News Intelligence Analysis




The Big Lie GOP Combatants Tell About Democrats

And How to Respond


June 25, 2005

By Katherine Yurica


“Democrats are liberal godless humanists.”


First of all, Republican Combatants—those folks who either have the innate talent to aggressively attack other folks or have been trained to attack Democrats wherever they find one, whether it be on message boards and blogs on the web, over the air waves, in our churches, in the media, and from every dominionist organization and at every family reunion they attend—the first thing is to notice they all have one thing in common: they have to lie about Democrats and liberals,[1] but Democrats don’t have to lie about them!


The reason Republican Combatants have to lie about Democrats is this: if they told the truth—everyone, including all true Christians would either leave the militant Republican Party and join the Democrats (or other parties), or would actively seek to change the Republican Party back to the party of Abraham Lincoln. So my point is this: GOP Combatants have to slander and stigmatize democrats as a fundamental matter of tactics.


Of course all Christians know that the Bible teaches that slander is a sin.[2] But most folks don’t know that the Bible tells Democrats exactly what to do when they have been slandered. Nevertheless, the Lord, thundering down the paths of time speaks to His beleaguered people through the prophet Isaiah:


“No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper, and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is from me, saith the Lord.” (Isaiah 54:17 KJV and compare the Amplified Bible on this text[3])


Notice the Amplified Bible says “…and every tongue that shall rise against you in judgment you shall show to be in the wrong.”[4] The Lord is telling his people that they have the responsibility to make it clear the accusations are wrong! That’s pretty darn significant because we are required to “condemn” the statements and expose the falsity, and hence the immorality of the statement makers!


So what is one of the single deadliest-sock-dropper-slanders levied by political combatants against Democrats? It is this combination of terms:



“Democrats are liberal godless humanists.”


Isn’t that a humdinger? If I heard it once, I’ve heard it scores and scores of times. But if you’re a Democrat and if you are a born again, spirit filled Christian, the Republican Combatants are still calling you “a liberal godless humanist!” Who-eee!


It’s important to realize as Christians that these folks are speaking against Democrats on one level—but if we apply Jesus’ words to this situation, we find this verse: “inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it onto me.” So biblically their sin is against Jesus Himself.[5] But if we dwell on the implication of the political combatant’s allegation that Democrats are “godless” for a while, it’s clear that regardless of an individual Democrat’s faith in the Lord—the Combatants are actually disenfranchising members of the brotherhood and sisterhood of Jesus Christ! Hence, if you are a Democrat—you are not a Christian! The mind leaps to that conclusion without effort. Whether Christians who are Democrats know it or not, they have been kicked out of the “body of Christ” by political hacks. This is stunning in its political and social implications!


I usually just dismiss the slander with a look that would make a lonely cloud cry on a sunny day! I used to think, it wasn’t worth my time! But I’ve come to realize that there are a whole lot of folks who can’t tell what’s wrong with the accusation and because someone they respect said it—they believe it. And so a whole lot of folks follow the slanderers and every new fangled twist and turn of the doctrines of the men who are running the GOP show.


Just for a second or two, can we agree that the GOP “show” is something different than the Gospel of Jesus Christ? It’s just a thought.


The GOP political tacticians and combatants have found attacking the faith of Christians who are Democrats is a politically rewarding exercise. But at the same time, as we shall see, this is the biggest whopper and mistake of all time!


Okay, so let’s get on with the lesson for the day: How does one condemn false statements?



1. Point out that the statement, “Democrats are liberal godless humanists,” is a false generalization:



Right off the bat, a good thing to do is to notice that the accusation describes all democrats as having at least three different traits. Notice that the combatants haven’t bothered to put in “qualifiers,” words that act like a sign that marks the “City Limits.”  They don’t try to put limits on their words—they assert them as if they applied to all Democrats at all times.


If we give it a little thought we quickly realize Democrats fall into more than just three categories! Some of them believe in “This,” and some of them believe in “That.” They come in all sizes, (narrow, broad, tall, short). Some of them are smart and some of them are, well, not so bright. Some are young and some are senior citizens. Some of them dress nicely and others dress like slobs. Some are happy and some are depressed. But you know, I could be describing any group anywhere and they’d all have those differences. So right off, I’ve got a problem with trying to characterize a whole group of people as having certain kinds of characteristics that distinguish them from, say, Republicans.


So far, I’d say most folks could agree that when it comes to sizes and shapes and heights, both Democrats and Republicans resemble each other.


So we know pretty much up front that the Combatants have made a false statement. They have made a generalization that cannot be true for all democrats. Now it’ll be your job to falsify the statement. The easiest way I know of, is to prove that not every Democrat has the trait attributed to him by the Combatants. So all you have to say to the poor combatant you’re facing is, “Well see here. I’m a democrat and I’m a Christian believer, and I’m a moderate—not a liberal, and I’m a Christian humanist because I believe that God so loved humanity that He gave His only begotten son!”


If a person said that, and if the Combatant were honest, he’d have to say, “I erred.” Then he could either hold fast to his generalization by saying something like, “Every Democrat but you is a liberal godless humanist.” But then you could produce another example of yourself—say a friend—and then the combatant would have to back off each time you produced another and another example until finally, he’d have to give in and say, “Only some democrats are liberal godless humanists!” Once he’s said that—you have forced him to back down. At that point he’s lost all the explosive power of his accusation! So the Combatant, being a clever fellow and knowing he will have admitted he’s lost all his marbles if he backs down—won’t back down!


Either way—whether he backs down or not—when we deal with irrational folks—we need to realize that there is no way to help them find the truth.


I remember a story I read once from the American psychologist Gordon W. Allport that illustrates the point nicely. He said:


      A paranoid woman had the fixed delusion that she was a dead person. The doctor tried what he thought was a conclusive logical demonstration to her of her error. He asked her, “Do dead people bleed?”

      “No,” she answered.

      “Well, if I pricked your finger, would you bleed?”

      “No,” answered the woman, “I wouldn’t bleed; I’m dead.”

      “Let’s see,” said the doctor, and pricked her finger. When the patient saw the drop of blood appearing, she remarked in surprise, “Oh, so dead people do bleed don’t they.”


2. Point out the need to define the terms:


It’s a good idea to ask the Combatant what he means by his terms of “Democrats are liberal godless humanists.” Suppose he says, “Liberal means a licentious[6] socialist, (most often meaning to him or her communist); Godless means atheist and humanist means that man is the center of all things!” So in essence when it’s all boiled down, the Combatant means something like this: “All Democrats are licentious atheistic man-centered communists.” Right away we know the Combatant is completely confused.


It’s vital to keep in mind that words like “socialist” and “humanist” have multiple meanings as does the word “liberal.” You’ll never go wrong by using the dictionary—even for words you’re familiar with. You might find that your accuser—the Combatant who is attacking you—might very well fall into a pit he can’t climb out of.


How Do Combatant’s Define the Word Liberal?


Let’s begin by confining our discussion to the words “liberal” and “liberalism.” Most people think of the word liberal as “open mindedness,” or the sense the word is used in the Bible: “marked by generosity, or openhandedness.” Today, people who are liberal are thought of as folks who are “neither narrow minded nor bound by authoritarianism.” It strikes me that the definition of political liberalism is pregnant with love for one’s fellow countrymen.


Political liberalism is defined this way:


“A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life, especially by the protection of political and civil liberties and for government under law with the consent of the governed.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.


With a definition like that it’s a tough job to turn a silk purse into a sow’s ear! As we are about to see, when Republican Combatants use the terms “Liberal or Liberalism” they always intend the pejorative sense.


From their point of view, one of the best senses of the word liberal is this definition:


“not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional or established forms in action, attitude, or opinion.”


The dictionary goes on to say,


Liberal suggests an emancipation from convention, tradition, or dogma that extends from a belief in altering institutions to fit altering conditions to a preference for lawlessness…” 


Oh shout it right out there when you have the right answer boys! The dictionary has come to the aid of the Combatants who discovered a treasure beyond their wildest dreams when they stumbled upon this meaning of the word. For if the word liberal embraces a preference for lawlessness then it is a God-send. For in the Bible, St. John defines “sin” as “lawlessness.”[7] What we’re looking at here is the slow unfolding of how the word liberal became a code word for “sinners” to millions of Americans. One can sit back and shake one’s head imagining the joy of the little Combatant who discovered the dictionary’s list of definitions.


Among the discoveries was a definition that tied some of the best churches in America to immorality and apostasy. Radical right preachers could and did rail against another group: the same dictionary, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines liberalism when it is capitalized, as a religious movement!  The dictionary states Liberalism is:


“A movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity.”



With the help of the dictionary, religious right combatants who occupy pulpits and the air waves of America, attacked Liberalism in the churches, and called these folks unregenerated sinners who have introduced apostasy into the churches. And what is worse the Combatants have launched war against good churches and good people who love the Lord. Combatants have even called for the destruction of churches and religious organizations.[8]


The question is why?


