Do GOP leaders think evangelical Christians are “nuts”?
posted at 11:39 am on October 12, 2006 by Allahpundit
Just got an e-mail with a link to this article from the lovely KP, who adds snottily, “Nice party you have.”
Doesn’t she mean, “Nice party we have”?
But I digress.
More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the former second-in-command of that office is going public with an insider’s tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities…
Kuo, who has complained publicly in the past about the funding shortfalls, goes several steps further in his new book.
He says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as “the nuts.”
“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy,’” Kuo writes.
I’m outraged!
This reminds me of jihadi sympathizers who celebrate 9/11 as a great victory, then turn around and tell you Mossad did it. Leftists need to decide: is Bush a fundie nutjob who’s ready to usher in the Rapture with a few well placed ICBMs? Or is he a calculating secularist who thinks the idea of a Rapture is silly and mock-worthy? Can’t have it both ways, boys.
Of course, in theory, you also can’t believe that Bush is both (a) a stuttering mongoloid and (b) Hitler. But that hasn’t stopped the Olberdouche, for example, who was doing plenty of crank-yanking about this on last night’s show. Well, fine, in that case. At least it spares us from yet another 12-minute “special comment” experiment in just how rich a shade of purple English prose can get.
We’re laughing about this, but we really shouldn’t be. New today from Gallup:
Mark Foley’s loss is the Red Letter Christians’ gain!
And speaking of Foley, here’s the latest:
[I]nvestigators for the House ethics committee are bearing down on three senior members of Hastert’s staff to determine when they learned of Foley’s actions and whether they passed on their knowledge to the speaker.
The three — chief of staff Scott Palmer, deputy chief of staff Mike Stokke and counsel Ted Van Der Meid — have formed a palace guard around Hastert (R-Ill.) for years, attaining great degrees of power and unusual autonomy to deal with matters of politics, policy and House operations. They are also remarkably close. Palmer and Stokke have been with Hastert for decades. They live together in a Capitol Hill townhouse and commute back to Illinois on weekends.
According to WaPo, Hastert himself also shares a townhouse with Palmer. Recall too that since this scandal broke, we’ve learned that former House clerk Jeff Trandahl is homosexual, as is Kirk Fordham, who was Tom Reynolds’s chief of staff until the scandal broke. As is, of course, Mark Foley.
Is everyone in the GOP gay?
Update: ALF is pissed: “Starting salary in the Bush administration? 30 Pieces of Silver.”
Update: An interesting analogy below from Ennuipundit:
By serving up the Evangelicals on a platter to the Republican party, Christian leaders marginalized them, the same way that the so-called Civil Rights leaders marginalized African-American voters by offering them en masse to the Democrats. Once convinced that the other side is not going to listen to you, take you seriously and care about what matters to you, the side you support then can stop listening to you, taking you seriously and caring about what matters to you.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
About the chart, I don’t know. It seems many people are leaning more towards the Democrats in general, not just church goers. Is it possible that the church goers is such a smaller crowd than the other two that a rise, even a small rise, would be a larger percentage of the group?
I guess it’s just that I can see Republican chuch goers staying home and not voting over the recent scandals, but I don’t see how they’d vote Democrat over homosexuality.
Esthier on October 12, 2006 at 11:44 AM
Is everyone in the GOP gay?
How dare you ask such a question! Are you trying to invade my privacy?
I’m outraged!
Slublog on October 12, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Red Letter Christians are just that- Red. Christ tells Christians to take care of the poor, not the government.
Valiant on October 12, 2006 at 11:59 AM
Question 1: When was Kuo fired? Why?
Question 2: If he is sincerely a conservative Christian, why is releasing his book right now in order to help the Democrats?
You would think if he were sincere, he would try to elect Republicans who will give us pro-life judges and not undermine President Bush who gave us Alito and Roberts.
Esthier- A lot of churchgoers might be voting Dem, simply because many Dems in the South and West are pretending to be even more conservative than Republicans on issues.
januarius on October 12, 2006 at 12:00 PM
I see, januarius. I can understand too, especially after reading up on that GOP straw poll. Not even one of those men are my ideal candidate.
And the Red Letter Christians are Red? That’s not what I’ve heard. I agree with your statement, Valiant, but I don’t see where they do. Am I missing something?
From their site:
Esthier on October 12, 2006 at 12:07 PM
That sound you are hearing is this Foley scandal gaining traction, folks…and it aint pretty.
Being a Christian, evangelical, too, but finding many of the so-called leaders of the political wing of Christian conservativism to be shrill and mindnumbingly (or gobsmackingly) obtuse when it comes to understanding 1) their faith and 2) politics, I can’t say I blame the people who follow those leaders.
Now I don’t mean to dis the folks who send Dr. Dobson and others a check every now and then, but I also recognize that making an alliance with secular forces for the advancement of policy is not how God intended his message be spread. Christian leaders who put more faith in politicians’ promises and their ability to get people to call Congresscritters than in God do a disservice to Christianity.
