Alex once against argues for a godless whatever philosphy Alex teaches. To call it conservatism is an insult to the concept of conservatism and devalues it much as the current Administration devalues the currency. A conservative seeks to conserve those things which make our nation great. In these case, Alex is seeking to tear it down.
The terrible irony of the brouhaha on Race today is that Steve Deace is a natural extension of this line of thinking. Freedom requires religion? Oh, really now?
I know this will seem quaint in an era where we no longer need to bother to read the Founders now that our nation is possessed far wiser minds such as David Frum and David Brooks. But I will quote the wisdom of the Founding Fathers on this matter:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.-George Washington
I’ve lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, — and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages.-Benjamin Franklin
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?-Thomas Jefferson
Alex’s quarrel then is with the founders of this nation, not with me or with anyone else on this board. Washington cites the oaths that are taken and the integrity of people. What we’ve seen run rampant in corporate America has been the result of decades of moral relativism run amok. Have we not also seen it by those who forsake historic values of work and are looking to the Almighty State as their provider?
Washington owns the possibility that individuals may be moral apart from religion, but to expect society to go that away is absurd. And I challenge Alex to give me an example of the free country you think the U.S. ough to emulate that has the type of government you describe. Tell us why you are wiser and more knowledgeable than our Founders regarding what Freedom takes.
As to the second answer, Alex says:
The Pandora’s Box that this line of thinking opens is: whose religion? To what extent? And why should Evangelicals not judge Mormons for their religious convictions, if there is no legitimate reason for religious worldviews to intersect with politics?
These are questions that America has historically answered and dealt with. America has historically taken the stance that there is no government compulsion towards a religious belief. America has left each citizen free in their own conscience their own decisions, but there have been recognitions of God and religion in the publc square including prayers by the Chaplains, the utterance of Presidents and Congressmen throughout our history, and in visible ways such as the presence of the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court.
In addition, there was a sense that God governed in the affairs of men, blessing the nation it when did justly, and punishing it when the nation did unjustly (see Lincoln’s second inaugural.)
These basic guidelines as well as the Declaration of Independence’s statements of rights coming from the Creator formed a basic theological core of beliefs to which a large number of religious systems could fit quite nicely.
Now, as to Alex’s question:
if it is perfectly appropriate for religion to influence one’s political decisions, then it’s perfectly appropriate to come to the conclusion that anyone rejecting mainstream Christianity for Mormonism has a deficit of judgment that colors his overall worldview — and therefore, that candidate must be rejected in favor of one who has accepted the True Faith.
Actually, understanding America’s history of acknowledging God and managing God in public life, Mormonism has no bearing on the qualifications of a candidate for the Presidency. The basic truths about God’s character: his justice, his righteousness, etc. are also understand at pretty much the same level in Mormonism at least as far as national policy goes.
The theological differences between Orthodox Christianity and Mormonism do not amount to anything in regards to national policy or the basic understanding of God that even deists such as Franklin and Jefferson has no problem with.
I’d also point out that Deace himself said that he did not vote against Romney for his Mormonism. If you think he’s lying about that, say so. To simply state that Deace’s opposition was due to Romney’s Mormonism without acknowledging the denial isn’t quite fair.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Alex, regardless of the other conversations hosted here about religion and politics and whether or not they mix, how do you feel in regards to these comments? Do you see the prophetic nature in them that I, a religious person, see? In a time of our nation’s history where we try to push more and more of God out of our country’s heritage and politics, we find the country again becoming more and more liberal, and less and less “free.”
March 29th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
The answer to religious bigotry is to face it head-on and argue against it.
The answer is not to turn your back on religious voters and head into a secularist cave. In secularism you have little basis to argue with religious voters about their preferences.
In a society where we respect each other and reach out to other communities we have room to work towards harmony where no one gives up their identity.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Having a dialogue among those with a different world view requires reason, as opposed to dogma. Reason is secularism.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
The bigger problem is that the religious right has so infested the GOP that suburbanites and swing voters have no motivation to look to the GOP on economics, because they think GOP spokesman are only there due to the power of the religious right.
The religious right has effectively castrated the GOP with respect to economcis.
And the religious right is thus responsible for leading us into socialism, albiet unwittingly.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
We need to work towards ecumenicalism and religious tolerance and blur the doctrinal differences between our various faith traditions. And the GOP would be mad to disparage Mormonism – they are the fastest growing denomination, loyal Republican foot soldiers and the geographic base of the new Republican Party.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Alex, regardless of the other conversations hosted here about religion and politics and whether or not they mix, how do you feel in regards to these comments? Do you see the prophetic nature in them that I, a religious person, see? In a time of our nation’s history where we try to push more and more of God out of our country’s heritage and politics, we find the country again becoming more and more liberal, and less and less “free.”
Yes, I understand the utility of religion. It’s something I struggle with. Is human nature demanding of some sort of paternalism? Is it better to tolerate religious nuts than to drive away religion and see clamoring for big government instead? (I suppose misanthropy might be my real issue. Heh.)
March 29th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
The answer is to have our leaders show respect for religion while not imposing it. Reagan understood this (although he was not cautious of the law of unintended consequences). Roosevelt understood this. Kennedy understood this. They got it right.
George W. Bush struck an inappropriate balance.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
And I challenge Alex to give me an example of the free country you think the U.S. ough to emulate that has the type of government you describe. Tell us why you are wiser and more knowledgeable than our Founders regarding what Freedom takes.
Ew. Logical fallacies make me wince.
Our Founders were not monolithic in their worldviews.
Benjamin Franklin was an agnostic, for God’s sake.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
JA Pruce:
“We need to work towards ecumenicalism and religious tolerance and blur the doctrinal differences between our various faith traditions.”
That is extremely offensive. We reach out to others based on who they are. We don’t demand that they give up their own beliefs and identities for our sake.
Metro:
“Having a dialogue among those with a different world view requires reason, as opposed to dogma. Reason is secularism.”
That’s rather sloppy thinking. If reason were secularism we wouldn’t have two separate words for the concepts.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
#8
Alex:
“Benjamin Franklin was an agnostic, for God’s sake.”
If you don’t know something don’t make it up. Or do you think you know Benjamin Franklin’s religious views better than himself?
Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography:
“…Sunday being my studying day, I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that He made the world, and governed it by His providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter.”
March 29th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Metro:
“The religious right has effectively castrated the GOP with respect to economcis (sic).”
I notice you haven’t commented on posts that mentioned economics lately. All you do is comment on posts that give an opportunity to trash Christian voters.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“As to Jesus of Nazareth … I think the system of Morals and his
Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is
likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting
Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England,
some doubts as to his divinity.” – Benjamin Franklin
March 29th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
That’s rather sloppy thinking. If reason were secularism we wouldn’t have two separate words for the concepts.
Reason requires secularism, I believe, is more what he was saying.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
#11: That’s evidence I believe what I’m saying.
#13: Right.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
#10:
It’s worse than that. Alex claimed that Franklin was an agnostic after I quoted Franklin at the Constitutional Convention. I also bet Alex has never read Franklin’s “Doctrine to be Preached”
http://democratequalssocialist.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/doctrine-to-be-preached-by-benjamin-franklin/
Certainly, Franklin was no Christian. He was deist, and there’s a big difference between that and an agnostic. I think it’s incumbent before making great pronouncements that you know what you’re talking about.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
metro said;
Genralizing that, is unfair. If you really want to get in to this, then let us have a theological argument on why certain evangelical faiths breeds populist economic beliefs and other Christian faiths, such as Mormonism, do not.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Incidentally, Doug, I agree with your argument that only candidates trusted by the religious right should run for the GOP nomination in 2012, so that the party can stay F’ing silent on SoCon issues so we can pretend to suburbanites that you folks don’t have that much power in the party.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Metro,
Cite some data to support your proposition.
Without data, your argument has no bite. Independents like data, not opinions.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Doug,
metro is cherry-picking. I have been pushing an pro-growth agenda and I endorsed Toomey. Nothing from metro.
In fact, populist-economic posts are non-existant from this site. Adam Graham, a former Huckabee supporter has been pushing a pro-growth agenda.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
#19: You miss my point.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
#18: You’re living in a sheltered world if you don’t accept what I’m saying. The GOP is equal to religious conservatism in the minds of independents today. You won. Now reap the consequences.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
#20, then please explain? This site (although it has a strong socon voice) still has more securlar voices then most (or all) other GOP blogs.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
#19: My point is not that the GOP has gone populist on economics. My point is that the GOP is considered irrelevant on the topic by independents.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
#22: If this site is more secularist than most all of the GOP, that further proves my point, does it not?
March 29th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Metro,
Data is always superior to one’s data-less assertions. At least that’s what a person of reason would support I presume.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm
“McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican’s biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points.”
How exactly did John McCain go from down 7 percentage points to up 4 percentage points? Shouldn’t he have fallen further behind by putting someone who is religious on his ticket?
Does this sheltered world of mind include ignoring data suggesting that religion played an insignificant role in this year’s election?
March 30th, 2009 at 12:00 am
#21 metro, Those of us Reaganites (the real one’s) actually believe it was a temporary take-over of the Bush/DeLay wing…
thus, we are in the middle of the civil-war.
Some of us are fighting hard to expose the zealots (cough…Keller/Deace…cough)
March 30th, 2009 at 12:01 am
#25: Have you any idea how many factors there are in a Presidential horserace weeks from the election?
March 30th, 2009 at 12:02 am
#26: That point makes zero sense from someone supporting Sarah Palin.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Metro,
Since you claim to be representative of indies, why can’t you cite to data supporting your assertions? Why was it that the data regarding a religious person such as Sarah Palin after the convention showed indies in nearly every swing state telling pollsters that they were more likely to vote for McCain than against McCain because of his VP pick.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-09-22T14%3A54%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=50
“The Palin selection is a much bigger hit than the Biden one with Michigan voters. 45% of respondents say her choice makes them more likely to vote for McCain while just 30% say having Joe Biden on the ticket makes them more likely to support Obama. While Palin’s popularity largely results from increased enthusiasm among the Republican base, she has also helped move the vote among independents into a dead heat after Obama had a four point lead with them last month.”
41/38 in Florida
41/36 in Ohio
March 30th, 2009 at 12:08 am
#29: Because what voters knew of Palin then was very different. I was a raving Palin fan that week. RAVING.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Adam, I, too, will quote the wisdom of the very same Founding Father on this matter:
Do you seek to conserve those things which make our nation great, like Jefferson’s Wall of Separation, or are you seeking to tear it down?
March 30th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Do you religious conservatives even realize that tons of RELIGIOUS voters vote Dem because they think religion has no place in politics? This would include my mother and most of her friends.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:09 am
#28, then you, my friend, are no different than the socons. Friggin litmus test.
At this point, Palin is the only candidate willing to espouse both ficon and neocon beliefs. No matter what the public believes at this point, she’s my candidate. Rudy ain’t running in 2012.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:10 am
During 2001-2008 the GOP was about the War on Terror and the War in Iraq.
Social and Economic issues took a back seat to domestic security and foreign affairs.
Bush and McCain have beat the drum on Iraq and the War on Terror more than any other issue.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Thanks, Aron. A good chunk of the Founding Fathers wouldn’t be able to seek the GOP nomination today because they weren’t religious enough. And they were that, 200 years ago.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:11 am
#34: So that when the Iraq War receded, the public perception of the GOP is that it’s now just the religious party.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Metro,
You’ve made the assertion that the perception of the Republican Party as controlled by the “religious right” is hurting the party among indies.
I’ve provided data indicating that indies did not share your view when a candidate who received acclaim from the religious right joined the ticket. Why did indies join the McCain camp when a candidate supported by the religious right joinged the ticket? Under your theory, indies should have never joined the McCain ticket because a candidate supported by the religious right joined the ticket.
My argument is that the very fact that McCain jumped out to the lead and that a plurality of indies in key swing states deemed the Palin pick as one that would make them more likely to vote for McCain severely weakens your argument. Indies knew at the beginning that she was a religious person and that didn’t stop a plurality from telling pollsters that she made them more likely to vote for the McCain ticket.
Your theory would only work if indies never joined the McCain ticket or fewer joined after the Palin pick initially. The data that I have supports my argument.
Got anything else? Perhaps data but I suppose it is your opinion that indies don’t need data to make assertions.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Anyone talking about a wall of separation between church and state today is thrown out as a heretic by the Doug Forresters and Adam Grahams of the world.
Thomas Jefferson would be considered some liberal heretic out to undermine Jesus by those two.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:13 am
#32, ah!
That is the Meghan McCain argument and it is correct. If the party just gave up on one of the issues (GAY RIGHTS)…we could probably win many back, especially all the under-30 practicing Christians that voted for Obama.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:14 am
I’ve provided data indicating that indies did not share your view when a candidate who received acclaim from the religious right joined the ticket. Why did indies join the McCain camp when a candidate supported by the religious right joinged the ticket? Under your theory, indies should have never joined the McCain ticket because a candidate supported by the religious right joined the ticket
Are you so daft that you cannot comprehend that voters didn’t know much about Palin during that first week?
You should probably check data from after the first week of September 2008!
March 30th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Metro,
Are you disputing that the indy voters didn’t know she was religious at the beginning or that she was vehemently supported by the religious right?
What happened was that she didn’t pass the qualifications test in people’s eyes…I don’t see any data showing that the reason why people went away from the ticket despite going for the ticket initially was because they learned she was more religous. Is that your argument?
March 30th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Tommy Boy, the Palin problem mostly has to do with her being perceived as stupid and ignorant. That’s a different issue.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Palin was only put on the ticket in the first place because the Religious Right was threatening to bolt unless one of their people was put onto the ticket.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Knepper,
Are you arguing that the media didn’t push the religious whackjob memo at the beginning? My argument is that the data shows people didn’t care about how much she valued religion.
All I’m arguing is that voters didn’t turn away from Palin because they learned she was religious.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:16 am
#38, Alex you know you’re lying about me, so why do you do it?
I’ve always been a reliable supporter of the separation of Church and State.
Probably more than most of the “secularists” on here.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:17 am
#41, I disagree….what happened was that the liberal media put in everyone’s head that she was against teaching evolution (false), and that scared all the women in suburban-Philly.
Metro is correct on the perception, not the facts.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:17 am
With all due respect, Ohio, I think it’s partly because of the incessant pushing by the religious right leaders in the Bush years that we’re seeing that in the first place. The Republicans went too reactionary, dug too much into political religion to the point that it dominated our secular politics, and went intellectually bankrupt because of it – it disgusted the people, and left us the fragmentation we have today fighting to move beyond that point.
Seriously, don’t any of you recall the fights over the Pledge, stem cell research, Ten Commandments in the courthouse, intelligent design, etc.? None of that had any rational justification. You had to be a believer to believe in those things. That’s not how this country runs and the party burned its hand because of it.
Whatever happened to the party that stood for liberty and opportunity? That’s what we’re missing! Most leaders of the religious right only care that the party stands for their dogma. Deace himself said it, he couldn’t care less about any political value like liberty, just about politics as a tool for his own religious views. That’s what they do in Iran, for crying out loud.
I think most religious conservatives are much better than that, because I know many. They have political values and their religious ones absolutely tolerate this. Mine do too. Politics and religion were always meant to be separate albeit complementary realms. Jesus didn’t say “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but better yet to be Caesar”. Unfortunately that is exactly the attitude a few prominent Christians then and now have taken. It’s not only a trampling of political ideals conducive to a good society, but its a fraud of true religion, that it should need some corrupt earthly power to achieve its spiritual ends.
No one wants to eliminate religion. But this is a political party, yes? What are we here to do, secure our natural, God-given rights – the liberty of all men – by right government, cooperation, and strong tradition that we may be a free people, or build some preacher’s version of the City of God? Locke and Augustine can’t coexist here. What side will it be?
March 30th, 2009 at 12:18 am
What the GOP lacks today is someone like a Daniel Hannan. Every frickin’ elected Republican feels the need to talk down, talk Southern, talk religious, talk colloquially. The religious right has removed the smart/educated eloquent Republican from the public sphere, with a few exceptions, notably Romney. Then again, the religious right did block his nomination….
March 30th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Knepper,
That’s the whole point…she was the candidate of the “religious right” from the beginning and people still told pollsters that they loved her.
They didn’t fall out of love because she was a candidate of the “religious right.”
You and Metro seem to be making the argument that the religious right hurt the Republican party this November. I’m using the way people initially perceived Palin as a way to refute that argument.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:19 am
#43, are you crazy? McCain saw himself in Palin (rebel) and he was looking to shake things up. Steve Schmidt admitted that the “Obama is not qualified” argument was not going to push them past the finish line.
#42, that ‘ignorant’ argument had to do with her Christian views, or the lies the media told about them.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:20 am
#30:
No one is denying Jefferson’s view of the wall of seperation and of direct religious establishment or a marriage of church and state. That’s irrelevant as that’s not what I’m calling for. It’s a red herring.
What Alex is calling for is the obliteration of religion from the public sphere and when one takes Jefferson in context of his whole life and statements, your quote can’t be used to put Jefferson on your side.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Oh this is great stuff. I’m lovin’ this. Really, this discussion is what matters most. Clearly you CAN’T have a FREE society without a moral and religious people. I mean, it has never happened in the history of mankind. And when you get a tyrant or dictator, they ALWAYS eliminate any expression of a belief in God (other than themselves or the state). Moral people internalize laws, and police themselves. Liberals, or “less” moral people, seek to impose laws or restraints on people from the outside, the really crafty liberals attempt to exempt themselves from the legal restraints by placing themselves in a position of leadership. This is basically corruption, forcing others to live as you feel they should, while maintaining your own wealth and freedom on the backs of the heavily regulated masses. Liberalism, socialism, dictatorships…it’s the purest form of, well, godlessness.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Tommy, you can’t infer one specific from a situation involving countless factors. I was a raving Palin fan on this site that week. Understand?
March 30th, 2009 at 12:22 am
#47 A lot of Evangelical leaders want power but have tin ears.
I wish Evangelicals could get their act together. The mainline Protestants and Catholics in the party aren’t enjoying being depicted as creationist theocratic rubes.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:23 am
#38, Alex you know you’re lying about me, so why do you do it? I’ve always been a reliable supporter of the separation of Church and State. Probably more than most of the “secularists” on here.
And yet you support Huckabee, who wants to “write God’s law into the Constitution.”
March 30th, 2009 at 12:24 am
“As to Jesus of Nazareth … I think the system of Morals and his
Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is
likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting
Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England,
some doubts as to his divinity.” – Benjamin Franklin
That’s not agnosticism Alex.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:25 am
#43, are you crazy? McCain saw himself in Palin (rebel) and he was looking to shake things up. Steve Schmidt admitted that the “Obama is not qualified” argument was not going to push them past the finish line.
