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 ...
In an attempt to find some common ground, I would suggest that Ronald Maximus Reagan put together the three components (SoCon, FiCon and DefCon and those who want their very own MeCon) rather well by articulating the movement (small government, individual liberty, peace through strength, Golden Rule) very well and valued the varying perspectives of each group. He never would alienate any one group.
My theory is that we need each other or we will never defeat the Democratic Socialists again. I promise never to attempt to convert you to (or require your affirmation of) my religion as long as you promise not to begrudge or prohibit my free exercise thereof to stay in the party?
But you are the one who is claiming that one cannot be ‘protestant christian’ and be in the conservative party. You want that branch eliminated. You’ve spent most of your posts putting across that point. I note you leave out Catholics. Jews.
And my point is who are you or Kathleen Parker to say WHO is allowed under the big tent of conservatism? KP where do you get off suggesting that Evangelicals must leave because they are the reason conservatives can’t win elections. They are the cause. They and their scarey religion you’re mocking.
You may not be hypenated angkor, but thinking like this causes hypenation. Putting yourself in the seat of judging, even though they may agree with you on conservative principles, that a certain group must be the cause of all that ails the conservative movement is not anyone’s place. Not yours and not KP’s. Who does she think she is?
If anything some of these country clubbers or vichy or whatever you want to call them may be in part responsible because they want the party purged of the ‘religious right’. And they are cutting their noses off to spite their face. Causing hyphenation. You may not be hyphenated, but you’re the one saying,”You people. Get out you’re ruining the party.”.
Great post. What an example President Reagan was and still is. God bless him.
You would be one of those NOT in the “most” category.
For example, if I go out on the highway and drive at 100 mph, I will get pulled over and ticketed because of a law created that believes that is not in the best interest of the common good. I could say that such a law is unjust, ridiculous and it's my right to drive as fast as I want because I'm not hurting anyone but myself (live free or die).
This law (and all laws), is based on a moral code, which believes the needs/wants of the many are greater than the needs/wants of the one.
As my post clearly noted that it was NOT the evangelicals that were the problem, I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was blaming them.
I’ll use an analogy. There were many people in our party who opposed illegal immigration. However, as part of that fight, we were joined by groups that opposed not only illegal immigration, but ALL immigration. And we were joined by people who simply hated the idea of people speaking spanish being in their community, and some who were bigots or xenophobes.
This allowed the pro-amnesty folks to falsely label us all as hate-mongers. It’s not the truth, but it a fact of life that this is what happened.
And in reality, we need to overcome that false attack. We need to take special care to distinguish our position from that of the haters and fringe extremists.
In the same way, those of us in the pro-life movement have to take care to separate ourselves from those who bomb clinics and target doctors. Not because we SHOULD have to, but because we have to overcome the false attacks.
Anybody who has hung out on FR has seen how a few posters can make the whole site look bigoted, racist, or antagonistic to certain religions.
It’s just a fact of life.
>>>>>>But you are the one who is claiming that one cannot be ‘protestant christian’ and be in the conservative party.<<<<<
I never said any such thing and I don’t believe any such thing. You’re making this up all on your own without any assistance from me.
What I am saying is that you can believe any darn thing you like, and it is your right to do so.
But it is not your right to divert a 200 year old political party in the direction of your personal religious and sectarian beliefs.
I know from solid conservative GOP oldtimers and leaders (who are not RINOs or Rockefeller Republicans) that the influence of Religionist ideas gone way over the top in the last 40+ years. Barry Goldwater also predicted that this influence would destroy the GOP and possibly conservatism, and it looks like we’re almost there.
Is that too complicated?
... and how are the "SoCon's" "diverting a 200 year old political party in the direction of personal religious and sectarian beliefs?"
Actually, that is why homicide and abortion is wrong, it is a bit of God that another man has killed.
Aren’t you cute?
<<<<What are some of the “Religionist ideas” that are destroying the GOP? <<<<<<
For starters, the insistence that the GOP and conservatism are functions and derivatives of the Bible and Protestant Christianity.
Conversely, that one must be an avowed Protestant Christian (even an Evangelical Christian!) to be a conservative or a supporter of Republicans.
These ideas cannot be swallowed by, and are repellent to, large numbers of otherwise conservative Americans.
So in addition to the job of supporting the GOP platform, Republicans must also carry the weight of a religion.
That’s twice the political burden of the Rats, who must only support the single political program of Socialism Lite.
This is the first time I've EVER read this even suggested by anyone. What tripe!
Oh well, first I’m delusional and then I’ve been graced to have you ‘dumb down’ your post.
You see, this IS the trouble with country club Repubs. We who believe in God must not be capable of understanding their complicated thoughts.
BTW, there are evangelical Catholics as well. Why do you keep emphasizing ‘protestant’? And I haven’t added a thing to the opinions you’ve expressed. I think I’ve seen them very clearly. If we can’t get the conservative movemen together it will be because of people such as yourself. You say you don’t care about a person’s religion, but you obviously do. You want evangelicals votes, you just don’t want them to have any voice in the party. You can’t have it both ways.