By serving up the Evangelicals on a platter to the Republican party, Christian leaders marginalized them, the same way that the so-called Civil Rights leaders marginalized African-American voters by offering them en masse to the Democrats. Once convinced that the other side is not going to listen to you, take you seriously and care about what matters to you, the side you support then can stop listening to you, taking you seriously and caring about what matters to you.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 12:12 PM
Thanks for helping me make my point Esthier.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 12:13 PM
You may recall that the first Director of the Office of Faith and Community Based Initiatives, resigned a few years ago with basically the same story. He gave a very stinging interview to I believe Esquire in which he made an interesting statement:
A view articulated by Paul O’Neil, Colin Powell and Bob Woodward.
This book has the potential to make Woodward’s look like a love letter. People really, really hate to be taken for a ride.
honora on October 12, 2006 at 12:17 PM
Is everyone in the GOP gay?
Just the sharp dressers, so obviously, very few.
;^)
honora on October 12, 2006 at 12:20 PM
Book says Bush just using Christians
Pablo on October 12, 2006 at 12:22 PM
And oh, by the way, excellent points Ennuipundit. (Is your name something of an oxymoron??) And the Director I refer to above was John Dilulio.
honora on October 12, 2006 at 12:23 PM
And the hit parade keeps on coming.
And the news here is what? That the Bush junta may have been less than honest when trying to gain popularity amongst the evangelical Christians? Surprising?
GregH on October 12, 2006 at 12:23 PM
First of all AP, of course Bush is an idiot… Of course he somehow managed to pull off the most insanely impossible conspiracy (9/11) imaginable!
Haven’t you heard? He and all of the Washington politicians go to Bohemian Grove to worship the devil and some giant owl apparently, and perform mock human sacrifices. Then they are behind every terrorist attack in the world because they need justification to take it over, partly for oil and power, but also mainly because the history and origins of the world are buried there and there is a stargate there that is allowing aliens to come to the planet. They’ve approached the Kuwaiti government long ago, and have also been immigrating in to Yugoslavia. Etc. etc. Believe it or not, people believe this stuff, and they would make the truthers look sane.
RightWinged on October 12, 2006 at 12:25 PM
Is there anything wrong with that?
Obviously the Reps genocide of teh gays isn’t just all Reps. The ballot initiatives in all states where a gay marriage ban was present were passed.
Even in conservative bastions like… Oregon.
Bringing Foleygate beyond Foley is stupid.
Hoodlumman on October 12, 2006 at 12:27 PM
Thanks, honora, It’s not meant as an oxymoron. I’m too clever by half, because not many folks get it. Pundits generally have lots to say when they are overwhlemed by a sense of weariness and dissatisfaction, which is how ennui is defined. So that’s why I chose it. Feel free to visit the blog. It’s not nearly as boring as I am ;)
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Ennuipundit, I certainly don’t like people using Christianity for politics. My pastor has only ever said a few things about elections, which is basically just to vote your conscious.
But it seems the Red Letter Christians are definately not Red, not that I can see anyway.
And I’m sure you’re right. The GOP has neglected Christians, but then again, it seems to neglect all of its base, not just the evangelicals.
Esthier on October 12, 2006 at 12:35 PM
No kidding. For all these years, lefties have been foaming at the mouth about Bush taking us down the road to theocracy with his fundie, fire-and-brimstone, gay-hating, bible-thumping Christianity, and now (when it just so happens to be a convenient idea for depressing our base) all of the sudden we’re supposed to believe Christians are unwilling dupes for a secular Bush’s own political designs.
Right.
(P.S. For Sale: Bridge, One. Payment in cash only, unmarked bills, please).
thirteen28 on October 12, 2006 at 12:36 PM
GregH sez:
That as usual, you don’t have a goddamned thing to say, but yet you must drop in, shit on the rug and leave. See you on the next thread, jackass.
Pablo on October 12, 2006 at 12:41 PM
Not many of the Red Letter Christians are conservatives. Christian policy wonks look at using the power of government as an option for the advancement of their ideology, which makes them inherently un-conservative and un-Christian. The idea of Christianity, at least as I understand it, is that you are building a vertical relationship with God and a horizontal relationship with other people. Where government fits in, I don’t know. I vote. I am sure we all do, here. We wouldn’t be here if we didn’t. But I am not one for the utilization of government to promote ideology. I think I can do a better job by living right. But that’s just me.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 1:00 PM
Also from their site (emphasis mine):
Please, when did Jesus teach on the environment? The buzz words are all there for a leftist front group.
Valiant on October 12, 2006 at 1:06 PM
They wouldn’t be the first to think christians are nuts. I don’t think many of us are so simple as to think that every Republican just loves and respects us. We vote holding our nose a lot. If this report is true—I’m not real shocked.
jdpaz on October 12, 2006 at 1:10 PM
Also, the movement was co-founded by Tony Campolo, the spritual advisor of the Clintons. You may remember his leftist drivel from those glory days.
Valiant on October 12, 2006 at 1:11 PM
So wait…the Bush administration is actually involved in politics? Knock me over with a feather.
see-dubya on October 12, 2006 at 1:12 PM
Or diversity? Or institutionalized racism and sexism? Or the removal of God from the public forum?
Pablo on October 12, 2006 at 1:14 PM
That’s it? Rove allegedly calls Christian leaders “nuts” and it’s just politics?
Allahpundit on October 12, 2006 at 1:14 PM
Does this really surprise you? Rove cynically manipulating the Christian right? Actually, given their slavish devotion for so little in return, “nuts” is not off the mark. “Suckers” perhaps more accurate.
