Posted on 04/26/2012 3:27:59 PM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I want to take you back to this program February 27th, this year, mere weeks ago. I was talking about the Republican Party. They were angry. They weren't being public with their anger, but I was hearing about it through surrogates. They were angry at me for talking about social issues. "Don't talk about 'em, Rush, the social issues, independents don't want to hear about abortion, that stuff, please." Here's what I said
RUSH ARCHIVE: The Republican establishment in panic over the fact I'm killing the party. And you know how I'm killing the party? By not relegating discussion of social issues to the ash heap. They don't want it talked about. Oh, no, they just can't handle it being discussed. They think it's gonna send the independents driving away and the electoral history of this is anything but.
RUSH: That's right. The electoral history. And I was talking, there was a book. Jeffrey Bell wrote a book about how social issues being predominant in the Republican Party has led to presidential victory. And this was the point that I was making. This is an illustration about how the inside-the-Beltway Republicans are out of touch and don't get it and how northeastern liberal Republicans are scared to death of the abortion issue, when they win with it. So I want to follow this up with Brian Kilmeade today on Fox & Friends. They just had a new Fox presidential poll out. Listen to Kilmeade here.
KILMEADE: Among independents, the key voting bloc, who would you vote for if the election was today, 46 to 33, Mitt Romney, a dominant lead.
RUSH: Now, you heard him say "the key voting bloc." See, that's my pet peeve. "So here's Kilmeade. Among independents, the key voting bloc, who would you vote for if the election was today?" Romney up by 13 among independents. And that's after six weeks of this phony war on women stuff that was supposed to send independents running back to the Democrats. Don't buy it. Don't believe the conventional wisdom.
END TRANSCRIPT
See # 52; I have no interest in compromising my principles. I assure you that Obama’s problem is that many people will (though I don’t believe “liberal principles” are very strongly held in most cases anyway - they are a sort of fashion statement and change with the wind). On the other hand, he only got his job because a lot of people threw away their prnciples out of desperation.
“even after 45 years, he knew what the sound of real money hitting the bar sounded like”
That’s great; I would hope that whoever hoarded that silver never had to find out how it was spent! I was born after the switch (devaluation), but I’ve collected coins for years; before I had a family, I used to collect bullion coins (when silver was below $5 an ounce). I really liked the Canadian Maple leaf for silver, as its face value (C$5) was much closer to the silver price than that of the American Eagle (US$1). I had a coin dealer sell me a silver Bahamian $25 coin for $5 (slightly higher than its silver value), then spent it a year later in the Bahama as $25 (the US and Bahamas dollars trade at par; their slot machines accept bills from either country). They retire them when they show up (like the American $1,000 bill), but it wasn’t as old - I think it was from the early 1970s.
At silver’s lowest point I sold a Canadian Olympic set (about 20 sterling ounces) for its Canadian face value in Ontario; it had become worth more as Canadian paper than it was as silver!
Then I am happy to applaud you. However, I also believe that social issues are the foundation of modern conservatism, since they teach us the difference between right and wrong. It's wrong to spend more than you make. It's wrong to kill unborn children. It's wrong to misrepresent your position for the same of getting elected. Unfortunately, Mr. Romney fails on all three of those key points in my judgment, so I can't support him.
My decisions as a conservative are based on a social conservative world view. Hence my belief that it is important and I trust you understand that.
That is an extremely important question and it deserves pages, not paragraphs.
The short version is that I see the American Constitution as being founded on more broadly Judeo-Christian values, not an explicitly Christian society. That has many consequences in both theory and practice. For example, there are major differences between the original intent of the United States Constitution and the original intent of the Puritan founders of New England.
I could say a great deal more but I'm not sure if I'd be answering your question or going in a side track. The short answer is that I am very glad that the United States is a nation where basic principles of Judeo-Christian morality have historically been honored without establishing a formal state church. The result is Roman Catholics, Jewish people, and a wide variety of Protestant denominations have been able to live in relative peace compared to what was happening in Europe with its formally established state churches.
I have some very strongly conservative theological positions which look much more like Puritan New England than like the principles adopted at the Constitutional Convention, but by the late 1700s there was no realistic way to follow that earlier model on a national level. While that certainly had some negative consequences, among the greatest benefits is that the United States became a place where Jewish people could worship freely and be considered good American citizens.
Again, more could be said but I don't want to get off track by answering questions you may not have intended to ask.
