Posted on 11/06/2008 7:07:34 AM PST by XR7
When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, he will do so in the 30th anniversary year of the founding of the so-called Religious Right. Born in 1979 and midwifed by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Religious Right was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those earlier movements—from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful)—had mixed results.
Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren't anywhere near as successful as those that focused on changing hearts. The four religious revivals, from the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s to the Fourth Great Awakening in the late 1960s and early '70s, which touched America and instantly transformed millions of Americans (and American culture as a result), are testimony to that.
Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content, and transform culture into the conservative evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: Should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?
I opt for trying something else.
Too many conservative evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?
Too many conservative evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life, and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?
The answer depends on the response to another question: Do conservative evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?
If results are what conservative evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans," not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God's love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?
Such a strategy could be more "transformational" than electing a new president, even the first president of color. But in order to succeed, such a strategy would not be led by charismatic figures, who would raise lots of money, be interviewed on Sunday talk shows, author books, and make gobs of money.
God teaches in His Word that His power (if that is what conservative evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow's mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of one's self, the washing of feet, and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice. How did conservative evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior "kingdom"?
Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.
Good point. Conservatives using government power to shape society is an anathema. Well, ok, it is to most of the "conservatives" I hang with.
Yes, it is a contradiction that “small government Conservatives” so often want to use government power to enforce their ideas of morality and to promote their religious objectives.
Government power is best when limited to fulfilling its Constitutional mandates.
a cute little meeting on sunday, broadcast on a handful of stations, does nothing to ebb that tide.
talk radio and the internet are the only things having any impact... hence the reason the libs are going to dismantle it
Abortion is a religious/philosophical issue, just like the death penalty and war. Many people (and some organized religions) are flat out opposed to war under any circumstances, since innocent people inevitably end up getting killed — they believe that the big-picture benefits of war can never justify the killing of innocent people. Tough. Since this is a religious/philosophical issue, it simply has to be dealt with on a “majority rules” basis. Same goes for abortion. Just as we don’t force people (any more) who are opposed to war to directly participate in them, we mustn’t force anyone who is opposed to abortion to have or directly participate in one.
The insistence of a large segment of conservative voters on trying to use government to force their minority view on people who don’t agree with them on abortion, is resulting in much more serious political issues being lost to socialism, quite possibly irretrievably. Property rights, taxation into government dependency, and RKBA are all falling by the wayside, to the degree where if “pro-lifers” ever got their way, every child that is born would be born into absolute subjugation to government — mandatory government schooling, mandatory government-only health care, well over half the fruits of their lifelong labors confiscated by government to perpetuate the subjugation program, removal by the government from parents who try to teach them that all this is wrong, and no means to fight back.
And you’d better look up “RKBA”. It’s our most important constitutional right, the one upon which all the others ultimately depend, and many US citizens are already being deprived of it.
I knew that :)
But too many of us are all for “conservatism” as long as we don’t really have to reorder our lives.
Yep. Whatever “conservatism” is now.
Was it Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell who said "it all depends on whose ox is being gored" when talking about giving up things or getting things from the government?
Perhaps it was neither one.
?!?!?!
Put down the crack pipe, Cal.
Hush! That kind of talk can only get you sent to a re-education camp somewhere.
Relying on the Constitution seems so...quaint.
The classic definition of insanity does apply to just about any solution suggested by the Right for the past 30 years. It’s a radical notion, but it’s been coming for a long time—probably since Reagan left office—the true cultural/moral separation of the peoples of this country.
Everytime someone mentions secession on this board, people begin to flame about how unAmerican it is, how wrong to try to destroy our great country. Hey, I didn’t start this fight, but at some point, those of us who cherish traditional Judeo-Christian principles are going to have to wake up and realize our country has been stolen from us. They capitalized on our passivity, our tendency to turn the other cheek, our tendency to try to convince others with our ‘love’ that they should follow us. Fools. Jesus called it throwing ‘pearls before swine.’
This article is typical of many Christian exhortations, both from the pulpit and mass communications: we really should do something. Let’s do something. And yet no practical, formally structured action is proposed. No specificity at all as to what should be done. Just do something different. Nothing too radical though, because we don’t want to disrupt our lives too much. We’ve got tv to watch, money to spend, sports events to attend, lives to live.
Our founding fathers were very specific when talking about when the governed should begin to consider replacing their government.
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
The liberals have just taken that step. They looked at their existing Bush administration, hated it, and took radical, giant, overt steps to overthrow it—replacing it and its fundamentals with a new world order—socialism verging on marxism. Now, what do we do? We talk about doing something ‘different.’
