This is what I want the party to stand for. If you’ll recall my posts outlining my proposed “Principles of the New Republican Party,” I discussed cultural traditionalism and respect for religious freedom. Here is what I wrote:
- America is a nation built upon not only its government and individual citizens, but also by unifying values which we hold dear. In a modern Republican Party, these values will be affirmed and promoted. No matter who the president is, no matter who is running Congress, and no matter what problems we may be facing, we are proud to be Americans, and that patriotism is one of the highest virtues that the Republican Party can accentuate. Our children should be taught about the wondrous nation that is ours and be encouraged to cherish, protect, and support it through active, engaged citizenship and a commitment to individual betterment.
- The party must affirm its commitment to pro-life principles. The partial-birth abortion ban is a good start, but the battle is nowhere near over. All can agree that abortion is a terrible tragedy and should never be looked at casually, or as merely a form of birth control. Decreasing abortions can be most effectively done right now through (1) combating poverty through sound economic policies and (2) providing effective public education to teenagers about the risks of pregnancy and information about how to obtain contraceptives (with an option for parents to pull a child out of the program). EDIT: At Tommy Boy’s suggestion, I will add (3) opposing all federal funding of abortion.
- The ultimate political goal of the pro-life faction of the party must be the overturn of Roe v. Wade — due to its being bad law — and the subsequent de-federalization of abortion law, so that battles can be fought at a state level, as the Constitution dictates. Both those that are pro-life and those that are pro-choice should be able to agree upon this.
- Multiculturalism and cultural relativism should be emphatically rejected. America is a nation of sound values and morals, and it should not be considered “hateful” or “discriminatory” to assert that we are culturally superior to, say, Syria, China, or Paraguay. Political equality, reason, the democratic method, and traditional Enlightenment values are good things, and the next generation should learn that unequivocally.
- The traditional family, due to the consensus of the American people, must be given top priority without denigrating other family models, including single-parent homes and those fronted by same-sex couples. It should not legally be considered discrimination for adoption agencies to give preference to heterosexual couples. Most importantly, in the end, promoting family values must be about creating a climate that is suitable for children to grow up happily and safely in, so that they may chart their own individual courses with a sound emotional and moral foundation.
- Marriage, being fully ingrained as a legal issue (that is to say: taking the government out of marriage is a pipe dream), is an issue that should, as the Constitution dictates, be taken on a state-by-state basis. The attitudes of Americans toward marriage will manifest themselves in statewide referendums and initiatives.
- America is a nation that both holds respect for religious faith and cherishes pluralism and legal secularism. Both of these values can be affirmed without giving particular bias to one or the other by the government.
- In keeping with strict constructionist judicial values, it should be stated unequivocally that Christmas displays on public property that include religious imagery, performances by public schools’ choruses featuring religious lyrics, Christmas parties by public schools, and anything of the sort are not unconstitutional. Recognizing the religious and cultural makeup of our country is not the same as endorsing Christianity.
- Moments of silence for optional prayer or reflection, as well, should be decided on a district-by-district basis and are not unconstitutional, nor is the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. Unless there is a specific endorsement of a religious doctrine by a government official or government policy — which should be resisted — it is not a constitutional matter.
- All efforts to block homeschooling should be resisted. The option of educating one’s own child should be the parents’ prerogative. The alternative — the government forcing its own brand of education on the child, with or without the parent’s consent — is a bleak picture.
- At the same time, religion — whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or smaller religious sects — should not be immune from legitimate criticism and inquiry, and religious moderates and nonbelievers should feel welcome in the Republican Party. The overriding theme must be individual choice without interference from others. Respect to both the majority — Christians — and the minority — nonbelievers, Jews, Muslims, etc. — must be given. No set of religious beliefs should be mandated upon another person.
- Churches, mosques, and synagogues should generally be free from taxation: a very tight set of guidelines should be used before determining that a church is acting in a political manner. Preaching against abortion, homosexuality, etc., is not an inherently political matter and should be kept out of the realm of government and instead be discussed in the cultural realm.
That is what I mean by compromise. That is what I want the party to stand for.
So please, never again accuse me of calling for a radical overhaul of the party’s platform or the purging of social conservatives. There is a difference between what I personally believe and what I want the party to stand for. I have already made it abundantly clear that, as a pragmatist, I want the party to stand for certain things. They are not what some of my opponents have accused me of.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:03 am
I would also add eliminating any federal taxpayer funding for pro-abortion organizations to be a part of that platform.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:18 am
No, you don’t want to purge social conservatives, you just called us the spawn of Satan.
A party that stands for compromise as a core principle really doesn’t stand for anything.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Or should this be titled, “I Want to Renegotiate Ronald Reagan’s Deal with the Devil”? Your words, man.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:23 am
So you oppose the principles I laid out, here? What specifically do you object to?
Also, I’ll repeat: Satan’s a cool guy. He’s my master. With Him, I conspire to overthrow the church. I’m just a mole here to destroy the Republican Party, the last bastion of my mortal enemy Jesus Christ, from within. Mwahaha!
April 6th, 2009 at 1:23 am
Once again a Alex dominates the conversation with another post about HIMSELF. Every blog on this site seems to be about you these days, not the race for the White House in 2012 like it should be.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:24 am
3 – Oh, that line. From now on, I won’t use figurative speech. I guess I can’t say that I want to “grab the bull by the horns” either, lest you think I’m calling you a bull.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:25 am
5 – This site, from November, has never been solely about the Race 4 2012. It’s also been an ongoing dialogue about where the party should go. Of course I’m going to put forward my ideas. Would you prefer me to put forward Adam’s? (A: No, because he can put forward his own ideas.)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:28 am
#6:
You’re literally demonizing religious conservatives. This is not an innocuous phrase.
But more to the point, you’re calling our presence in the party evil. That’s what the figure of speech means. Reagan compromised with Evil to bring religious conservatives into the Party.
You cannot call us evil and say, “Can’t we all get along?”
If I said McCain sold his soul to the Devil to get the endorsement of Log Cabin, I doubt you’d consider a “figure of speech.”
My problem with your principles is that in the name of compromise you are dictating terms to the social conservative movement and I said, “No way!”
April 6th, 2009 at 1:31 am
So, like, how about you put forward your own terms, then?
April 6th, 2009 at 1:32 am
I’m like the Israelis and you’re like the Arabs. I’m offering you lots of crap that you want so you’ll stop blowing shit up. You reject it without giving a feasible counteroffer, and then get really mad at me, saying that I’m the one who’s the roadblock to peace, because I hurt your feelings.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:36 am
So now I’m Hamas? Boy, you just know how to build bridges.
And yes, you’re right, you’re offering me a lot of crap.
On that we can both agree.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Alex,
Great post. I agree with your eloquently articulated principles. They reminded me of something Paul Ryan said in an interview (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/03/wisconsin-rep-ryan-seen-future-gop/) I saw the other day:
“If you believe in freedom, liberty, self-determination, free enterprise, I don’t care if you’re a Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic, Christian, gay, straight, Latino, black, white, Irish, whatever. Join us.”
Would you say that this mirrors (albeit in a brief statement) your vision for the party?
April 6th, 2009 at 1:40 am
11 – No matter how much we disagree, I have to say that that was a mordantly witty post.
I’m still waiting for your counteroffer, though.
12 – Of course. We can’t be the White Christian Party, which, in many ways, we kind of are. It’s not an accident that only 25% of gays voted for the GOP, that only 5% of blacks did, only 33% of Hispanics…it’s happening for a reason. We’ve hit a cultural disconnect, and we need to figure out how to get it back. It has to do with our messaging, our tone — and it has to do with the divisiveness of the rhetoric of people like Palin. Obama offered unity and hope in his rhetoric — he’d have never said “Wow, it’s great to be here in the pro-America part of the country!” It just doesn’t freaking work. It’s counterproductive. Glad to see Ryan getting that. Love him.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:46 am
I’m stuck in the middle, here. Alex is kind of right about the religious right. I am sick of their bullying tactics and the way they throw fits when they don’t get what they want. They don’t believe in compromise at all. Reagan knew better.
On the other hand, Alex said social cons need to give up on euthanasia, stem cell research and gay marriage because they’re “losing issues” for the GOP. I don’t think that is true, and I don’t think it’s necessary for the party to win elections.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:49 am
That was pretty much his whole message for the majority of the campaign, and it was a powerful one. He had plans and ideas, but it was that message that resonated with people. Make of that what you will. Go back and take another look at his “our moment is now” ad from late 2007, before the Dem primaries. I was, of course, rooting for someone else, but I think I wrote here at the time that I thought he was going to win. Nothing the Republicans have offered in the past few years has come anywhere close to that kind of message.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Alex, I know you’ve mentioned that you have a lot of questions about his foreign policy views, but Sanford seems like your kind of candidate. If you ask me, among the oft-cited 2012 possible nominees, he appears to come closest to classical liberalism. And his comments on North Korea should encourage you.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:54 am
So-cons never needed to give up on euthanasia, stem cell research and gay marriage. But if the party nominates a so-con that the religious right finds acceptable on those checkbox issues, can we please just SHUT UP about them for one election cycle?