There you are contrasting values vs. society.
My question, rather, is how do you contrast "Judeo-Christian" vs. "Christian', let's say "Judeo-Christian values" vs. "Christian values".
When I speak of “Christian values” I'm defining that by the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments. To be slightly more specific, when I use that phrase in a secular governmental context, I would probably in most cases use that phrase intending to avoid getting into doctrinal issues between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, and focusing on application of those values to society rather than in an ecclesiastical context.
When I speak of “Judeo-Christian values” in a secular governmental context, I typically use that term specifically to focus on the commonly-shared values of both the Jewish and Christian faiths. A short way of summarizing that would be to say that the Old Testament (or as Jewish people often prefer to say, the “Hebrew Bible”) teaches many things about how individuals, families and societies can govern themselves, and those are very good principles regardless of whether we profess the Jewish or Christian religions.
The Reformed tradition divides Old Testament laws into the three categories of moral, civil, and ceremonial law, with the moral law binding forever, the civil law useful in its “general equity” as an example for modern societies, and the ceremonial law (temple sacrifices, etc.) being fulfilled by the death of Christ. Obviously Jewish believers would disagree with that, and so would a fair number of modern evangelical Christians.
My point is not to focus on the details of the Westminster Confession of Faith, but rather to say that there is a common core of Judeo-Christian values which I think we can point to as a basis for a well-functioning American society. That common core of values does not require belief in Christ or some other doctrinal test to be a good American citizen, and that is part of what makes the American Constitution significantly different from the older principles of New England.
Am I answering your question or am I misunderstanding you?
“Unfortunately, Mr. Romney fails on all three of those key points in my judgment, so I can’t support him. My decisions as a conservative are based on a social conservative world view. Hence my belief that it is important and I trust you understand that.”
I do understand that; I’m hardly a Romney supporter, but in the end Obama is much more dangerous than Romney. I don’t like holding my nose when I vote, but I did it for McCain and I suspect I’ll have to do it again in November.
Accepted - How does that jibe with your prior statement:
[gogogodzilla:] Saving the unborn is more of a 3rd order level of need (after both the physical basics of life are met and safety/security is met). src
There is another thing that YHWH said in passing somewhere:
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
...Which, as you have declared from the Gemara:
[...] The three exceptions are the prohibitions of idol worship, illicit sexual relations and murder.
What I don't understand then, is that you would consider 'Saving the unborn' to be anything but a necessity of the highest order?
And as an aside, while I agree with the general tenor of your statements upthread about past Buddhist and Hindu societies (as proof that morals are to some degree universal), It is my assertion that any nation can have but one ethos - One moral definition. In our case that IS (and has been since our inception) the Judeo-Christian ethic. One cannot, IMHO remove that ethical conscience without totally destroying what we are... As the commies already understand.
With that in mind, I find your criticism of the Judeo-Christian ethic to be short sighted.
You just don't know you are. The ABO and "It’s the Economy Stupid" screed was taylor made for Romney. I am a social conservative because I don't think you can separate the two, others disagree and we reap what we sow.
In that case, why not simply refer to them as "Judeo" values since nothing about them is distinct to Christianity?
What harm do you feel would be done by dropping the “Judeo-” and simply referring to “Christian ethics”, “Christian morality”, etc.
I can't say that America is a Jewish nation, or one founded on Old Testament principles. That would not be accurate since it would include many things on which Jews and Christians disagree. I do believe America was founded on a common core of Judeo-Christian principles, with deliberate and intentional decisions made to include people who would not have been part of the acceptable consensus of churchmen and dissenters in contemporary Britain, such as Roman Catholics and Jews. While “freethinkers” such as Jefferson and Franklin were certainly part of the mix, they shared what in those days was considered a common moral consensus and were a pretty small minority.
Got to go...
What is the short list of principles that you say comprises such a core, and what part of the old testament do you say that list directly derives from?
It isn't a matter of harm, but rather a proper inclusion. While there are differences between Judaism and Christianity (and their respective sects), we are all pretty much agreed upon the matter of ethical behavior - And I might hasten to add that the 'Old Covenant' was just as instrumental in setting up our country (laws and precedence) as the New Covenant... Before there was precedence here, and well after into the 1960's and '70's The Bible was considered suitable for that task. There is no other holy book that shares that level of secular respect. And therefore, credit where credit is due: The 'Old Covenant' is wholly creditable to Israel and no other (at least on this mortal coil), even if Christianity supposes the 'New Covenant' is not (which I disagree with, btw).
Hence the "Judeo-Christian" appellation.
Why do you ask? Does it offend you?
Level heads and rational minds will agree with you. Unfortunately this site is being taken over by the the "third and fourth party" folks who are now making his forum into the conservative laughing stock equivalent of DU..........
Funny how just a mere two years ago the war cry was "anybody but Obama" and now it's devolved to "anybody but Romney".
What's even more hilarious is that all the resident third and fourth party proponents can't even come to a consensus on who that candidate should be..........LOL!
It should offend all Christians, since it implies that "Christian" is insufficient and that only areas of alleged overlap with "Judeo-" matter.
Social issues are never a loser. That is a myth. Reagan had no problem at all discussing them. He had a knack for knowing how to frame those issues and appeal to people without coming off harsh.
Communicating them seems to be an art that very few can do without coming off as overzealous. It can be done. Go back and listen to some of the times Reagan talked about them.
I disagree. But then, I see it as inclusive rather than exclusive.
“Funny how just a mere two years ago the war cry was “anybody but Obama” and now it’s devolved to “anybody but Romney”.”
I don’t see even the most rabid anti-Romney forces re-electing Obama just to make a point. Even if Romney is really Obama-lite, that is still preferable to the real Obama...
Your question is insightful, and it strikes at the heart of the problem involved in the compromises that created the American Republic. While the sort of list you want could be compiled, it would have to be defended historically, not theologically or logically. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would have quite different views of that “common core” than Witherspoon, the Presbyterian minister and president of Princeton, for example.
It is simply impossible to deny that the Founding Fathers worked with moral presuppositions and belief in a Creator. In that respect, they differ radically from modern secular liberalism. We can say, correctly so, that the ACLU wants to create a nation which even the most “liberal” of the Founding Fathers would not recognize.
On the other hand, the Founders included Roman Catholics, Deists, people who not long afterward were described as Unitarians, some people whose personal religious convictions were not terribly strong, and a wide variety of mutually incompatible forms of evangelical Christianity, as well as groups such as the Quakers which would today be far outside the mainstream of evangelical Christianity but probably can be correctly described as evangelicals in the context of the 1700s. While none of the Founders were themselves Jewish, it's quite clear that Jewish leaders in America included some strong supporters of the Revolutionary War and that during or not long after the Revolution, nearly all of the states removed religious tests such as affirmation of the Trinity which had historically been used to bar Jews from civil office in England while allowing other dissenters such as Presbyterians and Congregationalists to retain their noble titles and in some cases hold other civil offices.
The Unitarians, Deists, and other “freethinkers” of the 1700s and 1800s believed there was a common core of moral values which could be derived from the Old Testament even if they didn't view it as inspired and inerrant Scripture.
We do not have that consensus today.
Historically, it's possible to point to a common core of civil values and morals that evangelical Protestants, conservative Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and the older type of liberalism shared. Examples include the Second Table of the Law, with its warnings against such vices as lying, stealing, adultery, murder, coveting, etc., and the many related sins that connect to those commandments and which have civil laws and punishments which the Westminster Confession of Faith says are given in the Old Testament as examples for modern governments in their “general equity.”
For conservatives who believe in original intent, we need to recognize that some important changes happened between Plymouth Rock and the Constitutional Convention. While the first civil law code of Massachusetts included very detailed Scripture references for its laws and punishments, and it can fairly and correctly be said that the early colonies of New England were explicitly Christian, that cannot be said of the United States Constitution.
I'd like to say that America is a Christian Republic. I simply cannot say that based on the evidence of the original intent of the Founders.
Let's take the first and second commandments, for example. Can any of us seriously argue that Franklin and Jefferson would not have been severely persecuted and expelled, if not executed, for their views under Puritan practices of the 1600s, whether in New England, Scotland, or England itself? The charges would at the very least have included blasphemy and irreligious writings.
Whatever I might like to say about America's Christian heritage has to be tempered by the reality of what the Founders intended, and I simply do not believe we can make the claim that America is a Christian Republic without qualifying that so much that the term “Christian” is no longer defined in a biblical manner. To say America is founded in Judeo-Christian principles is a claim which can be defended historically.
I hope that's of some help.
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.