Progressive Liberals Are The Pharisees And Sadducees Of Modernity In America

Liberals love to castigate conservatives by labels such as “fascist” and “pharisiacal.”  But in both cases, they are actually looking into a mirror when they point their finger and hurl out that label.

First, allow me to make a very important distinction between “progressive liberalism” and “classical liberalism.”

Here is classical liberalism:

Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy.[1][2][3]

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[4] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[5] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the free-market economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,[6] utilitarianism,[7] and progress.[8]

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[9]

With that understanding, the fact of the matter is that conservatives are the inheritors of classical liberalism.  We are the ones who want limited government under the rule of law with a laissez-faire economic policy.  The progressive liberals who dominate today are the “social liberals” whom we can now accurately call “socialist liberals.”

Liberalism is good in the classical sense; it is truly evil in the socialist sense.

I have many times asked liberal Democrats to explain how they disavow Karl Marx’s central defining statement of economic Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  To this day I have never received a response.

But I understand that our liberals are not honest people and will not wear the label “socialist” no matter how much it applies to them and to their purpose in establishing a giant totalitarian government that increasingly centrally plans the economy.  So I’ll call them “progressive liberals” instead.

The word “progressive” helps us understand Obama’s prophecy that his administration would “fundamentally transform America.”  That’s what they want: to reshape America not in the founding fathers’ image, but in their own self-image.

I have described liberals as trying to establish “Government as God.”   It is also called “statism.”  Here’s another way to put it: Who is your Savior? Do you turn to the God of the Bible – Who actually rather specifically warned man against big government – to provide to you?  Or do you want to turn to your government to meet your needs?  Our coins say, “In God we trust,” and progressive liberals have been trying to stomp that nonsense out for decades.  Because they trust in human government, not in God.

Here let me again cite Karl Marx.  In one of his most famous statements, after first stating that man invented religion, Marx said:

“Religion is … the opium of the people.  The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.”

Aside from the obvious fact that it is the Democrat Party who removed God from their party’s platform and cynically and frankly illegitimately put Him back in to a loud chorus of boos by the Democratic National Convention, aside from the fact that it is the Democrat Party that is at open war with religious freedom in America today, what did Karl Marx mean by this statement?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the economic haves and the economic have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today by the Democrat Party and by progressive liberals who energize that party.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves, in both Marx’s and Democrats’ understanding.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and taking what is theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, they were happy in their religion, which had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Since religion is an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

And how is the Democrat Party today not arguing the same damn case that Marx made?

As we shall see, this is important.  Marx’s anti-God message has been supplanted by a cynical Democrat Party who has replaced God with a flagrantly anti-God ideology (e.g., homosexual marriage and abortion) while dishonestly refusing to acknowledge that they did so.

The message of Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party is not the message of Jesus Christ, who most assuredly did not come to earth to either make Caesar’s government larger or to replace him with another version of big human government totalitarian tyranny.  The message of the former is that the poor should be angry and rise up to seize what is rightfully there’s either by vote or by force; the message of the latter was for the poor to be cheerful and content in the God Who watched over them and to trust in Him for His provision.

It’s interesting what does not happen when Jesus says, “Show me a coin.”  What Jesus does NOT say is that giving to Caesar (human government) is the same thing as giving to God.  Jesus makes a very clear contrast between the two.  Which do you want to empower?  Which do you want to give to?  Giant totalitarian human government, or God?  I want to give more to God; liberals want to stop me and force me instead to give more to government.

So why do I call the progressive liberals the “Pharisees and Sadducees” of modern America?

Well, first understand who the Pharisees and Sadducees were.  The Sadducees were the secular branch of Judaism.  They did not believe in a resurrection or an afterlife; they were the closest things to secular humanists or atheists in their day.  And thanks to the Romans the Sadducees largely controlled the lucrative Temple and the money and political clout that went along with it.  The Pharisees were a group who had the people behind them because they were the champions of the Law.  And yet they were no longer using the Law of Moses as their guide; they had long since turned to the Mishnah, which they considered “a hedge around the Law.”

