Decrying most any politician for dishonesty makes about as much sense as drinking for sobriety. If these are my choices, I’m voting for Mickey Mouse again.

One of the biggest problems with people who claim to be “atheists” is their arrogant stance that Christianity is a complete hoax and that anyone who believes anything remotely religious is a complete idiot. They claim religious zealotry and intolerance are their driving force, yet are often even more full of vitriol than those who they oppose, so much so that they attack even moderate and tolerant Christians.

It’s confounding to find many U.S.-based atheists making apologies for religions such as Islam, while obsessively decrying Christianity. There’s also the issue that they’re overwhelmingly Democrats, claiming that Republicans are “all Evangelical Christians” and are “afraid of facts,” yet they refuse to believe the fact that 60% or more of Democrats are just as deeply religious, the fact that there are plenty of Christians who are gay, or the fact that Fred Phelps, the leader of the hate group The Westboro Baptist Church, is, in fact, a Democrat…

If they’re acting like this “for the common good,” as so many say, then at some point, you have to wonder “whose” common good, given their propensity towards pedantic, personal activism. Knowing a few of these types “modern atheists,” I often wonder: “Who’s the bigger zealot?”

But I always come to the same conclusion — hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and a zealot is a zealot, regardless of their religious or political ideology.

     People amaze me these days.
     You say “liberal,” people can’t get it out of their heads that you’re slamming Democrats.  You link to Michelle Malkin because you met her and her husband a couple of times, and supported her in her fight against YouTube for removing her video for no good reason, then, oh, you must be a RepubliCon!

     Here’s another video, dedicated to our troops in Iraq, but has been lambasted with votes on YouTube that the content is Objectionable and Obscene.

     The word “liberal” shouldn’t piss anyone off, but I think people search for it these days so they can show their disdain, and become ever pedantic about things that were commonly broadcast this week.  It amuses me how the word itself refers to an ideal of “free of intolerance and prejudice” when it seems that those who themselves Liberals politically are so not that.

     If I say “liberal groups,” most people have an idea what I mean.  They are groups who adamantly seek reformation in laws regarding their cause, play watchdog to private sector businesses and individuals, and may even have a radical section who choose to reform people by harrassment or violence.
     If I say “conservative groups,” most people have an idea what I mean, as well.  They are groups who protest change, organize protests, and may even have a radical section who choose to reform people by harrassment or violence.
     It is for the latter problem in set of groups why I choose not to align myself with any “group.”

     The terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” with regards to political parties came in their interpretations of our Constitution.  Liberals believe that the Constitution is dynamic, and that it should be updated.  Conservatives believe that the document should be preserved, and that it says what it says.

     These terms have little or nothing to do with “Democrat” or “Republican.”  Either can be Liberal or Conservative, and even liberal or conversative.  There can be conservative Democrats who are Conservatives.  There can be liberal Republicans who are Liberals.  And any mixture in between.

     It’s all twisted.  Considering the twists on both sides, polarizing everything just makes it worse.