Dana Loesch Brings the Crazy

Dana Loesch Brings the Crazy February 12, 2012

Wingnut Dana Loesch, who is a CNN contributor, spews some serious crazy in this clip from her radio show. Liberals, you see, are trying to “tear apart” the country, just like Nazi Germany and “mother Russia.” She makes this idiotic argument that because the Declaration of Independence says that individual rights are “endowed by their creator,” she trusts God to protect our rights rather than man.

This country is liberated by faith, and faith alone … It is a country that recognizes that the dominion of man, the dominion of man’s rights, are placed under the divine. Do you trust man? I don’t trust man at all. We are inherently selfish, sinful creatures. As much as I may like you and as close as we may be, I will never trust a single one of you more than I trust God, ever. And that’s what our founding fathers knew. And that’s why when this country was founded, our rights were placed under the control of the divine, not under control of man.

Okay Dana, can you find me a single verse in the Bible in support of religious or political liberty? Nope, you can’t. I can find lots and lots of verses against those concepts. You can’t find a single one in favor of them. Can you find a single example of a Christian government that respected religious or political liberty in the nearly 1800 years before our constitution was written? Nope, you can’t. Funny, that.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Brandon

    I’m left amazed at what echo chambers these people must live their lives in to never hear a single person of the opposite political persuasion that they find to just substantively disagree with them on policy. Certainly, I’ve fallen into the same trap at times with regards to conservatives – their policies appear so obviously destructive and outright stupid to me that it’s hard to believe that they’re even attempting to make them honestly. Despite this, I’ve encountered conservatives who seem to really, truly believe what they’re saying and are advocating for what they really think is best for the country (of course, their positions are demonstrably not good for the country, but that’s beside the point). Unless your opponent explicitly demonstrates mendacity and malice, why not operate by Hanlon’s Razor?

  • Chiroptera

    God sure did a pretty lousy job of protecting black Americans’ rights for most of the history of this country.

    I’m just sayin’….

  • tripencrypt

    Or Native Americans or women.

  • dingojack

    God seems to only good at endowing rich white men

    Dingo

  • Which branch of government is Jesus?

  • Sastra

    How do you “trust in God” without first trusting in Man? After all, it’s not as if God’s existence, nature, will, and rules are obvious and clear to everybody, so that there can be no misunderstandings or interpretations getting in the way of objective knowledge on this subject. In fact, I would say that there’s nothing more subjective than what we “know” by faith — a faith involving invisible, immaterial, untestable supernatural essences derived from intuitions. Beliefs about God go all over the board, unchecked.

    Look around the world, for crying out loud. Get the hell out of your own head. You’re not living in a story where you get to call dibs on being both the omniscient narrator and the main character.

    So what happens then is that the unqualified trust you place in God ends up coming right down on the heads of God’s interpreter(s): you first, of course — and then the gurus, priests, ministers, holy men, and prophets you place your trust in. If you think a government is being guided by God then disobedience to the government becomes disobedience to God.

    Yeah, that works.

    How could they not see this? How could someone like Dana Loesch not realize that — even if it really exists — “God” is STILL the sort of thing that needs and requires the flawed, earthly interpretations of human beings? Religion is never an obvious way to settle questions involving disputes in the world. Giving power to God just gives power to yourself: you can’t borrow infallibility from God.

    Neither can you borrow God’s invisibility. You don’t get to humble yourself to the point that you disappear, and your voice is now the same as God’s. And the same applies to governments who tell you about how you need to understand God the right way.

    Dangerous way of thinking.

  • lordshipmayhem

    I’m thinking of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. They are hardly hotbeds of liberty, despite worshiping exactly the same God-being that the Christian and Hebrew faiths do.

    I think Ms. Loesch has to re-examine her hypothesis. It seems to suffer from a bad case of “demonstrable falseness”

  • Sastra seriously FTW. A perfect response.

