1998 mission statement.
Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!
The emphasis on Christianity as the driving force for conservatism was never thought of here in 1998.
William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater and Russell Kirk were the standard bearers of conservatism...not the KJV.
Since the 2003 a large number of Fundamental Christians have joined the site and many of them have trashed traditional conservatives like Bob Barr, W.F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater and most of these newbies don't know the difference between Russell Kirk and Kirt Russell. This was a political forum until it became a religious chat room with little debate about the principals of conservatism and its roots in the enlightenment. Free Republic has fragmented as a political force imo. Social Conservatism as seen through many Christian eyes is as much about big government furthering their causes as any socialists ideas for big government to do the same for theirs.
Libertarians who were once given an equal platform to explain their political beliefs were once a large contingent here...and an activist one at that. Those here who supported Ron Paul (whom you spoke favorably of in years past) are demonized by the mass of posters here with join up dates post 2003 onward. What happened to change the focus of Free Republic from the political to the religious?
And Jim...the attack dogs of the religious right alienate people of every political persuasion. No one likes moral busybodies.
Or whiners.
You say that like it's a bad thing?
You seem to pine for what you remember as 'the old days', when "Libertarians ... were once given an equal platform to explain their political beliefs [and] were ... a large contingent here ..."
It's my perspective that there are plenty of Libertarians and three-legged stool conservatives, each given an equal platform to explain their political beliefs. It's also my perspective that the Libertarians are quite properly getting their arses kicked in the debate over who has the better political philosophy and policy. Medina and Paul?! They don't represent conservatism. At least not on this planet.
"attack dogs"; "religious right"; "moral busybodies".
Wow. Who's trying to alienate who again?
There are still a bunch of them here ~ always were ~ always will be.
I think what you are missing are the crowd who took every opportunity to smack around people they considered "Holy Rollers". Their problem is that like the "killer docs", they just couldn't stop and next thing you know they were smacking around Presbyterians, Catholics, ....... etc.
There's no reason a Libertarian can't counsel his secular mind enough so that he can be a religious person as well ~ but a lot of them don't.
We already have more than our fair share of "weak minds" ~ why should we want more of them, particularly the deviant ones?
Frankly, people who haven't signed on yet to the Peace of Westphalia should not be tolerated to discuss religious affairs, or faith. Now I may sound old fashioned for saying that, but we've gotta' have some standards eh!
Try to win an election without social conservatives.
By you, perhaps, but for the core group, it has always been the driving force.