We need to start facing the reality that we will never be able to save the union. There is no union any longer. The states are clearly divided, pretty much along ideology. I propose that the ‘something’ we should be about is not trying to persuade the left to change. They don’t care about changing our opinions, they have just been about gaining power over us. And they have succeeded in doing so.
This is the reality. As radical as it may sound, we have to start to consider ALL our options—including secession.
Flame away.
by Mike Dorning and Rick Pearson
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, whose father was famously not so sympathetic to anti-war protesters, is coming to the defense of Barack Obama for his friendship with former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers.
Daley accused Hillary Clinton and other critics of Obama's association with Ayers of "re-fighting 40 year old battles." And the mayor noted that he, too "know(s) Bill Ayers" and has "worked with" Ayers on city education reforms.
The mayor released the following statement:
There are a lot of reasons that Americans are angry about Washington politics. And one more example is the way Senator Obama’s opponents are playing guilt-by-association, tarring him because he happens to know Bill Ayers.
I also know Bill Ayers. He worked with me in shaping our now nationally-renowned school reform program. He is a nationally-recognized distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois/Chicago and a valued member of the Chicago community.
I don’t condone what he did 40 years ago but I remember that period well. It was a difficult time, but those days are long over. I believe we have too many challenges in Chicago and our country to keep re-fighting 40 year old battles.
But the Clinton campaign was not about to drop Ayers connection to Obama. Ayers hosted a neighborhood coffee for Obama’s initial 1996 Illinois state Senate run and gave Obama a $200 donation for his state Senate re-election campaign in 2001.
In a conference call with reporters today, Clinton spokesmen Howard Wolfson and Phil Singer sought to maintain that Obama’s political relationship with Ayers was more important than the decision by Clinton’s husband, President Bill Clinton, to commute the sentences of two of Ayers’ former Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans on terrorist related weapons charges.
Asked if Hillary Clinton had expressed any disagreement with her husband’s actions in commuting the sentences of Rosenberg and Evans, Wolfson said only that he would ask the candidate.
Cal is kind of ignorant in some of this stuff. If we withdraw from politics altogether, we will lose even simple rights like the right to homeschool or the right to build a church. There are people that are out to destroy us. Does anyone doubt that?
Gay marriage is indeed a distraction, but abortion IS a secular, concrete issue. It is no more "religious" in character than any other form of homicide. And what you are saying is analogous to telling 19th century abolitionists, "Quit harping on this slavery issue, so we can make progress on other areas like railroad taxes."
The Basics:
Lest we, like the rest of the country has, forget.We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
And analogous to telling 21st century anti-war activists, “Quit harping on this war issue, so we can make progress on other areas like freedom.”
True enough. And if the war was that important to them, I wouldn’t expect them to relent. If they really believe that, say, the gov’t is using their tax money to murder innocent civilians, then they shouldn’t do so.
They do really believe that, and they’re a big part of the reason Barack Obama will be our Commander-in-Chief for at least the next four years. Fortunately, however, these matters remain subject to democratic processes, and no one is going to shut down the US military, no matter how hard and long some loud anti-war activists keep howling that war is always evil. They are simply outvoted, and that’s as it should be.
sorry, you can’t grasp that you are just as polarizing toward prolifers as you claim they are toward you. You perceive “their” issue as a narrower, religious one, you “reduce” it to “religion.” I was asking you to see that it is a natural law issue that can and ought to be embraced by both secular libertarians as well as by religious social conservatives because it is in the same category as rape and murder and the other things we all agree must be outlawed. Differences over war and capital punishment also are not reducible to religion. They are natural law issues.
But I can see that you don’t “get it” as far as the natural law basis for protecting unborn life is concerned. So you and I will never be able to get to first base on this.
This is sad, because you actually are the one who is drawing narrower boxes, insisting that those who oppose abortion crawl back into the narrow box you made for them or else they are not welcome in your conservative world.
This approach will not help you in your quest to establish a broad-based conservativism that can be effective politically.
I was offering you a lifeline by which you could see your way to see how opposition to abortion is a “secular” issue, based on universal justice. But you insist on throwing the lifeline back in my face. So I guess we part ways.
Could you give us the date this statement was issued and this article was written? It’s hard to make good use of it not knowing whether it’s an older piece from the campaign or something Daley just said today.
The point is, the influence of radical leftist ideology in our public school systems - especially in our large cities, like Chicago. The leaven has worked its way through the entire lump of dough.
I get the point of the article. I just want to know whether this is something Daley said today or a week ago or three months ago. Can you give me that simple information?
The article smacks of liberal emerging church thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.