Posted on 11/29/2008 10:08:31 AM PST by redk
So, Kathleen Parker has determined that getting rid of social conservatives and shelving the values they fight for is the solution to what ails the Republican Party (“Giving Up on God,” Nov. 19). Isn’t that a little like Benedict Arnold handing George Washington a battle plan to win the Revolution?
Whatever she once was, Ms. Parker is certainly not a conservative anymore....
(Excerpt) Read more at citizenlink.org ...
From the article:
The accuracy of her numbers isn’t the point, anyway — it’s the notion that, because there are people of many faiths in the United States, those of the Christian faith must not think or act like Christians when engaging the public square. That is similar to something then-Sen. Obama said a couple of years ago, arguing in a speech before a gathering of liberal Christians that “democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.”
“It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason,” he added. “I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
That is, as my theologian friend Al Mohler called it, “secularism with a smile” — offered in the form of an invitation for believers to show up, but then only to be allowed to make arguments that are not based in their deepest beliefs. Kathleen Parker has gone even one step further, though. She’s rescinding the invitation altogether.
>>>>angkor, I dare you to read every word of this Library of Congress online exhibit:<<<<<
Nice find and very interesting.
What’s it got to do with conservatism?
BTW, my first American ancestor was minister to the Huguenot churches in Boston and New Rochelle, so I’m not oblivious to the religious impulse in early America.
We are all sinners. It's just that Christians know what to do about it.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Thanks so much.
Those virtues are believed by atheists and the religious alike.
My guess is because he knew the type of emails that would be sent. He knows his audience.
>>>>That is so patently false!<<<<<
No, I’m afraid it’s not false.
Sigh.
Where is Calvin when you really need him?
The theologically anemic state of American Protestantism, with men like James Dobson at its helm, is a big part of the problem.
We lost because for the past eight years the Republicans in Washington acted like a bunch of Democrats.Absolutely right.
This is interesting. I have noticed that there has been quite the division between the social conservatives and the economic conservatives. The Republican Party used to be the conservative party, socially and economically. It would be a huge mistake for party leadership to discard the religious right wing of the party. In fact, they do so at their own peril. Likewise, it is wrong for the social conservatives to discard conservative economic principles. We need to come to the understanding that both social and economic issues are important to the continuance of the party. If we leave either base, we are two minority parties.
The fact is, from my perspective, if the Republican Party leaves its social conservatives hung out to dry, I’ll be forced to find a different party...one that respects life more than it respects money.
What are you defending?
What are you defending?
I doubt seriously that you agree with Calvin’s politics. Calvin would not straighten this mess out. He’d form a monstrous embrace of church and state like he did in Geneva.
It didn’t suprprise me at all that Kristol backed Palin, he was also pushing McCain during the primaries. Always downplaying the advances of the other candidates when they were making gains and over-selling McCain. At the time I thought Kristol was a democratic operative. Either Kristol has very bad judgement or he is an operative. His advice has hurt the Republican Party and people need to stop listening to him, he almost seems like a traitor.
Not only that, but true limited government conservatism would go a l-o-n-g way toward making these non-issues. It would overthrow Roe v Wade and end the abomination of taxpayer dollars funding abortions. It would enable private citizens, businesses, and landlords to discriminate as they please for or against open homosexuals, which would end the abomination of schools, families, workplaces, civic organizations, private property, and nearly every other corner of American life having to accommodate or risk jail time or huge fines, open homosexuality.
Dobson, like Romney and any Democrat, is all for more and bigger government -- as long as its his guys who are in control. I used to have a lot of respect for Dobson until he publicly questioned whether or not one of the primary candidates (it doesn't matter which one -- Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, it would make zero difference which) was indeed truly "Christian." That was beyond the pale, and spoke volumes about his own hypocrisy -- that we should overlook a limited government candidate because he wasn't "Christian" enough for James Dobson.
Dobson claims to be about Family Values, yet the one thing in this nation that has done more to push young men toward homosexuality and broken up more families and caused more strife, misery, and promiscuity than "gay marriage" or abortion combined, is not his primary crusade: tragically mis-named "family" law that enables easy divorce and divides fathers from their sons, gives authority to women who may leave their husbands for any reason whatsoever, and reduce their kids' fathers to basic money providers and Uncle Dad's who can "visit" their kids two weekends a month plus a couple of days mid-week. That's what's been happening for 40 years and is the CAUSE of most of what Dobson hates, yet he hasn't the vision or perhaps the courage to face the REAL enemy and wrangle with it, and start going on a crusade against family law courts in the U.S., which is, essentially, a problem of bigger, more powerful government.
But no, it's much safer and easier for Dobson to appeal to lurid emotionalism by harping on homosexuality and abortion. Makes his followers feel righteous and risks nothing at all for Dobson; now, going after the law courts and chiding selfish, unhappy women who separate their children from their fathers not because of abuse or infidelity, but simply because the law allows it, would be much more risky for him.
Dobson revealed himself during the Republican primaries.
It’s good to defend a limited government. And I agree that the Republicans, Bush, and religious voters that followed him, have favored an expansion of government. But I’ve chosen to defend Dobson on this issue with Parker. You on Parker’s side?
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.