T.R. = TEAM ROMNEY

In Lofton's view from the extreme religious right, Gov. Palin just isn't Christian enough:

It isn't really that. Its that, if Lofton didn't figure out some way to include Palin's name in his piece, no one would read it. There is a whole cottage industry of people who make their living invoking Palin's name, and she doesn't get a dime of royalties from them.

Ping for later

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Palin-Haters of the Theocratic Right

*
Those on the secular humanist left who are convinced that Sarah Palin is a "theocrat" must have never heard of John Lofton. The former Washington Times columnist has been involved in two presidential campaigns, as an advisor to Pat Buchanan's efforts in the 1990s and as Communications Director for the 2004 run by Michael Peroutka as the nominee of the Constitution Party. In Lofton's view from the extreme religious right, Gov. Palin just isn't Christian enough:

"Sarah Palin's assertion that the issue of whether moms with small children should or should not work outside the home is a 'petty, little, superficial, meaningless thing' reveals, with a vengeance, that she is a hard-core feminist, with no Christian/Biblical view whatsoever of what a wife/mom ought to be. Her referring to those who believe moms should work in the home to raise their own children as 'Neanderthals' is a slap in the face to millions of moms struggling to do this in obedience to God and His Word."

From his blog The American View, Lofton rails at Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and any other female who dares to do anything other than remain barefoot, pregnant and completely subservient to the man of the house. Lofton and his ilk are textbook examples of the dangers inherent in pridefully interpreting the scriptures without understanding them. Lofton, for example, admitted to Fr. Mitchell Pacwa (during a debate over whether we can ask the saints for their intercessions in our prayers) that he doesn't know Greek. How can one interpret scripture without having a command of not only Greek, but Hebrew and Aramaic as well? Further, if God intended for women to be little more than virtual house slaves, He never would have allowed Deborah to become a judge in Israel or the daughters of Philip to be prophetesses.

The left is so far to the left on the political spectrum that its view of the right compresses all conservatives into a monolith, much as a telephoto lens makes objects appear to be much closer to one another than they really are. Leftists fail to see that there are degrees of separation between the three general types of conservatives. For those of us in the "conservative mainstream" who consider ourselves to be Reagan conservatives, we have on our left the Vichy Republicans and Conservative Lites. That is where you will find the David Frums, Peggy Noonans and Kathleen Parkers. They are progressives who fancy themselves to be conservatives and thus the ones that liberals love to quote and the left frequently invite as guests on their media shows. On our right are the John Loftons and others who have aligned themselves with the Constitution Party. They believe in the Constitution, but their belief requires that it be interpreted strictly along Biblical lines, or at least according to their interpretation of The Bible.

Standing with us in the mainstream of conservatism is Sarah Palin. While we believe that America owes a debt to the faith of our founders, we reject the notion that we need Christian "mullahs" to define that faith for us. Our Jewish brothers and sisters would no doubt draw the short straws under such an arrangement, one which would be a complete anathema to the founders. Indeed, George Washington wrote, in his letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island:

"May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the Father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy."

Based on Lofton's argument with Fr. Pacwa, we suspect that Catholics would not be considered Christians in good standing by Lofton's definition. He is also on record as saying that he "never met a Christian who readily agreed that... Mormons are Christians." Lofton must not get out much. We never cease to be amazed by Christians who evidently believe that the good Lord just can't get his job done without their indispensable and unerring assistance.

Mainstream conservatives refer to the nation's founding upon "Judeo-Christian" values, not just Christian values. Lofton rejects this view in favor of that of Jewish scholar Arthur Cohen, who wrote that the Judeo-Christian tradition "is a myth which buries under the fine silt of rhetoric the authentic, meaningful, and irrevocable distinction which exists between Jewish belief and Christian belief."

It's not yet a cliche to say that when the far left and the far right are firing all of their guns at you, you must be right over the target. The secular humanist left should turn its eyes and its wrath away from Sarah Palin and other Reagan conservatives toward the real theocrats. To find a starting place for their examination of theocrats, they need look no further than Mullah Lofton and his like-minded fellows out there on the far-flung fringes of the right.

- JP

I recall John Lofton being a nasty troll here a few years ago and wrote a big article calling FR "ungodly" and FReepers as "Satan's Kids". He is a Constition Party / third party pimp who makes 'theocrat' seem like a minor label. If memory serves me correctly, he was the one who wrote a scathing article complaining a Congressional chaplin ended a prayer with "in God's name" instead of "in Jesus' name".

Ping 6, info you may want to know...

..and fitting with his whole Constitution Party label- he is also a 9/11 Truther.

