Skip to comments.Heresies and Other Truths (Kathleen Parker attacks GOP evangelicals)
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 It’s too bad that I do not know were the poll questions — that once were on the sidebar — have been archived to; there’s some very interesting things that FReepers have voted on that have caused me to raise an eyebrow.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 Founders 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.
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.
I agree 100%. But we know that there are far too many who love to categorize within the Right. They seem to live for it.
>>>>>HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Wrong. Arnie IS the exact copy of what the RINOs think a Republican should be.<<<<<
You addressed a question to me about “Arnie”.
I presume you mean Schwarzanegger (sp?), about whom I know nothing and could not possibly care any less. Not even a minor blip on my radar screen.
That’s why I said “irrelevant”.
No, sorry, I'm not an atheist so I'm a little unsure what you've been talking about.
Is that the best you can do?
>>>>>>Why dont you start that party?<<<<<<
We used to have that party and it was called “the GOP.”
Atheists are inherently dishonest.
>>>>>Without a moral foundation, fiscal conservatives WILL lose their way. Count on it.<<<<<<<
By the way, do you think that “a moral foundation” comes only, exclusively, and specifically from Protestant Christianity?
It’s important that you spell that out.
>>>>Atheists are inherently dishonest.<<<<<
Yes, yes, of course.
You already said that in post #100.
>>>>Without a belief in God, and Heaven and Hell, there is no reason whatsoever to be conservative or anything else virtuous. <<<<<<<
I could not care less about your personal religious beliefs or your religious morals.
My concern is about enshrining Protestant Christian sectarian beliefs in U.S. law, or even leaving that impression. That’s bordering on theocracy and it’s what the Taliban do.
Most importantly the Religionist impulse presents conservatism and the GOP as offshoots of Protestant Christianity. Every time I have this discussion those are exactly the arguments I hear, the same as yours.
We have done just fine as a nation with the Declaration, the Constitution, and other words from our Founders. Yes, they may have been divinely inspired, that’s quite another discussion.
But note well that those works are entirely about secular governance mixed with a profound revulsion of aristocracy and theocracy.
Why? Because you know what is best and others don’t?
Biblical Christianity is the only guide.
If it is in the Bible, that is good enough guide for me. Is it good enough guide for you? Anything else is man made.
>>>>Biblical Christianity is the only guide.<<<<<<
Biblical Christianity is the only guide to American government?
That’s an interesting concept.
And it is stupifyingly wrong about the Founders and American history, not to mention the entirety of Western civilization.
I’m surprised you’d say something so ridiculous in a public forum. But I suppose you’re proud about it.
RINOs have had defacto control over the Republican party for the last few election cycles. All this public sniping indicates RINOs really don't want to do the hard work of developing some sort of consensus with religious conservatives - or, for that matter, fiscal conservatives like myself. I guess the “Big Tent” doesn't include us unless we abandon our core principles - which personally I have no interest in doing - so why even talk about us at all?
I suggest she and her cohorts’ time would be better spent getting off their collective butts and getting that new base.
Will be interesting to see what groups, if any, they pry away from the Democrats. Time to get out the popcorn.
If you don’t understand that this country was founded on Biblical Christian principles, that just neatly explains the problem.
It is you who have made a fool of yourself on a public form. The Left has successfully indoctrinated you into the school of never knowing the foundation of real freedom.
There are plenty more of you out there. This nation will be enslaved because people like you will reject reality.
Mrs Parker: What percentage of folks in US believe in God? What percentage go to church?
>>>>If you dont understand that this country was founded on Biblical Christian principles, that just neatly explains the problem.<<<<<<
This is such a stupid assertion that you have to be trolling.
Typical name calling.
No wonder that the Republican party is losing.
I said the assertion was stupid.
That’s not “name calling”.
Kathleen Parker is best ignored. She never has had much interesting to say, but now that she is in “martyr mode”, she has even less.
Why do you even bother reading her, much less posting her?
I’ve been reading Ms. Parker for a few years now and have long detected a fondness for government bureaucracy and a very subtle dislike for the grassroots of the Republican party.
However, in the last couple of months she’s really shred her mask and revealed herself to be an anti-Christian bigot and an open hater of your everyday sort of person.
Her articles are full of mockery, but there is no real intellectual nuance, so she should refrain from her self-adulation.
This is such a stupid assertion that you have to be trolling.
And so just what does this mean...
"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,..."
Biblical Christianity. Sigh. But you know what the Declaration of Independence says. It just isn't important to you.
“We used to have that party and it was called “the GOP.””
That isn’t an answer to what I asked. It’s not even true, but it’s still not an answer.
I think you wouldn’t start that party because it would fail. You want to call it the fiscal conservative party, but it would really be the secular humanist conservative party.
You’re not ranting about conservative Evangelicals ‘fiscal’ beliefs you’re ranting against their religious beliefs. Maybe they don’t like your political atheism? Maybe ‘you’ should have to get out of the tent? And KP?
McCain is the exact type of politician these idiots are calling for. That didn’t turn out too well.
She makes some good points but misses the mark.
It’s not religion or religious people that are the problem. It’s those that believe that their religion gives them the right to dictate the behavior of others that don’t subscribe to the same beliefs.
Abortion is the perfect case in point. In the 1970s and 80s, conservatives were up in arms over how liberals were using the judiciary to force others to allow abortion. Forcing others to follow their beliefs.
And now it’s the exact opposite, religious conservatives are trying to outlaw abortion, forcing those that believe in it to cease and desist.
Most recently, it’s also ‘gay marriage’. We see that a good number of states passed constitutional amendments defining the status of marriage.
Because gay/lesbians were using the courts to force the citizenry to do their bidding - ie: gay marriage.
And now is the backlash against it. In time, we’ll most likely see religious conservatives try the reverse. And there will be the corresponding backlash to that.
The point is that one *CANNOT* legislate morality. One can only hope to influence people enough to have them change their beliefs. And once they change, their behavior changes as well.
Morality is something you get from your parents and your religious institution.
It is *NOT* something you should find in governmental law!
That is the problem with Evangelicals.
But I understand that it is the evil Evangelicals and or Catholics that beat up old women and smash their signs when a vote doesn't go their way.
Or was that the secular homofascists?
There’s no whiskey or prostitutes in heaven...
(Makes ya think... one man’s heaven is another’s hell.)
I'll kill this right now. The only thing that legislators do is legislate morality. There is no law that doesn't have some moral component imprinted on it. Including traffic laws.
elections are about whose morailty gets imprinted.
I resent being categorized as an “evangelical”. It is almost as a slur grouping all religious conservatives as an extreme right. But remember, the extreme right is supposed to counterbalance the extreme left.
The left wants no part of balance.
The only law that pertains to religion in the Constitution is that the State cannot make any one religion official as a preference. If there is nothing that distinguishes right from wrong how can there be anything but anarchy?
Yes, yes... amazing that.
That this is *NOT*:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by Jesus..."
Note the difference...
You make my point.
You can’t legislate morality. But morality influences legislation.
What evangelicals would like is the legislation of morality. Ban abortion, ban homosexuality, etc, etc.
I don’t believe in either of those examples, but I’m not going to force my beliefs on those that believe otherwise... and I will fight to my last breath to stop others from forcing their beliefs on *ME*.
Remember that little phrase we were supposed to learn as kids? You know, I think it was called something... something like, oh! I remember... the GOLDEN RULE.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!”
Would you want liberals forcing *THEIR* beliefs on you? Then you shouldn’t be forcing yours on them!
... and raise you one oogedy boogedy "Ooga Booga."