John Hinderaker at Powerline critiques an interview with Christiane Amanpour about her new CNN series 'God's Warriors'. He refutes the equivalence of 'Jewish Warriors', 'Muslim Warriors' and 'Christian Warriors', but what I'd like to quote is this:
I think we can diagnose her perception of "fundamentalism" as follows: "fundamentalism" means religion-based beliefs that are antithetical to her own liberal views. Islamic "fundamentalism" is a serious danger in that it encourages terrorist violence that could kill her. The likelihood of that, however, is relatively remote. Christian (and Jewish) fundamentalism doesn't pose any such hazard, but the danger that it does pose is much more immediate: most such "fundamentalists" vote for and support political candidates with whom Amanpour disagrees.The liberal condition is often a puzzle to me. Why would they not want America to beat the head-hackers? Why would they not want nuclear families to thrive? Why would they not admire men who voluntarily risk their lives to protect the rest of us? Why would they not want to protect unborn children? And so on...natural positions that harmonize with a compassionate outlook just don't appeal. This is why: they never grew up. They are fundamentalists of the religion of Me. Their own stimuli determine their worldview, but that worldview has self-regard at its centre so that infantile postures are dissimulated as rational stances - 'Choice' 'Diversity' 'Sexual Liberation' 'Women's Liberation' are code for 'Daddy can't tell me what to do' and Daddy is a more immediate threat than the enemy over the water. The unfunny part is that these permanent adolescents have votes. I would simply disenfranchise non-taxpayers as a starting point to a more adult society. Why should college students or other welfare recipients have a say in how much money another family should be forced to pay them? “Power without responsibility — the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.” Amend 'harlot' to 'liberal.'