Posted on 11/19/2008 7:45:33 AM PST by EveningStar
As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I'm bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
>>>>I’m a Roman Catholic in a sea of Protestants and yet I know no one who ascribes to any of the beliefs that you cited. Are you sure that this is reality or merely a biased assumption?<<<<<<
Yes, I’m sure this is reality because I’ve had this discussion several times right here on FR. It’s a place where some folks really let their hair down.
And for the 50th time, just to be clear, I am not an atheist or opposed to Christianity or the Bible or any religious expression whatsoever ***except when those expressions are presented as the precursors to the Republican Party or most particularly to conservatism***.
I don’t understand why this is so difficult to understand: the GOP and conservative politics are not (or, *should* not be) adjuncts to any sect or religious belief at all.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
“Republicans can rally around a handful of clear principles. Not every Republican will support every principle with equal fervor and may even be somewhat opposed to one or two.
It seems to me that the GOP is:
1. For fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.
2. For a strong national defense and law and order.
3. For reining in government and shrinking both its size and influence.
4. For border security and an ordered immigration policy.
5 Pro-life and pro traditional values.
This list is certainly not a final word on the matter.
It also seems to me that if a person violently disagrees with any of these then that person needs to determine whether he or she belongs in the GOP. Parties have to stand for something. The GOP loses when it tries to compromise for the sake of trying to appeal to people that would never vote for a Republican to begin with because they don’t believe in what the party holds as core principles.”
I’m going to assume that abortion is a sticking point with many who object to the “religious” wing “diverting the GOP in the direction of personal religious and sectarian beliefs.” If so, my theory is we won’t get any (or enough) of the Dems/Independents by giving in on abortion; they’ll just continue to prefer the more idealogically pure Democratic Socialists to a watered-down version. Also, here’s an excerpt of what the Great Communicator Reagan on Abortion had to say about abortion:
Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.
I think you are right and that abortion is a key issue. The problem is almost certainly in the delivery of the message. It is possible to be adamant in holding to a position without being a scold or sounding strident. Certainly within the party people need to respect and support one another’s positions if these also correspond to and give support to the core principles of the Republican Party overall.
Nicely put Charles!
And until "we" understand that fact......."we" will continue to have these petty differences.
I read your post very carefully - twice - and while it’s detailed and interesting I’m not satisfied that it answers the question of injecting Protestant Christian beliefs, values, and mores into the GOP and conservative philosophy.
You make a case for direct causality which is theoretical and plausible but not perhaps as strong as you believe, e.g. the circa 1770 - 1786 residents and militias of Boston, Lexington, Concord, Sudbury, and Marlboro weren’t necessarily familiar with the Huguenot experience in France. So their opinions about arms and militias and the quartering of British soldiers were based on their direct observations as American colonists, not as Protestants or readers of the Bible or most certainly not as Huguenot descendants.
One could say that the more you try to affiliate the GOP and conservatism with Protestant Christianity in the manner you’ve posted, the more you might drive away those who have different ideas about God, about religion, about government.
Oh BTW, I know a little bit about the Huguenots, as my first American ancestor was the minister of the Huguenot Church in Boston for many years and also in New Rochelle for a time. I don’t think he or any of his children or grandchildren would agree with your theory, even though the Reveres, the Fanueils, and the Bowdoins were members of the congregation.
>>>>At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think this debate is huge for the conservative movement (for now represented by the Republican party).<<<<
Thanks for a very detailed and thoughtful post which I’m going to read once or twice more before I respond.
I will quickly say that this statement is not correct, at least for me:
>>>>I’m going to assume that abortion is a sticking point with many who object to the “religious” wing “diverting the GOP in the direction of personal religious and sectarian beliefs.”<<<<<
Nope. It’s not at all about abortion (which I personally oppose). It’s about presenting conservatism and the GOP as functions and derivatives of sectarian Protestant Christianity, as has been done numerous times right here on this thread.
It’s like insisting that American milled carpets, milled woolen goods, and even the Model T were all Protestant Christian derivatives due to the inspiration of the Protestant (Calvinist) work ethic.
That’s “true” in the most tenuous fashion, but strictly speaking it’s a silly assertion. And also very bad business in this day and age, when a lot of people just don’t want that “Christian product” no matter what. The don’t want “Christian rugs”, “Christian shirts”, or “Christian cars.” They want a rug, a shirt, and a car, period.
So why keep pressing the Christian affiliation (no matter how potentially real or maybe tenuous)? It’s completely irrelevant to practical day-to-day business.
If people want the Christian part, they can always go to church. Yes?
The Port of Boston would have been a dreadfully dead place but for Huguenot shipping, and who can forget the Pilgrims? There were several Huguenots among their number.
Paul Revere's father was, in fact, a French Huguenot ~ necessarily a refugee to America. Alexander Hamilton's mother was a Huguenot.
The Port of Boston would have been a dreadfully dead place but for Huguenot shipping, and who can forget the Pilgrims? There were several Huguenots among their number.
