Skip to comments.GIVING UP ON GOD
Posted on 11/18/2008 7:24:10 PM PST by Wegotsarah.com
click here to read article
A well reasoned comment.
I think the things that drives atheists nuts is that they don’t, and can’t know what comes after. It sort of shoots their man-god notion to hell so to speak. If man is not all powerful, who is? If no one is, then why don’t we just have a free for all? What’s stopping us?
I think it’s funny that my atheist acquaintances are far more zealous and annoying than any Christian I’ve ever encountered.
I could not disagree more with this author. I actually think that McCain did not play up this enough. Contrary to what elitists (of both parties) think, most common folk in the fly over country think that religion and morals are good things that should have a place in our public discourse.
The author is merely a Christian hater. She is trying to marginalize the future influence of Christians because she hates everything about them. Nothing more.
Wow, that article was a bubbling fountain of vomit.
Excellent post. You have it exactly right.
They also know not to shove it down other people's throats. The same goes for civilized non-believers.
Nobody cared that Nixon was a heathen Quaker(!), or even that Reagan was not a devout churchgoer. Hell, nobody even protested when we had a Mormon running for the GOP nomination back in 1968. Politicians should neither bash the religious, nor attack the secular.
A final word of advice to my religious friends: with the white population becoming increasingly secular, you folks will have a lot of work to do to bring persons of color into the coalition.
Which brings me to my concern- which is if conservatives or non-conservatives fallaciously claim that the GOP is slave to religion, then one can rightly conclude that the proponents of the wrongful claim have ulterior motive.
The motive may be different dependent on who's making the erroneous allegation, but the end is the same---to deprive those with deeply religious convictions from a say in governing the nation. And if so, it's persecution-it's wrong- it's elitist- and it's not what this nation is about.
Catholic Hispanics are rabid Dems. Mormon and Evangelical Hispanics tend to vote like their white counterparts. Thus they could be persuaded to vote GOP with the right candidate. So there’s potential for a coalition. But it doesn’t help when Tancredo blames the Cubans for making Miami a “3rd world city”.
1. That's way out of line. You're better than that, Bruce.
2. How would we ever know if it did happen? She has her head so far up her butt it would be misdiagnosed as some sort of colonic infarction.
No, it's not; and no, I'm not. But a sincere "thank you" for sticking up for me, regardless. ;)
What, not even a pity laugh for item No. 2? You farging bastage!
I'm being unfairly distracted by South Park on the television while I'm posting. My Bad, dude. ;)
That's OK, I don't need the attention.
Hmm - does “arm band religion” mean “arm bands” as in Nazi arm bands?
As soon as she wrote this she might as well have been wearing a Klan hood, or a Black Panther getup.
She used to project an image that was merely unwise, but know she has gleefully, publically joined the ranks of the bigots.
Kathleen sweetie, the lesson of 2008 is that a RINO couldn’t even beat a Communist.
This woman has become worse than Keith Olbergerbil, she has found her ticket to fame, bashing conservatives. She’s getting “progressively” worse and ridiculously transparent at this point.
Don’t click on her articles and giver her any more fame, just bash her like me without reading anything but the excerpt ; ) The excerpt was bad enough, I could accurately vomit the rest of her article, so cliche’.
Clearly, however, she and her soulmates Buckley, Noonan, and Brooks are the new face of the Republican party that is officially sanctioned by the Democrat media. These are lap dogs, tools, goose-stepping lockstep media yappers unworthy of the 10 seconds it takes to crumple their crap and toss it unless one is disposed to give it its finest opportunity to benefit the American public, at the bottom of a parrot cage.
Other than that I have no particularly strong opinion on the matter.
I think she believes she’s the new Maureen Dowd.
Fine. So how does the presence of overtly religious folks in the GOP harm you?
Not cool enough?
Imagine my utter shock. ;)
Agree- I came away with that- Parker became the darling of the media circus by bashing Gov. Palin- and now it appears that she really doesn't care what she says- as long as she trashs Sarah and/or religious right in her articles, she can hit the talk shows.
When did Parker ever write for NR? And if you think NR is RINO Central, you haven’t been reading the Corner lately.
Seems right- might try to be a little bit more forceful in your view next time, though.—:)
Can you name one part of a McCain stump speech (or a Bush speech, for that matter) that told atheists and, say, Buddhists they aren't welcome in the GOP?
I dont need to be a southern Baptist to believe in limited government.
Then why do you hear "only Southern Baptists welcome" when the GOP talks about limited government?
I dont need a bible to tell me abortion is wrong.
Then why do you hear "thus saith the Lord, so screw off, agnostics" when the GOP stands by an abortion plank that does not mention the Bible or even God?
I dont need Sunday school to know that a strong military is what we need to fight Islamic fascism.
So why do you hear a Sunday school lesson when the GOP talks about a strong military?
And I dont need prayer groups to see that socialism is state sponsored slavery.
So why do you see the party that stands for all those concepts as a religious party? When did we ever say you weren't welcome? And why would giving the finger to the evangelicals (as Parker proposes) be any wiser than giving the finger to non-Christians?
Seems to me you're projecting.
Your post has made my day. Thanks. LOL
Don't you just love it when writers directly contradict themselves in the space of a few sentences?
Note to Rich Lowry: the NR masthead needs a minor change.