  • anandine

    It is interesting that there is a reference to religious tolerance in the Koran(109:6)

    Say (O Muhammad), “O you who disbelieve!

    I do not worship what you worship!

    Nor do you worship Whom I worship!

    Nor shall I worship whom you worship,

    Nor will you worship Whom I worship.

    Unto you be your religion and unto me my religion”

  • peterh

    The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. The Constitution is the law of the land and does not mention any god.

  • Is this the Dana who abets encourages and conspires with James O’Keefe?

    If so, what is she doing on CNN?

    But even if not, what is she doing on CNN?

  • exdrone

    They did a mock Congress as a trial divine government, but it ended in factionalism and paralysis. God was too right wing as the President, Jesus the House leader kept fighting him on liberal issues, and the Holy Ghost Senate never seemed to be there when it came time to pass bills. Then when they tried to find a Press Secretary, the applicants were all fundamentalist wingnuts who kept misrepresenting their message. I guess humans will just have to accept moral responsibility for their own governance. *Sigh*

  • Michael Heath

    Dana Loesch:

    This country is liberated by faith, and faith alone.

    Wow, talk about denialism. Here she denies the Revolutionary War.

  • Michael Heath, I’m guessing you forgot when Gen. George Washington saw smoke rising and knew that King George III’s god was “a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy…it is a demonic spirit over the city of Saratoga…”.

  • Michael Heath

    peterh:

    The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. The Constitution is the law of the land and does not mention any god.

    The Declaration of Independence sets a standard in assessing legitimate governance the context of humans owning their rights which are not granted by government. When published it was an argument on what a legitimate government looked like and acted like. I think this standard remains workable today (though its argument can certainly be improved upon). One can also be an atheist and easily rely on this document as a workable standard to make such assessments. I.e., that our rights are inalienable where we understand the creator to be a workable artifice for the laws of nature.

    Dana Loesch’s premises regarding the Declaration of Independence are false. I see no merit in our avoiding the DofI and a lot of merit in referencing the standards set forth in the DofI since conservatives Christians are the biggest opponent of governing to the standards set forth in the DofI, e.g., equal rights, liberty to pursue happiness, etc. Therefore I suggest we fisk her falsehoods rather than concede the DofI to such wingnuts.

  • bybelknap

    You guys obviously have never heard of the book of Madison, one of the lost books of the Bible. It tells of how 2000 years ago a merchant middle class revolted against a tyrant king, and created a democratic republic, right in the middle of Goshen. Or was it Sinai?

  • raven

    This country is liberated by faith, and faith alone.

    Wow, talk about denialism. Here she denies the Revolutionary War.

    Really. I always thought it was men with guns that drove the British away. Oddly enough, the British were the same religion as the colonists, most of whom were…British descended.

    For all the christofascist’s talk about how our democratic form of government is based on jesus, the bible, and faith, they sure spend a huge amount of time trying to destroy it. A lot of them are Dominionists who openly hate democracy and openly want to overthrow our government and set up a theocratic dictatorship.

  • raven

    There is nothing democractic about or in the bible.

    It was used for centuries to justify the Divine Right of Kings.

    Democracy isn’t mentioned at all. Communism is mentioned in the NT after jesus gets killed. As a good thing.

  • slc1

    Re Modusoperandi @ #14

    Just for the record, Washington was no where near Saratoga during the battle. The battle was fought and won by the colonists under the command of General Horatio Gates and General Benedict Arnold.

  • peterh

    @ #15:

    I don’t “concede” the DoI to anyone, and would never argue it does not contain valuable precepts of the American

    Experiment. But the guarantees and protection of my freedoms, hopefully, are in the Constitution. They are certainly not in the supernatural.

    @ #17:

    A goodly number of those in the New England colonies were there, or descended from those who came there, specifically because of distaste for the Anglican Church.

  • slc1 “Re Modusoperandi @ #14 Just for the record, Washington was no where near Saratoga during the battle. The battle was fought and won by the colonists under the command of General Horatio Gates and General Benedict Arnold.”