Imagine if Romney didn’t have to twist himself into a pretzel to woo the RR. Imagine if Huckabee…well just didn’t exist. The party would have a hell of a lot easier time debating the Democrats and taking the fight to them on their kooky harebrained schemes.
The problem is that tacit acceptance of so-con dogma isn’t enough. Unless a prospective candidate shouts out “I found Jesus” with a wink and a nod, the so-cons pry and pry until they find something in a candidate’s past that they are squeamish about. Then the inquisition begins. They did it to McCain. McCain was plenty conservative enough on social policy. They did it to Fred. It’s just too much.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Alex, I know you’ve mentioned that you have a lot of questions about his foreign policy views, but Sanford seems like your kind of candidate. If you ask me, among the oft-cited 2012 possible nominees, he appears to come closest to classical liberalism. And his comments on North Korea should encourage you.
That he would defer to Gingrich, you mean?
April 6th, 2009 at 1:59 am
And the really annoying thing is that the disagreements are over such small issues. McCain voted for Roberts and Alito and he got “so-con whacked”. Yet Palin was a hero with this crowd despite having less of a paper trail. So-cons loved Roberts because his wife was an active (at one time) opponent of abortion. Is this all that matters? Really?
Does the GOP need to nominate someone with spouse that has ties to anti-abortionists to appease the so-con right? If the candidate or candidate’s spouse has a retarded child instead of aborting it, is that all that matters to so-cons? I just don’t understand the importance.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:00 am
“The ultimate political goal of the pro-life faction of the party must be the overturn of Roe v. Wade — due to its being bad law”
No, the ultimate political goal of the pro-life faction of the party must be the legal protection of innocent life. While Roe is indeed bad law, it’s results (millions of dead babies and damaged mothers) is even worse. A baby conceived in Massachusetts has just as much right to live as a baby born in Oklahoma, just as a black man born in Alabama has just as much right to live free as one born in New York.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:01 am
Nice post Alex. It reminded me a little of what Mitt said in a speech last Wednesday @ NRSC:
The interests of the nation, however, require that the principles of the Founders are upheld and protected. Preserving and defending the principles of the Revolution is the charge of this Republican Party. We are the Party of the people. They are the Party of government. We’re the Party of limited government. We’re the Party that will keep America the land of opportunity and that’s a message which Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, African-Americans and others that have not voted with us significantly in the past, but as they should in the future if they understand. They will vote with us time and time again, because they are in this land, as we are all in this land, because it is the land of opportunity.
Now occasionally, the odds look a little long. But in the end, we’re going to win, because the cause of personal freedom and citizen supremacy and sovereignty is far too compelling to be overthrown by big government. That’s our fight. We are going to make it happen. Thank you so very much.
http://www.freestrongamerica.com/speeches/item/governor_romneys_remarks_to_the_national_republican_senatorial_committee_spring_dinner
April 6th, 2009 at 2:03 am
I think that there’s some truth and reason in this post, I also think that there’s some stuff that goes too far. I think that the religious right should be a part of our big party tent. The problem is that they have grown dominant and don’t ever seem to be willing to make concessions. But they should be heard, and saying that they shouldn’t be a part of the Republican party platform because they oppose “losing issues” like gay marriage (which most states’ populations have voted against, by the way…judges have been passing gay marriage) is simply ludicrous. There should be a middle ground here.
I think it’s Romney.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:03 am
20 – If Roe is overturned, will you people stop caring about pro-choicers in the presidential race, though?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Absolutely correct. A lot of religious conservatives back people like Mike Huckabee because they’re not content to let politicians practice politics – they want them to be preachers, too.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:06 am
#23
The answer to that is no. They’ll use the fact that some states make abortion legal as justification for pushing a Constitutional Amendment banning it nationwide, and will use the issue as a litmus test for any candidate. Too easy. Next question!
April 6th, 2009 at 2:08 am
That this site has become all about Alex speaks volumes.
pathetic
April 6th, 2009 at 2:12 am
The problem with Huckabee isn’t his religion. I didn’t like how Huckabee stired up the anti-Mormon hatred and the class warfare against Romney.
It’s unseemly and any kind of promotion of prejudices, in any form, should not be tolerated by anyone in the Republican party…..ever.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:12 am
Alex,
” If Roe is overturned, will you people stop caring about pro-choicers in the presidential race, though?”
No. The issue doesn’t die with Roe. I would no more support a pro-choicer for President than I would support a Nazi.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:12 am
26 – Don’t be mad because things that I write actually get comments, Cockstradamus. But remember, you’re like Shakespeare, and you won some contest to write for the Charlotte Examiner. So it’s okay.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:13 am
No. The issue doesn’t die with Roe. I would no more support a pro-choicer for President than I would support a Nazi.
And therein lies the rub, to use a line from a writer as good as Cockstradamus.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:17 am
I just wish religious right folks would get off the “one of us” demand.
Sheryl and Adam, I agree with both of you.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:18 am
“No. The issue doesn’t die with Roe. I would no more support a pro-choicer for President than I would support a Nazi.”
Very offensive. How very Code Pink of you.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:23 am
sheryl,
You know what offends me?
A government that sanctions the killing of millions of innocents.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:23 am
What’s ironic is that people like Martha would be inclined to agree with much of the agenda of the Religious Right if it didn’t have such a track record of treating members of her religion like dirt.
But it just underscores the fact that religious conservatives are not in politics to build coalitions, but to crusade for Jesus — as they understand him.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:24 am
…….and I’d bet that Code Pink is closer to your views on abortion than mine.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:24 am
A government that sanctions the killing of millions of innocents.
Do you support the death penalty for abortionists?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:27 am
Alex,
“But it just underscores the fact that religious conservatives are not in politics to build coalitions, but to crusade for Jesus — as they understand him.”
Really? How do you explain the elections of Reagan (twice) Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. (twice)? And all three did quite well in Utah, as I recall. In fact, I think Mississippi and Utah have voted the same in every Presidential election since 1976, which was the only time they parted ways since 1964.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Alex,
I’m generally against the death penalty, but I would support the criminal prosecution of abortionists. My sense is, once abortion stops being lucrative and starts meaning prison time, there would be far fewer abortions.
How many doctors out there are running around euthanizing old people where it is illegal? I can think of one, and while I haven’t followed his career too closely, I don’t think he’s been as active since doing time.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:31 am
MWS,
I’m pretty sure that that MS and UT voted similarly for decades has at least as much to do with the liberal Democrat nominees as it does with whomever the GOP standard-bearer happened to be. That’s not an illustration of so-con coalition building.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Really? How do you explain the elections of Reagan (twice) Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. (twice)? And all three did quite well in Utah, as I recall. In fact, I think Mississippi and Utah have voted the same in every Presidential election since 1976, which was the only time they parted ways since 1964.
Because they all talked the talk. Bush Sr. suggested that atheists shouldn’t be allowed to be citizens. Bush Jr. was a born-again evangelical. What’s your point..?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:32 am
MWS: Do you sympathize with people who blow up abortion clinics, given that they are saving probably thousands of lives?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Adam,
“I’m pretty sure that that MS and UT voted similarly for decades has at least as much to do with the liberal Democrat nominees as it does with whomever the GOP standard-bearer happened to be.”
Well, then, voting against a common opponent would be an example of…….. a coalition, would it not?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:37 am
Alex,
For an action to be moral, moral ends are not enough. One must also employ moral means. Those who destroy abortion clinics (without killing anyone) are counterproductive. Those who destroy abortion clinics and kill others in the process are not only counterproductive, but definitely employing immoral means.
John Brown didn’t end slavery.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:38 am
What if they blew up an abortion clinic that nobody was in?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:39 am
In a basic sense yes, but it’s certainly not as if so-cons voted that way in a conscious attempt to broaden the party. It’s not like when fi-cons pulled the lever for Bush in ’04 knowing the alternative would be worse. Bush in ’04 pissed off fiscal conservatives all across the board. THAT was biting the bullet for the coalition. Would so-cons give that kind of latituide. I think not. So-cons never seem to do that sort of thing.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:40 am
“I’d bet that Code Pink is closer to your views on abortion than mine.”
Umm I was refering to their ability to name call.
Nonetheless, actually as it turns out most religious folks (except for Protestants) agree with Code Pink because the majority of religious people voted for Obama the most radical pro-abortionist POTUS ever. (This non-religious, pro-choice person did not vote someone like that into power.)
My guess is that you and your ilk calling anyone a smidgen away from your point of view is called Nazi’s is why they did.
Good going MWS. Your brand of speaking and thinking actually encourages people not to accept your point of view…..hence they have abortions….which de facto makes you a contributor to abortions. How proud you must be with yourself and your rhetorical skills.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:40 am
Instead they pout and threaten to stay home. Like with McCain.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Alex,
You cannot credibly argue that either Bush was first and foremost a member of the Religious Right. In the case of Jr. SoCon bills were well down on list list of priorities (tax cuts, social security, expanding medicare, NCLB, and a couple wars were FAR higher on his priority list. As for GHWB being a member of the Religious Right, that’s just laughable on the face of it.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:45 am
sheryl,
Re-read what I wrote. I didn’t call anyone a Nazi. I said I would no more vote for a pro-choicer for President than I would vote for a Nazi.
Not the same thing.
To take another example, I would no more vote for a communist than I would a Nazi. Am I now calling communists nazis? No. I’m stating that both groups are beyond what I can accept.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:46 am
MWS,
But GHWB certainly tip-toed to the RR tune, didn’t he? After all he had to become pro-life. I don’t remember Bush 41 ever making a big deal about social conservatism. He made sure he got in good with the crowd and played along.
As for Bush 43, didn’t he say that Jesus was his favorite prophet, or something to that effect? And the wars wouldn’t have happened if not for 9/11. Bush 43 was definitely the Christian Right’s candidate. Everybody knew it. They were riding high after eight years of the Clinton administration and Bush vowed to make “restore honor and integrity” to the oval office. Everyone understood what he meant.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:47 am
I should say, favorite philosopher.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:49 am
Adam,
“Bush 43 was definitely the Christian Right’s candidate.”
Not really. There was a lot of angst among SoCons early in the 2000 Primary over Bush. But Bush had the Machine, and McCain was soon the only viable alternative, so that’s just kind of how it happened……
April 6th, 2009 at 2:50 am
Yeah, I’m really not sure I would have voted for Bush 2000, Mr. “When people hurt, government has to act,” Mr. “We need a humble foreign policy of no nation-building,” Mr. Faith-Based Initiative…
April 6th, 2009 at 2:51 am
MWS — 44..?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:52 am
Gotta’ go.
G’night y’all.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:52 am
MWS, if I wrote that I would no more vote for a Christian than I would vote for a Nazi, would you really say that I wasn’t lumping in Christians with Nazis? Please. The insinuation was clear.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:52 am
Well to my mind, Bush was the only one with any legit shot among so-cons. It wasn’t going to be Forbes. It certainly wasn’t going to be McCain. Bush talked the talk and the so-con right fell in line.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:53 am
Alex,
“MWS — 44..?”
See #43.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:54 am
No, I mean: what if the abortion clinic was empty? Would it be justifiable then?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:59 am
Alex’s general point needs to be looked at carefully, because he’s spot on if you give him a shot.
He obviously has personal religious and moral values that differ from most posters here. Furthermore, he states that, so long as they don’t infringe on basic constitutional rights forcing people do believe a certain way or obey religious commandments in the law, religious values in fact have a place there should democracy see fit to give them one.
That’s pretty reasonable, that people should be free to think and believe what they will, and that the government shouldn’t dictate the people’s social values.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:10 am
You most certainly did equate pro-choice with a Nazi.
What’s so sad about people like you is that you’re so insulting and pious that you really ruin a noble effort, that being protecting the possiblity of a life.
Ironically one of the strongest pro-life arguments I’ve ever heard was from Mike Huckabee when he was on Meet The Press in November or December of 2007…..it was very moving in words and tone.
If you can find it, listen to it, take notes and drop your Nazi references.
I’m pro-choice because I can’t bring myself to tell another woman what to do with her body. However, if asked I would strongly advocate that she either 1)not get pregnant in the first place 2) have the child & love and care for it 3) put the child up for adoption so it can be brought up in a loving home.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:17 am
Alex in the whole scheme of things you are really irrelevant so why all these look at me look at me look at me posts??
April 6th, 2009 at 3:25 am
Heath, in the long run, everyone’s “really irrelevant” in the grand scheme of things. But we’re relevant to the people we know.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:36 am
Another video of Dr. Rand Paul, founder of Kentucky Tax Payers United, campaigning in Kentucky.
RAND!
RAND!
RAND!
April 6th, 2009 at 3:40 am
“Alex in the whole scheme of things you are really irrelevant so why all these look at me look at me look at me posts??”
LOL. Heath isn’t it irrelevant to ask a question of a person you deem irrelevant. What revelance could the answer possibly have to you…..don’t answer that it’s irrelevant to me…I’m going to bed…..LOL!!
Good discussion Alex.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:24 am
#13:
Religious Conservatives agree that no Constitutional Amendment on either abortion or Gay Marriage will be passed until 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of State Legislators approve.
You can nominate social liberals in areas like CT where abortion is sacramental. In CT, you can nominate people like Rod Simmons in Christopher Shay unlike when we forced you to nominate Southern Baptists conservatives like Bubba Bo Bob Griffin. Oh wait, we never required that. Socially liberal candidates were nominated and they just got their rear ends kicked.
Oh, and I believe that the gay part of the party needs to redefine it’s ultimate goal from securing gay marriage in the various states to having, “YMCA” played at the GOP Convention.
Okay, my tongue is firmly planted in cheek here. My problem is that I reject your premise that:
1) Any meaningful change to the party’s social issues positions need changed.
2) That there are a bunch of social liberals that can be attracted to the GOP.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Alex,
I addressed the issue of the empty clinic in #43. I think it would be counterproductive at best. It is the wrong way to go about it. Killing people over the issue is DEFINITELY immoral. Destroying property over the issue is counterproductive at best. All John Brown really accomplished was stirring up a hornet’s nest.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:48 am
sheryl,
While there are indeed similarities between Nazis and pro-choicers when it comes to their regard for human life, the point I was making was to emphasize how non-negotiable the issue is for me, and how the pro-choice position is a disqualifier for me. Nazi was there for emphasize, not to equate the two.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:21 am
#29 I have won murder cases.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:30 am
“I would also add eliminating any federal taxpayer funding for pro-abortion organizations to be a part of that platform.” BINGO.
Alex, despite your rough tone sometimes, I do believe that you are a bit more tolerant to SoCons. On the surface of it, your offer of Federalism is not a bad offer. This certainly does not satisfy us, but it is not a bad compromise. FiCons often accuse SoCons of not compromising within the party and they think we do not understand politics. This actually misses the whole picture. First off, in countries where SoCons do not form the majority of the Conservative movement as a whole, SoCons tend to hold dear to many principles. Why should SoCons br different in America when we form the majority. In many case, SoCons are better FiCons than FiCons themselves, we support the Fair Tax, we are the ones organizing Tea Parties accross the country while Northeastern FiCons are cutting deals with Socialists to spend more tax-payer money. I happen to be an economic Conservative as well as a SoCon because I believe in Capitalism. Capitalism has very little bearing on my religious beliefs. Yes, I prefer an economic SoLib over a Socialist SoLib, but as I middle class person, I really have no incentive to support FiCons other than the fact that some of us believe in Capitalism. Yes, I charish my economic freedom in America and my living standard, but I am more thankful for my religious and political freedom in America. I survived Socialism (or at least Socialist policies) in my homeland, I survive here too. If I lose my job again, I’ll find another one, no matter which clown is in the White House.
Finally, Urbanites can scream all they want that they do not like Mrs. Palin, but that does not change the fact that many of us Heartlanders do like her. As I have gotten to know many of my fellow Palinites over the last few days, I am finding that there are about as many FiCons Palinites as there are SoCon Palinites. So while I can compromise to a degree, I for one see no need to sell the whole store. Many of us SoCons really do not need a lecture about how to be good FiCons.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:32 am
#26 – Gamecock:
I find Alex’s postings to be a lot more interesting, well thought out, and useful to the debate than most of the grandstanding stuff you post on here. Just because you disagree with him and he writes extremely well and logically (especially for someone his age), don’t try to say that this site has become “all about Alex.” It has not been, nor should it be, nor should it be all about you or Adam Graham. Don’t go after Alex, or DaveG, or others who write on this site with whom you disagree simply because YOUR VISION of what conservatism and the GOP should look like is losing altitude.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:53 am
#29 I have won murder cases.
That’s nice? Congratulations. That is about as relevant to the quality of your political analysis as my accomplishments in the performing arts.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Alex certainly does bring up some valid points:
1.We’ll be a minority party forever if we’re only the party for social conservatives
2.Outreach and inclusiveness is a good thing, it seems a few people on this board are afraid of associating with people who don’t think exactly like them.