Paul Revere's father was, in fact, a French Huguenot ~ necessarily a refugee to America. Alexander Hamilton's mother was a Huguenot.
I am encouraged by the dialogue and I understand better your concern regarding the perception of "Christian affiliation" insistence.
The Huguenots in France certainly understood the use of weapons to hold the government at bey, as did their cousins in America (the migration occurred over a 100 year period so there was always an infusion of new wisdom), and Americans themselves viewed firearms as something other than things you used to keep meat on the table and the Indians in their own camps far away.
Louis XIV, himself, was a topic of discussion at dinner tables and wayside inns. Americans knew him well!
The acceptance of firearms as items to be kept and controlled by private individuals is based on concepts pioneered by Protestants in their civil rights battle to gain tolerance from the King of France.
BTW, it's worth noting, Americans had little experience with the practice of quartering troops in private residences ~ the vast overwhelming majority of people lived in rural areas. They did know what Louis XIV was up to.
Just think of Louis as being somewhat like Young Leader (in Korea) or Uday, Saddam's son. We are both fascinated and repelled by tyrants.
>>>>Paul Revere’s father was, in fact, a French Huguenot <<<<
As I noted, he was a member of my great-great-N-grandfather’s Huguenot church and congregation in Boston.
Abortion is condemned by every major religion. Marriage between male and female is endorsed by every major religion and marriage between people of the same sex simply isn’t considered. And there are plenty of people who are not religious who hold similar views. So these are not purely Christian concerns and should be presented as general principles. Life is worth protecting and preserving. Principles that are millenia old and well tested and proved are worth preserving. If this isn’t a conservative principle I would be hard pressed to determine what is.
Small government, fiscal responsibility, national defense, etc. are all general principles advanced to uphold liberty coupled with responsibility and respect for and preservation of traditions and institutions that have proven both useful and beneficial to a broad constituency. This is coupled with an openness to societal and governmental modifications that enhance these. Chesterton wrote that before reform was undertaken it would be imperative to determine why the thing we want to reform was formed to begin with and then act (if we still want to). Conservatives, I think, are not timid but cautious and want close investigation before embarking on “change we can belive in”.
The key to unity is agreeing on conservative principles and then insisting upon accomodation among constituencies who hold these to be important but do not give equal weight to every principle.
I agree with every single syllable of your post.
You've stated the essence of it much more concisely than I've been able to.
Actually most of the issues considered Evangelical issues are also the positions of Catholics, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews. In fact many of them are also the positions of Muslims. About the only Americans who don't accept these ideas are atheists, agnostics, the majority of the shrinking Mainline Protestants, and secularists. In all less than 25% of the population.
Beautiful!
I am certain I speak for many when I say that using the law to protect and venerate homosexuality at the expense of family and morality is not what the Founders envisioned.
But your position fascinates me. Do you think we should push to have employees fire gay people?
It has long been my opinion that businessmen should be free to hire and fire for whatever reason they desire. It is their money. They should spend it exactly how they see fit.
If so, how about people who cheat on their spouses, or unmarried couples living together?
Sure, or any other aberrant behavior. Such things are signs of poor character, and weak will. Folks that live in such conditions are usually unreliable... Or at least that has been my experience, as an employer.
Any other sins that we should use government to punish? I realise you must be perfect, but are the rest of us to be removed from our nation because we are sinners?
Where did I say "Use the government to punish?"
Or do you really believe that only gay people are REALLY evil, and that the rest of us sinners are OK?
By all means, no. Every woe that is upon this nation is directly attributable to moral turpitude, and the tolerance thereof.
Should we also be looking to send all the athiests, jews, muslims, and budhists off to Australia or something?
Of course not. But there can be but one moral code, and in the United States that is the Judeo-Christian ethic, and it has been so since her birth. Those who seek to change that fact literally chop at the very root of our laws and our freedom. It is an affront against our good nature, and an offense of the highest order.
Or would you go further, and send either the Catholics or the Protestants off as well? (not sure which one you relate to better — but there was a time where those two groups thought the other to be evil, and there are still protestant churches who think the Catholic church is evil).
I am Protestant, and have little good to say about the Catholic Church, at least in regard to doctrine. But their position wrt law and morality is hand-in-glove with the American system. In these matters, the Christians stand united.
So where do you draw the line? Who decides which sinners are good enough, and which sins the government should use to decide on this banishment you want?
It is not "banishment" I would require. But it is not the sort of behavior that should be accepted by society, nor is any sort of casual sex of any kind.
Or in the end, is it really just that you hate gay people?
I hate no one.
Abortion is a state issue. It should not be dealt with at the federal level. This is just one example of how the Republican party has lost it’s “small-government” way.
Same with flag burning and gay marriage. They are local issues, for pete’s sake!
If California wants to abort itself out of existance... GOOD! That leaves all that room and resources to us who value life.
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.