This should be wild. These are the not the sort of people you want to piss off, what with speaking in tongues and talking directly with God. Yikes!!!
honora on October 12, 2006 at 1:23 PM
Manipulation of one’s constituents is de rigueur. Contempt for them, particularly on a core issue and particularly one as sensitive as religion is shocking to me.
Allahpundit on October 12, 2006 at 1:31 PM
Well for what it’s worth, I think Bush’s heart is in the right place, he just gets rolled over by Rove et al. (Talk about your faint praise.) And Rove is an evil MF as everyone knows. What amazes me (and this is not unique to this administration) is how people seem to think they will never be found out. And yet, they always are.
honora on October 12, 2006 at 1:36 PM
I think this administration has gone out of its way to make enemies. Seriously, even the allies they rely and depend on, like the Evangelicals get short shrift. I don’t think it is as small as politics. I think it is a sign that there are some people within this administration who do fine at stratergery, but really don’t get being a decent human being. If Karl Rove thinks Christian leaders are “nuts” he has his reasons, but he ought to keep that assessment to himself.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 1:37 PM
I’m gonna agree with honora on the idea that people foolishly assume that they won’t be found out. I think if Bush gets rolled alot by Rove, then that is really what is shocking. A lot of us disparaged the Clinton administration because they led from behind, reading tea leaves and watching the polls. If our President, the tough talker is getting rolled by Rove on a regular basis, then political calculation trumping principles by elected officials is not unique to our foes.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 1:41 PM
I agree. At least the Dems have the decency to pretend to care about affirmative action and “immigrant rights”.
Kid from Brooklyn on October 12, 2006 at 1:48 PM
I, as an evangelical Christian will not vote for anyone, Republican or otherwise, who condones abortion. Say what you will about “single issue” voters, but I cannot support anyone who says it is ok to murder babies. Guliani will not have my support to be sure. I do not follow lock step in with Republicans just because they are not Democrats and there are many of us Evangelicals who feel the same way.
honora, your mockery shows your ignorance of the Christian faith.
Centurion68 on October 12, 2006 at 1:50 PM
Being an evangelical Christian myself, I feel alot of people think we’re nuts.Back in Jesus’ day alot of people thought he was demon possessed. So nothing new here. Also, nothing new, is politics. Politicians on both sides have always courted certain groups to get the vote and then drop em or pretend to be their friend. Others here have made the same assertion alot better than I just have.
The other thing that gets me are those who think that George W. and evangelicals are trying to usher in the second coming. Like we have some power to trick God or twist his arm to make it happen. I mean, if evangelicals really wanted to bring on the second coming we would have voted a Democrat into office. Seriously. Most Christians believe that one the “big signs” of the second coming is the establishment of a one world government. We would be much closer to that if we had Al Gore or Hillary in office.
vcferlita on October 12, 2006 at 1:52 PM
If this is indeed true, it’s certainly disturbing, but I’m with the others who are basically saying it’s nothing new.
Evangelicals are spoken about in the news as though we’re a new breed of humans, recently discovered within America. TV shows I like and respect never show an honest portrayal of a Christian and prefer instead to make us into caricatures.
It would bother me if Rove and others thought so little of people like me who hold the same faith I do, but what’s the alternative? To vote for a party that is openly offensive towards evangalicals?
Esthier on October 12, 2006 at 1:58 PM
vcferlita, you could make a moonbat’s head explode by offering that explanation.
MamaAJ on October 12, 2006 at 2:00 PM
Centurion68, may I posit a question to you? You indicate a strong preference for candidates who oppose abortion. That’s fair. I, also an evangelical Christian, hold a slightly different view.
I believe simply that because free will is the greatest gift that God gave to us, pronounced by our ability to sin, and affirmed by Paul’s declaration that “everything is permissable”. In that spirit, I cannot in good conscience deny free will to others to do as they wish, even if that is a sin. I strongly believe that murder is wrong and I agree with laws that prohibit murder. However, abortion has been redefined, in God’s will, to in our society be a question of choice. If one accepts that God is sovereign, and I do, then surely legalized abortion in America is part of His will. And perhaps the criminalization of it will be part of His will as well. To my mind, the legalization of abortion is intended to present in stark terms the temptation to choose the easy way instead of the right way regarding pregnancy. I personally find the very idea repugnant and would not want any women in my family to make that choice. Yet, a Christian spreads the Gospel of love and grace not by banning it, but by showing the women who would choose it that they have other options and that even if they choose the abortion, that God will always love them.
So my question to you is, would a candidate with that sincerely held stance on abortion be acceptable to you?
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 2:05 PM
serving up the Christian vote? Seriously, we can think for our selves, and we frequently do.
The problem isn’t that we were “served up”. The problem is that a lot of promises were made … and then broken. We don’t have border security. We’re still in the middle of a war we don’t seem to be fighting to win. Are we capable of fighting to win anymore, or are we all about posturing? With the media skulking around every turn it’s almost impossible to really fight a war, and frankly a lot of Christians are very put out by the fact that we’re continuing to be attacked by the ACLU, the AU, and of course … the democratic secularist movement.
We wanted change. What we got was … more of the same.