Never stand between a man and the shrill, strident voices in his own head. ;)
I have always defined myself as socially and fiscally conservative and a Reagan conservative because defining myself as part of the religious right is too narrow as there are those on the right, who share my values who are not religious. Religious, or not religious, all we who share the same fiscal and moral values, should be pushing for our conservative beliefs side by side. And in my humble opinion, that's pretty much the way it is, with a few exceptions.
Strongly agreed. The criticism is unfair and inaccurate.
LOL! The MSM has been saying this about social conservatives for years. Amazingly, when social conservatives stood their ground, and held the GOP to those principles, the GOP was strong, and won back the House and Senate, as well as several terms in the White House. When the GOP started getting squishy, and listened more to the liberals, and tried to remove any notion of religion from their midst, they started losing again.
Agreed. I've heard that criticism for the past 25, 30 years, and have not seen the evidence for it, though I have looked for equally as long.
You are exactly right!
The GOP, divided against itself as it currently is, cannot possibly win another election, not in our lifetimes, and possibly not in the next century. When it comes to staying in power, the Democrats have the decided advantage. That is because, to the Democrats, gaining and keeping power is the Prime Directive, superceding all. The promotion of socialism and government dependence is simply the best tool for them to retain that control.
Republicans suffer the disadvantage of having "values" and "principles", and the further disadvantage of being comprised of several groups with slightly differing priorities in how these values and principles get listed.
The 2006 and 2008 elections were mandates against the open borders, outsourcing, globalist, Free Traitor, RINO neo-con wing of the GOP. Naturally, they would like to blame anyone other than themselves, but this is the reality. People losing jobs by the million is not a winning strategy, and this faction of the GOP is finished. McCain was rightly perceived to be part of this bunch, and his poll numbers below 30% betrayed it, right up to August 29. "Country First" is a hollow rallying cry, coming from the corrupt east coast cabal that are hell-bent on selling us all down the river. Reagan drew votes from working people of the Republican and Democrat parties. All these ordinary people who have grown accustomed to eating regularly and living indoors are necessary votes for a winning ticket.
The religious wings of the GOP present even more divisions. If we try to run a Southern Baptist, we lose the Mormon votes in the western states. Likewise, if we try to run a Mormon, we lose the Bible Belt states. If we run an Episcopalean from the northeast, we risk losing both of those groups. And with any of the above, we risk losing votes from the non-affiliated Republicans. Those are the problems inherent in any political platform weighted along any religious lines.
Then we have the Constitutional conservatives, those who believe the GOP can be successfully unified on the traditional Republican party platform of supporting and conserving (actually rebuilding) our constitutional republic. Under such a platform, the interests, rights, and liberties of all the various groups, even the Democrats, are protected equally. This is the only winning platform, and will win only if the competing factions and candidates lay aside their differences on other issues.
Sarah Palin was convincing when she spoke of "Country First" and of fighting corruption. John McCain was not convincing, and unfortunately, he was at the top of the ticket. Farther back in the primaries, Huckabee and Romney were perceived (rightly or not) of representing their respective religions first, and the country somewhat less.
Whoever the future GOP candidate is, they and their message need to be convincingly pro-American and pro-Constitution, first and foremost.
“But when you’re a sleazy WaPo whore anyone more devout than a flaming atheist is a threat to your peace of mind and must be attacked at all costs.”
But now she'll be one of the house conservatives of the Washington/New York axis. She can paw the floor at parties and have a couple of bones tossed her way by the elitist snobs she is toasting in her Benedict Arnold column.
What a loathesome woman.
It’s very obvious what she meant. Not only did the Jews wear armbands, so did the Nazis.
I’m really glad to see some of our quisling enemies being flushed into the open.
The problem is that there are two strains of social conservatism — one that simply wants government to leave them alone and one that wants to use government to impose its preferences on the rest of society. The latter is more prominent for obvious reasons (the biggest mouths and pushiest elbows get the attention), and scares the bulk of the electorate away.
Clearly, one must ultimately depend on an standard of right and wrong that is not dependent on a specific religion.
yes indeed! And if you and others would like to add real strength to your religion, take a look at fhu.com where there is a wonderful Be Still exercise which trully is the holy grail of religion.
Wellington Silverback IV is not surprised, but displeased. This sort of thing just isn't done, old boy.
Clearly, one must ultimately depend on an standard of right and wrong that is not dependent on a specific religion.
Or more clearly - there seems to be one religion completely separate from all the others. One that is based on love from the heart and that has withstood 2000 years of assaults yet still stands, still makes sense...
Yep, you might get trampled. Well, I’m off to handle some snakes. have a fine day, y’all!
That’s what they all say.
The truth, I think, is even more pathetic than that. If they were accomplices to evil, you would think they would have some spine. But as it is, the worst that can be said is that they a just spiteful, egocentric neurotics.
I am reminded of a one panel comic called “The passive-aggressive mugger”. It showed a seedy looking individual with a bag, in front of two women. He says, “Give me all your money, or you’ll force me to throw these kittens in the river!”
This is the kind of pathos I’m talking about. Emotionally, they are like Woody Allen, filled to the brim with feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, surrounded by a veneer of utter arrogance and self importance. They cower before most everyone, who they fear and hate, yet behave in a vicious manner to the helpless and weak. They are defeated people, who live for the cheap shot that involves no personal risk.
They lead lives of whiny desperation and contempt for anyone and anything better than themselves. Their lives are their own punishment.
Thank you—don’t be concerned, I won’t send money because there is none—:)....and very good points, you should start your own blog. -:)
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.