Was that too complicated?
Far to he contrary. Mine is the majority view, and that is why politically correct moderates will always lose elections. We unwashed masses actually believe in right and wrong, in good and evil, in righteousness and sin.
Someday I'll go through my "history" analysis of the First, Second and Third Amendments to the Constitution.
Trns out that "Protestant Christian sectarian beliefs" have special protection in U.S.Law.
It's kind of subtle and you need a good grounding in American and European history, but it's there.
It starts with Louis XIV, King of France ~ the "SUN KING".
In Louis' day France was still governed by the Edict of Nantes ~ this document was promulgated many years earlier for the purpose of ending the Religious Wars and to create official government tolerance for the existence of Protestant temples. You also didn't need to go to church anymore even if you were a Catholic. Jews found that tolerance wasn't all that great, but there weren't many of them since they'd been expelled several times before.
All in all France could hold itself out as a tolerant, advanced nation.
Louis XIV, though, had what we might call "simple beliefs" when it came to religion, kings, law and your personal need to attend mass on Sunday.
Kind of tranlates as "One faith, one law, one king" or so he was quoted ~ and his has become the definition of his regime for Protestant history.
One thing led to another and Louis decided to RESCIND the Edict of Nantes. Louis initiated the Dragonettes Orders ~ these were designed to force Huguenots (Protestants) back to the welcoming arms of the Caholic church. Here one of his favorite practices was to quarter troops in the home of a wealthy Huguenot. They'd eat up his stores of food, sleep in his bedrooms, use his furniture, wear his clothes, have sex with his women, kill his animals, and whatever other piece of mayhem they could think of.
Now the Huguenot was not without resources. If he agreed to attend Catholic church the troops would be withdrawn and his property left alone. If he didn't, this process would continue and finally the government would seize his property.
Approximately 1.6 million Huguenots fled France over the next few years.
Among those Huguenots were many of the grandparents and parents of the Founders of the United States of America ~ they remembered the nature of a tyrant.
The Third Amendment about "quartering troops" was written by the descendants of Huguenot settlers as a challenge to a specific practice used by a tyrant, Louis XIV, to crush Protestantism.
Now, the second amendment ~ it's about the right to defend yourself from the depredations wrought by the Dragonettes Orders. You can use the weapons you own, including firearms, to drive off even the king's soldiers.
In Huguenot understanding, the "regulation of the militia" has to do with the privilege of the Huguenots to shoot even royal militia if they stepped out of the bounds of protection afforded by the Edict of Nantes.
Please note at the conclusion of the Religious Wars the Catholic forces (the other side) sought to include a clause in the Edict of Nantes that forced the Hugenots to give up their guns. The Huguenots decided it was better to keep the guns. This practice of arms was obviously not limited to small firearms kept at home to repel thieves or hunt rabbits. The Huguenots meant large weaponry which would include artillery, cannonon on board ships, fortified castles, or whatever else was appropriate for the usages of war.
So much for the idea the Founders were concerned only about personal muskets ~ !
Yup, two Amendments are dedicated literally to what can be considered nothing other than "Protestant sectarian beliefs".
Now, the First Amendment ~ it's a grab bag. Got a lot of extra stuff in there about "the press" and gathering, and petitioning ~ and "free speech". It also has something about Congress not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof (an establishment of religion)" ~ which once again refers us to the situation faced by the Huguenots, what Louis XIV did, and the sentiments of yet another document that came about as a consequence of the development of Protestantism in the 1600s in Europe, the Peace of Westphalia!
The First Amendment is clearly seen as a "not withstnding" clause ~ that is, that the right of a nationstate to establish a religion (as provided in the Peace of Westphalia), Congress is not allowed to do that ~ PERIOD!
You can look all these things up if you wish, but your thought that it would be novel to "enshrine Protestant beliefs" in our law is off course.
These "Protestant beliefs" benefit all!
Let’s just say I hope that a majority of conservatives do not think it is the government’s job to rid our country of gay people.
But your position fascinates me. Do you think we should push to have employees fire gay people? If so, how about people who cheat on their spouses, or unmarried couples living together?
Any other sins that we should use government to punish? I realise you must be perfect, but are the rest of us to be removed from our nation because we are sinners?
Or do you really believe that only gay people are REALLY evil, and that the rest of us sinners are OK?
Should we also be looking to send all the athiests, jews, muslims, and budhists off to Australia or something?
Or would you go further, and send either the Catholics or the Protestants off as well? (not sure which one you relate to better — but there was a time where those two groups thought the other to be evil, and there are still protestant churches who think the Catholic church is evil).
So where do you draw the line? Who decides which sinners are good enough, and which sins the government should use to decide on this banishment you want?
Or in the end, is it really just that you hate gay people?
I found Parker 100 percent wrong about Sarah during the campaign, and her “Miss Alaska” comments here are snide, unnecessary and beneath her.
BUT, she is absolutely right about the religionists. Fundies and their fellow travelers are killing GOP electoral chances, and frankly aren’t really conservatives.
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.