Posted on 11/29/2008 10:08:31 AM PST by redk
So, Kathleen Parker has determined that getting rid of social conservatives and shelving the values they fight for is the solution to what ails the Republican Party (“Giving Up on God,” Nov. 19). Isn’t that a little like Benedict Arnold handing George Washington a battle plan to win the Revolution?
Whatever she once was, Ms. Parker is certainly not a conservative anymore....
(Excerpt) Read more at citizenlink.org ...
What section of the Constitution are you referring to?
Do you ever listen to Dobson...he’s been railing against “anti-male”, antifamily type laws and courts for years.
As for “questioning” another person’s faith, Christians can be just as afraid as any other group(for fear of being called “judgmental”) of stating that any would be naked emperors’ have no clothes! The Bible also states that we need to have the courage of our convictions as well as to stand up(give heed and listen to) “ before the hoary heads”!
By condemning Dobson’s questioning of another poseur Christian, you are doing the same as what you claim he is doing! Dobson has been around for a long time and is better educated on family issues and the politics that affect them more than most of us will ever be in several life times. If he has some issues with politicians who claim faith but behave unfaithfully, I would tend to listen to him!(But mommy, the emperor has no clothes...)
Do you insult everyone who asks you a question?
Abortion and homosexuality were unthinkable here for better than four hundred years. They were always wholly and utterly against the law for all that time ...
Against Federal law? Really? So homosexuality was rooted out and stopped ... abortions were rooted out and stopped ... because they were illegal? WRONG -- societal pressure applied by free people is what "enforced" laws against both. Sodomy laws were NOT enforced because sheriffs went door-to-door and caught perps red-handed. Abortion -- which has been around four thousands of years (ancient Chinese did it with herbs) -- was not prevented by the law arresting doctors and pseudo-doctors; it was prevented by a moral people, and the sinners who indulged in it answered, as they always will, to a force much higher than any man-made government. Had a local, state, or Federal government mandated that employers keep flaming fags on their payrolls and taxpayers fund abortions for the poor, lynchings would have resulted. They do it now and no lynchings result because too many people -- the likes of you included -- regard such interference as a rightful, if misguided, purview of the Federal government, which the Founders most assuredly DID NOT.
Acceptance of open homosexuality and legalization of abortion HAS ONLY HAPPENED HERE because of the abandonment of limited government principle, and the embrace of expansive government. Threat of government-mandated jail time and fines prevent you and me from rejecting open homosexuality in our workplaces, our properties (if you're a landlord), our churches, our civic groups (Boy Scouts, anyone?), even our on-line dating services (eharmony). Left to their own in a LIMITED GOVERNMENT scenario, Americans would soundly reject open homosexuality and it would disappear into the closet. EXPANDED GOVERNMENT CAUSED THE PROBLEM -- why do you look to it now as a solution?
Threat of government-mandated jail time and fines prevent you and me from rejecting abortion as advocated by government "family planning" programs, schools, and even Romney's state-mandated insurance policy in Massachusetts. Left to their own in a LIMITED GOVERNMENT scenario, Americans would reject and shun societal endorsement of abortion, and it would be as it was before -- a shameful, hidden thing. Today, it's funded by your and my tax dollars! EXPANDED GOVERNMENT CAUSED THE PROBLEM -- why do you look to it now as a solution?
LIMITED GOVERNMENT, limiting the Federal government to staying out of these things, which WAS DONE in the Constitution, is the ONLY way to enable true Social conservatism. The Founders knew this. Why don't you?
YOU: Do you insult everyone who asks you a question?
Not usually. I save insults for the really really really dumb questions. You could tell by the post that I did not consider Calvin's Geneva to by tyrannical. So why did you ask the question?
I take it then that you considered my question about whether or not you considered Calvin to be a tyrant to be a "really really dumb question", since you insulted me by insulting my inquiry.
You could tell by the post that I did not consider Calvin's Geneva to by tyrannical.
Tell that to Servetus
So why did you ask the question?
I just wanted to see if you felt that Calvin was as tyrannical as other men (such as James Dobson or Barrak Obama).
Your response was that that "He would have been one of the first to say “yes” to that question."
Well considering that he never repented of his involvement in the Servetus incident, despite having numerous contemporary critics within the Reformation movement, I tend to think you place Calvin on a higher pedestal than you do other men (such as James Dobson).
You also said, "He had the seeds of tyranny in him as do all men."
That was not a response to my silly silly question. My question was whether or not you believed that Calvin WAS a tyrant. To that question you have given two conflicting answers.
So I will ask the "silly silly" question again:
Are you suggesting that Calvin was a tyrant?
Now if you could give a simple non-conflicting answer, I would appreciate it.
Give the man a kewpie doll!