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1365

I had an argument just the other day on here with FReepers who believe this crap.

One posted a crying rant he’d been called a Neanderthal!

I find that insulting to Neanderthals!

I think they are are misogynist simpletons, insecure in their own masculinity.

It’s just an opinion...

..and he opposes Women being in any leadership position period.

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1440

Thanks for the heads-up.

I think he is still here under another name bashing Sarah and her family for their “unChristian” behaviour.

He sure is nasty. From the link you posted:

“When I emailed Jim Robinson and asked what his title was, he wrote back saying he was the “janitor.” Well, it’s good his site has a janitor because there’s a lot of crap on it that needs to be dumped in the garbage can.”

Thanks very much, mnehring!!
I recall the troll.

Troll Power, ACTIVATE!

I don’t really like Palin and I don’t really like Romney either. Can I get on both their naughty lists?

There was a time when people actually believed Fred Phelps of Westboro “Baptist Church” was a Christian pastor. But his despicable actions have made it clear Phelps’ only purpose is to try to make Christians look bad.

At this point, I tend to believe John Lofton is up to the same kind of trick.

I don’t know if it’s accidental or on purpose, but what Lofton does is 100% consistent with what one would expect from a leftist mole whose purpose is to portray Christians and conservatives in a bad light.

It may be a chicken/egg question. However, I do know people just like Lofton (actually, we have an entire church near us of his type of thinking) and his being a Constitution party VP nominee gives him extra spotlight. It is important that Conservatives strongly highlight the differences between us and these types. (not sure the best term, although they are ‘Constitution party’ there is very little Constitutional about them, theocrat doesn’t seem right, they certainly aren’t Libertarian.. I’ll have to ponder that.. maybe I’ll steal the old “DecptiCon”).

Controlitarians would be close. Libertyphobes maybe.

I agree with you, we should highlight the differences.

Since you didn’t ping any of these other freepers to defend their position, I’ll go ahead and do it for them.

On the other hand, this isn’t a religion forum, so I’ll not bother with a biblical treatise on the proper biblical roles of men and women in society.

Children deserve to have parents raise them. That doesn’t have to be the woman, but it should be one of the two parents. And in most cases, men have the better jobs and so you expect the women to be the child-rearers. Of course, they are the child-bearers, which impacts their work anyway, so logically it makes sense they would rear the children as well.

It is unnatural for a mother to work so she can pay some other person to raise her kids. If we weren’t talking about Sarah Palin, we’d have a lot more people in agreement on this issue, but because the argument got sucked into the “Palin good, everybody else bad” maelstrom, we can’t have a reasonable discussion.

Personally, I think Sarah Palin should do what she thinks best, as her religious beliefs are her own, and not mine to judge. But likewise she should not judge others for their religious beliefs, and her ridicule of people who believe differently from her was unwise.

There are millions of women who are trying to live by the biblical principles they believe in, and to be mocked and ridiculed for it is unbecoming.

the use of terms such as you used in your post (like misogynist) is indicative that the argument is at least somewhat accurate, as these are feminist words seeking to deny that there is a familial heirarchy that is explained by God in his word.

For my family, if my wife had wanted to work after kids, I would have been home raising them. She didn’t want to work, so that’s how we did it. Women working full-time all the time is really a modern construct, born of the materialist anti-religious brainwashing of the feminist movement and the liberal philosophy. We need more money to buy more things, and that means going into debt and making women work full-time jobs so there are two incomes to spend on big-screen TVs.

The widespread acceptance of the idea that all women should work also contributes to the high divorce rate. Men feel comfortable abandoning their commitments, since women should be able to support themselves. Women likewise feel less obligated to try to work things out, since they can make money on their own. The kids of course are still abandoned and torn apart, but the parents have money and can live their own selfish lives without worry.

The large influx of women into the workplace also puts out of balance our economic system. We need twice as many jobs per family, and since the families with two workers have a lot more money, they can spend more on houses and cars and all sorts of things. This contributed to inflation, and also means that other women feel forced into the workplace since the goods and services cost so much more.

In essense, women working caused a huge “family earning inflation” that makes it harder for single-income families.

From a religious perspective, nobody should be getting their worth, self or other, from having a job. Jobs are a means to an end, which is providing for your family. Raising children is a very important job, and by debasing that job and suggesting that it is beneath the dignity of a woman, modern society dismisses the history of man and insults religious upbringing and teaching.

There, I think I covered most of the arguments. No need to thank me. Just think twice before you insult the religion of a sizable minority of the people in this country, and denigrate the fine spiritual women who are trying against the force of modern debased culture to live their lives as Women of God.