One Angry Christian on October 12, 2006 at 2:08 PM
I’d sure like to hear Kuo be challenged to explain the circumstances under which Rove made remarks in line with what he alleges before I take him at face value, as so many others here seem eager to do.
I can see Rove making his assertions of “ridiculous, out of control, and just plain goofy” in regard to Jerry Falwell’s remarks that occurred just after 9/11. I can also see someone who is trying to get buzz to sell a book in a hypercharged election season recharacterizing that statement as Rove “disparaging Christian leaders”, which while true in the barest sense, would completely out of the context in which it was stated.
thirteen28 on October 12, 2006 at 2:08 PM
Ennuipundit,
Not to get into a great theological debate, but I do not agree that it is “God’s will” for abortion to be legal. It may be what He allows, but there is a distinction between what He allows (sin, free will, etc.) and what His “will” is (i.e., all to accept Christ and eternal salvation and to live as Christ lived). Yes, I believe in a sovereign, holy God who abhors abortion (murder) much as He abhors any other sin. Your assertion that His will is going to keep changing makes me wonder what you believe about an eternal, all powerful, all knowing God who is the same yesterday, today, and for eternity.
Centurion68 on October 12, 2006 at 2:13 PM
I don’t know, Ennuipundit. Does your above argument mean you’re in favor of legalizing physician assisted suicide, legalizing drugs and less restrictions on abortion?
Esthier on October 12, 2006 at 2:14 PM
vcferlita and Esthier, you both inspired a thought, so thank you. And I quote, “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” Matthew 5:11-12
When we are mocked for our faith, then that is a blessing. How wonderful is that!
As Paul reminded us, give thanks in all things, including insults.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 2:14 PM
There was an interesting program on PBS the other evening about the Evangelical enviromnental movement. Just caught part of it, looked interesting.
honora on October 12, 2006 at 2:15 PM
Fair enough, but the fact that the ex-Director made the same claim should give you pause. Also, there are facts: is the claim that Bush basically gave lip service only to faith based initiatives–meaning no $$$, no support–true or not? That would be more telling, if less lurid.
honora on October 12, 2006 at 2:17 PM
Hello One Angry Christian,
I have to ask how is that elementally different from the promises routinely made to African Americans by Democrats. To my mind it isn’t and that’s why I referred to the Evangelical vote as being served up. We can and do think for ourselves. But what I hear some of you saying is that because we were lied to, and because we have no other choice, we will either not vote, or we will hold our noses when we vote for the Republicans.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 2:18 PM
thirteen28,
Suspicion toward book hawkers?
As if a blub might be sensationalist!
You’re nutty.
Stephen M on October 12, 2006 at 2:20 PM
This is exactly the reason I’d never vote for today’s Republican party. They take our support for granted and only bring up issues that are important to us when it’s time to get us out to vote.
My hope is that my fellow christians will wake up and eventually realize we need our own political party.
However, it will be a cold day in you know where before I cast a vote for today’s Democratic party.
Benaiah on October 12, 2006 at 2:21 PM
Hi Centurion68,
My point is that a sovereign Lord is omnipotent and therefore is it was not His will that abortion be legal, it would not be. I cannot pretend to understand His purpose. But I will not pretend to believe that we humans can do anythign that God does not allow. Of course, I agree that God finds abortion abhorrent. It is murder, plain and simple. But God gave us all free will. Abortion is a logical extension of that free will. We can choose to sin. And abortion is a means of sinning.
Don’t get me wrong. God’s desired will and His determined will are different animals. And I think that like he did with Job, God has allowed abortion to be legal for a season witht he idea in mind of seeing who will be faithful to the life He made in His image. And that is why it is easier for me to look at abortion and be relaxed about it. It could not happen unless it was God’s will and if we are to trust Romans 8:28 and I do, God will work this out for good for those who love Him and are called to His purpose.
I am not asserting that God’s will is going to change. I am merely suggesting that He has a purpose in mind for this and that is why He allowed it.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 2:23 PM
My hope is that my fellow christians will wake up and eventually realize we need our own political party.
I’m a Christian, and I strongly disagree. How would seeking greater political power further God’s kingdom and allow us to do the real work God wants us to do?
Slublog on October 12, 2006 at 2:24 PM
Hi Esthier,
No. I oppose abortion fundamentally, but I recognize it would not be legal in America unless God has some purpose. If what you mentioned were to become legal, I would also assume that God has a purpose behind it. To me, and my read on my relationship with God is that being human, I will not understand His purpose until I get to heaven. And I will fill eternity asking Him a million questions. But until then, all any of us can do is trust God and pray and know that we are in His hands. And to my mind, there is no better place to be.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 2:28 PM
If you don’t go to church and instead watch evangelicals on TV, does that make you an evangelical Christian? If so, I would agree there are some nuts, but there are also many down-to-earth, wonderful TV evangelicals like Joyce Meyer. I defy anyone to watch her for a week and not agree with much of what she has to say. Sorry about my ignorance of evangelicals…
It is annoying to hear Rove may have chosen to slam the base, again, but considering “nationalists” are considered extremists these days it is by no means surprising.
And what the heck is up with the formatting yesterday and today? It was fixed for a while there, but now it’s back to being weird. Not to be a nag, but it’s really hard to follow….
