On Oedipal fire

Jonah Goldberg rips it up:

There’s no time here to dismantle fully the edifice of condescension and ignorance constructed by Maher and Smiley (I put Dowd in a different category). But what offends them so much about religion is that it is a source of authority outside — and prior to — politics. What has offended the Left since Marx, and American liberalism since Dewey, is the notion that moral authority should be derived from anyplace other than the state or “the people” (conveniently defined as citizens who vote liberal). Voting on values not sanctified by secular priests is how they define “ignorance.” This was the real goal of Hillary Clinton’s “politics of meaning” — to replace traditional religion with a secular one that derived its authority not from ancient texts and “superstitions” but from the good intentions of an activist state and its anointed priests. Shortly before the election, Howell Raines fretted that the worst outcome of a Bush victory would be the resurgence of “theologically based cultural norms” — without even acknowledging the fact that “theologically based cultural norms” gave us everything from the printing press and the newspaper to the First Amendment he claims to be such a defender of.

I’m always interested to hear people who believe in nothing trying to explain why someone else SHOULD behave in a certain manner. Tell me again why I shouldn’t blow your head off since there is no God, no good and evil, no right and wrong? Oh, because it would be non-utilitarian if everyone were to behave so, and you’ve constructed a rational structure in your head which, um, doesn’t have anything to do with me? BOOM!