Posted on 06/28/2007 7:40:03 AM PDT by tang0r
Jerry Falwell’s passing two months ago marks the beginning of the end. As the senior leadership of evangelical America fades from the scene, they will pass the torch to a younger ministry whose views on politics and social issues are very different. The role they will play in the Republican party will determine America’s political future for years to come.
Evangelical leaders of Falwell’s generation oversaw the rise of political clout for fundamentalist Christianity. They founded the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, the American Coalition for Traditional Values, and Focus on the Family. Pat Robertson even ran for president in 1988, losing to George Bush Sr (although he beat Bush in the Iowa caucuses).
(Excerpt) Read more at prometheusinstitute.net ...
One thing I am learning is to pay closer attention to the goofy conspiracy theories of different groups. They may be false, but they will be a treasure map to the groups’ thinking and future path. We are seeing that with the obsessive and slanderous accusations the left dreamed up against the so-called “relgious right.” What they see as changes now are just things they refused to notice in times past because they had an agenda and a conspiracy theory to sell (spread the fear). So count me as not alarmed by the religious people who are liberals. Most of them don’t believe the Bible either. We must defend our positions and they theirs. Theirs denies the nature of God, the meaning and reliability of Scripture, and the nature of man (sinful). So it is no big surprise their worldview leads them down liberal social/political paths.
The link below is to a long but fascinating article on Christian demographics and politics. It makes the point that theologically conservative Third World Southern Hemisphere Christians are becoming numerically predominant in Christianity. And that although they are theologically conservative they subscribe to socialist-minded economics.
Are there not laws for murder, rape, robbery, etc. at the state level? Somehow the separate and sovereign states are able to protect life and limb but when it comes to abortion 'conservative' Christians run to the federal government. This is not a federal issue, nor was it ever intended to be. The only thing I want the Supreme Court to do is to return the decision to the states. Let them handle it and quit bothering the federal government with moral issues
Socialism doesn't work because it operates in denial of the corruptibility of the power holders and in direct opposition to the check on the sin nature of humans, that being the consequences of their own actions and choices. Does that make sense? A right understanding of the nature of man (and the history of man for that matter) should kill any hope that socialism can work. The brilliance of our government is in its use of the negatives of human nature to bring about the most positive possible result.
I am sure someone can say this better than I can. But there you go.
What is it about paleoPaulie and his supporters that makes them always willing to fight wars so long as we don't actually fight those wars. Demonrats think its OK to fight in Afghanistan (for now) but not in Iraq. Paleos think that there must be some sort of arcane "constitutional" maze of pseudophilosophical justification to put a stop to what is evil.
As you well know, SCOTUS is not going to respond to the South Dakota and Mississippi right to life laws by reversing Roe vs. Wade (at least not yet with "Sandra Day" Kennedy serving as the "swing" vote) and saying collectively or 5-4 "Why didn't WE think of that?"
How many more innocent babies need to die to satisfy the antiseptic fastidiousness of the paleodimbulbs while the elitist left runs amok doing whatever (and killing whomever) it pleases and cramming its murderous social policies down our throats?
Then tell me. Why do we not have a federal law specific to murder? Or to rape? Or to a myriad of other issues? Because if you read the Constitution, and not a secessionist document from 13 years earlier, it doesn't give the government those powers
You and every other 'conservative' can 'beg to differ' until the cows come home. But it doesn't change the point (as noted by Madison in Federalist #45). The federal government has, or had, very specific roles. Other than that, all other issues were to be handled by the states.
In short, you’re saying that the federal government really doesn’t have any obligation to secure individual rights.
Yes. That’s what I believe. Well said.
Actually, maybe that would make good tagline material.
D#mn straight!! Who cares what road to where is paved with 'good intentions'. We need a law!!
I mourn as deeply as others about the deaths of the unborn and believe those who commit such crimes will face a much higher judge someday. That being said, I will not advocate addressing the issue outside of the intended bounds of the Constitution of these United States. What we need is for SCOTUS to rule this issue is a state issue. That's all it would take.
And an Amendment that reaffirms the rights of the separate and sovereign states to address issues as it pertains to their citizenry. Oh we already have that one don't we? It's called the 10th. Good 'job' Republicans did to that one already eh?
I’m sorry Did the quote from Madison confuse you? The federal government has its role, the governments of the separate and sovereign states have theirs. What did you not understand?
Why fight this? Those of us who believe the Federal constitution gives unborn children the right to life have already said we would settle for allowing the states to decide. But do you want states to decide if you have a right to life or not? Should states decide if two-year-olds have a right to life or not?
Wow really? You'll find that for me will you? The Constitution is a list of powers of the federal government and a limitation on the federal government. Nothing else
Can a state regulate speech? No. Why? We have a federal law against it called the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution is law.
Um not to put to fine a point on it but you may want to check that. The First Amendment did not originally apply to the separate and sovereign states until the 20th century (Gitlow 1925). Barron, 1833, affirmed the Bill of Rights was intended to apply solely to the federal government. This was reaffirmed even after the passage of the 14th Amendment.
I think punishments and prosecutions are at the state level. But if a state fails to protect the right to life of a citizen, it moves to federal jurisdiction because of the federal Constitution. States are required to have certain structures and laws. They MUST have a republican form of government. They MUST protect speech and press rights. Etc. To return Roe to the states is the right thing to do. But the states should be required to protect babies’ right to life. To say otherwise is to agree that the child is not fully human. That said, I will settle for allowing states to decide if the child has a right to life. It beats the federal courts deciding they do not.
So if your state decides you can no longer make posts on the Internet, you’re okay with that? Or if they decide you have the wrong opinions and do not deserve to live, you are okay with that? No federal case? I suppose you can argue your case before your state, but hey, you don’t have a right to speech so, good luck with making that argument.
You raise an interesting point but I think it has to be tempered with the fact that the Framers assumed the separate and sovereign states would protect certain rights. What Madison was saying is that these issues would be decided by the states and the federal government was there for only a few issues (disagreements between states, national defense, etc).
What the federal government has become however, much of it through 'good intentions', is something completely different than envisioned by the Framers. So the question then put to you is do you want the federal government deciding everything? Because the more you hand to them, the more they decide. It may look good at one point but it will take you further than you want to go and you'll end up somewhere you don't want to be.
But please feel free to hand over more decision making powers not intended by the Framers to the national government.
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.