    Lies! Next you’re going to try to convince us that Washington didn’t cross the Delaware on a dolphin!

  • dan4

    @18: “Communism is mentioned in the NT after jesus gets killed. As a good thing.”

    Citation needed (especially since I doubt that the word “communism” was even in existence during biblical times).

  • Chiroptera

    peterh, #20: A goodly number of those in the New England colonies were there, or descended from those who came there, specifically because of distaste for the Anglican Church.

    Especially their distaste for the Anglican policy of not kicking out those who were not sufficiently radical Protestant.

    Don’t know whether this supports your point or raven’s or is a different tangent.

  • dan4 “Citation needed (especially since I doubt that the word ‘communism’” was even in existence during biblical times).”

    Acts 2 and 4, generally.

  • redmann

    anandine @9 According to the Skeptics Annotated Koran there are over 500 statements against non believers, most mentioning fire and hell.

  • raven

    Citation needed (especially since I doubt that the word “communism” was even in existence during biblical times).

    It’s been given already.

    The word “communism” wasn’t in use probably, but the idea was not only there but practiced by the early xians according to the magic book.

    The fact that they didn’t use a modern English word is pretty irrelevant. The bible wasn’t written in English and they didn’t speak English.

    The words “trinity”, “original sin”, and “Easter” aren’t in the bible either even as translations into the ancient languages.

  • raven

    The Puritans were anti-Anglican but they were only part of New England and they didn’t last that long.

    But don’t forget there were 13 original colonies. And not all of them were in New England. IIRC, most of the south was Anglican with a few Roman Catholics and Presbyterians here and there.

    Enough that the Anglicans tried to become the state church of Virginia and beat up and imprisoned the Baptist ministers.

  • raven

    BTW, George Washington attended an Anglican church. It’s not clear what, if anything, he really believed. He was reticent about his religious beliefs to the end.

  • raven, you’re slightly confused: the Puritans were not anti-Anglican but wanted to reform it (hence the name), but the other group that they are frequently confused with, the Pilgrims (who were Separatists), did in fact break away and so could perhaps be called anti-Anglican. (Both settled in what is now Massachusetts, the Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Colony.)

  • Aquaria

    The First Amendment alone makes a shambles of the 10 commandments. You can have other gawds before YHWH, you can take YHWH’s name in vain, you can make graven images and even worship them if you choose, and you don’t have to respect the Sabbath or keep it holy.

    For people who were supposed to be setting up a christer nation, they sure went about it in a way that wasn’t very favorable to christery.

  • slc1

    Re Raven @ #28

    Indeed, Washington was a vestryman in an Episcopal church which is a few blocks from my house. He attended services but always made it a point to leave before communion which he never took.

    Oddly enough, this particular church was hijacked by anti-gay bigots who proceeded to defect from the Virginia Diocese because of the appointment of a gay bishop in Vermont and joined a breakaway Anglican church in Nigeria noted for its anti-gay bigotry. The hijacking fucktards just lost a law suit in a Virginia district court and have to return the property to the Diocese and the non-defecting parishioners.

  • lmccarty

    Dear Dana,

    My “creator” is my MOTHER. Thanks for playing, though.

  • lmccarty

    @22 – All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

    (Acts 2:44-45)

  • dan4

    @33: That’s not communism.

  • anandine

    redman @25, Yes, the Koran has statements in it that contradict each other. Since Mohammed was just telling people what the voices in his head were saying to him, it’s not surprising.

    Nor do I imagine that quoting this sura would make the Saudis allow you to drink alcohol in their country.

    It’s just interesting that, of the Bible and Koran, the Koran has one statement in favor of religious freedom, and the Bible does not.

  • raven

    @33: That’s not communism.

    Yes it is.

    Common ownership of everything. “To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities.”

  • heironymous

    I’m sorry. God didn’t grant you inalienable rights.

    Liberals defined those rights and codified them into a Constitution.