NTWR on October 12, 2006 at 2:28 PM
How does voting for Republicans further God’s kingdom and allow us to do the real work God wants us to do? The party uses us and has for far too long been tolerated by christians as the “lesser of two evils” when it comes time to vote. It’s time for a change and if we can form a political party based on christian principles then so much the better.
Benaiah on October 12, 2006 at 2:29 PM
Slubog asked what I was going to ask. I think instead of forming a party of our own, Christians need to seek God’s guidance on matters of politics. Political power is ephemeral and temporary.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 2:31 PM
Politics is politics. Faith is faith. My faith influences my political opinions, but it does not dictate them.
Slublog on October 12, 2006 at 2:34 PM
Yeah, and many also claimed that the evil KKKarl maliciously outed a super duper secret agent, while others who could have nipped that story in the bud stayed stone cold silent about it for years. Yet we know how that one turned out, don’t we?
The critique about a lack of funding is a fair one, but it gets watered down when other, more sensational (and less substantiated claims) are allowed to drown it out for the purposes of drawing attention to the story.
thirteen28 on October 12, 2006 at 2:35 PM
Interesting that KP felt the need to give you that raging clue.
DaveS on October 12, 2006 at 2:35 PM
I doubt that it does. But in truth, I think the work God would have us do is not based on political power but on relationships with individuals. We can do more work for the Kingdom of Heaven by talking to one person seriously about God, than in a million government supported faith based initiatives.
A Christian polity is not a Biblical concept. However, individual stewardship of God’s earth is. Even though we are foretold of its destruction, being a Christian is a call to be a good steward of what God has given us, specifically the earth. If I keep this up, you all will think I am a left wing troll. :)
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 2:36 PM
Very true. However I’m not out to create a theocracy. I’m just trying to get us back to what our country’s founders had in mind. We aren’t going to get that with either of the main parties.
Benaiah on October 12, 2006 at 2:41 PM
David Kuo is a contributor at beliefnet.com and has an article about this here The timing of the book release suggests he may have an axe to grind.
Valiant on October 12, 2006 at 2:50 PM
I daresay that that would be nearly impossible, Benaiah. But it is an honorable and worthy goal.
So let me ask everyone this, if you don’t mind, AP, is it realistic to think that after the expansion of government that has occurred since 1929, can we go back to what the Founders had in mind?
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 2:52 PM
I hear this same thing re the timing of Woodward’s book–that the publishing date is somehow an attack on Bush/Republicans. I guess I have been in the dollars and cents world of business too long, but I think there’s a better explanation–you write a political book, when is the best time to sell it? The political high season obviously.
honora on October 12, 2006 at 2:55 PM
We know MSNBC wouldnt spin any of this…uh uh. Nor someone trying to sell something, or maybe a pet project didnt get the dough? Too many variables and open ends here. Cant make a decision here yet.
As for AP and KP? We’ll know when she makes the ‘right’ turn, Huffpo wont be the FIRST link on her blog site daily reading.
shooter on October 12, 2006 at 2:57 PM
As an evangelical Christian, I am completely accustomed to people thinking I am nuts. Knowing that some Republicans consider me to be nuts will not cause me to vote Democratic, obviously.
JamesVersusEveryone on October 12, 2006 at 3:00 PM
Of course. I would never dispute that.
And as a Christian I will always follow a law unless it directly conflicts with my beliefs (such as a law that would make it illegal to read the Bible).
But it seems your argument could also apply to our system of government. It sees God has placed us in a country where our voices can be heard on aspects of the law. And for that reason, it would seem He is not against us using those voices to attempt to right any perceived wrong.
I mean no disrespect and in fact respect your opinion very much, though I don’t quite understand your wording. You write about abortion being legal as though it just happened on its own when instead it came about through people working to make it legal.
We have the same power on our end to work and make it illegal. By what I understand about your reasoning, the way we discern God’s favor in the situation is to try and make it illegal then wait and see.
Certainly God works through everything to His purpose, but I don’t personally believe everything that happens happened by His will.
You mentioned free will, and I agree that it is paramount to the very basics of Christianity. Without it, there would be no reason to believe. So if we have free will, then it’s entire possible that God did not want abortion to be legal but has still worked it “to His glory” (I forget the book, chapter and verse on that one).
Take King David for istance. He slept with Bathsheba even though she was married. When he found out she was pregnant, he manipulated her husband by attempting to get him to sleep with his wife while leaving his soldiers during a battle.
When Bathsheba’s husband did the honorable thing and simply waited in armor until be able to leave and return to his troops, the king sent him into battle on the front line, effectively murdering him, so that he could save face and marry Bathsheba.
Because of all of this, David’s family slowly tore itself apart. One son raped his half sister while her brother sought revenge. When revenge could not be found, he sought to claim the thrown for himself.
And the baby Bathsheba gave birth to died.
I cannot imagine God wanted any of that to happen. God called David a “man after His own heart”.
But still, the second child Bathsheba gave David was Solomon.
You could argue that this was the plan all along, but I believe God had a better path to get there instead of the devastation that almost ruined the kingdom.
Again, I respect your opinion, sincerely. I just don’t believe that what is done is done when it comes to abortion.
Esthier on October 12, 2006 at 3:00 PM
Ennuipundit: Good question. The first thing, we don’t know what the Founders had in mind. We know what they had in mind for the late 18th century, we can only assume they foresaw the need for interpretation (I give you the Internet e.g.)