Basically, the Pharisees piled laws on top of laws on the backs of the people that had nothing to do with the Word of God.  That’s what Jesus rails on them for in Matthew 23.  When I hear Jesus say, “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger,” I think of Barack Obama taking away guns from parents’ while his own family will be safely protected by men with guns for their entire lives.  I think of the liberals like Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner who put people in prison for not paying their taxes when he himself was a tax cheat.  I think of Jesus’ takedown of the most vile human beings in the world of His day – government-power-seeking thugs who used the law to exploit and burden the people – and I think of the Democrat Party and the stubborn ass that is its symbol.

If you broke the laws as handed down by the Pharisees and Sadducees, you were punished by the system.  With the full weight of the government backing that system.

Which is the same thing the progressive liberals who run the Temple of big government do.  They burden the people with taxes and regulations and laws and tell the people that thinking like them is the only way to be a good person.

Pharisees and Sadducees had different agendas, but John the Baptist said they were both the same in their hostility to God and called them both “a brood of vipers” (Matthew 3:7).  Jesus also lumped them together (Matthew 5:17).  Both exploited the Law to get what they wanted and to burden and oppress those whom they wanted to burden and oppress.

In Jesus’ day, when you talked about “the law” it connoted the religious laws.  But our progressive liberals today talk about the law, the law the law every bit as much with every bit as much of an intent to impose their will on the people they are determined to dominate and rule over.  I can assure you that there are a LOT more laws that have been erected in the United States than there ever were in the Mishnah – as burdensome and unjust as that was.

Democrats are the Pharisees and the Sadducees of American culture today.  They are the priests of big government who demand more and more control the laws and by controlling the laws they exploit and burden the American people.  They erect more and more and more onerous and burdensome and loathsome laws and force us to abide by them or be punished.

By the way, Jesus did a lot of denouncing of the scribes, too.  Who were they?  They were the lawyers of the day.

Just look at which party the lawyers of our day support and which party has a buttload of system-manipulating lawyers, and my case is made complete.

The scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees murdered Jesus in his day.  They are murdering America in our own.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

14 Responses to “Progressive Liberals Are The Pharisees And Sadducees Of Modernity In America”

  1. genomega1 Says:

    Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
    Progressive Liberals Are The Pharisees And Sadducees Of Modernity In America

  2. Gunny G Says:


  3. Dog Walker Says:

    Hey! I am kind of liberal. Or at least I was when I was like maybe 18 or so.

  4. Matt Says:

    And along that same line of thinking, Dog W:

    “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”


  5. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks, Gunny G.

    Appreciate the note. Keep on blogging.

  6. Michael Eden Says:


    Thanks for the nod. You keep on blogging, too.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    Dog Walker,

    When I was in college, I would have been whatever it took me to be in order to get with that pretty girl. So I hereby consider you excused of your former crimes by reason of temporary insanity. That’s my excuse, anyway.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Matt (and Dog Walker),

    Yeah! What Churchill said!

  9. Dog Walker Says:

    Whatever it took to get the pretty girl… Heck, I was even a Scientologist for two or three weeks. But hey, that was back when some of them were pretty.

  10. truthunites Says:

    If you broke the laws as handed down by the Pharisees and Sadducees, you were punished by the system. With the full weight of the government backing that system.

    Which is the same thing the progressive liberals who run the Temple of big government do. They burden the people with taxes and regulations and laws and tell the people that thinking like them is the only way to be a good person.

    So true, so true. Thanks for tying a clear connection between the Pharisees of Jesus’ time and the (Socialist) Liberals of today.

    And the Libs of today are both secular liberals and theological liberals (LibProts, LibCats, and Lib EO’s). What I’ve often observed is that theological liberals are enablers, aiders-and-abetters to secular liberals, and it often seems that politics and culture drives their theology.

    In contrast, theological conservatives have their politics driven by their theology.

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    Whatever it took to get the pretty girl… Heck, I was even a Scientologist for two or three weeks.

    Dog Walker,

    Okay. You just won the “who really did whatever it took to get the pretty girl?” contest.

    From now on, you may say the coveted words, “I did whatever it took to get the pretty girl” whereas I, in my shame, can henceforth only say, “I’d do a lot more than nothing to get the pretty girl.”

    I still see lot’s of pretty girls walking around. It’s one of those ways I know that God is good.

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    What I’ve often observed is that theological liberals are enablers, aiders-and-abetters to secular liberals, and it often seems that politics and culture drives their theology.


    I affirm that your observation is correct. And I’ll explain why it is correct.

    First of all, theological liberals have largely abandoned the integrity of God’s Word and clouded their unbelief in academic phraseology. Is God’s Word true? It depends what you mean by “true,” they’ll tell you before edlessly equivocating. Is God’s Word historically reliable? Absolutely not, they’ll tell you. Can God’s Word be read and understood literally? Only by idiots, they’ll say. Did any of the key events in the Bible happen as the Bible described them? Nope. Does God do actual miracles? Nope. Did Jesus physically rise from the dead? Nope. Do ANY theological liberals to this day have anything other than contempt for the state of Israel? Heavens no.

    Their theology is greatly shaped by moral relativism packaged as “tolerance.”

    One of the key things that led to Germany’s ultimate embrace of Nazism in the 20th century was cancerous theological liberalism in the last half of the nineteenth century leading right to the collapse of Nazi Germany. If you look at ALL the famous theologians in Germany during that time period, they were ALL theological liberals. Some examples include Carl Friedrich Keil and Friedrich Delitzsch. Their commentary on the Old Testament is still standard theological liberal faire to this very day. And yet Delitzsch in particular held proto-Nazi views: his liberal theology so detached itself from Jews or Israel that he literally propounded that there was absolutely no link between the Old Testament (Judaism) and Jesus’ mentality (Christianity). And in his own words, he “contended that Christianity is an absolutely new religion, totally distinct from that of the Old Testament.”

    Another liberal German theologican who is still powerful over modern theological liberalism is Julian Wellhausen, who came up with a technique to attack the Bible called “Documentary Hypothesis.” First the German liberals wrecked the underpinnings of God in Germany and spread their moral relativism and their atheism and their existentialism, and then Nazism had fertile soil in which to spread. Ideas have consequences, and liberalism is a poisonous idea.

    I’ll tell you what: name me ONE Chistian denomination that is dispensational and theologically or politically liberal. No one could name ONE. I will be able to name DOZENS of liberal denominations that refuse even after the miracle of 1948 to see God turning again to the Jews or the Jews or Israel having any place in God’s plan. And most of these liberal denominations have repeatedly denounced the state of Israel in their public statements.

    Turn on a conservative preacher like John Haggee and see what he has to say about Israel, by contrast.

    As a result of ethical/moral relativism, philosophical postmodernism and physical naturalism, theological liberals have absolutely NO foundation for anything like the God of the Bible.

    And that is what is lacking in liberalism: a foundation.

    Which is why any of the mainline liberal denominations and much of the Catholic Church in America is very little different from the ACLU agenda.

  13. Dog Walker Says:

    tolerance… If there is anything positive to say about Scientology, it is that they consider homosexuality to be an aberration. At least they used to anyway. Contrast that with the modern liberal. I was acquainted with several women that insisted that bi-sexuality was the norm. Ugh. Liberals can’t even figure out which gender to have romance with. Not only do they despise truth, they despise beauty. But nevermind that. I don’t know that I can make a tactful presentation of any of those examples.

  14. Michael Eden Says:

    Dog Walker,

    I hate to be crude, but it was comic Sam Kinneson who basically said, “I can’t understand how one man can look at another man’s hairy, sweaty ass and say, ‘I love you.'”

    Bi-sexuality may indeed be the norm, only in an incredibly perverted and depraved world. And if I’m going to have to say anything nice about homosexuals, it is that at least they had the basic decency to make up their minds.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: