Heresies and Other Truths (Kathleen Parker attacks GOP evangelicals)

Townhall.com ^ | November 19, 2008 | Kathleen Parker

[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.

[Moby Grape]

“Let’s not forget that religious nuts with guns founded this country.”

P.J. O’Rourke

[angkor]

>>>>>>Life, judges, guns, marriage were all part of Pres. Bush’s campaign. They were virtually excised from McCain’s.<<<<<

Life is a Constitutional issue.

Judges are a Constitutional issue (constructionism, originalism, etc).

Guns are a Constitutional issue.

Marriage is a cultural issue that can (and should) be argued simply on the merits of longstanding tradition and universality.

None of these ideas require a single word or sentence of explanation from the Bible. That they intersected with the views of Evangelicals is nice but not critical or essential.

You’ve got the cart before the horse.

[popdonnelly]

Why is it we’re compelled to respect Islam, homosexuality, and abortion, but no one in the U.S. is at all compelled to respect Christianity? Isn’t Christianity a well-established religion? Doesn’t it teach charity, love, and respect for your fellow human? In short, what bias or prejudice in American society makes it perfectly acceptable to attack Christians?

[scory]

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. But politics is about accomodation among those who agree generally on broad principles. Reagan was good at communicating these and it worked quite well for the party. There is no reason why the party cannot do this again.

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.

Reagan made all of the above items palatable to enough Americans to win elections handily. In 1994 the GOP made a similar appeal and again won big. Since then the GOP has gotten farther and farther away from making a clear statement of core principles and then acting on these and as a result has lost two elections in a row.

[ReneeLynn]

Hmm, that wasn’t your point. That was what you agreed with this woman about.

So, are you saying that you believe that taking into account the opinions of religious conservatives is a thing that should be stopped? The Republican party, conservative branch, should ridicule evangelicals in that branch, marginalize their importance and otherwise eliminate them from the conservative Republican branch in order to make a larger tent that will be filled with gay people and...who? I didn’t know that gays have been staying away from the conserv Repub because of evangelicals. I thought they might stay away if they were of the radical branch of gays who want to step on the so-called ‘Religionists’. Otherwise I can’t see any reason, if they truly believe in conservatism, why they’d stay away. You’re either for less government, lower taxes and the free market or you’re not. How does your sexual preference change that?

Seems to me that you and KP are suggesting that evangelicals be thrown out because they have religious beliefs and values. Make a wider tent, but make space in it by getting rid of evangelicals? What if those evangelicals are also conservatives? They like less government, lower taxes, the free market? Too bad? Or should they just shut up about their ‘oogledy boogeldy’ beliefs? Then they’ll be okay?

I think KP’s thinking is skewed. She wants to be all inclusive by excluding. Keep the evangelicals as long as they shut up and don’t be religious. Will she accept Muslims? Will they shut up and not be ‘religionists’? I doubt it.

MY point is that this is a free country and evangelicals are a part of that. (At least right now.) It wasn’t religion that lost the election, how ridiculous. It was a weak candidate, that no one in the party really wanted as the nominee, who refused to get the message out on his opponent, and who reached across the isle to the non-religionists at every turn.

I think KP suffers from Evangelical Derangement Syndrome. Total nonsense and playing the blame game. Evangelicals being her scapegoat.

[PerConPat]

So here’s the point: I largely agree with Parker. Not every word, but the general thrust of her comments.

Well, I certainly think that she ends her screed with a valid point. Her closing statement perhaps falls into the category of even a blind pig (sorry Kathleen) finding an acorn now and then:

Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party...

Bingo, Kate! We may be approaching the time when a Christian Republican Party and a Fiscal Conservatives' Party could engage in some worthwhile deal making to at least hold the line against the Left in Congress. I am mindful of Germany's fate as a result of mischievous manipulation among splinter parties in the 1930's. But tensions within the GOP, IMHO, are becoming toxic.

[xzins]

Hardly. The point was whether or not they were part of the Bush campaign and also part of the McCain campaign.

They were an integral part of the Bush campaign, and they were not

[roses of sharon]

No “quasi” about it....Parker and Noonan are bigots.

Thank God they are flushed out, now we know.

[angkor]

>>>>> But you parrot their hate filled rhetoric, such as “Religionist agenda.” Why is that? <<<<<<

What you perceive as “hate filled” I intend to be honest argumentation in support of the traditional GOP and of fundamentalist, pre-fusionism conservative principles (pre-1965).

I disagree with the Religionist agenda on purely practical and traditionalist grounds.

That’s not “hate filled rhetoric.”

[muawiyah]

CW, your straw person there is rather threadbare.

BTW, regarding "gay person coming onto" someone, didn't we just discover that when Senator Craig tried that in a men's room in Minnesota the Democrats dumped all over the Republican party in general for tolerating such behavior by gay guys.

The real threat is not from religious people, or even moral people, but from the LEFT! That's where the evil is.

[muawiyah]

Angkor, your funny little friend there, Ms Parker, is a fascist pig. There’s no room for such people in the Republican party.

[muawiyah]

Aggressive gay guys who go about thinking that only Christians get purturbed about being hit on sometimes get smacked down by Buddhists and Hindus, and definitely lose their heads to Moslems if they try that in, for example, Saudi Arbia or Yemen!

I've heard that even Zorastrians can get nasty about it.

[Old Professer]

It’s not so much that her heart isn’t in this, it’s more that she hasn’t had enough practice to do it right.

Or as I said on a related thread:

“The problem with Parker is that she is a neophyte in the emerging community of born-again iconoclasts; having come late to the party she failed to see the feller-that-brung-her slip out the door so she dances the empty floor, alone.”

[angkor]

>>>>Christian Republican Party and a Fiscal Conservatives’ Party<<<<<

I’d go for a simple Conservative Constitutionalist Party.

There is only one conservative ideology, not two or ten “versions”.

[muawiyah]

Ah, ha, both you and Parker are nutballs ~ you exclude a the greater part of the Conservative base from the Republican party and you have little left but a regional group that’s unable to win elections in either New England or California, and certainly no where else.

[angkor]

>>>>>Angkor, your funny little friend there, Ms Parker, is a fascist pig. <<<<<<

Dear Mr/Ms Muawiyah,

You mean she is expressing the views of Mussolini and Hitler?

What do you mean by “fascist”?

[muawiyah]

What do I mean by fascist ~ hmmm ~ kind of like Francisco Franco, Pierre Laval, .... authoritarians who believe the focal point of society should be those who govern ~

So many people leap to the conclusion that Hitler was a fascist. Actually, he has his own special niche in Hell ~

[Servant of the Cross]

"What underlies the US Constitution (Art 2 Sec 7) making that statement?"

As xzins (thank you for your service) knows:

An absolute belief in God, our Creator. It's why "Nature's God", "Creator", "Supreme Judge of the World" and "divine Providence" are specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

It is truly a shame that this has to be defended on Freerepublic. townhall, maybe; but FR? Sorry JimRob.

[what's up]

its the few people who have hijacked the message of family values and turned it into hate-mongering, mormon-bashing, muslim-bashing, gay-bashing, and whatever-other-group they don’t like bashing

Key word "few people".

So what if there are a "few people" who are morons? You will never get rid of those.

The problem is, the media takes those few people, quotes them, has them on their shows and everyone thinks the few are the many. Old propoganda trick.

The media is the largest enemy we face.

[Mojave]

I disagree with the Religionist agenda on purely practical and traditionalist grounds.

Atheists are inherently dishonest.