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 ...
Absolutely correct! I wish So Cons would embrace this truth and abandon the idea of supporting big-government "conservatives" (which is an oxymoron).
I disagree that Geneva would have been more libertarian than we could imagine, just ask Servetus (I know, you brought him up first). We don’t want federal government telling us it is the law of the land to attend church services. We want freedom of conscience, so people can worship God as they see fit.
I absolutely agree with you, however, with regards to the rest of your post. Very well said.
You said:
...is not his primary crusade: tragically mis-named "family" law that enables easy divorce and divides fathers from their sons, gives authority to women who may leave their husbands for any reason whatsoever, and reduce their kids' fathers to basic money providers and Uncle Dad's who can "visit" their kids two weekends a month plus a couple of days mid-week. That's what's been happening for 40 years and is the CAUSE of most of what Dobson hates, yet he hasn't the vision or perhaps the courage to face the REAL enemy and wrangle with it, and start going on a crusade against family law courts in the U.S., which is, essentially, a problem of bigger, more powerful government.
Someone is emotional but it's not me. Didn't you know that no-fault-divorce was the cause of all that?
Who wanted no-fault-divorce and who made it law?
Men! Men who wanted to stop paying alimony. (The purpose of alimony was to supported the mother and their children so the kids would not be raised by babysitters and the state). Men wanted out of that trap. They got what they asked for...
I don't know how you can blame the mess on Dobson. Women vote for bigger government to replace their husbands. That's who elected Obama.
Obama appeals something called universal. He thinks it is a better guide than something that is religion-specific: “democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.”
Are we to agree and say that whatever is religion-specific, is less good, less true, less just, than something that is universal? What is universal?
I understand Dobson wants to say that on the question what is universal, he will not be silenced. Parker doesn't even want to let him talk.
From a pragmatic point of view, a party platform may see better results by making a case from a scientific and constitutional perspective. But the question here is not the means. If really pressed, we know the question reaches as deep as this: how can any political society claim something called universal?
What good is an unjust limited government?
You obviously didn’t read a word of it.
Everything about the founding of this country is based on the Judeo/Christian culture.
When you remove the Judeo/Christian, you have Europe and eventually, Iran.
If you’re conservative, you’re happy to have Christian participation because that’s where your liberty comes from.
In short, AnnaZ, the universal, is religion.
Ilander 7, my replies to AnnaZ apply to the points you raise.
You’re missing my point and I don’t know why.
Conservatism is not a religious philosophy and the Republican Party is not a church.
What good is an unjust limited government?”
The idea is that an unjust limited government will do less harm than an unjust all powerful massive behemoth of a government. Aside from limiting costs, the whole idea of limited government is limiting the harm government can inflict on the people. That's why our forefathers tried to limit the size and scope of the federal government in the first place. We're going to have “good” government sometimes and bad government sometimes and every shade of gray in between. Maybe you are right in saying a limited government is only good when it's a good government. But when government is bad, which would you rather have? A massive all powerful government or a small government with limited powers?
>>>>Abortion ..... no one is to be denied life without due process, science shows us clearly that abortion is the taking of a unique, individual life. <<<<<
This is a much better and more convincing argument to make because it appeals to reason, is Constitutionally sound, does not require any particular spiritual belief, and really exposes abortion promoters as murderers *under the law*.
I never said they were. No one but you has ever said they were.
When the Founders said that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, they meant it literally.
Conservatism is about that.
Anything else is law by man which can change at the whim of the man - it is dictatorship.
America would be wise to stick with the rights endowed by their Creator. We don’t want to live in Iran.
>>>>>Anything else is law by man which can change at the whim of the man - it is dictatorship. <<<<<<
Gee, like the U.S. Constitution?
Thanks for sharing.
Creating the Declaration of Independence
"The American Revolution emerged out of the intellectual and political turmoil following Great Britain’s victory in the French and Indian War."
Give us an example something that evangelical Christians nearly unanimously believe should be enforced by federal government, which you believe, threatens the Republic.
True, you may not be silenced.....
...but you CAN be marginalized.
And will be.
God is still in control, and gets the Last Laugh.
Conservatism is not a religion, but if it is anything, it cannot table the religious questions. Any party that does so, fails to recognize and treat the core questions of political philosophy: What is man? What is god? A failure to adequately answer those questions is the failure of a political philosophy—however many elections they win.
Yes - like Roe is unconstitutional. We are losing our Judeo/Christian base.
Proof that you didn’t read:
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/
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.