Posted on 07/16/2004 7:05:35 AM PDT by Kerberos
Ping
This is what the Left has been doing to churches for many years now. It's smart for conservatives to pursue such a route - it works, and its the best way to get churches back to the principles on which it was established.
While it may be smart to pursue such a route withing the church, it seems to cause a lot of conflict when it gets carried over into the political realm. Objectivity and reason are two of the fundamental tenents of political conservativism, and this kind of dogmatic emotionalism stands in stark contrast to that.
Conversely, the liberals' agenda causes a lot of conflict in the religious arena. I'd say the conservatives' strategy is appropriate here.
Where is "here"?
here = "in this context", i.e., the context of a church.
This article reminds me of that shadow-Leftist woman who was head of the Church organization (can't remember the name of it) that fought to get Elian Gonzalez repatriated to Cuba. What a kommie piece of work she was.
In that context, I agree.
bump
Interesting article I came across the other day which talks about what the religious right wing of the GOP may have in store for us.
The "religous right wing" of the GOP is it's base. If that is somehow offensive to you, are you suggesting that the GOP
go against it's base?
Interesting article I came across the other day which talks about what the religious right wing of the GOP may have in store for us.
The "religous right wing" of the GOP is it's base. If that is somehow offensive to you, are you suggesting that the GOP
go against it's base?
/////////////////
the religious right wing is the activist part of the republican party in much the same way as the homosexuals are the activist part of the democratic party.
The way it's written, the article is less than flattering of Christian conservatives' efforts. Even the language used is slanted - "conservative" versus "progressive", not "conservative" versus "liberal". And your own comment, above, uses an interesting juxtaposition of words.
"religious right wing" versus "us". "Us" versus "them".
I'm afraid your agenda is showing.
the religious right wing is the activist part of the republican party in much the same way as the homosexuals are the activist part of the democratic party.
Would you prefer the religous right wing to be inactivist?
As if the NAALCP, NEA, femi-nazis, AFL-CIO, CPUSA aren't activists.
You obviously prefer the liberal wing of the GOP.
"It was kind of like getting to watch the Nazi's try out the techniques of blitzkrieg in the Spanish Civil War before they unleashed them on the rest of Europe"
How kind.
You are correct. If I have read this article correctly, it was written by a Lib who is trying to warn his readers about the Conservatives new tactics. Still, it was an interesting article.
Would you prefer the religous right wing to be inactivist?
///////////
I would prefer the religious right wing to be activist.
The mask that the democrats/liberals wear all the time is that they aren't religious. This is not true. They are profoundly religious. Trouble is the religion of the democrats/liberals is pagan. The high priests of the pagan religion of the democrats are homosexuals.
Or a Conserv pretending to be a Lib instructing in same tactics...sort of like "Screwtape Letters" by CSLewis.
"I'm afraid your agenda is showing.
Good. I thought I might have been overly subtle.
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.