Letter to a Christian nation
Like most Christians, we’re busy trying to live up to the standards of our faith. We sometimes succeed, and sometimes fail. Our church is focused on strengthening our faith and families and giving of ourselves to help others. And having some fun doing it.
The fact is, nearly 90 percent of all homeless shelters are run by people of faith. Not all of these are Christians, but most of them are, and they have a quite a record of compassion in America.
But when I was a secular conservative, I knew none of this. I saw Christian conservatives only as a potential political liability in America’s highest-density populations. I thought they’d hurt the cause of conservatism by chasing secular voters like me from our ranks — and, in doing so, hurt their own cause. Because an ever-expanding government crowds out the private sector, and private institutions like churches. Europeans didn’t wake up one day and all decide to leave the church at once. The state kept getting bigger, and the church kept getting smaller, one day at a time.
So alas, as a new Christian (I am but five years old), I must address two elephants in the elephant house. Many in the GOP are blaming social issues for our loss and for doubts about our future viability as a party, so I figured I’d address both head on.
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
I saw this yesterday. Unfortunately, it’s very evident he’s only been a Christian for five years. There’s lots of wooly-headed ethical thinking and he fails to rigorously apply biblical principles. He also thinks rather shallowly and has failed to do research and reading of the writings of those who have already spent time and effort mulling over the issues.
It was a real disappointment to see this at NRO.
INC on December 13, 2012 at 7:08 PM
At the end I think it states he’s a veep for Salem which explains quite a bit about Salem’s squishiness.
INC on December 13, 2012 at 7:09 PM
Jesus came to call sinners to repentance. He didn’t come to make those who choose to give in to sin more comfortable. This man needs to reevaluate his Christianity.
Rose on December 13, 2012 at 7:22 PM
Habeeb in one sentence: drop dead, SoCons.
1.) If Roe is overturned, it doesn’t necessarily return to state legislatures, especially in the 5 votes to overturn instead find a constitutional right to life per the 5th and 14th amendments.
2.) When it comes to underground railroads, we also have those today for human trafficking. I don’t think we should stop trying to fight human trafficking on the grounds that people will try to break the law.
No. The correct answer is to constantly challenge liberals as to what they think the point and purpose of marriage is, to point out the absurdity of their proposed reasoning, and then to explain that it has to do with the creation and raising of children. We should then further push the argument by advocating for an end to no-fault divorce, which has made divorce as common as candy.
Stoic Patriot on December 13, 2012 at 7:28 PM
Wow, nice argument! I agree completely!
astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 7:31 PM
Yup, we are to repent of our sins. Marrying your sinful partner to keep the sin going is certainly not repentant. Assisting someone in perpetuating their sin is also not going to go down well when you get judged. We are not to tempt the weak with their weakness.
astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 7:34 PM
This man says he is a “young” Christian, and I would agree with that, on the face of it. Jesus Christ does not need the GOP or any other political party, quite frankly. That’s not how it works.
DaydreamBeliever on December 13, 2012 at 7:41 PM
There is no point or purpose to marriage.
It exists.
Saying there’s a point or purpose to marriage is like say there’s a point or purpose to friendship.
They simply exist.
segasagez on December 13, 2012 at 7:53 PM
Well, I’m sure your spouse and/or friends are happy to know that. Really, put that bong down.
DaydreamBeliever on December 13, 2012 at 7:59 PM
I fervently disagree. For one, with friendship you don’t take vows. When you make a set of promises, there’s a point behind making the promise — to deliver on what those promises bind you to, whether it be being there in good times and in bad, or in sickness and in health, or be it forsaking all others.
The question then becomes what the common cause of those promises secure, and that’s the stable relationship that allows for children to be created and raised. The measure of devotion that marriage declares, if the promises are adhered to, ensure that parents will fulfill their responsibilities to their children that they bring upon themselves through the act of creation. You make ‘em, you raise ‘em.