I think the one area where the government needs to assert itself more, not less, is in the area of industrial policy. Like it or not, we are in competition with China Inc., Brazil Inc. etc. We need a national plan to survive and prosper in the age of globalization.
The other issue is: have states as governing entities outlived their usefulness? If we have local governments for local needs–schools, public safety, transportation etc–and the feds for national needs, why do we need states?
honora on October 12, 2006 at 3:01 PM
Are all the gays in the GOP closeted Dems?
Stephen M on October 12, 2006 at 3:05 PM
Am I in the right place? I thought we were all gun-totin’ rednecks.
RedWinged Blackbird on October 12, 2006 at 3:11 PM
Well… yeah. Depending on who exactly you consider a Christian leader, I think a lot of Christians regard certain “Christian leaders” as being mad as hatters.
Seriously: Falwell? Robertson? Nuttier than a fruitcake.
If he’s referring to those guys I happen to agree.
Bob Owens on October 12, 2006 at 3:18 PM
…and gun-totin’ rednecks can’t be gay? Au contraire my stereotyping friend.
honora on October 12, 2006 at 3:20 PM
I’ve always considered the Republican party to be an umbrella party that worships either:
1.God
2.Money/capitalism
3.America
4.All of the above
Maybe I’m wrong…?
SouthernGent on October 12, 2006 at 3:21 PM
Hi Esthier,
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. The story of David and Bathsheba is fertile ground for insights into God’s will. I agree completely, that what he wants for David was not what David chose for himself. God chooses not to impose His will on us, but as David discovered, operating outside of God’s will has its consequences. This is what I mean by God’ determined will and God’s desired will.
God desires the best for all of us. But we can choose otherwise. When I say that it is God’s will that abortion is legal in America, I am not trying to argue that He wants unborn children to be killed wholesale. I am saying that He has allowed this to happen. For example, “What is the price of five sparrows—two copper coins? Yet God does not forget a single one of them. And the very hairs on your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are more valuable to God than a whole flock of sparrows.” Luke 12:6-7 If God does not forget a single sparrow, then God has not overlooked the millions of murdered unborn. And as He accepts that our society has chosen this, then I accept it also.
By all means, fight for your beliefs. God has given us that free will. For me, I am more animated by my own growth than to emphasize some issue that is in God’s hands. As Christ said a few times. Don’t worry about tomorrow. Tomorrow has enough worries on its own.
But if you feel called to advocate for the unborn it is a valid and noble fight. I know more than a few people who are animated by that battle.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 3:29 PM
Imagine that. A caliphate full of gay, gun-totin’ rednecks. Those jihadis better be careful what they wish for.
RedWinged Blackbird on October 12, 2006 at 3:31 PM
I’ve always considered the Republican party to be an umbrella party that worships either:
And WonderBread and mayo. Think that about covers it.
honora on October 12, 2006 at 3:34 PM
Excellent question honora. I think state government is necessary for a few different reasons. The long since vacated tenth amendment argued that states had all powers not specifically reserved for the feds. And to that end, the Federal government has been poaching in the states territory. The states have willingly agreed.
One obvious consequence of the dissolution of the middle management of government is the Presidential electoral system would need to be revamped. Perhaps this would be fair, but perhaps not.
But apart from that, given the free travel within the states and the full-faith and credit clause, the biggest negative would be the further encroaching of the federal government.
So I would be opposed to the dissolution of states. They add a layer of protection from greater central authority.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 3:36 PM
Mom.
And apple pie.
Stephen M on October 12, 2006 at 3:37 PM
I’ve been saying all along that this next election cycle won’t be about the Democrats winning, but rather about the Republicans losing.
Republicans seem to be doing everything the can to lose. Except that every time Republicans do something stupid, the Democrats turn around and do something more stupid.
So who do I, as one of these much maligned (yet courted) values-voters vote for? The lesser of the two stupids?
Does it really matter anymore which party I vote for?
Lawrence on October 12, 2006 at 3:38 PM
Fuited plains.
Stephen M on October 12, 2006 at 3:39 PM
Baseball and Chevrolet? No, maybe not. : )
vcferlita on October 12, 2006 at 3:40 PM
Fruited plane
Stephen M on October 12, 2006 at 3:45 PM
Hi Lawrence,
I am afraid I cannot tell you who you should vote fore. I am going to vote for a fair few lesser of two stupids this year. Though I imagine I will vote for Lieberman and not LaMont of Schlesinger. It will be hard to vote for Jodi Rell, because she is almost as empty a suit as Lamont is, but I am sure that when push comes to shove I will. Mostly, I’m going to pray about it and make my choices.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 3:53 PM
I’m with thirteen28 on this one. Some of these guys are nuts, at least they’ve said some pretty stupid things. I’d like to see who in particular the book refers to. If it was Robertson and Falwell, well…
This summer we had a post titled “I Wish Pat Robertson Would Please Shut Up!” So if Rove said likewise that wouldn’t shock me. If he said the same about Christians in general, I would take that a bit more personally.
That said, there’s still a big difference between contempt for a few outspoken individuals (apparently coming from Rove) and comparing evangelicals to the taliban as Kevin Phillips, Michelle Goldberg and a host of others on the left have done recently.