3.Calling for a change in tone is not the same as calling for a change in position. I am pro-life and won’t compromise on being pro-life but I recognize that the issue won’t be solved by 1 side alone and that pro-choice people are not bad people.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:03 am
What is so interesting about this post is that nobody is actually talking about what Alex wrote because most everything else he has ever written negates this “olive branch” that he is currently offering.
I would be okay with most of what Alex wrote but I know, based on everything else he writes, that he wouldn’t really be okay with it.
The problem with being upset at social conservatives for not compromising is that that the vast majority of “single issue” social conservative voters are only involved in politics because they feel they have a moral responsibility to do so. Economic or foreign policy conservatives do not, for the most part have the same sense of moral duty that many social conservatives have.
Whether you agree with the thinking or not, this “moral duty” prevents many social conservatives from being willing to compromise at all (or many times even listen to someone who isn’t “one of them”) For the record most social conservatives do not think this way but instead really believe that the way to win elections is by maximizing the social conservative vote.
Nobody except for perhaps the most radical Paultards would say “I would never vote for tax raising president just like I wouldn’t vote for a nazi” as MWS said regarding abortion. They might never vote for a tax raising president all the same but they wouldn’t equate the two things morally which means they are at least at the bargaining table.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Even though I hate to take Alex’s side in this debate I do feel like social conservatives overreach in terms of policy positions they demand.
There is simply very little reason for social conservatives to demand anything other than conservative federal and supreme court justices and they obviously demand much, much more than that.
Nearly every “social issue” will be or already has been decided by the judicial branch. It starts and ends there and honestly serious GOP contender in 2008 would have had the exact same supreme court short list.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:15 am
#69 – ” I have won murder cases.”
So did Johnnie Cochran.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Alex,
I saw your NT question in Richard’s open thread, but didn’t think you were serious. As you may know more about Christianity than I, you’re likely aware that the NT is in many ways a fulfillment of the OT. As a result, the answer is not as straight forward as ‘what aspect of the New Testament would I write into law.’ As you implied, the New Testament doesn’t lend itself readily to legal code, but it should, IMO, inform the law.
Because God is holy, the law was given to man in the OT as a standard of holiness, which is moral perfection. Because none of us are holy, in fact, most of us including yours truly are far from it, God in His mercy sent his Son, Jesus Christ, who was morally perfect to bridge the gap between man and God. Because Jesus Christ is our only link to holiness, He is also our only link to God. Although His sacrifice on the cross brought about our present era of grace, grace that, once we have trusted Him as Savior, frees us from the law, we (Christ believers) bring glory to God by striving, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to do God’s will…to obey His laws.
As Christ believers we are to strive to be like Him, exhibiting love, grace, humility and mercy. To forgive as we have been forgiven, we’re to turn the other cheek. We’re also called to love our neighbor, love our brothers and sisters as ourselves. Part of loving our neighbor, our families, our brothers and sisters, is to protect them from harm, from evil. We’re not called to turn the other cheek of our wives, children, friends, family, community and country. Christians believe that the law is in place to restrain evil. To trust Christ alone as Savior, is an act of free will, it is impossible, antithetical, to force or compel belief. Christians value freedom but, as several have noted, an orderly freedom.
Laws are not designed to save people from themselves, but to save bystanders from the ‘excessive expressions of freedom’ of others.
Getting long…
April 6th, 2009 at 9:30 am
As to specifics…
Legal alcohol is here to stay but it creates a great deal of carnage, drunk and high people are more prone to crime, negligence, lack of productivity, etc. We don’t need more legal intoxicants; we need prosecution of demand (possession) that rivals that of supply (delivery). As I’ve said, not a fan of Rudy the presidential candidate, but I’m a big fan of Rudy the law enforcer. If we applied his NYC law enforcement theory to the drug war, it would work like the surge in Iraq. We’ll never totally win the war on crime or drugs, but we’d do much, much better if we vigorously prosecute and punish possession. If no one wants to buy your product, you find a new occupation.
Regarding abortion, same thing MWS said, prosecute physicians, plain and simple. Regarding the topic du jour, as I’ve written repeatedly, sex is God’s gift to man to be enjoyed in the context of marriage between one man and one woman to bond them as a couple and to produce the next generation. Any sex outside of that context is sin. Heterosexual sin is no better or worse than homosexual sin. We’re not looking to change anything, but to preserve and, hopefully, strengthen that which already exists.
That’s about as good as I can do. John Mark, Adam Graham, Liz and others have made several comments in the past couple threads that further explain where I’m coming from.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Also, I was wondering about your take on the disciples? If you knew Christ’s resurrection to be a farce, why not just go back to your quiet life as a fisherman, etc.? Why spend the rest of your life testifying about a resurrected Jesus Christ. Why, as Peter, would you choose a gruesome death rather than recant?
April 6th, 2009 at 9:39 am
77 – Yes, I know all that about Christianity — the short version of your answer is: “the New Testament doesn’t lend itself readily to legal code, but it should, IMO, inform the law.”
So in other words: yes, you want the New Testament to be written into law where applicable, and so you openly want a theocracy.
Regarding abortion, same thing MWS said, prosecute physicians, plain and simple. Regarding the topic du jour, as I’ve written repeatedly, sex is God’s gift to man to be enjoyed in the context of marriage between one man and one woman to bond them as a couple and to produce the next generation. Any sex outside of that context is sin. Heterosexual sin is no better or worse than homosexual sin. We’re not looking to change anything, but to preserve and, hopefully, strengthen that which already exists.
Don’t you see that not everyone is a believer? Why should non-believers have to follow the moral codes of the believers regarding something like sex, which doesn’t affect you?
April 6th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Is this another April fools? I’m likin’ it. Nicely laid out. Alex is right in that a strong, conservative republic can carry the weight of a minority that refuse to play by conservative rules in their personal lives without sinking. But when the cafeteria-style conservativess outnumber by too great a margin the full-on conservatives, the nation morphs again toward liberalism. I don’t know what that magic number is, but for now I’d gladly accept Alex’s contract with conservatism and people like him to vote with the conservative block.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:44 am
“So in other words: yes, you want the New Testament to be written into law where applicable, and so you openly want a theocracy.”
No, I want marriage to be what it has been in America and, hopefully, better. I want all children to be welcomed into life. I want safe communities where people can believe, or not belief, in God.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:45 am
or not *believe*
sheesh
April 6th, 2009 at 9:47 am
“Don’t you see that not everyone is a believer? Why should non-believers have to follow the moral codes of the believers regarding something like sex, which doesn’t affect you?”
People are free to do whatever they want in their bedrooms. But you want to usurp a vital institution.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:48 am
gotta go
April 6th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I think if some anti-Alex people read that article without knowing who wrote it they would be nominating him for president.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Folks, libertarians aren’t demanding removal of SoCon issues from the GOP, even though we often express we’d love to see that. We know what a coalition is. The question is, do the rest of you?
As I’ve said before, it matters not that SoCons are a bigger group within the GOP than libertarians, because both are equally necessary to get to 51% of the vote.
Those libertarians who vote GOP have demonstrated they will vote for SoCons. It’s a matter of ALSO addressing our economic issues, and not addressing SoCon issues in a MANNER which turns off swing voters.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:02 am
#87
Could federalism be the answer as far as reaching a compromise between socons and libertarians?
It is something I certainly favor, but I’m not sure if it is something the rest of the nation is really excited about.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:09 am
#88 Federalism could work as a compromise in some areas, yes.
Most libertarians will settle for less: Fight for our issues as well as yours, don’t prioritize SoCon issues (especially during times when the economy is the issue and voters will punish you for pushing SoCon issues even if they agree with you), and make arguments for them in a secular manner rather than mixing Christianity with religion (e.g., a Matthew Miller rather than Adam Graham approach).
April 6th, 2009 at 10:14 am
It’s amazing how many Republicans are blissfully unaware that until
Nixon’s Southern Strategy the Republican Party was proud of the Fourteenth
Amendment and its insistence that some state laws should be overturned
if they violate the equal protection rights of the minority. Actually, it
is more sad than amazing.
Is is also whistling in the dark to believe that the SoCon agenda can
be kept alive, especially in regard to immigration and gay marriage.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Alex, I have little or no problem with the vast majority of what you wrote. It doesn’t sound like the same guy that I see ranting and raving day after day, but let’s assume its the real Alex.
It seems that the issue you write about that causes so-cons the most concern are the following:
“The traditional family, due to the consensus of the American people, must be given top priority without denigrating other family models, including single-parent homes and those fronted by same-sex couples”
“Marriage, being fully ingrained as a legal issue (that is to say: taking the government out of marriage is a pipe dream), is an issue that should, as the Constitution dictates, be taken on a state-by-state basis. The attitudes of Americans toward marriage will manifest themselves in statewide referendums and initiatives.”