It’s very important to realize that when the Combatants of the religious right attack Americans as “liberal,” they are not accusing us of being democratic, instead, they seek to show that liberals are immoral. It’s the only plausible verbal attack they can make. If you think about it long and hard enough—you’ll begin to see why the issues of rights for homosexuals and the right of women to control their own bodies and the right of all people to marry and the right to privacy in people’s bedrooms, and the right to take a pill to prevent a pregnancy, have been pushed to the forefront of the headlines of national debate issues. If you ask yourself why these issues are so important to the GOP, the most obvious reason is that Republican Combatants needed a plausible excuse to attack the meek, the humble, and the loving people of America. 


They had to find powerful imagery that would convert democratic followers of Jesus into monsters in the eyes of millions of churchgoers who would have otherwise voted for Democrats. They found their answers in the dictionary. They could say, “Look, read it in the dictionary! Those who call themselves liberals are by definition ‘lacking significant moral restraints: [they are] licentious.[9]’” The only problem is this definition is no longer in use; it’s obsolete according to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. But keep in mind, obsolete definitions aren’t necessarily disregarded by political combatants.


What a twist of irony can be exposed just by looking terms up in a good dictionary. And what political winds can be changed with just one word.



How Democrats Should Define “Liberalism”


But wait! The story isn’t over yet. Liberalism with a capital “L” is not the only definition of liberalism. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines another sense of the word that has far reaching implications for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, all Americans and the nations of the world. Liberalism is:


“A theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint especially by government regulation in all economic activity and usually based upon free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard…called also economic liberalism.” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.)


Whoa! If you’re quick on the uptake—you know that this definition is an accurate description of Mr. Bush’s economic policies. Didn’t he tell the world at the International Republic Institute in May what his basic and essential economic pillars are? He called for:


“A free economy, to create opportunity and free people from dependence on the state.”[10]


Not only that, Mr. Bush called his free market principle, “a tenet of democracy?”[11]


What Mr. Bush doesn’t spell out is that his idea of freeing people from dependence on the state includes the elimination of the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs.[12]


But Mr. Bush’s idea of the market place calls for an end to environmental regulation and lets corporations poison the air and the water at will. No sooner was Mr. Bush inaugurated on January 20, 2001 when he sent Andrew Card, his Chief of Staff, to issue a sixty-day moratorium halting all new health, safety, and environmental regulations issued in the final days of the Clinton administration.[13] And it was Mr. Bush who rolled back environmental controls of air pollution that scientists estimate will cause the premature deaths of over 100,000 Americans.[14] It is Mr. Bush who continues to ignore the dangers of global warming—and to falsify the data about it, with total disregard for the life and health of everyone on this planet.


Let’s be frank about this. Mr. Bush is a post card image of liberalism. The term economic “liberalism” belongs not to Democrats but to the Republicans and to all those who want laissez-faire, unregulated “free markets.”


It appears that the pot has been calling the kettle “black” and most folks didn’t know it, because we don’t study dictionaries as we ought! In fact, those of us who believe that government should regulate the market place to keep it honest and protect the public from unscrupulous operators whose greed invents ways to steal from the poor to give to the rich are economic conservatives.


Let’s understand too that the economic liberalism of Mr. Bush and the Republican controlled House and Senate is immoral. If you should add up the 100,000 Americans who will die because of Mr. Bush's air polution policy with the estimated 100,000 Iraqis who have been killed in the unjustified war in Iraq, this administration, with the support of the Republican congress, is responsible for the deaths of more people than any other administration since Viet Nam.


This administration unleashed the most immoral reign of power in this nation’s history. They have made greed, power and falsification their modus operandi. They alone have approved of torture. They alone have lied to the American people and to Congress in order to justify the invasion of Iraq, a country that was not a threat to America. They alone believe that immoral acts are justified if their goal is ultimately good. Yet Republican Combatants dare to lie about the morality of honest, Christians who happen to be Democrats and who are trying to preserve our democratic form of government.


Which brings us to another question: what is a democrat anyway?




How Does the Dictionary Define “Democrat” and “Democracy”



Really check out the definition of “democrat” it will make you proud to be an American again! You might be surprised to find out Webster’s Third New International Dictionary says a democrat is “an adherent or advocate of democracy; especially one who believes in or practices social equality.”


The next word to look up is “democracy.” It’s defined as “a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them…” Democracy means “political, social, or economic equality: the absence or disavowal of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges; a state of society characterized by tolerance toward minorities, freedom of expression, and respect for the essential dignity and worth of the human individual with equal opportunity for each to develop freely to his fullest capacity in a cooperative community.”


But that’s not what Republican Combatant’s want. Listen to this: Randall Terry, Head of Operation Rescue, told an audience in Fort Wayne, Indiana on April 15, 1993:


“Our goal is a Christian Nation….We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules.”[15]



3. Point out the origin of Democracy


Have you ever wondered where the idea of a democratic society came from? Would it surprise you to learn that Jesus originated it? Here’s something I wrote for Stanley Kurtz which explains it:


Jesus has always been democratic! He has always said that all of the law is fulfilled in two verses: (you Saints know the ones I’m quotin’): that we are to love the Lord our God with our whole hearts, minds and souls and our neighbor as ourselves!  Now if you love your neighbor as yourself—your neighbor has the right to speak and we have the obligation to listen: that’s Democracy!  Your neighbor also has the right to vote! Your neighbor also has to have all the rights that you have—even if he’s despised by some—even if he’s gay, even if he’s a Muslim—else you don’t love your neighbor as yourself! That’s Jesus talking—not me!  See Jesus created equality with that verse. These so-called conservative folks want to create elitism. They don’t want to feed and clothe the poor and to pay taxes for that purpose. They want power they won’t grant to you and me. That’s not Jesus talking! That’s another voice. That’s not Christianity—that’s the spirit of anti-Christ.


It appears that God has originated the concept of social equality, which then produces democracy. So the Republican Combatants who spawn their discontent with democrats are really attacking Jesus! What else is there to say about it? Just remember the word, “Get thee out of her my people!” And “her” here refers to the Republican party!



Notes (Click on the number and you will return to your place in the text)

[1] I’ve included the term “liberals” here to include all those in other parties who would call themselves “progressives.” I intend this to include all open minded, intellectually inquiring Republicans who are seeking answers and questioning statements. I am indebted to Letha Dawson Scanzoni for creating the term, "Agressive Combatant" and to Chip Berlet and Terri Murray for calling it to my attention. See Letha Dawson Scanzoni's article, "The Gospel on Gay Marriage" at:


[2] See Psalm 50:20; 101:5; 31:13; 2 Samuel 19:27; Numbers 14:36; Proverbs 10:18; Jeremiah 6:28; 9:4; 1 Timothy 3:11.


[3] The Amplified Version says it this way: “But no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper, and every tongue that shall rise against you in judgment you shall show to be in the wrong. This [peace, righteousness, security, triumph over opposition] is the heritage of the servants of the Lord [those in whom the ideal Servant of the Lord is reproduced]. This is the righteousness or the vindication which they obtain from Me—this is that which I impart to them as their justification—says the Lord.” Isaiah 54:17 Amplified Bible.


[4] Ibid.


[5] See Matthew 25:37, 40.


[6] Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “licentious” as: 1: marked by the absence of legal or moral restraints: hostile or offensive to accepted standards of conduct 2: marked by lewdness; LASCIVIOUS, UNCHASTE 3: marked by neglect of or disregard for strict rules of correctness.”


[7] See 1 John: 3:4 where the Greek word anomia is translated “lawlessness” in most of the Bible versions. Compare the following:

The Amplified Bible reads: “Every one who commits (practices) sin is guilty of lawlessness; for [that is what] sin is, lawlessness [the breaking, violating of God’s law by transgression or neglect; being unrestrained and unregulated by His commands and His will].

Similarly, the New International Version reads: “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.”

The New American Standard Bible reads: “Every one who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.” 

The Revised Standard Bible reads: “Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.”

The New English Bible reads: “To commit sin is to break God’s law: sin, in fact, is lawlessness.”

The King James Version reads: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.”


[8] The Association of Church Renewal, ACR, a tax-exempt religious organization, sent out a press release on March 27, 2001, called “for the dissolution of the National Council of Churches.” The ACR called the National Council of Churches “a hindrance to the cause of Christian unity.”


[9] Ibid.


[10] Quoted by Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary for Global Affairs in remarks to the Hudson Institute and published in a press release on June 22, 2005.


[11] Ibid.


[12] See my essay "Bloodguilty Churches" by Katherine Yurica at:


[13] See my essay, “Bloodguilty Churches” by Katherine Yurica at  Or on page 41 of the book Bloodguilty Churches by Katherine Yurica, published by Erasmus Books, 2005.


[14] Ibid.


[15] Reported on April 16, 21993 in The News-Sentinel. From Steve Weissman, “America’s Religious Right—Saints or Subversives?”



Katherine Yurica is a news intelligence analyst. She was educated at East Los Angeles College, the University of Southern California and the USC school of law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today plus as a freelance investigative reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report.


Read and or make comments about this article on our message board

Send a letter 
to the editor 
about this article

Back to The Yurica Report Home Page

Copyright © 2005 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.