McCain bought into a BS “Maverick of Alaska” narrative without doing his homework. I have it on very, very good word that she really was not properly vetted.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:25 am
That’s not agnosticism Alex.
It’s agnosticism as to Jesus’ divinity, which is the only thing relevant to this discussion. It’s Jesus or bust with these folks.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Metro,
You have stated over and over again that the religous right is hurting the party among independents without providing a shred of data to support the proposition.
Palin, whether or not she’s actually a social con, neocon, or whatever con, was perceived at the beginning as the VP candidate of the religious right…at least the media pushed that meme at the beginning. Therefore, I am arguing under your theory, independents should have never fallen in love with Palin at the beginning just because she was a VP candidate supported by the religious right. Am I mistating your proposition?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain
“Perhaps most stunning is the fact that Palin’s favorable ratings are now a point higher than either man at the top of the Presidential tickets this year. As of Friday morning, Obama and McCain are each viewed favorably by 57% of voters. Biden is viewed favorably by 48%.
There is a strong partisan gap when it comes to perceptions of Palin. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans give her favorable reviews along with 33% of Democrats and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party.”
March 30th, 2009 at 12:27 am
I’m a Pawlenty supporter.
Huckabee didn’t win my support during his Elmer Gantry phase. In retrospect I wish I’d drop my support of him when he began to go nutty.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:28 am
#59: It’s like asking for a poll that the sun rises in the east. Anybody who hasn’t isolated themselves and only lives among conservatives knows that the public thinks about Sarah Palin.
Why do you keep restating the same argument when I’ve twice said that *I* was a raving Palin fan taht week, and many other factors were at play?
March 30th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Now here’s the kicker. Liberals enslave conservatives, but with conservative leadership, liberals can enjoy the exact same degree of freedom conservatives do. Liberals to the extreme eventually eliminate freedom of speech, freedom of religion, all the important liberties outlined in the constitution. Who is more persecuted in public schools today? The atheist, or the Christian? The promiscuous teenager, or the one who is suspected of maintaining their purity? The drinker, dope addict? OR the straight-laced tee-totaler? I can answer this, I lived it. Our increasingly liberal society, if left unfettered, eventually eliminates the believer’s ability to worship and live according to the dictates of their own conscience. Now I know some of you will dispute my use of the word liberal, by that I mean someone who doesn’t see the need to live within their means, believes in legalizing all sexual deviation and immoral behavior, abortions, etc., believes that government should be god-like in its ability to mandate how you must live.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:28 am
She is a Maverick and I have it on very good word that she was vetted for 3 months.
Alex, she is still fighting with the corrupt RINO’s in Alaska and she refused 40% of the stim. package.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:28 am
“I wish Evangelicals could get their act together. The mainline Protestants and Catholics in the party aren’t enjoying being depicted as creationist theocratic rubes”
Throwing out Creation to gain the respect of the world is a foolish action. Where do you want to stop? After you do away with the ressurection?
March 30th, 2009 at 12:29 am
#58 That’s the sort of inability to admit a mistake that is a hallmark of this kid.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:32 am
#64, I believe evolutionary theory is accurate. I could care less if the world respects that.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:34 am
64 John Mark,
That’s the point – it’s a religious belief, so we shouldn’t have to throw it out. Religion isn’t a tool of politics. What we are sick of is getting creationism pushed on the general public as if politics is a tool of religion.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:35 am
66, Fine, but you ought not to call those of us who disagree with you “Rubes”, unless you want to start a real war of words. You ought to remember that the Alex’s and Metro’s consider you a Rube for even believing in the ressurection.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:37 am
#58:
Agnosticism has a specific meaning.
I don’t know how I feel about Pineapples about pizza. Are you going to say I’m an agnostic?
This is the whole problem with your worldview. You can’t take words that have specific meanings and automagically define them to meet whatever you want.
And the crux of the debate is not about the divinity of Christ. Either in the real world or your fantasy Steve Deace and Mitt Romney flap. The issues between Orthodox Christianity and Mormonism do not deal with the deity of Christ.
As for religious conservatives, one of the favored speakers at many religious conservative events is none other than Rabbi Daniel Lapin. The religious conservative movement includes people of the following faiths: Catholics, Mainline Protestants, Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, and Mormons. While Catholics and Evangelicals end up out front more often, that has more to do with focus than anything else.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:38 am
Metro,
Sorry pal, I’m a data guy. Numbers matter in my world. I would think that someone pushing for more intellectualism in the party would value numbers but I assume incorrectly.
Whether you liked Palin at the beginning is irrelevant to the argument you are making about indies and the religious right in general. So are you now conceding that the “religious right” angle of the party is not the party’s most pressing issue with indies? Because if it were the most pressing issue that indies have with the GOP, I don’t see how indies flocked to a ticket after a VP candidate of the religious right joined the ticket.
By the way, in the two polls released in this year showing the governor of Alaska’s standing with independents shows you to be in the minority with respect among your self-proclaimed independents.
But then again, you ignore data and want the party to become more “intellectual” at the same time.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:38 am
John,
He did say theocratic, and despite your belief in creation I don’t think you’d advocate forcing everyone to learn that, so it doesn’t really apply to you
March 30th, 2009 at 12:38 am
“What we are sick of is getting creationism pushed on the general public as if politics is a tool of religion.”
I don’t think it has been except in Kansas, not that it hasn’t been tried. That said, this is what you get when you have socialized education, life doesn’t fall into neat little subjects like religion, history, politics… so if Government’s going to be involved in teaching, its going to be involved in teaching a worldview one way or another.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Kristofer,
C’mon man…she did not “refuse” 40% of the stim package.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:40 am
“Agnosticism has a specific meaning.”
Not when it interferes with Alex never being shown wrong, it doesn’t! I’d think you would know that.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:43 am
#73, REALLY????????????
Governor Palin refuses 45% of Stimulus Moneyhttp://www.momsforsarahpalin.com/2009/03/governor-palin-refuses-45-of-stimulus.html
March 30th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Education instills the value of reason. Reason, science in this case, is not opposed to faith and only false faith would be rejected on scientific evidence or logical reasoning. It operates on a totally different scheme. If faith declines, it’s simply because it’s not being taught, not because reason is taking over.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:45 am
#76: I disagree. Reason destroys faith, thank God.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Kristofer,
I follow the AK news pretty closely as a supporter of hers…she has denied “rejecting” the stimulus funds. She has never used the word “reject” when talking about the stimulus. The news media reported that she “rejected” it when what she really did was not “accept” all stimulus funds. The same goes with Sanford and Jindal as well.
Parnell: Palin didn’t “reject” the stimulus money
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/139475
March 30th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Tommy,
When this discussion originally took place 10 days, I provided several pieces of polling data then to help corroborate Metro’s claim.
http://race42008.com/2009/03/19/sarahs-statement/#comment-417891
March 30th, 2009 at 12:51 am
I retract my #62.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:51 am
77, The reason that led to blood in the streets in the French revolution, and millions starved in communist countries certainly did. But of course we’re supposed to believe that the faithless liberals have finally got it right this time, they’ve been wrong every time before, but this time if we just let them run things they will get it right… Just give them one more chance…
March 30th, 2009 at 12:54 am
#78 Tommy,
So if Palin didn’t ‘refuse’ nealry half of the funds…what would you call it?
I am proud of her. Palin understands that our nation will be unable to sustain the spending on entitlement programs. That is the portion of the spending she “decided not to accept’.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Goldman,
Are you purposefully ignoring my assertion? I’m arguing that her standing with the religious right did not hurt the ticket among indies. Not that Palin did not hurt the ticket among indies but rather, her standing with the religious right did not hurt the ticket.
Does that make sense or am I just too intelligent because your data doesn’t support what is actually Metro’s claim: that the religious right hurts the party among indies.
I’ll answer my own question: I am too intelligent.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:55 am
#81: Religion vs. Socialism is a false alternative, subjecting the individual to God, or the individual to the State.
I’m for the reason and individualism that gave rise to the United States of America, where each is an end in himself, to be sacrificed neither to God nor to the State.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:56 am
#83: I answered that point many times. You’re too dumb to have noticed.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:56 am
77, The reason that led to blood in the streets in the French revolution, and millions starved in communist countries certainly did. But of course we’re supposed to believe that the faithless liberals have finally got it right this time, they’ve been wrong every time before, but this time if we just let them run things they will get it right… Just give them one more chance…
Now I’m a “faithless liberal”? Communism isn’t reason. It’s a quasi-religion. I don’t want to see religious faith replaced with some other type of irrational nonsense. I want to see it replaced with individual liberty.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Metro,
Only if you accept the premise that politics and religion, the secular and the spiritual, etc are inseparable and that faith must control reason or vice-versa.
But they always were distinct, two perceptions of the same reality. It isn’t possible that one is true and the other false. Faith too is based in experience, after all.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Tommy,
http://www.aksuperstation.com/news/local/41585747.html
March 30th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Metro,
Do numbers and data scare you as much as the religious right? Do citations to authority keep you up at night?
I don’t think calling a poster who has cited to numerous pieces of data and authority dumb while you have failed to cite to anything besides providing your own assertions is going to play well with “metro independents.”
A metro independent evaluates your post with an assertion unsupported by any data with my posts supported by numerous links to data: whose post do you actually think the metro independent would believe has more credibility?
Did they teach you in school that an assertion usually requires evidence to be taken seriously? Don’t worry though, metro, keep on reading my posts and you’ll learn how to construct an argument and learn how to evaluate polling.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:01 am
86, As a matter of fact yes. You support jettisoning the very foundations that society has ridden upon for some theoretical ideal, that you think you have logically arisen at. That’s the same foundation as communism. Of course you think all the Communist thinkers weren’t rational and you’ve finally mastered real reasoning, but the communists would have said the same thing inre to why people should follow their system.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:03 am
#90: That’s an argument against any type of human advance, ever. Shows what kind of creature you really are.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:03 am
Tommy,
Fair enough. To what do you attribute Palin’s harm to the ticket among independents?
March 30th, 2009 at 1:05 am
91, Nothing like you I would hope.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:05 am
“Reason is a whore” – Martin Luther
(Back then, the religious fanatics were honest about their opinions.)
March 30th, 2009 at 1:06 am
#86:
The kind of society you call for, never existed anywhere on this planet. People wonder why people worship Obama. It is because when religion declines, it is ultimately replaced by cults of personality or ideology. That’s invariably how it will go down.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Tommy/Aron,
Come-on. She had very little effect on fundraising because McCain accepted public financing, and Palin brought out an army of volunteers. McCain only had enough staff for three office before she was selected, after he opened offices across the state. Even Democrats admitted her impact.
As for turning voters on or off. You guys give way too much credit to VP candidates, no different than the Rombots who believe Romney would have helped McCain get elected President.
VP’s don’t matter on voting day.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:07 am
The kind of society Alex and I call for largely existed for the first century of this country’s existence.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:08 am
I suppose I should clarify for the sake of some of the more sophistocated readers. I have definitely oversimplified in my comments inre to atheistic thinking, but I did it for the sake of the simple minded – otherwise known as Metro.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Goldman,
Concerns about her qualifications and how she went super-negative on Obama are what I would chalk up her loss in standing among indies to.
I see no evidence to support the argument that her standing fell among indies because they found out she was the “VP candidate” of the religious right.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:09 am
#98: LOL. At least Doug Forrester uses his brain. You just regurgitate what you hear at Church.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:10 am
94, You really want to go back to those days?
March 30th, 2009 at 1:11 am
**MetroIndependent Says:
March 30th, 2009 at 12:45 am
#76: I disagree. Reason destroys faith, thank God.**
Wow! You need to do a little more reading. Try Aquinas, Augustine, Chesterson, “How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas Woods, and hosts of other stories on Jesuit scholars who were great scientists. The Greek philosophers as well.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Kristofer,
You know I’m a supporter of the good governor. Read my argument carefully since I know you are an intelligent person (Goldman and Knepper are as well).
I never stated that her loss in standing among indies was the reason why McCain lost 52-44 among indies.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:11 am
#97:
You have yet to offer any proof. In the country’s first century of existence, you had Chaplains in Congress, you even had several states establish Churches, you had State Constitutions that required legislators to affirm they believed in God and the existence of eternal rewards and punishment, you had church services held on Sundays in the Capitol, you had a Civil War where a President called the nation to prayer and repentance eight times in the most eloquent of language.
Is that what you call the religion free state?
March 30th, 2009 at 1:13 am
100, I haven’t heard any of this at Church. I suppose I’m going to have to spell this out for you, since you’re a little slow. My oversimplification of atheistic thought, was a bit of a parody of you doing the reverse. Get it. I didn’t think so.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:14 am
#95 **People wonder why people worship Obama. It is because when religion declines, it is ultimately replaced by cults of personality or ideology. **
Exactly. The Universe abhors a vaccuum. When positive religion leaves something else will always take its place. This is another reason why the Communists suppressed religion. When the state becomes God they don’t want the competition.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:15 am
100, Oh and now we have praise for Doug? I thought he was reprhensible monster among other things. But now that I get on your nerves he’s a rational guy huh?
March 30th, 2009 at 1:15 am
#103, it does not matter if I am intelligent or not. I know what your argument is and I know what Aron’s is and in fact I am not sure you the two of you are debating the same issue?
I think the entire argument is a false one.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:16 am
The disaster of the French Revolution was Rousseauian reason asserting itself over traditional morality, traditions, and faith to supposedly liberate mankind from them. From this of course spawned socialism, communism, fascism, etc. It could hardly be called reason to liberate mankind from supposedly evil things like faith only to subject him to far worse atrocities and fate.
I believe in reason of Locke’s variety, that mankind is by nature endowed with it from whence springs his liberty, and which directs him to secure it by political cooperation – that man may be free from domination and tyranny. Faith is completely within man’s choices – he’s hardly being oppressed by it, when he’s perfectly content to live by it. That sort of reason is the basis for this country.
The reason of the French Revolution was no more true reason than the faith of the Crusades was true faith.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:16 am
#107: His ideas are evil but at least he has a brain, as opposed to you. You made it personal.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:18 am
Palin needs to talk with legislators
Sunday, March 29, 2009
http://newsminer.com/weblogs/dermot-cole/2009/mar/29/palin-needs-to-talk-with-legislators/
Palin: stimulus “still on the table”
http://www.ktva.com/ci_11963723
Legislators wonder about Palin intentions on stimulus
http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/032709/leg_img_leg001.shtml
Legislature reaches for stimulus funds
Lawmakers hope to obtain money that Palin didn’t go after
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/032909/sta_415958492.shtml
Lawmakers, governor miss connections over stimulus
STIMULUS MONEY: Each side says other botched a conference.
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/738094.html
March 30th, 2009 at 1:19 am
48 – “The religious right has removed the smart/educated eloquent Republican from the public sphere, with a few exceptions, notably Romney. Then again, the religious right did block his nomination….”
This, has been precisely my point for over a year now. The country has changed. There is simply too much video coverage of each candidate now, and 24/7 streaming news, of both the traditional, and more modern varieties. We will never again see a candidate get elected who isn’t educated, eloquent, and able to express his/her view beyond the shallow talking points that have been the hallmark of many GOP candidates. Metro, if this is your view, why not a Romney supporter?
March 30th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Goldman,
Bro, you’ve got to give me the ability to post multiple links on a post without moderation. I only post good stuff.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:21 am
107, Ah, but my understanding is that religous conservatives were unthinking, and irrational, wouldn’t that imply not using your brain. As a matter of fact I bet I could find telling Doug that he wasn’t rational… If I really cared to do so.
“You made it personal.” Oh boo! hoo! hoo! And to think I did it to such a friendly poster.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:23 am
#112: Bwett, I have been for a few months, along with Newt and Sanford.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:25 am
I find myself confused by the ambiguities of the arguments on both sides. Where is the rub? What is it you can’t agree on?
For example, the Metro/Alex side appears to be arguing for a secular state, one where there is a fundamental and complete separation of church and state. Ok, so this line of thinking seems to imply that the other side is arguing for no separation of church and state. Is this really what you think the other side is advocating? You think they want religious belief to infiltrate government and take over policy, creating some sort of theocracy? Guys, feel free to tell me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think anyone is advocating this. This seems like a strawman argument.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:26 am
I mean your calling Doug a Monster that shouldn’t be taken personally. No not at all. You saying that Social conservatives are basically backward, stupid, people that shouldn’t be taken personally. You coming on here to bash everybody as being too dumb to be relevant shouldn’t be taken personally. Your talking of what reprhensible people SoCons are shouldn’t be taken personally.
You’re just the most civil guy ever.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Tommy,
I’m not sure how to modify that spam setting. Give me the heads up when you’ve posted something with multiple links, and I’ll promptly approve it.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:31 am
115 – Humph. Could have used you last year.
Listen, I understand the distaste for the “religious right” to the extent you limit the definition to those that seek to enforce law based solely on their own personal interpretation of morality, as they view it in the Bible. I do. I find reasonless, mindless allegiance to religion, any religion, to be mildly disturbing. But when I define “religion” in this context, I use broad strokes, and I include the religion of atheism, green-ism, secularism. Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on mindless drones beating on unsourced talking points.
But what I find even more frustrating is the blatant refusal of some to admit that many of the, so-called, “religious right” are unable to articulation reasoned, and scientific support for their “moral” positions. For example, I see the gay marriage issue thrown around on this board often as an example of uninformed religiosity. To that I’d ask whether those making the accusations have ever taken the time to discuss the issue with a well informed religious righter, one that can speak beyond the basic talking point? If there is reason behind a stance, do you still condemn it?
March 30th, 2009 at 1:34 am
#117: The fact you’ve taken those comments deep inside would indicate that some part of you is embarrassed by who you decided to become.
#119: I think a lot of the reasons behind peoples opinions do come out on this board.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Kristofer,
We’ll know what the good governor’s intentions are with the 31% at the end of the legislative session. They’ll likely send her an appropriations bill requesting all of the money and she’ll have an opportunity to exercise her line-item veto authority. We’ll see what she does but it’s pretty clear from the links that Goldman and I have provided that Palin herself doesn’t want her actions to be construed as a “rejection” of stimulus funds locally. However, my suspicion is that she doesn’t mind having the national news media construe her actions as a “rejection.” She’s a politician after all, Jindal and Sanford are playing the same game.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:44 am
“#117: The fact you’ve taken those comments deep inside would indicate that some part of you is embarrassed by who you decided to become.”
Still desperately clinging to your faith in free will I see.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:49 am
And you’ve got a rather trumped up view of yourself to think that your comments have gone “deep inside.” I’ve had traumatic experience in life, but reading the comments of a poster who thinks he nature’s gift to human thought is more like getting tickled by bug, than some sort of deep trauma.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:49 am
#122: What a piece of work you are. If you don’t believe in free will, how can you criticize anyone? On your view, they can’t help who they are. So criticizing them would be the moral equivalent of making fun of a disabled person.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:53 am
“If you don’t believe in free will, how can you criticize anyone? On your view, they can’t help who they are. So criticizing them would be the moral equivalent of making fun of a disabled person.”
