Posted on 11/19/2008 7:45:33 AM PST by EveningStar
As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I'm bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
>>I’m off TownHall until they stop running articles from traitors like Kathleen Parker.<<
Maybe they are getting ready for the “Fairness Doctrine” and other anti-1st amendment initiatives from Obama.
Wow! I can so totally see the open-mindedness in the replies to your post. One person demand evidence, as though sharing an opinion here that goes against the grain needs some sort of quatitative backing in order for it to be made. It’s too bad that I do not know were the poll questions — that once were on the sidebar — have been archived to; there’s some very interesting things that FReepers have voted on that have caused me to raise an eyebrow.
I would respectfully disagree with this view. IMHO, life, judges, guns and marriage are a constitutional issue because of the Founder’s absolute belief in a Creator and Divine Providence, and the inherent dignity of the human person God created. Without a belief in God, and Heaven and Hell, there is no reason whatsoever to be “conservative” or anything else virtuous. Without God, there would be anarchy.
“I’d go for a simple Conservative Constitutionalist Party.
There is only one conservative ideology, not two or ten “versions”.”
Why don’t you start that party? Banish all opinions of policy based on any religious beliefs, morals, values, no oogeldy boogeldy religionists allowed, what have you, and we’ll see whether you’re right or not and how that works out.
Jonah nailed it.
And the same party intellegensia that said the bail-out was a good idea
And the same party intellegensia that thought amnesty was a good idea
And the same party intellegensia that thought spending money like drunken sailors was a good idea.
I say our party intellegensia is broken, we need a new party intellegensia; one that can walk and talk at the same time.
Your response bears no resemblance to what I said, so I’m at a loss as to how to respond.
I’ve never used the phrase “too christian”. Why you chose to attribute that to me is something only you can answer.
If you disagree that evangelicals get blamed for people beating up gays, you are wrong. We do get blamed. It has nothing to do with the truth, it’s simply what happens.
You may be right about that. If so, the battle within the party (and without) will only get more intensive. This year the Catholic Bishops were drawn into the debate more forcefully than ever. Led by Pope Benedict XVI, they won't be retreating either. IMO, this 'religiosity' that KP is so wrong about, is fundamental to a conservative party or movement. She or others might prefer to call it morals, character or integrity; however, it is based on a belief in God and a people called to live that Judeo-Christian faith out in their lives.
Here's an excerpt from Edward Cardinal Egan (NY) statement to Nancy Pelosi regarding abortion. There is nothing here that requires faith or religiosity to believe. However, it is most powerful with that as it's fundamental underpinning.
We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.
I’m not sure what your objection is to my statement. Do you think we cannot be against gay marriage unless we also want to treat gays as second-class citizens?
Because I firmly believe that you can have gay friends and tolerate gays in your environment without having to accept gay marriage.
And I am hopeful that most Christians and Conservatives can agree with me that we should not seek to banish gays from society.
The simple truth is that gays may be able to get away with black and mormon bashing, but conservatives would never get away with it. It’s the double-standard.
But from what I’ve heard talking to people from California, the gay activists are not “getting away with it”. They are building up a well of righteous indignation. I spoke with one person who voted NO who says that if the vote was today he and probably millions of others would change their votes to YES simply because he’s seen a side of the gay community he didn’t believe existed.
You are correct — and any approach we take has to consider and counter the reality that our position can be twisted against us.
Just as I knew that what I said could sound like I was agreeing with KP, when I don’t. It’s always a danger to use something as outrageous as KP’s remarks to try to make a more subtle point.
On the other hand, when conservatives try too hard to prove they are NOT like the false portrait, oftentime other conservatives get scared that the person is actually a closet liberal. Say you think gay people are human, and some conservatives will think you secretly support gay marriage.
Folks, just ignore this Parker clown — she is a liberal still trying to pose as someone of relevance to Rs and conservatives (I know, not the same thing). She does not have conservative interests at heart, so her columns are fundamentally deceptive. The sooner we ignore her the sooner she can just go away to post on Puffington Post.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Wrong. Arnie IS the exact copy of what the RINO’s think a Republican should be.
Without a moral foundation, fiscal conservatives WILL lose their way. Count on it.
Exactly — and in McCain we had just about the most atypical “Republican” we could have.... not in the least symathetic to anything or anyone “evangelical” and not at all out front on the “social” (moral) issues. McCain is a defense-oriented conservative, a “progressive” on a lot of economic issues, and decidedly indifferent or non-aggressive on issues of importance to evangelical Christians (nominally pro-life but has never made a big deal of it so far as I know). If there was anything to Parker’s RINO strategy then McCain should have been the ideal candidate.
Every self proclaimed moderate is doing the same, pretending this recently concluded election cycle didn’t test their oh so precious theory that the GOP should become ‘Democratic Party Lite’.
Its not surprising they are the same one’s snipping at Sarah Palin these days. The simple fact is moderates aren’t leaders, they are followers.
Which is why there is no book titled ‘Great moments in Moderate Political History’. Nor will there be.
Kathy Parker is just ensuring she is viable on the DC cocktail circuit, and it does appear she wants a show on MSNBC next year.
Good luck with that Ms Parker. Perhaps you can have that whining, hypocritical, catty Peggy Noonan on with you, right after Olberman and Maddow. In other words, well after prime time - which is appropriate.
Absolutely, Christians should attempt to rid our society of this abomination, lest the land itself would spit us out.
And Conservatives should equally oppose the Gay agenda, which is in large part incompatible with Conservative ideology. They are our natural enemies, as part of the liberal sphere.
What I mean is that if we take the three main axes of policy issues to be defense-economics-morality then McCain is only “conservative” on defense/military issues..... rather liberal on a lot of economic issues, and only nominally conservative (perhaps) on issues like pro-life but does not base his political life around any of the social-moral issues of importance to evangelicals.
Parker is propounding the same kind of theme that Colin Powell did when endorsing Obama — where is the evidence for this claim that the Republican Party has taken any big shift to the right or been captured by evangelical Christians? (fwiw, I’m not evangelical and not at all literalist about the Bible but I don’t fear and cower from evangelical influences either).
>>>>>Atheists are inherently dishonest. <<<<
Are you an atheist?
Sorry, not a member of your club.
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.