If Progressivism Isn't a Religion, Why Does it Sound so Much like One?

As a non-religious person I am one who usually completely rejects dogmatic expressions of adherence. But I wonder if when progressivism is examined, why does it come out looking as if its adherents are indeed the "faithful?"

One of the first tenets of any organized religion is an unquestioning acceptance. I know some do question, but I remember when I was a regular church attendee and I asked some questions. My pastor told me verbatim "There are some things God will not answer and you must accept on faith." I was always puzzled why a Creator would "create" us as such inquisitive creatures and then tell us we must accept "X" on faith. That sure does seem to be quite the contradiction.

Same/same with liberalism. The liberal "faithful" usually go along with their "teachers" dogma. I have engaged so many liberals in asking them to explain why they accept the liberal dogma and their answers usually range from the odd to the imperceptible, generously peppered with an unquestioning acceptance. As often as not the answer is amorphous - "we need to clean up the planet" or "there are so many poor people" and such as that. Do those who answer in such a manner grasp that they haven't really answered the questions I'd asked in any way at all?

Instead their answers intimate that they are liberal because to be other than liberal is to be a contributor to poverty or a dirty planet. It's sorta the "if ya ain't fixing the problem, you're part of the problem." That's BS. If I never litter, waste electricity or fuel and recycle, and demonstrate I am a good steward of my little section of "God's green Earth" then how I am contributing to the bad? The truth is I am not in any way being irresponsible to the planet, but it is exceedingly easy to say since I am a conservative I am a bad person.

Isn't it obvious that conservatism is about preserving the status quo, thus our belief in status quo would by definition mean we favor protecting the planet? I did not inherit a trash filled yard thus I will keep my yard pristine. Isn't this obvious?

When we examine the liberal dogma it is a simpleton's lament - not to say liberals are by definition simpleton's but blind acceptance of any dogma is problematic. When my kid was younger she used to repeat some of the same things her friends would say as if it were gospel. Here in Richmond there is a locally well known property that sits next to a bridge. Anyone crossing the James River from North to South sees the house and everyone who's ever seen it remembers it.

My kid used to call it the "trash house" because her friends all repeated it was constructed of trash. She was about 10 at the time. The reality is the house was owned by an eccentric who built the roof to look like a rocky volcano. Why? Because he was an eccentric! But to a kid - a simple mind if one ever existed - it's the "trash house." See my point? Those who do not question are really easy to enlist.

This is not to say lefties are childlike, but they clearly do not question the things they are told - if they did and were at all concerned about the factual and contextual truth, they would not be on board for all the talking points. Before I blithely accept some "truth" I hear I look int to it to determine it's validity. I would rather be a factually correct conservative than politically correct lefty.

For me personally, I get red-eared when I am shown to be naive. I don't much like that feeling so I avoid it like the plague. My method is to vet what I hear before I repeat it as fact. I am of the belief if we all did that in terms of politics, history and economics, we would be a much more factually based system, and that would eliminate a lot of the falderall of political wrangling.

It's fine to believe in progressive methods and wish for them, but it is a fool's errand to accept what one is told and do so with little if any questioning. And that's where liberalism turns to a religious bent. To blindly accept the oft-repeated mantras of leftism. When the talking points are examined more closely for both facts and context, much of their belief system wilts under the light of a critical eye.

And context cannot be overstated here. For example if I say "My neighbor shot and killed a kid who was breaking into his house," the ENTIRE statement is needed for proper factual context. But a hopeful denigration could be leveled with "My neighbor shot and killed a kid." So, was my second statement FACTUAL? Yes, 100% so. But it is also leaving off the most important part - the context. Without proper factual context an entirely different picture emerges from the second statement, no?

That is the errand of the honest and void of agenda historian, and I proudly count myself one. Truth is truth but without context it is often meaningless.

I am of the opinion that liberalism is lacking context. Sure there are poor people in this land of abundance, but the reality is if one is disabled and poor government and private organizations do a lot to mitigate that. Is it enough? I don't know, and neither do you! But to denigrate an entire nation's Founding and those of us who are strict constructionists is a foul and misguided effort, as well as totally devoid of context. Indeed without context conservatives can be shown as mean and uncaring, but when we add the factual context of a strict constructionist, we see that conservatives are not anything like liberalism tries to paint them.

Context is vital. Without it anything can be made to look askew. I believe many liberals are too quick to accept their dearly held dogma over the facts and proper context. That to me sounds like religion.

To believe anything and accept it on faith has to be some sort of religion. I take almost nothing on faith. I place faith in my close loved ones and little else. I had faith my dearly departed Rottie Samson would never bite me and he never did. I have faith my Mom would never harm me - same for my wife and kids, but beyond that, not so much. Faith requires an unquestioning acceptance and I ain't built like that.

I question everything. I need to know the truth and the context. Lastly let me offer a non-political analogy. The Battle of Thermopylae is where a few hundred soldiers of one army held off 250K enemy soldiers for days. That does not seem factually possible does it? But when we add context - the battle took place in a narrow mountain pass - suddenly it seems more possible, yes? Without proper factual context so much of the meaning of anything is lost.

I am of the firm belief liberalism is built upon a total lack of factual context. The foot soldiers in their army, as Reagan said, ". . . just know so much that isn't so." See my point? Taking anything on faith is dangerous for sure. It is a common tenet of all religion to accept the unacceptable and to do so on faith because without faith the whole system collapses.

Lastly, none of this is an indictment of religion, belief in God or anything else negative with regard to religion and faith. This is merely an effort to show the foolishness of accepting on faith things that if examined, and if there are facts and context available for close scrutiny, it is almost criminal in nature. Belief in a Creator and religion have few "facts" upon which one can base any disagreement, whereas politics and beliefs of liberals, if vetted for the facts and context, can be rather soundly debunked, and quite easily too.

That does not mean lefties will accept said debunking, but their failing acceptance of facts and context means nothing to them, therefore it means nothing to me. If they wish to live in the "coulda, shoulda, woulda," world, that's their call. Fine by me, but to try and shove that nonsense down my throat is the genesis of this article and basically all I do here. When they can prove factually and contextually what they maintain, I might jump on board.