Posted on 12/12/2012 5:31:23 AM PST by Kaslin
Count me in, a conservative party caucusing with Republicans could actually have some clout. It would force Republicans into more conservative policies in order for them to maintain any kind of party power federally.
How do you expect people who are not Christians to be attracted to a party that announces it’s a Christian party? I’m a Christian, and so were the Founders. But like the Founders, a person’s religious beliefs should not be forced on others. That’s why they deliberately created a country with no official religion. We are for freedom of religious expression...but not for creating a religious-based political party.
Slayer,
I’m more than fed up with these baboso’s like lindsey graham, or john boehner who profess to speak for the party.
I wouldn’t give anus heads like these guys two minutes.
Time to quit capitulating to RINO crappola.
You doing ok LLS? all ok here.
LLS
I think that you are on to something!
LLS
Okay, you get freedom of expression, but if you go back and read Goldberg's comment again toward the end of the article, you'll see that he is appealing to Christians to refrain from free expression.
He's just practicing a mitzvah, a good deed -- practicing Jewish piety by asking Christians to stick a sock in it (so that God and conscientious Jews don't have to listen to their impious drivel).
There, that fixed it!
That’s what I call strategery
And that is just the pragmatic argument.
Agree, but actually that's not what is happening. The author claims that is happening, but that's just a bushwah liberal appeal to motive in lieu of argument: "oooh, oooh, oooh, your Christian witnessing is putting me in an 'iron maiden' and torturing me with red-hot irons to confess the magisterium of the Catholic Church and the Holy Office / the prophetic truth of Mohammed and the Koran /.... oh, what was it again? Zionism? Zeusism? Zoroastrianism? Herpes zoster? Oooh, oooh, oooh, you're torturing me!!!"
Free expression isn't even in the same ballpark as "you have to convert to Xtianity or Hesychasmism or Nestorianism, if you want to be a Republican."
Tea Partiers and Christian conservative Republicans 99% of the time don't do that, but they get taxed with it constantly, and for the most part falsely, as a cheap and socially acceptable way of sneering at their faith and their devotion to it.
I do.
I do, too. The "Mormon thing" was a big issue with a lot of conservative Christians.
Didn’t the states where some conservatives may have foolishly sat out the elections vote for Romney anyway? Romney was supposed to be competitive in “moderate” states but certainly was not. Thre wasn’t a single moderate state upset for Romney. There were few upsets at all in 2012.
Since the 1870s, the GOP has been the party of middle America. The Democrats were the party of “Rum , Romanism and Rebellion”. This has been slightly updated to Urban poor, alienated immigrants, and the grievance lobby and cultural Marxism. Not much has really changed. In so far as the GOP is the conservative party. Those people put off with talk of a Judeo-Christian tradition are generally alienated with America. As a UES Reform Jew, I can tell you that the same Jews complaining of Christian religiosity at Republican events are even more put off by Orthodox Jewish religiosity. At the same time, they are hypocrites who fully support progressive attempts to immanentize the eschaton through leftist social programs. And most would not otherwise be Republicans, since they buy into socialism as charity. Of course, there are some secular fiscal conservatives. But if they couldn’t vote for Mitt Romney, who never brought up social issues, and did not make religion and issue, how do we get them? It wasn’t the GOP, which made social issues a factor this year. It was the left.
Selling out religion won’t get us votes. But there are things we can and should change. The hackneyed anti-intellectualism that has become the hallmark of the degraded Jacksonian tradition has to go. 50 years ago, National Review readers made “Don’t immanentize the Eschaton” into a bumper sticker. In the last decade, we used terms like “Freedom Fries” and “Cheese eating surrender monkeys”. That is not improvement. One can oppose leftist social engineering without being anti-intellectual. There is a conservative intellectual tradition in America. There is an older tradition reaching back to Plato. We have 3000 years of history, while the ersatz intellectuals of the left are all but parodying their own failures of the last 250 years.
As for non-Muslim Asian Americans, I think Jonah misses a few key points. The first is that they are educated and aspiring, so anti-intellectualism turns them off. They also assimilate not to American culture but to liberal urban culture, since that this where they live. The same thing is happening with the third generation Cuban Americans. Castro is passé, John Stuart is cool. And to get good jobs in the thoroughly world of information technology and the “knowledge workforce”, outward adherence to PC shibboleths is important. Just like whites, they know that they can lose their jobs for not being PC. They understand that this will hurt their children’s futures. And they understand that perceived oppressed groups are allowed to keep their traditional culture in multicultural America, so long as they vote Democrat.
The GOP and the conservative movement allowed the left to control the commanding heights of culture. It ensures the left’s victory. Walking away from religion wont fix this, it will make it worse.
If I were in India, I would support the Hindu BJP, which is an explicitly Hindu party.
One cannot support it without being anti-intellenge though.
“Anti-intellectual”
It is a ridiculous assertion that questioning, debating or criticizing leftist ideas is being “anti-intellectual”, the whole idea that the Ivory Tower idiots are above reproach is the very definition of “anti-intellectual”.
I guess a “peer review” is considered a hate crime too.
Peter Singer thinks children should be aborted years afer birth. This is not intellecualism, this is savagery.
Margaret Sanger, Kinsey, Freud etc etc are not above criticism and disagreeing with their barbaric notions is not in any way “anti-intellectual”. Labeling those who dissent from the lefty orthodox as “anti-intellectual” is a convenient sheild that is the height of hypocrisy.
There is nothing more intellectual than dissenting, challenging, questioning, criticizing orthodoxy! Those that believe critics are “anti-intellectual” are describing themselves.
“How can one call the GOP a Christian club when it nominated for its presidential standard bearer a non-Christian?”
are you showing your bias or your ignorance?
What are you implying? That Romney is a Christian? That the GOP is really a Christian club? Or both?
When you bother to read an entire paragraph before responding in silly cant, I will respond. Or, you could simply re-read the last sentences “One can oppose leftist social engineering without being anti-intellectual. There is a conservative intellectual tradition in America. There is an older tradition reaching back to Plato. We have 3000 years of history, while the ersatz intellectuals of the left are all but parodying their own failures of the last 250 years.” and retract your response as baseless.
Amen brother! Me too.
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.