quite like preparing for the “second coming of the revolution” while supporting massive defense spending that ensures the “tyrannical government” you’ll be trying to overthrow is as well equipped as possible to squash your “rebellion” (which will probably consist of arsenals supplied by guns bought at the local Walmart).
One Nation “Under God”
In this article I went over how our pledge wasn’t written until the late-1800’s. Not only that, it was written by a Christian socialist (a minister at that) and the words “under God” were not included in the original text. In fact, it wasn’t until 1954, in a response to the fear of communism, that the words “under God” actually appear in our Pledge of Allegiance.
And I also challenge any Republican to show me where the word “Christianity” appears even once in our Constitution.
This is the point conservatives seem unable to understand. Prohibiting you from denying other Americans their rights doesn’t take away from yours—it just prevents you from taking away theirs.
Here are a couple of examples:
- Same-sex marriage: Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn’t take away your right to marry, it just takes away your right to prevent homosexuals from marrying.
- Abortion: Giving women the right to choose for themselves what to do with their own body doesn’t mean you have to have an abortion, it just means you can’t prevent them from having one.
- Freedom of/from religion: Saying Congress can’t pass laws based on religion doesn’t mean you can’t practice your religion as much as you want privately, it just means you can’t force your religion on someone else.
See the difference? For most conservatives, probably not.
I also wrote an article where I stated Christianity was the issue Republicans really don’t get. They seem to think owning a Bible and Sunday church attendance makes someone a Christian.
But I hate to break it to you—just because you go to church, know a few select passages from the Bible and call yourself a Christian doesn’t mean you are one.
Being a Christian means you believe in Jesus Christ, and follow his teachings. Jesus lived a life that taught us to love, forgive, accept and help those less fortunate than ourselves. He warned against greed, those who use the word of God for their own selfish ambitions and said that we shouldn’t judge others unless we can’t be judged ourselves.
If you really think Jesus would value guns over people and giving more to the wealthy at the expense of the poor—you’re damn sure not a Christian.
I’ll wrap it up there. I really could keep going, which means it looks like I’ll just have to do a Part 3.
But I highly encourage any liberal/progressive/Democrat (or anyone that’s simply sick of right-wing rhetoric) to share this article, so that those who’ve driven you to the brink of insanity when discussing these issues can see a simple counter to their Fox News-fed bullcrap.