It seems to me that what you are advocating is exactly what is currently happening. SO, if this is where you actually stand on this, why do we have to have this discussion over and over and over and over and over. Let’s just stop the posts about’gay’ issues and this site would be so much the better. If you think you’re going to convince any of us just because you write well, you have another think coming.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Bindner you constantly show that you know much less than you think you know. There is no reason whatsoever to equate “social conservatism” with immigration at least if you use the common definition of social conservatism. Hispanics themselves are very socially conservative and yet are in favor of relaxed immigration laws.
Anti-immigration sentiment has been an important part of politics ever since there has been significant immigration to this country. To say that it is going away is silly and not based in facts. In fact I am certain it will only become more important because the stakes are so much higher given the precarious situation of federal and state budgets combined with the huge costs of low-skilled immigration to society.
The same could be said about gay marriage as well. Even if you don’t believe that younger people will become more conservative on this issue as they marry and have children (I don’t think they will either), the issue won’t go away because almost every religion in the country teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin. This isn’t at all like interracial marriage as so many gay marriage proponents like to state. There is no teaching in the Bible that being black or brown skinned is a sin.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Using Doug’s movie thread idea, ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ provides a nice analogy. Religious conservatives want Bedford Falls freedom, Libertarians want Potterville freedom.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:35 am
People are free to do whatever they want in their bedrooms. But you want to usurp a vital institution.
mac, I honestly think you and Alex are in agreement then. You both believe that the government can’t impose it’s will on private citizens. And you both believe that to have religious values like traditional marriage is the prerogative of the people.
make arguments for them in a secular manner rather than mixing Christianity with religion
This is very important in a society where church and state are separated. Traditions have to stand on their own two feet, not on religious grounding. There’s simply a common understanding among probably some 75% of Americans, myself included, that the state can’t be directed by any one church making any argument for those values on religious grounds invalid (even if I completely agree with what it wants to do, which I generally do) because it’s foundation doesn’t pass. It’s like saying we should ban child pornography because I say so. Almost everyone would be inclined to agree, and rightfully so, but the argument wouldn’t hold because I’m not universally acknowledged as an authority. Nor is one particular religious view. People in America have a natural aversion to that. Another one would have to be developed. The correct argument would be that it is a despicable practice manipulative of innocent children and capable of destroying their most personal feelings and sensibilities. Furthermore, it is a terrible vice for he that is viewing it. No society should tolerate it.
In modern politics, reason is the one and only king.
In the standoff between libertarians and SoCon’s, It’s all come down to differences in perspective. But ultimately we’re traveling the same road here. Nobody wants a theocracy, and nobody wants a state systematically sanitized of traditional values. Let the people decide.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
88- as the resident federalist, I would say yes. The problem, as with all other areas, is that each side of the argument would try to redefine the term to include their agendas, or take their ball and go home.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
“Nazi was there for emphasize, not to equate the two.”
Yeah, yeah whatever, MWS. Actually what you are doing is equivocating but that’s neither here nor there.
The fact of the matter is that your thinking and speaking and Nazi emphasizing mindset has (and will continue to) cause more young girls to have abortions. People who talk like you are scary.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
94. MPC, I agree with most of what Alex wrote in this post. My comments were a response to a question that Alex directed specifically to me. He asked me what elements of the New Testament I’d write into law. Despite my agreement with much of this post, I am leery of political partnerships with radical libertarians. Recently, I’ve sought common ground, expressing my deep appreciation for the work of noted Libertarian Charles Murray. -I think he’s right in many of his answers to societies ills. But the meaning of Murray is ‘lost in the translation’ because we have fundamentally dissimilar worldviews…Bedford Falls v Potterville.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
By the way, MWS, for those of us with half a brain, it was extremely obvious you were not equivocating Nazis and pro choice people. You were merely stating how heither would be an option. I hate Nazis, but btw, most of them did not kill people, nor condone it. Obviously pro-choice people condone killing human life. Its really sad!
April 6th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Well said, Illinoisguy!
April 6th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Thanks, Illinois, but I suspect sheryl was looking for a reason to be offended. It’s kind of tricky grabbing the moral high ground when one supports the killing of innocents, so one must look for (or create) such opportunities.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I disagree with you, Alex. I will call for a socially liberal GOP. My beliefs are what they are but as practical matter the GOP must move to the left on social issues or they risk becoming a permanent minority party. I have no hard numbers but I would imagine that social liberals outnumber social conservatives by at least 4 to 1 among voters under 35.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Perhaps on a few specific issues, but on social issues as a whole, I doubt that SoLibs out-number SoCons by a 4 to 1 margin among the under 35s. Yes, Mr. Obama did well among young people who turned out to vote in 2008, but I doubt that is was simply because of social issues and I doubt that Mr. Obama can maintain such numbers among the Youth in 2012.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Colorado,
This isn’t exactly to your point, but it does speak to it. In the 2008 CNN exit poll, 22% of respondents self described as “liberal,” 44% moderate, and 34% conservative. While the poll doesn’t break that out by economic or social issues, or age, your theory that social liberals outnumber conservatives 4-1 among the under 35 crowd isn’t plausible. Not considering that there are 50% more conservatives than liberals, according to the exit poll. And remember that a huge chunk of that poll is made up of Baby Boomers who in THEIR youth made Gen Y look fascist by comparison. People tend to get more conservative with age, except in those areas where they become dependent upon the government (Soc. Sec. and Medicare).
April 6th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“By the way, MWS, for those of us with half a brain, it was extremely obvious you were not equivocating Nazis and pro choice people. You were merely stating how heither would be an option. I hate Nazis, but btw, most of them did not kill people, nor condone it. Obviously pro-choice people condone killing human life. Its really sad!”
What’s sad is that both you and MWS have made people who hold a pro-choice position worse than Nazi’s.
Again whatever half of the brain I’m reaching in you two, know this: you’re a dying breed, nobody likes you and most people think your Nazi equating mindset is vile…..nobody cares to hear your message, which is evidenced by how many religious people voted for the most radical pro-abortionist POTUS ever.
You are losers with a losing message, but I still hope you vote for the GOP.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Colorado,
And according to Gallup, Zogby, and others’ the young are more pro-life than their parents.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6899/is_1_34/ai_n28400695/
But somehow, you think if ‘old’ Coke can manage to taste more like Pepsi, and call it New Coke, sales will skyrocket!!!
April 6th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
sheryl,
“you’re a dying breed”
Considering pro-life people are more likely to actually give birth to children, I’ll dispute that.
See #105.
That’s why it’s so important for pro-choicers to control the public schools and universities. They have to “reeducate” other people’s children because too many of them kill their own in utero.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
“What’s sad is that both you and MWS have made people who hold a pro-choice position worse than Nazi’s.
” ???? OK?????
April 6th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
It seems to me that what you are advocating is exactly what is currently happening. SO, if this is where you actually stand on this, why do we have to have this discussion over and over and over and over and over. Let’s just stop the posts about’gay’ issues and this site would be so much the better. If you think you’re going to convince any of us just because you write well, you have another think coming.
I bolded the sentence I did in the final paragraph for a reason.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“Considering pro-life people are more likely to actually give birth to children, I’ll dispute that.”
HOw do you dispute Obama, who has a perfect pro-choice record, winning in every religious group (except Protestants) by huge numbers over McCain who has a perfect pro-life record?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“HOw do you dispute Obama, who has a perfect pro-choice record, winning in every religious group (except Protestants) by huge numbers over McCain who has a perfect pro-life record?” Nobody desputes that per se, but what makes you think that everybody who votes for Mr. McCain is Pro-Life and everybody who voted for Mr. Obama was not. Are you saying that everybody who voted for Mr. Bush is 2004 was Pro-Life?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
sheryl,
“HOw do you dispute Obama, who has a perfect pro-choice record, winning in every religious group (except Protestants) by huge numbers over McCain who has a perfect pro-life record?”
First off, I don’t dispute that, but Protestants are a rather sizable group, and McCain won among white Catholics, another sizable group. But to your point, people generally voting other issues. Single issue abortion voters vote OVERWHELMINGLY pro-life. As for everyone else, I think a great many were influenced by any number of factors, such as the economic implosion, McCain’s fumbling, the adulation of the media towards Hope and Change, etc……
You think Obama carried the day because he’s pro-choice?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
“except Protestants”
And even that wasn’t a landslide vote against a pro-choice candidate. Obama got 45% of the Protestants with McCain receiving 54%.
“They have to “reeducate” other people’s children”
Or maybe because they aren’t called Nazi’s, so they’re willing to listen.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
sheryl,
“HOw do you dispute Obama, who has a perfect pro-choice record, winning in every religious group (except Protestants) by huge numbers over McCain who has a perfect pro-life record?”
First off, I don’t dispute that, but Protestants are a rather sizable group, and McCain won among white Catholics, another sizable group. But to your point, people generally voting other issues. Single issue abortion voters vote OVERWHELMINGLY pro-life. As for everyone else, I think a great many were influenced by any number of factors, such as the economic implosion, McCain’s fumbling, the adulation of the media towards Hope and Change, etc……
April 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
89. Similar to the disconnect with Charles Murray, it’s interesting that Metro thinks Matthew Miller is more aligned with his way of thinking, where I think MEM is clearly in agreement with Adam Graham. I think Matthew might intentionally ‘play it close to the vest’ at times, but is there really that much difference between Adam and Matthew?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
“You think Obama carried the day because he’s pro-choice?”
Well he isn’t just pro-choice MWS, he’s radically pro-abortion.
Yet he wins 45% of Protestants when he holds that extremist view leads me to believe that many in your religion don’t care too much about the issue of abortion….or hold it in such low esteem that voting for someone who actively advocated for infanticide to be carried out is O.K.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
“HOw do you dispute Obama, who has a perfect pro-choice record, winning in every religious group (except Protestants) by huge numbers over McCain who has a perfect pro-life record?”
Unless all of a sudden LDS are being considered Protestant, your statement is just BS.
And to answer your question, Way too many idiots were so gung ho to elect the first young black guy, they had their head up their rear. It had nothing to do with this issue whatsoever.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
“THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT I PERSONALLY BELIEVE, AND WHAT I WANT THE PARTY TO STAND FOR.” Anyone feel the need to look up the definition for H-Y-P-O-c-R-I-S-Y? This kind of double standard should be getting a little outdated by now. The “do as I say, not as I do” stuff is what drives most true conservatives from the Republican party. Yet Alex is crowing that he is the TRUE conservative here? In his mind only. Yikes.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
This is just rich. I’m thinking Alex was asked to post here just to keep things more exciting. Who would come right out and say this stuff?
April 6th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
118 – A pragmatist?
April 6th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
One problem is the term conservative itself. As we all know there are several legs of that stool. Alex is quite conservative both fiscally and militarily. We value his vote. However, his personal agenda regarding his most valued agenda continues to cause a huge amount of dissention, and it will forever. The site would be so much better off to limit a ‘gay’ agenda discussion to maybe one per six months, or something like that, more in keeping with its importance. Like I’ve said many time Alex, making it legally will not make it any more acceptable. No ones minds is changed by that. I know its really all financial, and those things can be sought after one at a time, or bundled together, so that the true will of the people can be represented.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
OMG, Liz doesn’t even know what hypocrisy means.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Gay agenda. Lol. Good grief.
I’m going to start referring to your priorities as The Mormon Agenda.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I think its important to realize many Nazis were not evil people. There were certainly very evil people behind what was done in the holocaust. However, many Nazis did what they did so that they would not be executed by the government, or were blinded to what was really going on due to the propoganda machine. My familly read a book a while back about a Nazi soldier on the Russian front. They had no knowledge of the atrocities that were occuring to the Jews. They were misled into thinking that their action was a part of defending German lands. Germany, including many Nazis, was an example of the danger of unthinking allegiance to a country, not of group of all evil people.
People who favor abortion, are also like this in the sense that they are not evil people, but in being misguided they do not stand against evil. To call someone a Nazi should not be to call them evil monsters – for many were not. However, it can certainly be a way of describing those who do not stand up against evil.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Some people seem to prefer we only post polls, and things 100% of Republicans agree on; in other words the posts that get between 0 and 20 comments. Because we shouldn’t want controversy and debate on a political blog!
April 6th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Is it not your agenda to promote gay marriage and gay rights generally? What is incorrect about that?
April 6th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I wonder how many pro-lifers think pro-choicers aren’t like Nazis.
John Mark says they’re the same in that they both supported evil but lots of them didn’t know what they were doing.
MWS says they’re both beyond the pale in what he can vote for.
Hmm…
April 6th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Is it not your agenda to promote gay marriage and gay rights generally? What is incorrect about that?
Yes, but you know that the word “The Gay Agenda” implies something nefarious.
It’s like using the term “America First” with blatant anti-Semitic overtones — a la Pat Buchanan — and then going “Anti-Semitic? Me? No!”
April 6th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Alex,
You know that the vast majority of pro-lifers don’t equate the two. Reasonable social conservatives don’t cast in the same boat with the furthest extremes of the gay rights movement and you shouldn’t put all social conservatives in the same boat either.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
“Unless all of a sudden LDS are being considered Protestant, your statement is just BS. And to answer your question, Way too many idiots were so gung ho to elect the first young black guy, they had their head up their rear. It had nothing to do with this issue whatsoever.”
I’m not sure how LDS is being catagorized. I’m getting the data from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
Religion – Obama/McCain
Protestant 45% 54%
Catholic 54% 45%
Jewish 78% 21%
Other 73% 22%
None 75% 23%
“It had nothing to do with this issue whatsoever.”
Are you sure about that, what’s your proof? Or is it something you just want to believe?
April 6th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I hate the have to defend Alex so much but he is right about the “gay agenda”. It makes as much sense as the Mormon agenda, the corporate agenda the hedge-fund manager agenda, etc.
Gay people cut across a wide ideological spectrum just like any large group. There certainly are gay rights issues on which the vast majority of gays agree, but calling it a “agenda” is just part of demonize your opponents modern political strategy.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
126, Being pro-life by its very nature implies a very negative view about the positions of prochoicers. Considering that if you’re pro-life you think prochoicers are in favor of mass infanticide. Its not very logically consistent to be pro-life, but think of the differences like differences in how one squeezes out their toothpaste.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Sheryl, you just may be the only person on this site who thinks the LDS voted for Obama. Utah, 70% LDS voted overwhelmingly McCain. The church was a huge factor in defeating Prop 8 in California, generating between 30-80% of the total monetary contribution toward its defeat, depending on which source you use. Trust me, or anyone else on here, the LDS did not vote for Obama, except perhaps in very small numbers.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Sheryl,
You could make the opposite inference from your data: that is, the reason why fewer Catholics and Protestants voted for McCain is because abortion and moral values issues were not made to be a big issue. In 2004, 22% of Americans considered moral values to be their #1 issue and Bush won 80% of these folks. More voters in 2004 considered moral values to be their most important issue than the economy.
We lost Jewish voters and “other” religion by nearly the same margin in 2004, so that’s not unusual.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
John Mark,
If pro-choicers thought abortion was infanticide or murder or whatever and still were in favor of it then that is reprehensible. I think you miss the obvious fact that people who are pro-choice don’t view abortion that way so they aren’t monsters to be equated with real-life monsters like nazis.
You need to be able to view this issue (and everything in life for that matter) through other people’s paradigms and understand how that paradigm shapes their view. The only way the pro-life movement will ever make any headway towards significant limitions on abortion is by winning people to their side by shifting those people’s paradigms, not by demonizing the opposition.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
DSkinner – How can they even begin to deny that an unborn baby that can feel, and hear, and react to music,etc. is not alive? You’re giving these people a lot of latitude when you insinuate for them that they just don’t know any better. Its pretty obvious that there is a human being involved who is being deprived of living his/her life on earth by the abortion. Many of these people even support the woman’s right to choose (some call it murder) after the baby is viable. Some, like Obama even agree that its ok to kill the baby if its born alive during an abortion attempt. I’m sorry, those extremes are MURDER, and all of them stop a life, which is akin to murder.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
#132 “Trust me, or anyone else on here, the LDS did not vote for Obama, except perhaps in very small numbers…..The church was a huge factor in defeating Prop 8 in California”
I do trust you and believe you are correct.
I voted with the LDS regarding Prop 8 and abhor the villainous treatment some have received because of their efforts. Every person who believes that the definition of marriage should be one man and one woman owes a debt of gratitude to the LDS church and their efforts.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Ilguy,
You’re wrong. You are still looking at this through your own paradigm. You may be right about this. I agree with you, but that isn’t how other people look at it. If you can’t understand they look at it from a different starting point then you are going to continue to be judgmental, demonize the opposition and gradually lose support.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“because abortion and moral values issues were not made to be a big issue.”
Of course that just begs the question why wasn’t it….if, as attested to by MWS & Co, that that is a pre-requisite of voting for a GOP candidate.
“We lost Jewish voters and “other” religion by nearly the same margin in 2004, so that’s not unusual.”
Agreed but John Kerry is no Barack Obama when it comes to abortion advocacy rights either. Yet as you say it wasn’t a big issue.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
sheryl,
“Of course that just begs the question why wasn’t it….if, as attested to by MWS & Co, that that is a pre-requisite of voting for a GOP candidate.”
Do you actually read what any of us write, or do you just go on and on with yourself? I never asserted that pro-life credentials is important to all religious people. Good greif. Read #111 (for the first time, apparently) and put away your strawmen.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Dskinner – I do understand what you’re saying. I’m just not so forgiving that they keep looking at this with blinders on. All evidence says these little babies are human and alive. I just want them to admit it, not be holding their ears like a little 4 year old saying “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you!”
I try many time on here to reach out for some common ground, but on this one, its really hard to do.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
“I think you miss the obvious fact that people who are pro-choice don’t view abortion that way”
Correctly stated, we don’t view it as infanticide or murder.
Most pro-choice people are deeply sad when a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) happens because nature deems that life not viable and they are also deeply sad when a girl or woman gut wrenchingly makes that same decision too. I wish neither happened and I pray, in my own way, that they don’t happen.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
So Alex, wouldn’t you say that the disciples must have witnessed something extraordinary to have behaved and sacrificed themselves as they did?
April 6th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
#138 – Too many people in our electorate are absolute idiots when it comes to knowing the issues. Our media certainly doesn’t help vet them out. Can you imagine if all the voters would have know that Obama was the only Illinois Senator who voted to kill a baby born alive if it was part of an abortion? That would have been a huge issue with many people, but McCain’s campaign gave him a free pass on this as well as many other issues.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
90
Michael,
I know you were addressing socons in general, not me, but as far as I know, my views on immigration are a carbon copy of Aron Goldman’s.
Also, fyi, my wife is an immigrant, my son is multiracial, my church is very diverse. I regularly hang out with West Indians, Africans, Latin Americans (including a Puerto Rican ex-con)…and this is the kicker, I’m a small town hick socon (currently living in Tampa).
Let’s not prejudge gays or socons.
April 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
So Alex, wouldn’t you say that the disciples must have witnessed something extraordinary to have behaved and sacrificed themselves as they did?
Not really. Jesus, to me, was the leader of a cult that just so happened to catch fire. Plenty of cult leaders across history have attracted devoted followers. I’m not sure why I should appreciate Jesus’ followers more than I should any other religious leader’s. What about Muhammad? He was able to attract followers for Allah, even in his early days in Mecca.
April 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
“I never asserted that pro-life credentials is important to all religious people. Good greif. Read #111″
Calm down, don’t have a cow. I wasn’t refering to your #111 post but your general view point that you wouldn’t vote for a pro-choice candidate as they are as bad a Nazi’s meme and that being connected to the so-con, pro-life mindset in general.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Alex,
“Not really. Jesus, to me, was the leader of a cult that just so happened to catch fire. Plenty of cult leaders across history have attracted devoted followers. ”
But in the case of Jesus, the cult is premised on historical events that were allegedly witnessed by many people. The authenticity of those events are the crux of Christianity, moreso than even Christ’s teaching. If those events are true, then Christianity is true, and if those events are false, then Christianity is false. Those many people who claimed to witness those events went to their death in the firm conviction of what they claimed to have witnessed. Christ wasn’t just some prophet alone on a mountain with God. He was not just some wise philosopher who thought up some really wise things. He, and his followers, claimed He is the Son of God, and theat He died and resurrected. His resurrection either happened or it didn’t. The martyrs who witnessed it said it happened.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Alex,
And as for Muhammad’s followers, Islam was largely spread by the sword, whereas Christianity was spread by the blood of martyrs. The Muslims killed for their beliefs (or whatever else they hoped to gain by conquest), the Christians died for theirs.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
147 – I obviously don’t think they’re true. By the way, I don’t think he was a wise philosopher; I think his philosophy was rather terrible, quite frankly.
148 – Obviously. But it wasn’t spread by the sword until he’d been in exile for years with his followers. He had to consolidate power before he could take back Mecca and conquer Arabia and North Africa. Muhammad was able to attract lots of followers — whether you agree with his methods of spreading Islam later on has nothing to do with the authenticity of his message.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Alex,
“I think his philosophy was rather terrible, quite frankly.”
Of course. You are a militant atheist.
As for Muhammed’s followers, I think it speaks volumes to the authenticity. Join Muhammed and you get plunder and booty. Join Jesus and you get raped by a bear in the Colliseum and then sawn in half.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
150 – That’s not quite what the benefits of joining Muhammad were. He was reviled in Mecca and joining with him meant that you’d also be joining him in exile. He was preaching against the theistic conceptions of the tribes at the time, including his own. Yes, they got a lot of booty and plunder — over time. But it wasn’t very obvious that those would be the benefits of joining him during his early days in Mecca.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Of course. You are a militant atheist.
Do you think I can’t judge a philosophy of a religious figure independent of the theistic implications? Give me a break. There’s a lot of good stuff that the Buddha taught, for instance. I think Jesus was a terrible thinker, more than anything, because he was a pacifist.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Alex,
“But it wasn’t very obvious that those would be the benefits of joining him during his early days in Mecca.”
That’s what separates the good venture capitalists from the bad ones…..
In all seriousness, though, the parallels simply aren’t there. Dave Koresch convinced a bunch of folks he spoke for God. That’s not much of a trick. Getting people to die horrible deaths because of something they KNOW isn’t true (because they are the eye witnesses) claiming such)? THAT would be an accomplishment.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Alex,
“Do you think I can’t judge a philosophy of a religious figure independent of the theistic implications? Give me a break. There’s a lot of good stuff that the Buddha taught, for instance. I think Jesus was a terrible thinker, more than anything, because he was a pacifist.”
That’s why Buddha is so popular with the trendy Hollywood crowd. He doesn’t really demand a whole lot. And when I said “militant atheist, “militaristic atheist” was more my meaning, though you are a militant atheist as well.
So yeah, I really wouldn’t expect you to be too much into the whole forgiveness thing.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
In all seriousness, though, the parallels simply aren’t there. Dave Koresch convinced a bunch of folks he spoke for God. That’s not much of a trick. Getting people to die horrible deaths because of something they KNOW isn’t true (because they are the eye witnesses) claiming such)? THAT would be an accomplishment.
They didn’t know it wasn’t true. The people that died horrible deaths for him largely came after Jesus had already died, and had no way to confirm or deny his divinity.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
153
“Getting people to die horrible deaths because of something they KNOW isn’t true (because they are the eye witnesses) claiming such)? THAT would be an accomplishment.”
MWS,
Thanks for taking the baton and breaking the tape, you’re the man bro.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I’m sure Alex has read these, or similar accounts, but just in case…
Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound.
Mark died in Alexandria, Egypt, after being dragged by horses through the streets until he was dead.
Luke was hanged in Greece as a result of his tremendous preaching to the lost.
John faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. However, he was miraculously delivered from death. John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos. He wrote his prophetic Book of Revelation on Patmos. The apostle John was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully.
Peter was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross, according to church tradition because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die in the same way that Jesus Christ had died.
James the Just, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was thrown over a hundred feet down from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller’s club. This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the Temptation.
James the Greater, a son of Zebedee, was a fisherman by trade when Jesus called him to a lifetime of ministry. As a strong leader of the church, James was ultimately beheaded at Jerusalem. The Roman officer who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial. Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution. Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian.
Bartholomew, also know as Nathanael, was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed to our Lord in present day Turkey. Bartholomew was martyred for his preaching in Armenia when he was flayed to death by a whip.
Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that, when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: “I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it.” He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he expired.
The apostle Thomas was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church in the subcontinent.
Jude, the brother of Jesus, was killed with arrows when he refused to deny his faith in Christ.
Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded.
Barnabas, one of the group of seventy disciples, wrote the Epistle of Barnabas. He preached throughout Italy and Cyprus. Barnabas was stoned to death at Salonica.
The apostle Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero at Rome in A.D. 67. Paul endured a lengthy imprisonment which allowed him to write his many epistles to the churches he had formed throughout the Roman Empire. These letters, which taught many of the foundational doctrines of Christianity, form a large portion of the New Testament.
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/disciples.html
April 6th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
I’m familiar with lots of that. Even assuming that they’re true, so what? I don’t think any of them ever even met Jesus.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Thanks for the link to the poll. I guess my gut feeling was wrong.
However, that poll asks only about abortion. It doesn’t ask about equal right for gays, it doesn’t ask about prayer in schools, decriminalization/legalization of drugs, flag burning, violence/sex/drug use in movies/tv/video games and a whole host of other issues. It would be interesting to see a poll that provided a more detailed analysis of voters under 30 or 35 and asked about issues other than abortion.
Despite my rather extreme social liberalism, social issues have little bearing on my vote as I place a far greater weight on a candidate’s stance on economic and foreign policy matters.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
158
ok Alex.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I’ll turn this upside-down: if Jesus was so blatantly obviously miraculous and holy, why was he able to attract so few followers?
April 6th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
ALex, you don’t think any of them ever met him? What do you base that on. SOme of them were his apostles; one was his brother for pete’s sake. Who are you to say that is all wrong, and all the Gospels are lies. You know nothing of the kind.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I don’t give the testimony of his brother any credence; Muhammad’s wife Fatima stood by all of his revelations.
It is well-documented that the authors of the Gospels had never met Jesus. They were authored about fifty years after his death, if I recall.
Are the Gospels lies? I obviously believe that parts of them are lies. I in no way consider religious texts historical documents.
Who are you to say that the Qur’an is filled with lies?
April 6th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Alex,
“I’ll turn this upside-down: if Jesus was so blatantly obviously miraculous and holy, why was he able to attract so few followers?”
I’ll turn this rightside-up. If Jesus had so few followers, how were they able to grow so exponentially, to the point that within a few hundred years, they ran the Empire that tried so hard to exterminate them?
April 6th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Did you even read the list he provided. Several were his Apostles, you know the tewelve that he personally knew and went with him everywhere? One of them was his brother, whether or not you give any credence to it or not.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Alex,
The most credible scholarship strongly points to John the Beloved (who stood at the foot of the cross) as the author of the Gospel of John. Mark was written by Peter’s secretary. Luke was written by Paul’s. Matthew’s authorship is a bit more up in the air, but is traditionally considered to be the Apostle Matthew. Dates of composition for the various Gospels are hotly debated (especially among liberals) but were well within a generation of Jesus’ resurrection. Prior to the actual writing, copying, and dispersal of the Gospels as we have them, the earliest Church relied exclusively on the oral testimony of the Apostles.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Alex,
“I in no way consider religious texts historical documents.”
That sort of unthinking, reflexive, and unreflective prejudice is typical of modernists.
Why CAN’T there be any historical accuracy to a religious text? Why would you be so dismissive? It’s really bizarre. It’s like saying, “I in no way consider political texts historical documents.”
????????
April 6th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
“If pro-choicers thought abortion was infanticide or murder or whatever and still were in favor of it then that is reprehensible. I think you miss the obvious fact that people who are pro-choice don’t view abortion that way so they aren’t monsters to be equated with real-life monsters like nazis.”
No you miss the point. My point is that many Nazis were not real monsters. There were Nazis that were evil monsters, but many were just normal people, caught up by a need to survive under the regime, and misled by a powerful propaganda machine.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I’ll turn this rightside-up. If Jesus had so few followers, how were they able to grow so exponentially, to the point that within a few hundred years, they ran the Empire that tried so hard to exterminate them?
Well, the Roman emperor accepting Jesus’ divinity probably had a lot to do with that.
The Bible as we know it, of course, was put together by Romans at the Council of Nicea nearly 250 years after Jesus died.
Why CAN’T there be any historical accuracy to a religious text? Why would you be so dismissive? It’s really bizarre. It’s like saying, “I in no way consider political texts historical documents.”
Well, there can be, but I’d need it verified by a secular text. Any history written to convince someone of a particular faith’s accuracy is automatically dubious, in my mind.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
There’s simply no evidence for a lot of what you’re asserting other than from the New Testament itself or from church tradition. If you believe that on faith, that’s fine, but…
April 6th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I didn’t see you acknowledge Alex that several people listed were personal everyday acquaintances of Jesus. You say things that are false, get corrected, then never acknowledge you were wrong.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
The Early Christian tradition attributes the Gospel to Matthew, one of Jesus’ disciples. [1][2] Beginning in the 18th century scholars have increasingly questioned that traditional view, and today most scholars agree Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name.[3] Most contemporary scholars describe the author as an anonymous Christian writing towards the end of the first century.
–
.
However, the Rome-Peter theory has been questioned in recent decades. Some scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark contains mistakes concerning Galilean geography and customs[17][18][19], supporting that the author, or his sources, were unfamiliar with the actual geography of that area and its customs, unlike the historical Peter.[20] Furthermore, certain scholars dispute the connection of the gospel with persecution, identified with Nero’s persecution in Rome, asserting that persecution was widespread, albeit sporadic beyond the borders of the city of Rome.[21]
It is generally agreed among contemporary scholars that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the canonical gospels to be written, whereas the traditional view, popular amongst the Church fathers and especially Augustine of Hippo, holds that Mark was composed second, after the Gospel of Matthew…
—
Contemporary scholars conclude that Luke, like Matthew, relied on Mark for its chronology and on the sayings gospel Q for many of Jesus’ teachings. Luke might also rely on independent written records.[7] It is probably the work of a Gentile Christian, writing c 85-90.[8]
—
Starting in the 19th century, critical scholarship has further questioned the apostle John’s authorship and regarding the author as anonymous.[3]:302[24][25] They most often date it to c 90–100, decades after the events it describes.[3]Bart Ehrman argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest redaction.[26]
Raymond E. Brown summarizes a prevalent theory regarding the development of this gospel.[27]:363-364 He identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels[citation needed]):
1. an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus;
2. a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
3. the edited version that readers know today.
Among scholars, Ephesus in Asia Minor is a popular suggestion for the gospel’s origin.
—
April 6th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I didn’t see you acknowledge Alex that several people listed were personal everyday acquaintances of Jesus. You say things that are false, get corrected, then never acknowledge you were wrong.
Well, according to church tradition. Secular, objective scholarship doesn’t quite line up with church tradition.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I did exegesis of 1st John in my hermeneutics class. I think there’s actually a pretty good case to be made for all the Epistles of John being written by John. Of course its not the majority view, but personally I think we’re too dismissive of the early testimony about the books. For example, the church Irenaeus was only like one person removed from John. These people would know what John wrote like, what teh conditions for a change in writing style might… much better than what modern scholars can know. That said there’s nothing within the dogmas of my church that would require the gospel of John to be written by John.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
You didn’t refute the Apostles named above as not knowing Jesus, nor his own brother who was one of the Apostles. So, what’s this ‘scholorship not lining up with that. I’ve never seen any of them refuting that, cause its obvious they simply don’t know.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
I’ve addressed it all.
Of course, you haven’t addressed the fact that you think that there was an ancient Jewish civilization in North America. Oh, but they’ll find the evidence one day, won’t they, IllinoisGuy?
And would you care to tell the board what Mormons believe about why some people are black?
And did Joseph Smith believe in polygamy? Hmm? Is polygamy going to exist in Heaven?
April 7th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Alex, what do Mormons believe about why some people are black? I sure as heck don’t know because there is nothing in our doctrine that spells out why anyone is any race.
And you know very well that Joseph Smith instituted polygamy, so I guess he believed in it. And yes, Mormons do believe that polygamy will exist in heaven. Do I care? No. I’ve got enough to worry about here on earth. My faith in my religion does not require me to have an answer for every question. I have faith that God is real, that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, and that our existence does not end with death.
I guess that is the difference between you, and the rest of us here who believe in God. We believe that the historical evidence for Jesus Christ is indeed compelling, but that is not the primary reason for the faith we have in our respective religions. Some things you just know in your heart, Alex.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:28 am
“Of course, you haven’t addressed the fact that you think that there was an ancient Jewish civilization in North America”
The evidence that an Israelite civilization did, in fact, live in the Americas is overwhelming. You’re speaking of the DNA evidence, which has been addressed at length on here before.
Nice try though Alex, but you show quite often you’re not as smart as you believe yourself to be.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:52 am
“Secular, objective scholarship doesn’t quite line up with church tradition.”
Not sure if I understand, so what you believe is objective, secular scholarship says that Jesus did not have a close inner circle of 12 disciples?
If source says that Jesus did have 12 disciples, what do the sources, that you find to be objective, have to say about their lives and deaths after Jesus?
As to your question about Jesus not having many followers. There are several scriptures that speak of large crowds. I guess I think of the disciples as being a board of directors.
Finally, what is your criteria for determining what is objective scholarship? Can the author be a believer?
April 7th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Your arguements are not very convincing Alex. Yes it is true that Catholics, Protestant, Mormons and other Christians have disagreement on Church history as well as doctrine, but very few of us believe in the gospel of Q. Anyhow, what does it matter if some guy named Q (or whoever) lived at the time of the new testament and wrote some things down? That does not deminish JESUS in anyway nor does it (or should it) change that fact that despite other differences, Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Orthodox, Mormons and Pentacostals all believe is JESUS’ divinity.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:15 am
One of my favorite preachers, Alistair Begg, is speaking on this subject this week:
Getting the Big Picture, Part A
Luke 24:13-27
http://www.truthforlife.org/site/PageServer
April 7th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
This one is spot on as well:
The Resurrection, Part Two B
Luke 24:1-12
http://www.truthforlife.org/site/News2?abbr=lst&page=NewsArticle&id=8695&news_iv_ctrl=1102
April 15th, 2009 at 11:40 am
This topic is quite trendy in the net right now. What do you pay attention to when choosing what to write ?