ME: You could tell by the post that I did not consider Calvin's Geneva to by tyrannical.
YOU: Tell that to Servetus
OK, that makes it a bit clearer. You did not want to know what I thought. You just wanted to argue about it. Fine by me. I am not here to defend all aspects of Geneva, nor the activities of Calvin re: Servetus. Calvin was a man of his time. Also, Servetus was man under sentence of death all over Europe. The idea of a separation of church and state was foreign to everyone of that time. Further, Calvin personally met with Servetus and encouraged him to either leave or shut up, that the elders would not put up with his stuff. Calvin then met with the city elders and encouraged them to commute the sentence. Then he encouraged them to change the sentence of death to a more "humane" sentence." Like I said, I am not saying things were done right, and Calvin's episode re: Servetus is a black eye in the history of Geneva.
James Dobson has never had the power to exercise to prove himself a tyrant or otherwise, so your question is just stupid. Barak Obama is new on the scene of real power, so let us just say "I hope he will not be a tyrant."
Calvin would have been the first to say that "YES, he had the potential within himself to be a tyrant, given the right circumstances, as all men are prone to abuse power."
Please refrain from your ridiculous trolling and picking at words if you don't like my responses to them.
Are all Calvinists as condescending as you?
Please refrain from your ridiculous trolling and picking at words if you don't like my responses to them.
You didn't answer my question.
Calvin was a man of his time.
Are you suggesting that Calvin WAS a tyrant?
(Taglines like, “Conservatism is not a religious movement” are smug, pretentious horsebleep.)
>>>>Taglines like, “Conservatism is not a religious movement” are smug, pretentious horsebleep.<<<<<<
The truth hurts, doesn’t it.
Lol, the "truth" is a matter of just to what degree your clinical Stockholm Syndrome indoctrination has affected your defective Marxist simian brain.
Amateur. Buy hey - as long as the framed Keith Olbermann 8x10 glossy keeps on "smiling" at you.
>>>>>Lol, the “truth” is a matter of just to what degree your clinical Stockholm Syndrome indoctrination has affected your defective Marxist simian brain.<<<<<<
What’s your problem anyway?
State it out loud.
You think Conservatism *is* a religious movement?
Yes or no.
And tell us, Grasshopper - what does "conservatism" worship?
And make sure you "state-it-LOUD" that we unwashed may understand your Third-World Cambodian thought-process.
>>>>>what does “conservatism” worship?<<<<<<
Simple answer:
Conservatism worships nothing because it isn’t a religion.
And since I’ve answered your question, please answer mine without hedging or tossing more insults.
You think Conservatism *is* a religious movement?
Yes or no.
You're impressing....WHOM again??
>>>>>Thank you for asking then appropriately answering your own inane question regarding the so-called religiosity of “Conservatism.”<<<<<<
You’re nuts dude.
Better luck next time, Grasshopper.
"Doctrine"?? Who within the United States government has proposed such a strawman, Heathenist Third Worlder?
What accusation would you have for THIS gentleman?:
GEORGE WASHINGTON:
"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."
Is in YOUR warped opinion Washington proposing a "religious doctrine" in his Thanksgiving Proclamation? According to your definition, he is.
You are painfully ignorant of U.S. History, son.
Does it matter? I mean, really? Here's the thing -- we in Western Civilization with our norms about child marriage, infanticide (did you see the thread about the tribal women in New Guinea murdering their newborn sons to prevent future wars?), slavery, etc., take it so much for granted that we forget that those specific things are the heritage of what, 900 generations at least of Judeo Christianity. Specific laws: no murder for whimsy or convenience, condemn envy, resist vengeance, honor your elders, take a day off once a week to be grateful -- wise, smart laws upon which Western Civilization was built to ultimately become slave-free, prosperous, and thriving in the 21st century. Was Western Civilization a religious movement?
Why worry about the "religiousity" of the thing? Are you embarassed? What matters is that you embrace what's smart and tolerate those of us here who believe in our cores that indeed the bible is divinely inspired and has the answers to strife and misery in how we behave to each other. You don't have to believe that if you dont' want, but you have to admit it's worked better than anything else in human history by a long shot. For Pete's sake, at least embrace the ethic and forget whether or not it's "religious" if that scares you. Either way, it's certainly your salvation in a world that without Judeo-Christianity, would devolve into barbarism, as we see demonstrated all about us frequently.
If you're an atheist conservative, I hope you understand the debt you owe a religious movement for the freedoms you have today. Western Civ didn't happen by itself because some people were just "born" believing that infanticide, slavery, child marriage, etc., is wicked and evil, and that envy and vengeance should be shunned because they only make people crazy and destructive. Westerners weren't born knowing it. It's taught in Judeo-Christianity, and that's the foundation of our successful culture.
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.