Quotes of the day
posted at 10:40 pm on November 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
“Whatever she once was, Ms. Parker is certainly not a conservative anymore, having apparently realized it’s a lot easier to be popular among your journalistic peers when your keyboard tilts to the left. She writes that ‘armband religion’ — those of us who ‘wear our faith on our sleeve,’ I suppose, or is it meant to compare socially conservative Christians to Nazis? — is ‘killing the Republican Party.’ Lest readers miss the point, she literally spells it out. The GOP’s big problem? G-O-D.
*
“How can the Republican Party rebound? The first step would be to quit letting Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham set its agenda.”
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Even with a brown bag over his head, he’d be better looking than one Scott McClellan was.
Entelechy on November 26, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Patriot.
Goodnight, all HotAirHeads. With Rush’s fine words I’m off to bed.
Limerick on November 26, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Yeah. What this guy said….
Saltysam on November 26, 2008 at 12:19 AM
I believe the current economic crisis & the dominance of liberalism in government is discipline–or judgement–from the Lord.
jgapinoy on November 26, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Conservatives need to figure out a way to dislodge the compassionate conservatives presently leading the party. Their influence is too strong. They have a role to play under the big tent but the people who bought and erected the tent need to regain control.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 12:20 AM
It may not be judgement as much as it is a consequence of not following His values in our culture.
katy on November 26, 2008 at 12:22 AM
For the record, I believe in a creator but have never had any organized religion in my 41 years of life.
Having said that, my observation is that every religion, no matter how tolerant of other religions, believes that their religion is the religion and that all of the others are just posers.
In other words, when I die I will go to the promised land whereas you’re going to end up somewhere else that is a lot hotter. Good luck with that.
Therefore, by definition, when you interject Christian religion into conservative politics you are automatically excluding anyone that is not a Christian.
You don’t need organized religion to be successful in conservative policy making. Leave it out.
watson007 on November 26, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Good guy, indeed, our RushBaby!
Entelechy on November 26, 2008 at 12:22 AM
KP and her ilk are just in it for their careers. Conservatism will still be around when she has been tossed on the scrap heap of punditry, may it be soon
clnurnberg on November 26, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Rush, Sean and Laura set our agenda?!?…hilarious…it would be really great if someone w/ (R) after their name aside from Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal would have the balls to espouse Conservatism for once.
ocbrat on November 26, 2008 at 12:27 AM
You don’t need organized religion to be successful in conservative policy making.
Fine.
Others do.
For many, it predicates their position in support of conservative policy.
Have you ever considered that every word in the preamble of the Declaration was carefully deliberated?
Why do you suppose that is?
Saltysam on November 26, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Let’s hope. I think that hard times, like recessions, may actually help refresh the necessity of responsible behavior in a culture. Perhaps it’s best if good times are always tempered by occasional bad times throughout the rest of history, (and they probably will). But of course the government never learns and if Obama is successful enacting a bunch of new entitlements, I’m not sure that the people will have learned enough of a lesson to overturn his programs.
I almost hope a sour economy won’t allow him the opportunity in the next four years.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 12:31 AM
my observation is that every religion, no matter how tolerant of other religions, believes that their religion is the religion and that all of the others are just posers.
Bad observation.
I have never in my life met a Christian that would exclude anyone from politics because of their faith. However, I’ve known dozens of secular people who would.
kcewa on November 26, 2008 at 12:35 AM
That works for me.
I think I may be to late.
F15Mech on November 26, 2008 at 12:35 AM
I wonder if Kondrake has a problem with this agenda, because I know Rush, Hannity, and Ingraham do not:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Saltysam on November 26, 2008 at 12:36 AM
“… the dismal state of American education and its menacing cousin, lagging American competitiveness”
MORTON KONDRACKE
How he can Mort NOT see the connection from his lack lustre approach to conservatism, and his own comment?
He has compromised himself into the same ‘lagging competitiveness’ he complains about.
He is simply not a conservative voice.
Freddy on November 26, 2008 at 12:42 AM
As someone who doesn’t believe in God I find that to be flat out ridiculous! If someone hates Christianity, or the church to such a degree that they cannot abide their presence in the same political party, they should move to the DailyKos or join the Islamic Jihad.
sharrukin on November 26, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Weird thing is that he has signaled some economic policies which directly contradict his campaign rhetoric.
The most radical stuff is coming from the moonbats in Congress. We presume Obama’s on board because of his record. But I’m starting to wonder if he isn’t hypersensitive to criticism, such as being compared to FDR, and therefore, well, nudgable. Combined with his obvious incentive to govern in campaign-for-reelection mode, I wonder if we won’t see a centrist White House after all.
Just no way to tell, as the guy is a walking, talking paradox, mystery, and cipher.
RushBaby on November 26, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Allahpundit is right. We should stop getting direction from Rush, Hannity and Ingraham and all the rest of the pseudo conservatives.
.
We need to take our direction from one of the only sane voices out there, Michael Savage.
FactsofLife on November 26, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Is that what you really think, Allah? Personally, my views are shaped by my own research and by South Park rather than those three, but I think many conservatives would be upset to see these people lose their influence. Kondracke is a fairly rational man (though not quite as rational as, say, Charles Krauthammer), and I can actually agree with him on this. However, as much as I think people like Rush and Hannity are too far to the right on some issues for my own tastes, I think conservatives like Rush, Hannity, and Laura are actually pretty important and often taken for granted. I dunno, though; I guess things’ll work out on their own. Public opinion will help shape the Republican Party’s future form.
Achilles on November 26, 2008 at 1:00 AM
He would, of course, argue with you about that.
Saltysam on November 26, 2008 at 1:01 AM
I have never in my life met a Christian that would exclude anyone from politics because of their faith. However, I’ve known dozens of secular people who would.
kcewa on November 26, 2008 at 12:35 AM
You got that right. It is amazing to see the hatred toward the religious right shown by the left AND many in the GOP–yet not the other way around.
Shouldn’t be surprised , but it is so obvious and so many chose to be oblivious.
John The Baptist on November 26, 2008 at 1:03 AM
It will be interesting to see. It’s possible that he’s planning on running a centrist administration in general while concentrating on a few pet issues here and there, though, not to overreach so much that he might turtle the boat and leave himself adrift in the tide. Or perhaps, intentionally or not, he may take an incremental approach. Starting as a centrist while moving progressively left over time.
But as you say, there’s no way to tell.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Well thats not exactly a fair analysis. Of course Christians wouldn’t exclude a person of faith…that person, regardless of their denomination, takes certain “truths” to be self evident: namely, that we were created by a good god that sets the rules for us in holy books. All of those holy books happen to be interpreted as “use whatever power you have to shape society along these views”…
long story short…of COURSE christians wouldn’t exclude other religious people from politics…they all agree on that same thing that athiests feel should get them excluded…that denominational rules should be codified into laws by the government!
ernesto on November 26, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Three words for you, buddy…
RUSH IS RIGHT!
purgatory on November 26, 2008 at 1:09 AM
A statement like that requires a set of examples to be taken with any degree of seriousness.
Saltysam on November 26, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Denial and absence are not the same thing at all.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Damn the religion card was thrown down. This is going to be a 1000+ thread.
Conservatives are not saying that…
If you want to talk religion…a lapsed Catholic (me) is making plans for a trip to Rome to watch my brother be ordained a priest.
While my brother and I disagree on things like faith (my whole family actually), it does not mean that I love him/them any less, however he is also not ready to throw me aside.
Unlike me getting ready to re-label myself something other then a Republican
The GOP has lost its bearings. They have no concept about a simple household budget anymore.
The GOP today is doing the equivalent of using credit cards for “padding” and not understand the problems that can cause in the long term.
Any human with a brain knows about credit/Not so many are aware how long it may take to recover.
The GOP also need to learn how to grow a spine.
If they learn the above then
F15Mech on November 26, 2008 at 1:24 AM
Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking. Remember when his campaign was momentarily capsized just by McCain running an ad that featured Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, thereby fleetingly shining the spotlight on his “celebrity” campaign tactic? His fear was that he was genuinely exposed as a fraud and a symbol, and his luck was that his supporters cirled the wagons around him with suicide-bomber fervency.
Yet he is extremely vulnerable and probably will be for several months into his Presidency .
First 100 days will be telling. The pressure on him from the true power consolidated in the House and Senate will be his first test. If he can stand up to the agenda of the local wolves, there is hope that he will be up to the challenge from the hyenas outside.
RushBaby on November 26, 2008 at 1:27 AM
The type Republican candidate that Kathleen Parker idealizes is the one who doesn’t make a big deal of the sanctity of life, or securing our borders and is not a favorite of Rush Limbaugh. Yet the candidate that flfills her desires is the candidate who LOST.
What makes her think any Democrat Lite is going to fare better?
McCain simply couldn’t fire up the base. After 8 years of a President who never challenged the Democrats’ vicious attacks, Republicans wanted someone who would carry the banner, who would lead for conservative values. McCain abdicated that challenge. He was hoist on his own petard with McCain-Feingold. He simply would not make waves.
Then along came Sarah Palin. She actually put McCain into the lead. She outdrew her counterpart Biden by as much as 10 to 1. She made multiple daily appearances when McCain did mostly one a day. She was the fire he needed, but he never seriously defended her against the avalanche of false stories designed to undermine her.
We need more Sarah Palins, not more John McCains.
Corky Boyd on November 26, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Alright…I cant speak for any buddhists…but Christians have enacted all sorts of denominational laws and continue to strive for more. From blue laws to prohibition to the attempt to outlaw abortion…christians have felt ok with the idea of strictly denominational rules (like those on alcohol or abortion) being codified. I doubt i need to explain how muslims tend to feel about the matter (sharia). It is my understanding that a contingent of orthodox hebrews also constantly agitate for laws against operating businesses on the sabbath in israel. My point was that almost all religious political expression hinges upon those individuals being OK with the idea of a strictly denominational rule (im sure buddhists wouldnt ban abortion) being made into the law of the land.
ernesto on November 26, 2008 at 1:33 AM
I’m a young conservative and have listened to Rush since I was 8 years old. I’m now 22….’nuff said on that.
However I agree with Ernesto here: social issues belong at the state level..not the national level. They are (almost all) states’ rights issues, most notably “gay marriage” and abortion.
Leave them there, they have shown time and again to pass overwhelmingly in the “right” direction when put upon the state ballot (no pun intended). The most obvious example being Proposition 8 in Cali this past cycle.
So let me answer Ernesto’s question about faith’s priority in politics and its longevity there: It should be a low to non-existent priority on the national (electoral) stage, both President Bush and (former) Governor Huckabee have made mockeries of it. That said it should be as powerful and potent as is possible at the state and lower levels because that can and will galvanize folks to achieve victories for “our side” even if they wouldn’t ordinarily side with “us”…see my Prop 8 example above again.
Now chew on that and tell me what you think of it you HotAir-icons ;)
SgtSVJones on November 26, 2008 at 1:45 AM
You’re asking for a negative to be proven- i.e. demonstrate that faith motivated voters/politicians have never required a religious denomination’s rules to be codified into laws by the government.
I’m sure that’s happened.
At least once.
In the 200+ years of our nation’s history.
This nation of 300 million people.
But does this tyrannical theocracy hold any real power?
Has it ever?
No, it hasn’t.
Unless you count those terrible Sundays when your Moms made you get out of bed, get dressed, and go to church.
We can’t build a political movement based on your Mommy/Daddy issues.
The Daily Kos and Obama have beat us to it.
billy on November 26, 2008 at 1:45 AM
KONDRACKE, DOBSON, PARKER Three of my least favorite people.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, three of my favorite talkers.
Also, Medved, Preger, Levin, and sometimes Beck!
Also on the Big Talker list of Idiots…. Smerconish, like Parker, these are those that….
Dare to be Stupid, and abandon conservative principals.
Kini on November 26, 2008 at 1:46 AM
Where then do you think we should get the base moral code of our society? Sharia law where women and non-Muslims are considered to be of lesser value than a true believer?
Should women be stoned to death for lewd behaviour? Yes or no? That is a moral code put into law. Whose moral code? Sharia?
Do we use the atheist laws of Marxism as a pattern? National Socialism? Are Jews really people? The Fascists of Germany thought they were not. Do we give their views equal moral consideration? If not, then why not?
Laws are codified morality.
Secular moral codes are in no different than religious moral codes.
sharrukin on November 26, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Actually, secular moral codes are usually better as they do not include such things as burkas, death for leaving a religion, et all.
MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 1:52 AM
Maybe not explicitly, but some of them are implying it, although I think it has more to do with the present fractured state of the party than any real expectation of dominance; at least for most. It’s an understandable reaction.
I support everything you said in your comment, (except I’m not going to Rome to see you brother ordained :) ), but, as an example of what I’m referring to: if creationism in science classrooms becomes even an unofficial plank of the Republican Party, the party will be over IMO. Another example would be attempts to outlaw the abortion pill. It may seem perfectly reasonable to many in the religious right to want to ban it, but most people simply won’t see it that way, including some percentage of pro-lifers.
But I think most in the religious right probably don’t consider those their primary concerns and would be willing to compromise to make progress against other types of abortion. However, many on the religious right are accepting of those positions and it allows people to paint them all as extremists. Extremists scare people who don’t agree with their views.
But the Religious right isn’t the only faction of the party that has this problem. Other factions have similar issues with extremists whose views are found acceptable by more reasonable people in their faction, which paints the entire group in a bad light to others in the party, albeit a light that is more compatible with the MSM so not as much attention is called to it.
Anyway, I’m just trying to explain my view of how these perceptions have been created, hoping that Republicans can find their sense of balance and reform a coalition that is electorally viable. None of the factions can have everything their way or else they’ll find themselves alone.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 1:56 AM
Yeah, they usually include the guillotine, The Terror, the Gulag, the Khmer killing fields, and fun places like Auschwitz, Buchenwald and Treblinka.
sharrukin on November 26, 2008 at 1:57 AM
Where to begin?
This will be a good start.
Abortion was problematic in the ancient world, long before Christianity- or these denominations you despise-was ever heard of, it was largely prohibited until recently. The striving to impose one’s views upon society is an effort by the secular left.
Prohibition?
Prohibition was part of the Progressive agenda with support from some, but certainly not all, Christian sects.
Believe it or not, not all Christians subscribe to the idea of “demon rum.”
blue laws?
It’s 2008 A.D.
Some reminants of blue laws still exist, but who, today, is actually pushing for their expansion?
billy on November 26, 2008 at 2:01 AM
I would not consider any of those things to have any basis in morality.
MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 2:01 AM
Maybe not.
But the men who instituted them believed they were firmly grounded in morality.
billy on November 26, 2008 at 2:04 AM
It’s not that they want to be told what to think, it’s that they want to find out what the crowd thinks so they can be safely positioned in that crowd.
The biggest fear of a liberal (and any other common idiot) is being perceived as “strange” or “different.” Put one of these people in a crowd of aggressive conservatives and eventully they will begin to emulate that crowd instead. Sadly, you can never learn individualism, justice, unselfishness, or introspection from a crowd, the very core of conservatism.
TMK on November 26, 2008 at 2:05 AM
They did? And we know that for sure just how? My take is that they likely believed that they were above morality. In any case, believing doesn’t make something so.
MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 2:09 AM
This is right & wrong.
Look at prop 8 in California. When religions come together on common ground, to stop pointing at one another and aim at something they all find offensive, it is a beautiful thing. Repubs, Dems,Independents, Christians, Catholics, Mormons, Baptists,Muslims,Jews, blacks, white, latinos, asian, they all spoke out in a majority voice and said NO to redefining marriage. This is the root of what people are looking for to build the big tent party. We as a party can be inclusive but not give up our basic fundamentals such as Smaller government, less intrusion, fiscal conservative spending, etc. These are all ideas that have no litmus test for race,gender,age,or religion. What do we stand for if we cannot see how much we have in common with other religions and use that as a bridge to better relations. Does each religion need to bend on what they believe? No way. But what we saw in California with prop 8 was a great day and possibly a roadmap to recovery.
portlandon on November 26, 2008 at 2:10 AM
Of course they do. A warped morale code, but a code nevertheless. The purity of the race (class if a Bolshevik) being paramount, alien blood must be rejected (Bourgeoisie mentality). How to go about doing this?
Well if men are just sacks of meat with no higher moral value than any other animal, there is really no reason not to butcher them in pursuit of higher social goals.
What is the difference between killing a chicken and killing a man?
A Christian can answer that question easily. An atheist usually cannot do so beyond ‘just because’.
sharrukin on November 26, 2008 at 2:12 AM
I’m an atheist and am not a Marxist, and chances are I’m more conservative than you are.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 2:15 AM
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 2:17 AM
I am very impressed, but what exact point are you trying to make?
sharrukin on November 26, 2008 at 2:21 AM
That’s a power code, not a morale code.
See To Serve Man
Other men tend to go after the killer of a man. Other chickens after the killer of a chicken? Not so much.
With what? God said so? Does God speak to you? Don’t you mean that somebody said that God said so with others saying that God said something else?
MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 2:27 AM
You’re conflating atheism and Marxism.
It’s a double edged sword, BTW.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 2:27 AM
I say we all chip in and send Mort a tin foil hat for Christmas. He’s going to need it at the rate he’s going. Hell, let’s really go all out and send one to Peggy Noonan, too.
Rush is on the same track he’s always been… conservatism. And he’s right (as usual) when he says conservatism works every time it’s tried. I’m going to go out on a limb and say we all should stay on the conservative course. I have a hunch America is in for a real wake up call (or as Hussein puts it, a “jolt”) over the coming year. Americans will eventually wake up and realize they made a piss-poor decision in electing a marxist muslim.
ErinF on November 26, 2008 at 2:27 AM
Elementary, although I suppose there can be nothing more deceptive than the obvious.
semloh on November 26, 2008 at 2:32 AM
And we should bring the Republican Party with us. Let’s not drag it though. Let’s cut away the dead wood so that it can walk on it’s own.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 2:32 AM
Which is a clear case of binary thinking.
semloh on November 26, 2008 at 2:34 AM
Calling Marxism atheist is absolutely correct.
sharrukin on November 26, 2008 at 2:34 AM
But that’s not what you did.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 2:35 AM
For those commenters who state that Christians don’t exclude other Faiths, try England in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries – where your lot came from!
OldEnglish on November 26, 2008 at 2:37 AM
That said, put aside the arguments for a while. No matter what you believe there will be someone that disagrees.
Catholics are taught life begins at conception and the un-justified killing a life is murder. (That is a philosophy I still believe in BTW).
When it comes to abortion, I doubt you will find much compromise because according to the Catholic Church most forms of abortion are murder (mom life-in-danger is one exception I think).
My question to you is can you accept that premise?
F15Mech on November 26, 2008 at 2:41 AM
Yes, actually it is. The atheist laws of Marxism. The laws of Marxism are atheist! How is that an incorrect statement?
sharrukin on November 26, 2008 at 2:43 AM
Calling Islam religious (following the word of God) is absolutely correct then.
MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 2:43 AM
The laws or Islam are religious (following the word of God)! How is that an incorrect statement?
MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 2:45 AM
It isn’t. They are religious.
sharrukin on November 26, 2008 at 2:47 AM
You would certainly never know that by the way so many Catholics vote.
MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 2:48 AM
The laws or Islam are religious (following the word of
GodAllah)! How is that an incorrect statement?MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 2:45 AM
FIFY
F15Mech on November 26, 2008 at 2:48 AM
I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate. I used to peruse WorldNetDaily for a few years after 9/11 and seem to recall that they editorialized against the WOD. The WOD has been extremely detrimental not only to personal freedom and liberty but has also been the catalyst for a far more intrusive and forceful government, not to mention that it’s costs are extraordinarily high in enforcement, collateral damage and the corruption and secondary markets which erupt from sustaining a massive black market.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 2:49 AM
So how much of a kinship do you feel that you have for them then? Since they are religious is God responsible for what they do?
MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 2:50 AM
Not really as Allah is just another of so many words for God.
MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 2:52 AM
Sad to say you are correct
F15Mech on November 26, 2008 at 2:53 AM
I guess there are basically two kinds of Catholics, those who are Catholic and those who are not.
MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 2:55 AM
Excellent point and excellent advice!
Shelby on November 26, 2008 at 2:56 AM
I don’t have a problem with birth-control. As it pertains to the abortion pill, it’s not for me. But the religious right has a lot of work to do before apposition to it could be a viable option for the Republican Party. I think that far more people support it than physical abortions. Until more progress is made, it doesn’t matter how the religious right feels, frankly, even if they refuse to accept it, because it’s simply not an electorally viable stance at this time.
So now we have a problem. If the religious right insists that it be an issue and that no compromise whatsoever is acceptable, where does the Republican Party go from here other than into obscurity?
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 2:56 AM
Since I don’t believe in Allah, nor do I believe that the moral code they follow is worthy of admiration why would I have any kinship with them?
sharrukin on November 26, 2008 at 2:56 AM
But their are major difference in the human.
Allah = I die for him and may get 72 virgins.
God = I die and he will judge me
F15Mech on November 26, 2008 at 2:57 AM
I take that back, there is a major difference between God and Allah.
F15Mech on November 26, 2008 at 2:59 AM
Ok Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians:
You want back in control of the levers of power? Here’s how you do it:
Stop pushing social issues and start pushing Federalism. Stop fighting social spending and start fighting for that spending to be made on the state level rather than the Federal level. Make the issue local control over social spending and regulation rather than Federal control. Make the case that California shouldn’t raise taxes on Montana, that Alaska shouldn’t set the minimum wage in California, and that New York shouldn’t decide where Alaska drills for oil.
Running on religion is a nonstarter. You saw how many Catholics voted for a Planned Parenthood Candidate.
WE WILL NOT WIN ANYTHING PUSHING THE LEGISLATION OF CHRISTIANITY.
However…
If you push Federalism, push lower taxes, push lower Federal spending you get it all. Those that will not vote for overturning Roe will vote for more local control. People that will not vote against domestic partnerships will vote for less federal regulation.
Once we get the social spending put back to the states where it belongs you’ll be amazed at how much easier it’ll be to control it. And once social spending is the state’s business and not Washington’s business you’ll be surprised by how quick the Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians establish a majority for at least 30 years.
Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 2:59 AM
Allah means God. God means Allah. There are just two of so many different words for Supreme Being.
MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 3:00 AM
If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet, they could do us in. When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism.’ And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength. Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in northern Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?
The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, less the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.
- Barry “Mr. Conservative” Goldwater
MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 3:03 AM
This from a woman who went ballistic over the “True Face of Christ” documentary a few years back, where anthropologists and archeologists and ethnographers tried to recreate a possible likeness of Christ, and bemoaned them in an article for taking away “The blonde haired, blue eyed Jesus of her youth that she’d grown to love.”?
Go tell it to your new buddies at The Times, Katy…
SuperCool on November 26, 2008 at 3:04 AM
The fact that both are identical in your view reveals a lot about your intent, I think. It’s hard to believe you don’t understand the difference unless you don’t care to see one. But just in case the mistake was innocent, the problem was one of order. In the one case you are stating that the laws of atheism are Marxism, (which can’t be true because I’m not a Marxist), verses in the other you are stating that Marxists were atheists.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 3:06 AM
That’s nice. So what?
sharrukin on November 26, 2008 at 3:06 AM
As a Christian, a conservative, a Republican and a federalist, I support this message.
SuperCool on November 26, 2008 at 3:06 AM
I am with you…
Frankly the republican party is moving to the dem-lite party, which is enough for me to leave.
In short I am thinking about some sort of tree of life thing.
F15Mech on November 26, 2008 at 3:09 AM
They are not identical! I never said the the laws of atheism are Marxism I said the atheist laws of Marxism.
The order in which words appear in a sentence in the English language make a big difference in the meaning.
sharrukin on November 26, 2008 at 3:10 AM
Ever good Christian should line up and kick
Jerry FalwellJames C. Dobson [updated] in the ass.- Barry Goldwater
MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 3:14 AM
What’s that?
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 3:20 AM
Get a clue.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 3:21 AM
That is what I said and it is perfectly obvious what I meant and your attempt to alter the order in which I placed the sentence is juvenile to say the least!
sharrukin on November 26, 2008 at 3:27 AM
The order of your words is exactly what I’m talking about, but if you’re saying that wasn’t your intent, enough said.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 3:30 AM
Just what are the Republicans going to do with those upstart Mormons, anyway? You can hardly talk about the fractures in the Republican party without mentioning Romney’s run. He seems to have stolen about half the social conservative vote that would have gone to Huckabee. (Or was it vice versa?) If conservatives had been able to unite behind a single candidate, he would have beaten McCain easily.
They’re too religious for the secular intelligentsia (of either party) and not ‘Christian’ enough for the Bible thumpers, who would probably both prefer the Mormons faded back into whatever obscurity they came from, but they don’t seem to be very interested in doing that, even if they could after charging in on Prop 8 like cavalry come to save the day in an old western and making very public enemies of the gay rights crowd in the process.
Confutus on November 26, 2008 at 3:45 AM
That’s right, let’s set one wing against the other.
Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 3:58 AM
Based on his support with members of the religious right here, with only a few detractors that showed up after Huckabee’s ascent during the primaries when there was an open enrollment period, I’d say they’re welcome in the party. There’s no doubt that there was some gibotry against him by some, (as CSDeven used to call it), but part if that was based on the perception that some of his flip flops seemed politically motivated.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 4:03 AM
This isn’t just about social conservatism. Republicans don’t need religion to be anti-abortion, for example. There are a couple of bigger problems.
-By expressing a religious preference, Republicans refuse not only the votes of non-believers, but the votes of casual and unorthodox believers.
-Republicans can’t use religion to recommend the best policy without also using policy to recommend the best religion. I wish you guys would consider how dangerous this is to religion.
-Republicans set themselves a higher standard for ethical behavior that they all can’t possibly live up to. All it takes is one wayward Senator to implicate the entire party.
That’s some clunky writing, and I apologize. Hopefully I got across the points I wanted to make. Waiting for the coffee to kick in.
This is an important discussion – where should the line be drawn between politics and religion? Don’t cut it off by assuming the worst motives of those of us who think religion has become too central to conservatism.
RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 4:44 AM
“It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”
–James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785
Jeff on November 26, 2008 at 6:15 AM
Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 6:29 AM
I am no fan of Parker, but there are times when Limbaugh wears thin. In fact, I think that part of the problem is that the pundits and personalities and talk show hosts became too important, all of them. They talked and talked and talked, but what exactly do any of them do to help run government or the country? They make their living being controversial and noisy. That goes for O’Reilley too.
And because of that there are factions among the talkers in competition with each other for influence. And to gain the upper hand they go after not only each other, but Republican politicians. The people we need to win.
One or some of them hate everyone. Frum said pretty much the same kind of things about Palin that he did Harriet Miers. Malkin was not a lot different in her tirades about Bush and Katrina than Spike Lee was. Hysterical. A lot of the hardliners in punditry were as paranoid about the Republican party when it came to immigration as Olberman was when it came to FISA or the war.
I thought that when Bush was leaving maybe some of the fighting and finger pointing would go too, not so. Now we have Palin Derangement Syndrome, McCain Derangement Syndrome, Romney and Huckabee Derangement Syndrome…and since we are running out of politicians to sabotage we are starting on the pundits too. Hoisted on their own petards.
I think that is what is really behind the deal with Parker, she is cheerleading her little corner of the ring. But the truth is the only way Republicans can become a majority party again is to forge alliances and create coalitions and I just do not think that is possible if we start going after God, besides there are a lot of Democrats who go to church. Religion is not keeping them from getting votes.
Terrye on November 26, 2008 at 6:32 AM
Then you’ve never studied the LDS religion. They are very tolerant of others and even speak about folks who are LDS being surprised at the people who they meet in heaven who were never members while on the earth. And some of those LDS members will find themselves not in the same place as those folks.
csdeven on November 26, 2008 at 6:34 AM
This is why Huck will win in 2012. He and Palin will unite and motivate Evangelicals.
marklmail on November 26, 2008 at 6:35 AM
BTW, I read that Eisenhower was not a regular church goer. He called himself a Presbyterian because it used to be the default when no religion was chosen. A friend of mine who was in the military back when said that if you did not choose a particular religion, they called you Presbyterian. But thinking about that made me realize that it was not so long ago that religion was not something that was brought up on the campaign trail and yet somehow Republicans could win elections. Maybe we are assuming that morality and religion are the same things. They are not always. I know a lot of agnostics who are very good and kind people.
Terrye on November 26, 2008 at 6:37 AM
marklmail:
There are not that many evangelicals. And while I like Palin very much and I do not think Huckabee is a scary person or anything…I think that particular ticket would probably run off more people than it would attract. People are tired of being preached at. They just are. Maybe it will be different in 2012, but I doubt that it will be that different.
Terrye on November 26, 2008 at 6:40 AM
FIFY.
TMK on November 26, 2008 at 7:22 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »