Posted on 05/17/2008 2:03:48 AM PDT by MartinaMisc
It was fun while it lasted.
The guaranteed election of a non-conservative President on November 4th represents the end of the conservative movement in America. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain stands for Reagan principles in any way, shape, manner or form—and after twenty years of non-conservative Presidents, it’s obvious that the Reagan era will never, ever return.
The conservative movement has been in the hospital for nearly two decades. Once George H. W. Bush—a good, moral man, but not a true conservative—entered the White House, conservative principles slowly but surely began to leave. Yes, he gave us a victory in the Gulf War and Clarence Thomas, but he also gave us a broken no-new-taxes promise and David Souter. Bush was more Rockefeller than Goldwater, during a time when America and the world needed more of the latter and less of the former.
Bill Clinton replaced Bush in 1993 and, during his eight years in office, stole certain conservative concepts (NAFTA, welfare reform) and destroyed others (judicial restraint, the rule of law). Clinton moved the country in a secular direction, helping to make the 1990s as culturally loose as the 1980s were culturally traditional. Clinton also seemed obsessed with, among other things, promoting the notion that the Reagan era was a fluke, and that (despite his famous 1996 claim) big government was a permanent reality.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
It’s funny how we keep being told that social conservatism is unpopular, yet the people who tell us that are adamant that all decisions on these issues be made by unelected judges and kept as far away from the ballot box as possible. The gay agenda crowd should be the ones fighting to have a referendum on same-sex “marriage”, rather than the other way around, if social conservatives are so “toxic”. Not to mention that the GOP should be sizzling with excitement and promise in places like New England, New York, and New Jersey, where the social conservatives are not much of a factor in the party. Instead, the party’s deader than a doornail in most of that region.
Yep! And isn’t it funny that the three recent GOP losses of House seats in special elections are being attributed to “toxic” social conservatives, yet in two of those three races the winning Democrat ran as a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay agenda, anti-amnesty candidate. In the third race, the losing Republican barely mentioned any social issue other than some incompetent ads on amnesty.
Your point is a bit obscure. I would not have regarded anti-pathy to gay marriage as a peculiarly conservative belief, and I don’t think this is a point that divides fiscal conservatives and libertarians on the one hand and social conservatives on the other. The libertarian position would be that the child rearing traditional family is an important social and economic unit on which the fabric of society is built, and interference in it, or diluting its importance is not something that should be a power of the state. I think that they only differ from social conservatives at the point where you start quoting scriptural authority for why and how the family should function.
I appreciate your response. I’m not one who goes around quoting scripture very often. I really don’t think that many Republican candidates do so. Huckabee maybe. Bush really never said much about religion unless asked. The Dems freaked out once when he said Jesus was his hero (or something like that, I don’t remember exactly what he said) but I doubt that that hurt him.
I would agree with you that GOP candidates don’t need to run around waving Bibles, but how many really do that? The GOP is hurting right now primarily because of Iraq, gas prices, and the fact that Bush has supported amnesty, huge spending boondoggles, and other non-conservative proposals.
This is the key point, and we don't need to have religious wars to share a common view of the future on the economic and governmental institutions that make private religious practice possible. An example of the "socon" view was General Ashcroft's swearing in where he had lady justice in the DOJ building covered up because of her exposed breasts. A slightly more mature and reflective individual would have understood the symbolism: a. of his covering up justice, literally and b. The symbolism of the generative power of justice, as the ancient Greek philosophers meant the term (equal, in the image of God, with a blind eye to the privileges and status of the litigants).
I don’t know what to say. Surely you don’t mean to say merely because someone chooses not to have a conservative political philosophy that they are treasonous or unpatriotic?
I bet there are no Muslims there
What about the Christianity of Catholics (whose Latin Bible is 1500 years older than your KJV bible) and Orthodox Christians (whose Greek bible is even older still, slightly, since much if not all of the New Testament was originally written in Greek). Or what about the Copts who had access to early copies and whose translations may be as reliable as the Greek texts that have come down to modern times.
The history of the Evangelical Christian movement in the US is intimately wrapped up in and defined by its conflict with and discrimination against Catholic and Orthodox practitioners of christianity, so don't try to tell me that the evangelical way is the True Way.
But it sure consumes a lot of time and angst in areas where fundamentalists are predominant. Even DC suffers from blue laws in this regard.
(No abortion, sodomy, cross-dressing, divorce, sabbath-breaking, etc.)
I don't remember learning about cross-dressing in Sunday school, but maybe that was covered on one of those many dreary days when I fell asleep out of shear boredom. This is clearly a point where Catholic and evangelical interpretations part company as I am sure that Catholic theology would regard cross dressing as a venial sin if it is to be a subject of Christian doctrine at all.
I would really suggest you not try to get a political party going on reinstating the sanctity of the sabbath. Last time I hung out with a bunch of Texans they didn't seem to think there was much wrong with beer and BBQ on Sunday, but maybe Texas is another state that "true conservatives" are willing to write off, along with all the others that you are willing to write off.
Amen brother!
LLS
By what jaundiced view do you claim that the KJV is the infallible version of the bible, English not even existing when Christ, his desciples and testamentors lived? It is only a translation and at best is only as authentic as the original Greek texts upon which the translation is based.
I would note three points. First this is old testament, not the words of Christ who preached Charity and forgiveness, even for those things in the old-testament where the penalty was death. Second, where the old testament calls for a penalty it prescribes a penalty. By standard rules of statutory interpretation, whose origins are rabbinical in nature, an omission would normally be considered deliberate. But as for interpretations of Mosaic law I think we should turn to a rabbinical scholar and ask for his interpretation of the law. Third, Christ's life and death formed a new covenant between his adherents and God, and Christian doctrine is taken as a rebirth and regeneration of human hope. That is why Catholics and Orthodox derive their doctrine from the New Testament unlike those protestant sects who seem to like the more blood and guts style of God you find in the old testament.
Cross-dressing might be an abomination in God's eyes, but it is easily remedied, by removing said clothing and there is no harm done to another human. There would seem to be little call for the death penalty.
I am only arguing theology to point out that folks like you have lost your way in the world. You display no sense of christian charity and kindness, and, typical of the more hardcore calvinist sects, merely think that you are the instruments for God's vengence on the wickedness of man, as you define it in your eyes.
Your twisted religious beliefs have no place in a political debate about how to order our society, and your attempts to introduce it are repulsive to most people. One of these days you might see that, keep your communion with God between yourself and God as a private manner and show some Christian love for the rest of us sinners on this earth.
That answers none of the questions I raised. It makes the circular claim that the KJV is the infallible version because all other versions are fallible. Well the Dutch Reformed Church, whose bible is in Dutch, could make the same claim, etc.
Here's to the Truth as God revealed to thee and to me, and if we should ever disagree, My god will cast Thee into Satan's hell. Here's to me.
Keep it up. This is a lot of fun.
You are on a roll now. That's the spirit. No flagging now. Keep going.
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.