Stoic Patriot on December 13, 2012 at 8:04 PM
Fine. Whats the point of marriage or friendship?
segasagez on December 13, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Fine, but this has no more to do with abortion than it does with infanticide. The belief that X ought not to be killed doesn’t entail an obligation to take care of X.
Is the decision to abort a sui generis act, somehow insulated from moral critique? Do pregnant women live in a different moral universe such that they face a hard road that no one else has to face? Yes, pregnancy can be terrifying and pregnant women should be supported by Christians, but this has nothing to do with the moral status of abortion.
Excellent suggestion, but again it has nothing do with abortion. I’d like help taking care of my aging parent, but the fact that I’m not getting help doesn’t justify euthanasia.
This is going to sound strange, but gay marriage is a threat to gay marriage, because if there’s nothing inherently special about a man and a woman getting married, there’s nothing inherently special about two men or two women getting married. In other words, there’s no reason to draw the marriage line at two people, because that’s just another form of bigotry if one truly believes in marriage equality. Indeed, there’s no reason not to allow two brothers or two sisters to marry, because there’s no chance of inbreeding. The upshot is that by the time were done re-defining marriage, there isn’t anything left of the concept.
Baerwulf on December 13, 2012 at 8:14 PM
Government benefits!
astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 8:17 PM
Marriage isn’t just for the creation and/or raising of children. It is for stable committed relationships. Some of the happiest and most secure marriages I know have not involved children. The economic and social benefits of stable marriage are well known.
There is nothing conservative or pro-marriage about denying same sex couples the right to make that same promise and covenant.
lexhamfox on December 13, 2012 at 8:22 PM
yes there is. The fact you cannot see it shows how few brain cells are engaged in the thought process on this. Lack of resources or not caring enough?
astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 8:28 PM
astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 8:28 PM
What is the conservative argument for restricting couples who wish to marry then?
How is it pro-marriage?
lexhamfox on December 13, 2012 at 8:31 PM
Lets hammer this one down as well while we are at it.
Marriage is for the creation and raising of children. It is what God created for humanity for this very purpose.
Any two, three, four or any number of people can join together in loving care for each other, and they can do so for life, and do not need a ceremony or special name for it. Although they could create either or both.
Marriage is a specific form of binding two people together, it was created for a specific reason, and until the government got involved, it worked quite well for many thousands of years.
astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 8:35 PM
When something means everything it means nothing. If you cannot wrap your brain cells around this concept, then you really should stick to flipping burgers.
astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 8:36 PM
Exactly. People are trying to get government to rule that the dog’s tail is a leg, to borrow an old saw, because they want the same benefits and respect as heterosexual couples. They deserve neither, and in a sane society would be outright pariahs.
MelonCollie on December 13, 2012 at 8:55 PM
astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 8:35 PM
No. Marriage is not merely for the purpose of having children. It is to assign special rights and obligations for a couple who wish to enter such a covenant. It has always been a civil construct.
You are not making a conservative argument here and throwing in insults shows how weak your argument is.
lexhamfox on December 13, 2012 at 9:02 PM
Not really. It’s what we do when we hear people arguing for the world’s desires, vaulting them against God’s. A Christian is not interested in making peace between the things of God and the world, because a Christian recognizes the world is at war with God.
Anyway, hearing someone excuse sin is hearing someone taking sides, and hearing them unabashedly take the world’s side makes us doubt they’ve ever known God. It’s a natural, rational doubt.
Don’t flatter yourself with thoughts of moral superiority.
Axe on December 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM
QFT. Only a functional illiterate, a liberal, or a fool (but I repeat myself) could read through the Holy Word and think there is some “third way” between the covenant of marriage and pervert unions.
And that’s not getting into the destruction of freedom it will inevitably bring, starting at lawsuits, or even the health risks.
