Agreed
America is a nation that holds freedom of the individual as one of it's First Principles. In a political 'movement', the philosophical separation of religion and politics ('church and state') must be clear, or else, the conservative movement would simply have been an evangelical movement and gained little traction with the body politic. Citizens don't want to be preached to, they want political leadership and the freedom to choose both their religion and their political party without being told that one political philosophy is God-centered and thus, unassailable. Such is not the case with conservatism. It reflects much of God's law, such as being anti-abortion, but does so in a manner that uses political persuasion as much as an appeal to emotions or playing the 'religion card' to win adherents.
Cloaking the conservative movement with the mantle of God, as if conservatism were God's chosen political vehicle, would have likely stymied the nascent movement, even back in the 1950's, when Christianity was not yet a dirty word in the leftist-controlled mass media. Even so, the left has always mocked conservatives as 'holier than thou' and basically claimed that the religious right wants to seize political power in order to force all Americans to attend church. Absurd, yes, and easily dismissed as 'loony left' hyperbole but in America, even though a political movement may be only tangentially associated with religion, that fact can easily be manipulated to it's disadvantage by poisoning the public perception of what the movement is about.
The so-called 'religious right'- of which I proudly count myself a member - has been very effective in recent years by taking their Christian values and working to promote laws and political candidates that reflect those values as well as working to defeat proposed laws and political candidates that oppose those same Christian values. From being the established pro-life party to attempting to constitutionally establish the definition of legal marriage as being the union of one man and one woman, I believe the conservative movement has basically adhered to Christian principles. Of course, if viewed from a strictly theological standpoint, one can always cite flaws and errors of omission. I see no point to that kind of futile exercise, except to tear down what others have built, beginning with the late William F. Buckley, Jr. Mr. Lofton serves little purpose in his condemnation of the conservative movement as being essentially 'Godless'. He is also basically in error with that characterization, but has a right to express his opinion, just as we have a right to dispute it here on FR.
Today, conservatives are at a crossroads. Unfortunately, the national Republican party has steadily drifted leftwards and is all too ready to compromise on values, laws and candidates. Conservative Christians have had it and are drawing a 'line in the sand' over the candidacy and very likely nomination of Senator John McCain as the GOP candidate for president in 2008. I believe McCain will be soundly defeated in the general election. In part due to conservative voters abstaining from voting or, as I intend to do, voting for an independent candidate instead of McCain. The Senator, if he runs true to form, will no doubt blame conservatives for his defeat. Let him. That will signal to the 'moderates' and their like-minded cronies now in positions of power at the GOP, that Christian conservatives are not going away or be manipulated out of power in the Republican party.
I respect John Lofton's sincerity as it applies to his belief that the conservative movement has stumbled because it hasn't put God at the center, and there may well be a modicum of truth in that belief. However, conservatism is and always will be a political, and thus, in America, secular movement, even though God's law is well represented within that movement by the active presence of Christians, known to many as 'the religious right', as opposed to the atheist left we have and always will contest for the 'hearts and minds (and votes) of Americans.