Exactly, which is why you shouldn’t criticize anyone, but then if your worldview is correct I guess you don’t really have a choice. I OTOH don’t have a problem with faith and do believe in free will. But if you want to only accept empirical and scientific evidence for reality, then you’ve got as much support for free will as you do for the tooth fairy.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:57 am
HUH? In #122 I’m for free will and you’re not? In #125 it’s the other way around? Are you schizo as well as religious?
March 30th, 2009 at 2:02 am
126, I never said I wasn’t for free will. I’ve consistently said that logically you shouldn’t be. You claim to reject faith, and believe in a naturalistic world that can only be known by our natural senses and logic, do you not? In that case you have no reason to believe in free will. I have theological reasons to believe in free will, but you don’t have that. As a matter of fact as a believer in a naturalistic universe you have a lot better reason to not believe in free will.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:05 am
#127: Free will is a natural component of human existence. Once again you’re dealing in false dichotomies.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:15 am
128, There’s no way free will could be natural as we consider natural. Free will involves a human being able to do something without any cause except for the fact that he chose to do it. In other words two people who are exactly the same in the exact same circumstances could theoretically do two different things – otherwise they wouldn’t really have the choice of what to do. Now in the natural world, if the something is submitted to the same circumstances it will have the same result. Same cause would logically seem to mean same result, yet in freewill you have the same causes and yet the choice can stand on its own and mean different results.
Even if freewill was feasible in a naturalistic system,( as I show above its not) what evidence do you have for its existence? The fact is that you don’t. Atheists with more intelectual honesty than yourself have accepted this and rejected freewill.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:17 am
Tommy,
While I concur that, by September 11, 2008 (the Gibson interview), Palin’s perceived incompetence — cemented two weeks later as fact in the Couric catastrophe — ended up trumping her controversial social views, I would be hesitant to assert that her standing among independents was not diminished as some of her policy positions came to light.
I refer you to an interview I conducted with Frank Luntz on the first day of the Republican convention. He had just conducted one of his famous focus groups, consisting of 25 self-described swing voters in Minnesota. I asked him if the focus group knew yet of Sarah Palin’s position on abortion (no rape/incest exceptions), and before I even had the chance to finish my follow-up, asking what impact, if any, it had on them upon learning of her strict pro-life stance, he blurted out — “Yes, they heard about it, and it turned them against her.”
March 30th, 2009 at 3:01 am
Goldman,
Luntz’s assertion does not seem supported by the data even in Minnesota. McCain went from down 51-38 in May to 45-45 in a poll, which I’ve linked to below, that was conducted from September 10-12…unless you are arguing that at the time this poll was conducted, Minnesota voters did not know of Palin’s personal views on abortion. The article says that her favorables were at 53%, 7% higher than that of Joe Biden in a state that is less conservative (30% of voters were conservative in 2008, 31% in 2004) than the national average of 34%. It had to be more than just Minnesota “conservatives” expressing favorable opinions of Sarah Palin during September 10-12.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/28353589.html?page=2&c=y
“Part of the rise in McCain’s fortunes nationally has been attributed to his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, a move that has energized his party’s conservative base…While 30 percent said it made them more likely to vote for the Republican ticket, 26 percent said it made them less likely to do so. For the rest, it didn’t make much difference…Palin’s overall favorable rating is slightly higher than Biden’s, 53 percent for her to 46 percent for him.”
March 30th, 2009 at 3:14 am
Goldman,
Luntz’s focus group also had Palin destroying Biden in the debate…I suspect you personally do not believe that the focus group’s conclusion was representative of the nation’s conclusions on the Palin-Biden debate.
If you assume a 39/35/26 D/R/I split (average of 2004 and 2008 Minnesota exit polls) and assume a 90% favorable rating among Republicans and a 20% favorable rating among Democrats, Palin’s favorable rating in the poll would be 53% among Minnesota indies. I suppose it is possible that these Minnesota indies that were polled had not heard of Palin’s social views at that time, but my recollection is that the media had already pounded home what were her pro-life views.
Just sayin’….I’ve enjoyed this data crunching exercise.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:32 am
By the way Goldman,
That Gallup poll that you included as part of your links isn’t very favorable to your guy Rudy. The numbers suggest that he’s not getting very much love at all from even moderate and liberal Republicans.
The poll results do seem questionable though given that Petreus is a net negative of -8 among liberal/moderate Republicans on whether they would like to see him run. I suppose it’s possible since a good chunk of the moderate and liberal wing of our party agreed with Obama on Iraq if you look at the exit polls from the primaries/caucuses.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:56 am
“With all due respect, Ohio” in # 47, just for the record, neither I nor any other person with Ohio in their name has yet to comment on this post until now.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Why is the question of what religion you are, even IN the GOP debates? Over and over Gov. Romney was asked about things like his underwear, or how he worshiped. Mis-information about the LDS faith was put out almost on an hourly basis. And the Preachers who feared their congrerations might actually find out the REAL truth about the LDS, and not their versions were spewing out from their pulpits that a vote for Romney was a vote for Satan. Even Huckabee’s ‘innocent’ question about if the LDS thought Satan and Jesus were brothers, was not so innocent. He knew the answer. He STUDIED religion, for crying out loud. I judge a candidate by the whole person. I may not always agree with their faith, but if they live it, and they have good and faithful families standing behind them, I could care less where their butt is parked on Sunday, or Saturday or Friday. If you talk the talk, walk the walk. Romney did exactly that.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Sorry, I missed the very first one by OhioRepublican. I guess I was the one who confused posts.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:13 am
The Framers of the Constitution . . . forbade the Congress to make any law “respecting” the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge “the free exercise” of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling [she continues] to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it.
What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And–I repeat–the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs. [Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61]
March 30th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Well said JasonJack.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:46 am
The basis for our entire government, the Constitution, draws more from John Locke than from any other source. The right to life, liberty, and property (pursuit of happiness) derives from DIVINE RIGHT. Locke’s entire philosophy, his entire rationalization is divine right.
However, as a free country Americans are more than welcome to reject politicians based on their faith. I will NEVER vote for an Atheist. I would vote for the most alien religion to my Judeo-Christian values before I voted for a candidate that rejects faith altogether. Why? The same reason they automatically distrust pious candidates for seeking to impose their faiths on them. Many Atheists (and Jews and Christians in name only) seek to restrict public expression of faith, an explicit violation of the First Amendment. So even though Alex and others may not engage in this behavior themselves or have any desire to restrict expression, I simply cannot trust their intentions.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Tommy, they were just starting to learn the specifics of her social views. That focus group of undecided swing voters took place only two days after she was selected by McCain. On R4’08, even prior to her being picked, there was consensus among pragmatic socons and pro-choicers alike, that she’d have to slightly tweak her position to one more palatable for the national stage — something to the effect of: ‘I realize and respect that not all victims of rape and incest would reach the same decision I would make for myself.’
March 30th, 2009 at 11:16 am
This was the most interesting conversation I’ve seen on this site in a long time. Thanks for bringing it up. As far as religion and politics, I think people see politicians that wear their religion on their sleeve and yet fail to live up to their own religious tenents to be hypocrites. Or anyone who fails to hold a member of their own political party to their professed beliefs.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Staff infection: Allies rip Palin team
Palin’s Political Problems Persist
Grussendorf picked for Juneau Senate seat
GRUSSENDORF: Kerttula passed over for Democratic seat by legislative aide who switched parties weeks ago.
Eye on the Senate: Murkowski Tops Palin in Job Approval Ratings
http://www.haysresearch.com/OC032509.htm
March 30th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Hey everyone,
I noticed from looking at the blog posts that the posts that have any kind of controversy about potencial 2012 candidates then that gets the most hateful comments. When a blog post is about Obama or Capitalism or America as we know it dissapearing it gets for less comments. Why are we sitting around bashing our “friends” when are enemies get a pass even though it could lead to the distruction of America? We should only talk about issiues that are the most important and wait on the friendly fire comments until at leat January of 2011.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Knickers in a twist Says: Why is the question of what religion you are, even IN the GOP debates? Over and over Gov. Romney was asked about things like his underwear, or how he worshiped. Mis-information about the LDS faith was put out almost on an hourly basis. And the Preachers who feared their congrerations might actually find out the REAL truth about the LDS, and not their versions were spewing out from their pulpits that a vote for Romney was a vote for Satan. Even Huckabee’s ‘innocent’ question about if the LDS thought Satan and Jesus were brothers, was not so innocent. He knew the answer. He STUDIED religion, for crying out loud. I judge a candidate by the whole person. I may not always agree with their faith, but if they live it, and they have good and faithful families standing behind them, I could care less where their butt is parked on Sunday, or Saturday or Friday. If you talk the talk, walk the walk. Romney did exactly that.
—–
Ok, from watching all the debates Gov. Huckabee had far more religious questions than Romney. Huckabee was asked if he believed in Evolution, if his wife should submit to him, what role does faith play in his governing, and he even was called “Pastor Huckabee” on all the outlets. He was a pastor over 20 years ago. Romney is a Bishop in the Mormon church, so how come the news media did not say “Bishop Romney”? Weired. Don’t cherry pick your evidence. Show each side. And what is wrong with saying “Jesus and Satan were brothers” If that is all someone knew about the faith then so be it. Why are Mormons upset at that statement when it is true from their doctrine, and why should they be ashamed of their own doctrine?
March 30th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Hoekstra enters race for Michigan governor
http://freep.com/article/20090330/NEWS15/90330018?GID=PDkzM/MgFjAmxeawFQRUWsz4bfOFhQLWXFnJXKrK8fY%3D
After Initial Successes, Electoral College Foes Set Sights on Higher Peaks
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123820597603563361.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Why the Democrats Can’t Govern
Look who’s killing Obama’s agenda now.
http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=07bd4a20-60a7-44a9-ab92-115eeb62bd92
OBAMA’S MOST PERILOUS LEGAL PICK
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03302009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_most_perilous_legal_pick_161961.htm?page=0
Radio-Free Swat Valley
By DOUGLAS J. FEITH and JUSTIN POLIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/opinion/30feith.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
March 30th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
conservative #144- as an fyi- romney is not at the present time a “bishop in the mormon church”. in the LDS church a person serves in what are termed “callings” for a period of time. it is not a specified time but is said to be done via inspiration from God. Romney served for a time as a bishop and later as what is termed a “stake president”(much like a catholic archdiocese) Both positions were without pay(the LDS church has what is termed a “lay clergy”-meaning they serve on a volunteer unpaid basis)
additionally to say that Mike Huckabee only knew “that Jesus and Satan are brothers” is absurd (to use richard murray’s approach to argument)
Huck was a preacher for 20 years,and having many good southern baptist and non demoninational preacher friends let me say that everyone of them are taught and are very aware of the LDS teachings and tenets.
As for being ashamed of LDS doctrine i really dont think that anyone is, but lets say for arguments sake that Osama bin laden is out there pointing out jewish doctrine that on the surface seems to imply that Jacob stole Esau’s birthright but when understood in the true context and with the deeper understanding of jewish faith means something completely different.
Now lets apply this to what Huckabee did in bringing up the jesus and satan thing. First off I am in no way implying a
correlation between Huckabee (a noble American ) and bin laden- it was used as allegory only. So we now have someone saying something about anothers belief with a proported lack of knowledge about that belief. It seems one way on the surface but is different when understood with the knowledge provided within the LDS faith. Such a thing really ought not to have been said- 1) if Huckabee was ignorant of the belief or 2) it isnt germaine to a political discussion. Huckabee would have been better served holding his tongue. I felt the same of the questions that Huck was asked about of his belief system.
The issue is that someone without the full contextual knowledge brings up something that they are truly ignorant of as a ruse to distract and mislead for advantage. This was the spirit in which Huckabee acted, sadly it worked.
It should be noted that Romney never asked one question of Huckabee about any of those things that you mentioned that were asked of Huckabee.
Yet the same cannot be said of Huckabee, as in fact he was the only one to query about Romney’s belief system. That my conservative student friedn is the crux of the problem.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
“Actually, understanding America’s history of acknowledging God and managing God in public life, Mormonism has no bearing on the qualifications of a candidate for the Presidency. The basic truths about God’s character: his justice, his righteousness, etc. are also understand at pretty much the same level in Mormonism at least as far as national policy goes.
The theological differences between Orthodox Christianity and Mormonism do not amount to anything in regards to national policy or the basic understanding of God that even deists such as Franklin and Jefferson has no problem with.”
Definitely agree with that.