MelonCollie on December 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM
You have to keep in mind that there’s a push-back, politically, over the very things this addresses. Massive political pressure is being applied over gay marriage and abortion now, for example (and progressive taxes, and marijuana legalization, etc.), with arguments even about the GOP planks. So this is a tailor-made editorial, here.
If that’s a true assessment, we can expect more disappointment. Some old powers seem to be thinking anything “social conservatism” needs to be shaken off for the GOP to survive. It’s a terrible misunderstanding of the last election, but it might be happening.
Axe on December 13, 2012 at 9:23 PM
What’s going to happen is twofold:
First of all, as was pointed out pretty darn directly in another HA article, the older SoCons are simply going to vanish from our culture be either dying or being carted off to fogey farms.
Secondly, the obsessional SoCons (not all of them) are either going to have to face the reality that we are no longer a center-right, practicing Christian nation and change their game plan accordingly, or gradually become irrelevant. You simply can’t keep doing what USED to work decades ago and expect it to always work in a radically changed culture.
MelonCollie on December 13, 2012 at 9:28 PM
be = by. We really need an edit function.
MelonCollie on December 13, 2012 at 9:28 PM
Me, a person who actually lives conservative.
You, a person who argues progressive.
Who are we to believe knows and understands a conservative argument?
I know, I know! it is the lexhamfox who understands conservative. The one who wants regressive illiberal policies to thrive is the one who we should look to for intelligent conservative arguments.
lexhamfox argues that marriage is a mutable thing and that we should mutate it, and that is the conservative argument. MAKE IT CHANGE!
Out goes equality of opportunity and in comes equality of outcome. Such an awesome conservative argument from lexhamfox, don’t we all agree?
Society does not care what two consenting adults want to do between themselves behind closed doors. What society does care about is what happens out in public and throughout society as a whole. Men can screw women night and day and have no need to stick with just one. Women, as Fluke proves are just as much in the game of screwing around. For that to go on, society does not need any construct.
When the natural outcome of such an encounter happens though, a child, society has reason to want to ensure that child is raised in the best possible conditions so that child will not disrupt or otherwise damage the society as a whole.
Society, specifically priests, of times long past were able to see where the best children on average came from and from whence came the worst of them. In order to promote more well raised children that made the society prosper, they created marriage, and in the eyes of the church and more importantly God, you were bound to one another for LIFE, so that your children would be certain to be raised in the most beneficial home possible.
No where in their views did a fudge packer on fudge packer relationship or a muff diver on muff diver relationship ever come to the point of acceptability, let alone CEREMONY! (now there is an insult for you just in case you missed the deeply subtle style of it). Gay relationships were always considered disgusting as they should be, and are immoral throughout. Allowing them the same standing as Marriage degrades the value of the institution.
astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 9:29 PM
Your life has no purpose.
You should commit postpartum abortion.
davidk on December 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. Broadening it back out and exaggerating it to show you what it sounds like:
1. America is becoming less conservative and more progressive.
2. Conservatives must become more progressive or become irrelevant.
?
Axe on December 13, 2012 at 9:48 PM
It’s a tricky balance, and I’m TRYING very hard not to insult the majority of SoCons who do use their heads for something besides hat racks.
What I’m trying to say is, to use an analogy, they’re spinning their wheels with a 50′s tour bus while the liberals are running around with a tank – and guess who’s winning.
MelonCollie on December 13, 2012 at 9:54 PM
No one?
astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 9:56 PM
astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 9:29 PM
Meaningless personal stuff again. Progressive, regressive, blah blah blah…
The legal institution of marriage has undergone plenty of change already and it is still something we seek to have even in our modern culture.
I am arguing for freedom and equality of opportunity. You are arguing for limits, restrictions, and prohibitions in that respect.
And you still fail to make a conservative argument. Colorful but meaningless.
Yes, there is evidence that marriage is good for the economy and good for society. It’s also good for children. That is a reason to promote the legal institution of marriage. What extra meanings, rules, traditions, and ceremonies various religions want to ascribe to it is their business but they and others all still work within the framework of the civil legal institution of marriage. Religions are allowed to discriminate… government and legal institutions should not. As you yourself said, equal opportunity is a conservative value. Extending the opportunity and benefits of marriage to same sex couples is better for society and the economy. That is a conservative argument. It does not degrade heterosexual marriage in any way…. just as my identifying my position as being conservative does not degrade your position. You do that yourself.
lexhamfox on December 13, 2012 at 10:04 PM
How much of a moron are you?
Government does not discriminate? Are you freaking serious?
Making a single person pay higher taxes than a married person is discrimination.
Making a couple with no children is discrimination.
Making a person pay a higher tax bracket due to earning more money in an arbitrary period of time is discrimination.
Putting a murderer and not a Choir Boy in prison or death row is discrimination.
Giving subsidies to ethanol producers is discrimination.
In fact, there pretty much is NOTHING the government does that is NOT discriminatory.
Equal opportunity is the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex than yourself. Equal outcome is saying that just because you do not want to marry someone of the appropriate sex, we will go ahead and pay you off if you marry someone of the inappropriate sex as well. See the difference there.
Your argument boils down to: if the government offers a tax deduction for giving to charity for which you get nothing in return other than the good feelings of having helped another human being, then someone who wants to give himself a charitable big screen TV should also get the same tax break.
Your argument boils down to: If the government does not tax religious institutions which are not for profit, that someone who runs a business for profit should also not be taxed.
Your argument boils down to: If the United States of America enters into a treaty with one nation, that another nation who hates America when attacked should also be covered under the same treaty, even though they do not return in favor the same mutual defense agreement the other does.
Effectively, your argument is that nothing means what plain English translation dictates that it means. It is all just what ever each individual demands it be for their benefit.
My argument is that words have meanings, that social constructs which are beneficial should be preserved, and social constructs which are adverse should be purged.
In effect, you argue for a perpetually declining society where as I argue for one in which it is prosperous. My argument stands the test of time, your argument has only been tried in tiny little places for a little over a decade at most, and has shown a destructive ends.
If that is not conservative to you, then I will just start referring you to a dictionary and an encyclopedia.
astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 10:21 PM
There is one : The Holy Bible.
The problem comes not because gays want to make promises to each other, or covenants. The problem arises because they want the State to sanction such promises, and to legally equate them to marriage
The author uses this example:
Geo Washington removed from the service a male officer engaging in sodomist behavior.
Christians understand and generally tolerate sinners, as long as they are not required to approve or subsidize the sin, or have their children taught the sin is good. When teacher shows a picture of teacher’s ‘spouse’ and tells the kids one day you too will decide if you want to marry a male, or a female, the parents have been usurped.
Schools in gay marriage states are beginning to require books normalizing same sex marriages for little kids like Heather has Two Mommies. This is intolerable, because it sanctions sin.
Christians should speak against it. Won’t win over those who support the behavior, but those people will have a big problem with the Bible anyway. No way around what the Bible says
entagor on December 13, 2012 at 10:24 PM
Yes…President Obama of the “No One” party won 2012, among other things.
Good grief.
MelonCollie on December 13, 2012 at 10:55 PM
We don’t have a biblical legal system or form of government. I can understand if a Christian sect decides not to recognize same sex marriage. That is their right. Various Christian and other religious sects are regularly obliged to subsidize public expenditure and policies they deem to be sinful and have their children taught things they don’t believe in school. Washington threw out the officer because he violated the military law of the Continental Army. Under current military rules that could still be the result today even if he was having anal sex with his wife. Religious folk of just about every kind have to deal with educators teaching things contrary to their faith.
My argument was not that Christians need to support this. My argument is that extending marriage opportunities to same sex couples is pro-marriage and based on conservative values.
lexhamfox on December 13, 2012 at 10:59 PM
No it is not.
astonerii on December 14, 2012 at 11:59 AM