It’s sad that this is the choice, but I’d rather be considered a “nut” than a potential terrorist.
John on October 12, 2006 at 4:19 PM
Only if you don’t want nukes raining down on your head, higher taxes, a national health care system that will make the current deficit/debt look like pocket change, illegal immigrants receiving amnesty, endless investigations in lieu of meaningful legistlation, liberal activist judges on the Supreme Court ……
fogw on October 12, 2006 at 4:23 PM
I’ve been an evangelical all my life (30 years). I know many eveangelicals who are nuts. Especially people who are actively involved in government/ministry. If Rove thinks they’re goofballs it just shows he has good judgement. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t like them as people, it doesn’t mean they don’t share some of the same goals, and his tone and the language used suggest a private conversation, not a speech to staff members.
The only people disappointed in the Republicans this year are the people who thought they were going to get everything they wanted and wouldn’t have to compromise with any other faction within or without the Republican Alliance. Border nuts, Jesus freaks, Iran carpet-bombers, Pre-Rooseveltian libertarians, and Xenophobic Oil-haters all got screwed a little this cycle. It’s better than getting screwed alot. How would you like to have been a Canadian HealthCare Wantin’ LibDem this last cycle? Or a War Stoppin’ Jihadi Sympathizin’ University professor? You could keep yourself busy complaining, but that’s about all you would have been able to get done.
People who are genuinely upset over the fact that Rove isn’t a True Believer and that politics (politics!?!?) are occuring in Washington are infantile morons. We aren’t the party. We use the party and the party uses us. It’s a relationship and most adults understand this. Every week you go to the line and fight the good fight and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, but in a democracy the fight is never over. Sometimes you take and hold a hill for generations and sometimes you hold it for a month, but the holding of it is never without effort.
I’m less insulted by Rove than Pelosi, Sullivan, Reid, Dean, Kennedy, etc., ad infinitum. At least with the Republicans you get someone who will listen to your concerns and help accomplish twenty or thirty percent of your goals. Democrats will crucify you at the insistance of the Nut-Roots. Republicans aren’t purgers. It’s why Sullivan doesn’t fit in anymore. You don’t get everything, but you get something.
The Apologist on October 12, 2006 at 4:56 PM
That may have been the most sensible paragraph in the history of blogging. Ever.
Good work, Apologist.
thirteen28 on October 12, 2006 at 5:12 PM
Well said.
Ennuipundit on October 12, 2006 at 5:21 PM
I think GWB duped all of us in the republican party.
Who knew he would be worse than Clinton. He has increased the size of Government, left the border wide open, is trying to form the north American Union just like the EU…….ect
The only thing he has done is keep his zipper up
He fooled me once.
ScottyDog on October 12, 2006 at 5:25 PM
Well, I’d be curious exactly who was being referred to. If, for example, the anonymous speaker had said that Jerry “The Teletubbies are homosek-shuls!: Falwell was nuts, well, who could argue with that? And need I even mention Pat Robertson, who is way beyond just nuts?
rightwingprof on October 12, 2006 at 5:30 PM
If Bush the ChimpHaliburtonDoofusAwolDyslexicRetard duped you (not all of us, speak for yourself), where exactly does that leave you on the brain-o-meter?
fogw on October 12, 2006 at 5:45 PM
A.P. How is it that you’re blaming “leftists”? The book was written by the guy Bush put in charge of the “Faith Based Initiatives Office”!! The article you link to goes this way….
There can be no doubt that Bush has been pimping the truly religious community like they were five dollar whores! Where’s that AMMENDMENT banning homosexual marriage? Where’s the funding to “no child left behind”? They got left behind. Why are homos still attacking the BOY SCOUTS? The supreme court said they were okay so how is it that the legal system under BUSH has been used to threaten and intimidate them? How is it that under his presidency the DISGUSTING FILTHY SODOMY ORIENTED crap that they are teaching ELEVEN YEAR OLDS IN SEX ED has actually INCREASED!!!!!!!
All of the stories on WORLD NET DAILY about homosexual indoctrination that is going on in our schools, NOT TO MENTION THE INDOCTRINATION INTO ISLAM, has happened on Bush’s WATCH!!!!!!
Maybe he’s like the some of the “Christians” on this site who OBJECT TO WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY SAYS, preferring their “feelings” instead! Either way, he’s a fake and a phony. Have you been paying attention during the last six years? HELLO? The number of teachers screwing their students and RECEIVING LITTLE PUNISHMENT at the hands of the BUSH JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, has INCREASED under Bush’s watch.
Religious conservatives have been waiting for years, slaving away in the minefield of secularist facism to secure SUPREME COURT JUDGES that don’t think it’s okay to screw SHEEP! What does Bush do when given the chance? He nominates his GRANDMOTHER who doesn’t even understand the equal protection clause of the constitution as it relates to PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION!
AND WHERE’S THAT DAMNED MARRIAGE AMMENDMENT ANYWAY? I know I said it before but I’m saying it AGAIN. At least CLINTON passed THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT!!!!! WHAT HAS BUSH DONE….NOT SAID…..DONE, TO PROVIDE SIMILIAR OR GREATER LEGISLATION????? Where has the issue gone? The same place DISCO went my friend, it went the way of DISCO.
Soothsayer on October 12, 2006 at 6:05 PM
Somebody seriously needs to reduce their caffiene intake.
thirteen28 on October 12, 2006 at 6:51 PM
‘
Hmmm, why would anyone think that?
BlueStateBlues on October 12, 2006 at 7:46 PM
With respect for your views, Scotty; I mostly disagree. Government size increased because of 19 radical fools. No 9/11, no Homeland Security.
The border issue you are mostly correct on. He’s belatedly started doing something about it (approving “some” money, sending National Guard troops, and will be signing the Fence Act) after the Minutemen forced his hand. I’m quite of the opinion that he’s tried to stay away from that issue like every other president before him. It’s an extremely touchy issue and could cost some seats in the House and Senate. I don’t excuse him for his lapse; I’m just pointing out what might be a misguided reason.
This North American Alliance you speak of is new to me. I don’t hear anything coming out of Congress about negotiations with Canada and Mexico about integrating our economies by switching currency to something that gives equal value for all 3 nations regardless of productivity, rewriting our Constitution into a meaningless collection of hundreds of pages of political blather, permitting free legal access across all borders (that talk comes only from Mexico from what I’ve seen), or forming a tri-nation unaccountable government that forces rules and standards on all three nations. Sounds like a Democrat’s utopia to me.
What I do know about Bush is that after America got kicked in the crotch and punched in the nose, he picked us up, wiped off the blood and led us to some righteous ass kicking. His primary job is defending us and he swung into that full tilt (except instantly sealing the southern border). It’s good to have a Pres. that will actually go to war when we are attacked instead of going whining to the
UselessUnited Nations. In that aspect, he’s done remarkably well.American_Jihadist on October 12, 2006 at 7:48 PM
It seems that homosexuals are among those who are well-positioned for any sort of work with which family responsibilities can otherwise come into sharp conflict or in which the interests of one’s family can produce a conflict of interest.
Moreover, “he who is held wise by day will not be held crazy by night,” as Machiavelli once told a homosexual friend who was worried about losing his position of high responsibility if he were exposed. Whatever happens in coming weeks, one will see that positions of high responsibility will always come to have more than their share of homosexuals, because there will always be those employers who will observe that the sexual talents of a homosexual employee do not impair his other talents but, on the contrary, leave him ample time in which to develop and use them.
Kralizec on October 12, 2006 at 8:36 PM
I still can’t figure out why we’ll kick Evangelical Christians in the teeth, but kiss the @$$es of a bunch of sodomizers.
After all, if the Founding Fathers wanted freedom of Homosexuality in this country, why did Jefferson (Thomas, not Davis) help get laws passed to castrate homosexuals?
Tim Burton on October 12, 2006 at 8:41 PM
Some people who aren’t evangelical Christians nevertheless find reasons to like them. It’s safe to say they don’t look for such reasons in you.
Kralizec on October 12, 2006 at 9:14 PM
I suppose you agree with their positions on slavery, as well?
BlueStateBlues on October 12, 2006 at 9:21 PM
Yes AP! I smell spin. Another tell-all book just before an election to hopefully fracture a voting bloc. Valiant found Kuo on beliefnet an ‘all faiths are equal’ site where under ‘Hindu’ you can ‘find a temple’. The one thing beliefnet isn’t, is fundamentalist – the normal definition of ‘Evangelical’, that is acceptance of the Bible as the word of God and the requirement to sow the one truth across the world as commanded by Jesus. Evangelicals do not accept tabs for other faiths on their web sites.
I admire Dr. Dobson greatly. He fights against sin and for Christian values. He tries to witness these values to those of influence. He will know if he is being dissed – he is a Christian, for Heaven’s sake, and by Christ’s own advice, Dobson will expect mockery. That is a reason to stay, not go, if you are an Evangelist!
I don’t remember being on a platter, but I listen to Pat Robertson a lot. I admire Jerry Falwell, Dr. James Kennedy, John Hagee. They gravitate to the GOP because it represents more of their values. They are not exactly feted at the White House. They aren’t stupid. They are feted in Israel. Netanyahi will meet with any of them. The White House will test the wind first.
Ennuipundit, are you confusing Evangelism with Libertarianism? You misread Paul:
You give new meaning to Evangelical. Evangelicals do not oppose making murder a crime. It goes back to the Ten Commandments (thou shalt not murder) and “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee”
I offer you a question for an answer: who do we love more: the mother, or the child? I know such law cannot be enforced until we change hearts, but who expected a declared Evangelical to love one, more than the other?
entagor on October 12, 2006 at 9:45 PM
I think that if your name is Carl Rove that ego has a teeny weeny (oops) something to do with how you handle some elements of the public.
“Is everyone in the GOP gay?”
Well…ummm…we are talking about a split party, Conservatives have been forced to back of the bus and the rest seem to identify well with progressives and share townhouses.
What’s truley amazing is how much George is willing to risk in his quest to globalize/third world populate America.
He has sided with Liberals, left our borders and ports open and has aided and abetted the invasion which we know includes terrorsts.
And, Americans are pissed, if Demos win not only has he sacrificed his own precious Neos but has put his own head on a plate, because Pelosi WILL impeach.
To what end?
Speakup on October 12, 2006 at 10:05 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »