Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, May 28, 2007
Star Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Is the Christian right really the bogeyman?
by Star Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


One thing we can generally predict about human behavior is that when people are unhappy, they go on the hunt for someone to blame.

Taking a lot of heat for today's discontents is the so-called "religious right."

Just consider books, some hot sellers, of recent years: Jim Wallis' "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It"; "How the Republicans Stole Religion: Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Faith & Politics and What We Can Do to Make It Right" by Bill Press; and, more recently, Victor Gold's "Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP" and Christopher Hitchens' very subtle "god (CQ) is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."

Take your pick. The religious right is either destroying the Republican Party, the two-party system, the country or, according to Hitchens, by even having the temerity to suggest there is a Creator, and that life has rules, religious people are a danger to life itself.

Hitchens is the least of my concerns. There is no subtlety here that might seduce the uninformed. We just have the newest of a long historical procession of those who claim there is no truth (except, of course, that laid out in Hitchens' book) and that religion and morality and decency have nothing to do with each other.

Hitchens provides his own proof of the dubiousness of the latter claim with his tasteless and impolite screed about Jerry Falwell, published the instant the reverend breathed his last breath, noting that his death had "zero significance" and calling him a "credulous idiot."

What I am concerned about, however, are the more subtle attacks on the religious right, coming from the Christian left, that can have, and may be having, appeal to those who simply don't appreciate the facts.

I am talking about a distorted portrayal of conservative Christians as a detached and fanatic lot, who care only about a couple free-floating issues, abortion and sexual behavior, and who could care less about anything else going on in the country.

"Why this obsession with abortion and sexual behavior?" they ask. "How about poverty? How about the environment?"

Regarding poverty, the Rev. Wallis says, "This is the big issue of God's heart, if we take the Bible seriously." Poverty, according to Wallis, is the "silent tsunami" and "nobody pays attention to it."

Nobody pays attention to it?

Due respects to Wallis, but you just have to wonder where he has been for the last few decades.

In our own country, in the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson declared a "war on poverty." Since then, we have spent something on the order of $10 trillion under the premise that poverty is something that can be eliminated through government largesse.

Yet today, by our own standards of measuring poverty, the rate among blacks is twice the national average, and one in four blacks is poor.

How about overseas? About $3 trillion has been spent in developing countries, Africa, in particular, to fight poverty. Results? None. Virtually no impact.

One does not need to be of any particular ideology or religion to simply read and interpret facts. Rather, it can only be ideology that would cause someone to insist on a view that is inconsistent with the conclusions that facts bear out.

It is too bad that Johnson, in 1965, did not pay closer attention to what he himself understood. This is what he said then:

"The family is the cornerstone of our society. More than any other force, it shapes the attitude, the hopes, the ambitions and the values of the child. And when the family collapses, it is the children that are usually damaged. When it happens on a massive scale, the entire community itself is crippled."

Today, single-parent black families and black out-of-wedlock births are triple what they were when Johnson made these remarks at Howard University. Most sadly, and ironically, this breakdown in black families is largely attributable to the very government programs that Johnson helped put in motion.

There is no correlation that fits closer to the incidence of poverty than family breakdown.

Yet, we hear about the intolerance and mean-spiritedness of the Christian right because of its unwillingness to embrace single parenthood as a norm or sexual lifestyles and family arrangements outside of what is traditional as a norm.

Christians like to stay home and care for their families. Politics is not a natural home for these folks. Conservative Christian activism has never been a move to take over the country.

The takeover of our country has already occurred from the left. Conservative Christians just want to defend the little turf left where truth can be preserved.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Ooops!
"One thing we can generally predict about human behavior is that when people are unhappy, they go on the hunt for someone to blame."

"Most sadly, and ironically, this breakdown in black families is largely attributable to the very government programs that Johnson helped put in motion."

Yes, the above came from the same column.

Parker is unhappy and it's LBJ's fault.




BIGbelly, I hear you, but...
...I am getting increasingly alarmed by the level of antipathy being received by born-againers.

On Richard Dawkins' web site, there are posters who make stunning comments in the site's boards. Among others, these include the advocating of the "elimination" of Christians from the US.

Some ministers have been arrested in Europe who spoke out against homosexuality. Canada was apparently within inches several years back (I believe) of declaring the Bible "illegal hate speech". But the Christians there went nuts and applied sufficient political pressure to stop it.

The far-left is as intolerant as they accuse the so-called radical right of being. (Altho their definition of "radical right" is what I'd call, simply, "the right". THEY are the ones who've become radicalized, so much so that a type of political red shift has taken place, so that anyone right of center is seen as being more red than they actually are.)

I've worked with some people who make ridiculous claims about how Christians want to start WWIII in order to usher in Jesus' return. Other former co-workers have focused in on the "dangers" of Christians in the US, while actually underplaying the dangers of Islamo-fascists (ala Rosie O'Donnel). Despicable, grossly hateful and mind-numbingly ignorant. Wow. That sounds an awful lot like the terms they use to describe Evangelicals.

But my point is that there appears to be a rising danger in our country, and it's not from the right or even the far-right. Christians may have to take up arms in order to defend ourselves from outright persecution if the left gets much more radicalized and much more powerful.

You're Not The Boss Of Me Culture
The whole thing can be reduced to the cry of the toddler: "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!"

My cousins went to Israel in the early days to become enthusiastic participants in the kibbutz culture. They came home massively disillusioned, to report that people insisted on "owning" their children and taking an interest in them, as opposed to living in a faceless mob of brothers and sisters and equally parenting any child that came across their purview (or ignoring them en masse). Those people who really care about the children to whom they give birth are not going to turn them over to the State to rear and in fact are bringing them up to believe that Someone Is The Boss Of Them -- and that's what the lefties can't stand.

After forty years of screaming YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME at their parents, teachers, bosses, and other representatives of The Man -- now they have decided to shriek the same thing at The Man Himself: now it's God who's Not The Boss Of Them.

Do you hear the strains of Peter Pan's piping voice singing "I won't grow up...I dowanna go to school..."?

In the future someone will write a book called The Generation That Would Not Grow Up. And people will understand that the major premise behind all this anti-religion, anti-marriage, anti-tradition screaming is the voice of Peter Pan the eternal toddler crying YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME.

Charity
The book, "Who Really Cares" by Arthur Brooks is an oustanding summary of the differences in giving between the left and the right. Hands down, the right gives more than the left: money, time, blood, etc. The author is an economist from Syracuse Univ. and didn't believe his own data after analysis so he redid it. There is no doubt in his mind.

The problem is the left and its refusal to look at facts coupled with its control of the media. Ms. Parker is correct that the out-of-wedlock births in the black community have gone from about 25% in the 1950's-60's to orver 70% in total today, 90% in some metro areas. This is not good for anyone, regardless of color. WHen the government removes responsibility for actions, we all pay. BTW I believe white out-of-wedlock births have also increased but not nearly as much.

In 2004 I went into multiple B & N bookstores while traveling. The 'current events' section had multiple 'bash Bush' books and nothing that was pro. I wrote the top officers of B & N to point out the inflammatory displays (after having the stores tell us they got their directions from HQ). Am not sure if my letter made a difference but pro-Bush books appeared on the table later in the summer.

The bookstore people are usually lefties (along with librarians).

Christianity
The only comment here that is truly christian is written about Israel.

To Reason
I can't let you get away with this. It is fully agreed by all that LBJ and the Democrat Party pushed (and still pushes) the War on Poverty and that untold trillions have been spent on that since with not only little good results but mostly bad as pointed out by Parker. What else would you have her say but "thank you LBJ". If you can put a different spin on this, I'd like to hear it. If LBJ and his current ilk are not to blame for the worsening of the awful results in the Black community, who is? When a truthful Black like Star Parker admits this failure, I would tend to believe her. You and I may not agree politically, but surely, truth must be told or we're not even in the same ballpark.

Great article!
Spot on.

Eran is right on...
The generosity of conservatives--especially religious ones--exceeds enormously giving by the left, as has been documented over and over again. Of course, when you are talking about giving away other people's money, it's a different story.

Nice try Reason, but
Star Parker is not playing the blame game. She is merely pointing out the exorbitant price tag of LBJ's "Great Society", as well as trillions spent in Africa in response to the allegation of Jim Wallis that no one here cares about poverty.

For decades now, the left has bashed evangelicals for lacking compassion, while bloated, misguided government programs endorsed by the left have failed miserably, both here and abroad.

How not to fix a problem
Star Parker writes: "How about overseas? About $3 trillion has been spent in developing countries, Africa, in particular, to fight poverty. Results? None. Virtually no impact."

The primary cause of poverty in Third World nations is Third World governments. Check out the 2007 Index of Economic Freedom:

http://www.heritage.org/index/

Click the "Explore" selection near the top. Now highlight "Sub-Saharan Africa" in the "Country groups" scrollie window, and click the "Submit" button. Voila, you have the ranking list for Sub-Saharan African nations.

Only seven of the 39 rated nations** are in the "moderately free" range (60-69.9%). Per-capita GDP in these nations is abysmal. Ya think there's a connection?

**The Democratic Republic of Congo cannot be rated due to the "violence and chaos of recent years." The last time it was rated was in 2000, with a score of 26.4%.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?ID=CongoDemocraticRepublic


Nice try Reason, but
Star Parker is not playing the blame game. She is merely pointing out the exorbitant price tag of LBJ's "Great Society", as well as trillions spent in Africa in response to the allegation of Jim Wallis that no one here cares about poverty.

For decades now, the left has bashed evangelicals for lacking compassion, while bloated, misguided government programs endorsed by the left have failed miserably, both here and abroad.

WELL SAID NONE!
The "rising danger" to our country is NOT from the right.

The "Pagan Left?" That's a whole different story.

Here's the last paragraph from the column by Saint Star Parker. "The takeover of this country has already occurred from the left. Christians just want to defend the little turf left where truth can be preserved."

The exceptional Star Parker is right on target!

The takeover of the public school system, the entertainment industry, the media and the prevailing culture has already occurred. In all cases, Traditional Americans have lost or are just barely holding on. What has happenend to the country is beyond comprehension. The divide seems overwhelming. We've had worse times, but the moral backbone of the country pulled us through. It's different now.

The "turf left where truth can be preserved." I'm not optimistic, but I pray the turf expands. America stands in dire need of it.

THE COUNTRY IS WORSE OFF AND THE CHURCH
Star Parker is right in saying that all these government "anti-poverty" programs have done nothing to reduce poverty.

Anti-drug programs have not reduced drug use whatsoever.

Gun laws, blatantly unconstitutional, have not reduced violence.

What these have done is to increase the size, scope and power of government, and make politicians and bureaucrats look important and boost their exorbitant salaries.

Conservative Christian involvement in government has only made things worse.

Please see my own blog essay about this subject: _How the Bush Administration is Destroying Our Country and Damaging the Christian Church_.

http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com

No impact with aid? Not on your life!
One point where Star Parker is wrong is that aid to Africa and Asia has had a great impact--in perpetuating and expanding extant cultures of corruption. Many elites in those countries think in terms of getting largesse from outside rather than fostering the creative energies of their own populations.

The Blame Game
"One thing we can generally predict about human behavior is that when people are unhappy, they go on the hunt for someone to blame".

So who does the Christian Right blame? Let me count the ways...

The ACLU
MoveOn.Org
Democrates
Atheists
Communists
Environmentalists
Peace Activists
Muslims
Catholics
Non-Christians
Abotionists
Gays
The Media
Academics
Evolutionists
Hollywood

Remember - According to Jerry Falwel, these groups caused 9/11.

Inviting controversy repels...
As Christians, we should never invite controversy when it comes to being an ambassador for the Christian faith. By doing so, we have a tendency to alienate those who do not know Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. If someone does not understand the truth found in the “Gospel” it only makes sense for them to follow the logic taught by “secular humanist” which dominates mainstream thinking in U.S. today…We need to more compassionate towards those who do not understand this truth!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

The Apostle Paul was called to deliver the “Gospel” to the Gentiles and understood the importance of having his priorities straight. He wrote in his letter to the Church of Corinth (1 Corinthians 15:2-4) the following truth; “For what I received I passed on to you (fellow Christians) as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. Paul also understood the thinking of those who do not know Christ. In verse 18 he writes; “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” Paul knew the importance of making friends and building trust before he shared the “Gospel”. In 1 Corinthians 9:22 he writes; “To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.”

In summary, it should not surprise Christians when we observe the reactions of those who don’t know Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. The message of the cross is “foolishness” to them. The only way a person can understand the mindset of a Christian is for that person have a personal relationship with Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is when the light is turned on in the heart, mind and soul of unbelievers and now for the first time they can clearly see the deceptions and lies they formally believed to be fact.
Please, as a brother in Christ, I give the following rebuke in love to my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to stop bad mouthing those who do not understand Spiritual matters. As the Apostle Paul said; “First things first preach the Gospel”.

“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8)

Tom Randolph
Winter Park, FL


Stedes - is D'Souza the Christian Right?
Your list matches up pretty well with his latest book, with the exception of Catholics. While I don't agree those groups are "responsible" for 9/11, I will say they are the ones most likely to be wringing their hands about "Why They Hate Us" without looking in a mirror.

A tip for "Reason" and "stedes"
It would bring you a world of enlightenment to find and read a book titled "Losing Ground", written about 15 years ago by Charles Murray.
(yes, THAT Charles Murray!)

In it you will learn details of the catastrophe imposed on our culture, and especially on the Black sector, by Johnson's Great Society legislation. Pay special attention to the index, which is chock full of statistics to illustrate his point.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. The facts are there, and they are painfully obvious and irrefutable.

Poverty v Ambition
Ms. Parker is correct about the Great Society farce by LBJ. The entitlements destroyed the family as a whole and created generations of children producing children who are uneducated and therefore can only qualify for menial jobs that pay much less than what the government pays them not to work. THERE IS NO AMBITION...consequently the spiral continues. DOWNWARD.

somebonus
Father's Day is coming up. How long will young black kids have to address their cards "To whom it may concern?"

entitlements
The reason LBJ's war did not work is simple.If you are offered the same amount of money not to work why the hell would you work.Human nature.Some poeople need help and some don't,but the war on poverty did not differetiate those people.

Blaming Liberals
BeeBee

"While I don't agree those groups are "responsible" for 9/11, I will say they are the ones most likely to be wringing their hands about "Why They Hate Us" without looking in a mirror".

Not sure of your point. Are you agreeing with Rev Falwel? Sounds to me like you are blaming liberals.

Liberalism is a relative term. Most mainstream American Conservatives support equal rigthts for woman and freedom of religion where people can freely choose their religious beliefs. Conservatives enjoy dancing - men and woman together. These views are far too radical and too liberal for Muslim Fundementalists.

troglodyte

Not sure what my list of blame has to do with poverty...?

Next to last paragraph
"Christians like to stay home and care for their families. Politics is not a natural home for these folks. Conservative Christian activism has never been a move to take over the country."

If it weren't for this paragraph, the article is sort of a no brainer.

From Jerry Flawell on, there has been a HUGE movement in this country by the religious, conservative right to take over this country for the last three decades. It started with Reagan.


Parker's article.

Star is right on.

Jim Wallis stumbled (and badly) in his book, "God's Politics". That was Jim's politics.

Wallis couldn't even get the title right. He claims that the Right gets it wrong and that the Left doesn't get it. Oh, but the mainstream Right does get it - especially with the poor, as other posters have accurately pointed out.

But here is the real shocker... the Left "also" gets it. But the Left is in open and active rebellion, because it wants it all its own way and does not want to be judged - for anything. Why do you think they push things like political correctness, relativism and deconstructionism on everyone? How else could they possibly try to win their arguments? Sad indeed.

And LBJ's "war" on poverty caused unspeakable pain and suffering and absolutely shredded the black inner city family - as the black male was made dipensible by a government check. It robbed people of their self-reliance, their hopes and their dreams. But mostly, it robbed them of their very dignity as human beings. Absolutely shameful.

And as for the Christian Right wanting a theocracy - truly absurd. They just want a seat at the table of public dicourse... just like everyone else.

Star Parker, you must be a real thorn in the side of so many in the black community - like Jesse and Alan and Julian and...

You go girl.

Star
Absolutely NAILED IT!

Stedes
"The ACLU, Communists, Move on.Org, Democrats, and athiests? HELL, thats all one group, THE FAR WRONG!
Also, you err in trying to lump conservative Muslims in with the religious right. Islamic doctrine is totalitarian, there is no room for dissent or even free agency. It is no wonder that most Muslims are Democrats; and that's a FACT.

PARKER'S STILL LICKING BOOTS
Why shouldn't I be surprised that an article meant to attack the Christian left eventually morphs into an indictment of black culture and African nations? It's simple. Star Parker wrote it.

Please, no responses challenging me about the accuracy of Parker's assertions. I already know she's correct. But illegitamcy in the white community has also risen, though you'd never know it by reading Parker's columns, and European nations are notorious for their secularism.

We'll, at least Star killed two birds with one stone today by appealing to two disenfranchised groups. White people (roughly 70% of U. S. population) and Christians (roughly 76 percent self-identified in U. S.) really have it tough.

Clarity
Parker states with great clarity the religious divide in this nation.

It is not secularism, the religious neutrality that protects religious liberty and allows religion to flourish.

It is not even the minor voice of atheism--"Hitchens is the least of my concerns." she says.

It is as she says: "What I am concerned about, however, are the more subtle attacks on the religious right, coming from the Christian left, that can have, and may be having, appeal to those who simply don't appreciate the facts."

This religious divide has a long history. It comes to us from Europe in the form of Pilgrims who came here to escape religious intolerance and in turn impose their own. We see it in the early evangelists who sided with Jefferson against preachers who foresaw doom in excluding God from our Constitution. And again in those who used the Bible to support slavery and those who used it to support abolition. And yet again we saw this divide in the sectarian debate that drove prayer out of public schools. And we see it now in debate over which social Bible to follow, Johnson's, which Parker refers to--or social "conservatism" which she omits.

And it continues with Parker, with unwitting irony, blaming the Christian left for blaming the Christian right.

Star-- Good onya!!
Too many people do not face the fact that when you take away a father's responsibility to support and care for his children--well that ends the chances for those kids to grow up with a normal healthy respect of... anything. And it is a miracle when somehow, some of them do turn out well.
I know a family who consists of 4 half-black kids from one mother who refused to go to court or anywhere to collect support from the man she never married. So her kids grow up in poverty--and when she does marry a white man, she refuses to allow him to be a partner in discipline. Oh, well--she does not understand discipline for her kids--- so how long before they go to jail ??? Sadly, not long.
This kind of ignorance just gets promoted on and on--(thanks LBJ)-- and of course if Shrillary is elected then the mess goes on and on with gettin' those little boogers before kindergarten and inducting into their little brains that I deserve all I can get.
Well on and on, ad infinitum, AD NAUSEUM--the left has one goal--to destroy the America that we over 65 remember as a wonderful place to grow up and to live. Please---- God---please restore our America.

DogJudge
I am probably a lot older than you and most of the controversies we now view as right vs left didn't even exist when I was a kid. The entire country could have been classified as "the religious right" using todays standards.
The problem is not the religious right trying to take over, it is the religious right trying to preserve a little bit of what made this country great in the first place. Some of you have moved so far to the left you think that the religious right is anyone to the right of Michael Moore!

No Kidding!
Yes! She has it nailed down and Scott, the left, the MSM and Democratic Party go a bit a nuts when a Black Conservative speaks. The Black vote belongs to them and there should be no discussion, Dems. say. They take every single Black vote for granted in this country.

So every time someone like Star stands up and states, "No. You do not speak for me. My beliefs are not the same as yours," the Dems. shake in their boots.

Larry Elder. Star Parker. Thomas Sowell. Walt Williams. And others, too. These are the people who have a profound and great message for all Americans. Give them half the airtime the Jackson/Sharpton crowd receive and the country would be far better off. But we know who controls the MSM.

explain Bush then....
Then Parker should also be the first to condemn BUSH policies when it comes to the expansion of government into private lives...and corporate welfare and influence.

Bush's writing checks has far exceeded LBJ's, which was decades and decades ago.

I agree that black people had work to do in their own right. I agree that when it comes to the issues of economic empowerment through spending discipline, preventing the consequences of casual and irresponsible sex, and respect for education- blacks could ill afford to have less discipline like the rest of the country.


However, when it comes to the economic policies of THE great LIBERAL President, Bush- the masses and masses of ready slave labor illegally here in the US, and the lack of loyality to his own nation and citizens, DESPITE taking an oath for our support and security- the blame is well deserved for Bush.

He could have drawn a line, and shown he had the stones to turn around damaging liberal policies.

But he doesn't.
Since he's the one wielding the club, it's him who should be blamed.
Him and who he's hired to work things into the configurations he planned or supported.


Tom
Great response.
Poverty has always been around and it's not going anywhere. Yes, I agree it is getting worse. The only relief one can get from poverty is to turn their life over to Christ. I'm not talking about monetary poverty, I'm talking about spiritual poverty.
As for monetary poverty, that has always been around also. The governments of this world can never make it better. Tossing money at it only makes the smaller governments richer. Ex. Russia. We sent food, monies etc., it never went to the intended.
I think if the traditional family values were as important to all, not just Christians, that would help a lot of this country's ills.Getting back to God and His teachings in His Book, The Bible.
Making a government larger never helps anything. Look at how it brought the fall of many a nation in the Bible. When Israel wanted kings , like everyone else, look what happened to them. Disobedience to God is the down fall of all,whether man or government.
Both sides have their ills. One side has no hope because they leave God the Creator out. The other, due to willful sin and not remembering what we've been taught of God.As saved we know as fact "none doeth good" this is lost and saved alike. We, as saved, fall into sin just like the lost. This difference is we KNOW it is sin. The Lost need Christ, thats what we need to be mindful of ALL the time.

Backlash to legislating morality
The problem, IMHO, is that the Christian Right has moved from protecting traditional values from big government to trying to legislate traditional (and other) values via big government. The backlash the article mentioned is from freedom-loving people, including many Christians, who don't believe our values come from the government.

For example, Focus on the Family has worked to ban Internet poker, when gaming (especially skill-based gaming) isn't even mentioned as a sin in the Bible. I enjoy playing a fun game of poker after work. There’s nothing immoral or sinful about it. Seems Dobson is inventing his own values, based on things that "sound" Christian-like to him. Well, many people don't see this as a legitimate function of the Federal government. Freedom-lovers everywhere are pushing back.

It's time for real Republicans to take the party back. Limited government is just that. There's nothing conservative about big government, regardless of how much one loves the laws it passes.

wally
Thank you for your words of wisdom.

I don't know who is older.

Keep in mind that I served in the Air Force from '67 to '71

reply to TheEngineer
When conservatives praise "limited government," they are praising a theory, an imaginative picture of a world we don't really live in. When conservatives get into government, they discover what every ideological movement discovers--left, right, or whatever--that they can attempt to implement their agenda by means of government power. All they need to do is find or develop a suitable constituency for that agenda. Then the folks in power give that constituency benefits (material or not) in exchange for support. Support allows the ideological group in office to expand the power of government in the hope of generating still more support from, or further expanding their constituency. That's how it works, and why "big government" conservatism is merely the necessary consequence of conservatives in office. The core constituency of the Republican party is the Christian right, and what benefits them benefits the party by returning Republicans to office.

My advice, by the way, to Republicans worried about the likely impact of the war in Iraq on the 2008 election is very simple: ramp up the religious/moral issues that grab the core constituency of the party, start talking a lot about gays, abortion, prayer, God, evolution, and the like, and watch those votes roll in on election night.

The Engineer
"The problem, IMHO, is that the Christian Right has moved from protecting traditional values from big government to trying to legislate traditional (and other) values via big government."

Are you serious or is this some kind of joke? Working to ban internet poker? Who gives a rip about internet poker? What about gay marriage? That was NEVER VOTED FOR by Americans, it was legislated into existance. Where were you for that one? What about suing to get the ten commandments removed from a courtroom instead of voting? What about suing to keep kids from praying at school on their own? What about indoctrinating our kids into an absolute tolerance agenda without telling the parents? Do you even care about issues that America is really concerned about or are you mad b/c someone attacked your internet poker? Skill based gaming....what a joke.....

Solo610
"Who gives a rip about internet poker?"

A lot of us. Ask former Rep. Jim Leach. We voted him out for his attempts to infringe on our freedom. The attempted "ban" serves to deomonstrate the resolve of the current big-government conservative movement to legislate values.

I see this issue as symbolic of the excesses of the "new" socially-conservative big government Republican Party.

"What about gay marriage? That was NEVER VOTED FOR by Americans, it was legislated into existance. Where were you for that one?"

You seem to assume the federal government possesses our rights, then gives them to us via legislative action. Actually, it's the other way. We possess our rights and give them to the government for mutual benefits that come with orderly society. As such, gays don't have to get permission to marry when there is no legislation. Rather, in order to outlaw it, legislation has to be passed against it. As there is no federal law in this area, it's up to the states, where it probably belongs. The voters in MA had a choice to pass a constitutional amendment against it, but they didn't.

Where was I? Nowhere. It doesn't really bother me. It doesn't threaten my heterosexual lifestyle, nor does it impact my heterosexual 15-year long (so far) first, last, and only marriage.

Seems you enjoy dictating your personal opinions via federal law. Americans are moving in a different direction.

"What about suing to get the ten commandments removed from a courtroom instead of voting? What about indoctrinating our kids into an absolute tolerance agenda without telling the parents?"

That's an unfortunate outcome of our public school system. I advocate a voucher-based system by which our children can go to faith-based schools of their choice. We should work for that outcome. You won't find a bigger opponent of the public school system in its current form than I.

"Do you even care about issues that America is really concerned about"

Yes, I am. Do you know what issues those might be? I ask because you didn't mention any of them in your post.

"Skill based gaming....what a joke....."

Poker is a game of skill. I'm capable of winning. I should have freedom to play, especially as most other nations allow their citizens this freedom. Just because you don’t care doesn’t mean no one else does.

du
Think you're exactly right, blame Bush in the same breath LBJ is blamed. It's just that Bush's social Gospel is acceptable to the Christian right and LBJ's to the Christian left.

Now where's that one true Scotsman who would never put sugar in his porridge?

to Gestell
"The core constituency of the Republican party is the Christian right"

Disagree. It may be NOW, but it hasn't been historically. The Christian Right was ONE of many constituencies until just a couple of years ago. Limited-government types like me were happy with this arrangement, as we all wanted to protect traditional values FROM big government.

This paradigm switch of promoting Dobson’s values through big government may make you happy, but it remains to be seen if you can keep a majority of Americans with this strategy. I personally don't think it can be done, as last year's election results showed.

Enemies
Ms. Parker is right as far as her thesis is concerned. Many people need an enemy. You might not have noticed but the culture wars didn't exist until the fall of communism. Without the Russians to hate, people moved on to gays and lesbians. Oh, well. At least no one in this situation has nucleur weapons.

Engineer says it all
"Where was I? Nowhere. It doesn't really bother me. It doesn't threaten my heterosexual lifestyle, nor does it impact my heterosexual 15-year long (so far) first, last, and only marriage. "

In this quote you say it all. All you are worried about it what impacts you as of this very moment. You are so worried about letting the governement know that "you cant tell me what to do" that you dont care what gets voted in, as long as you can do what you want. Homosexual marriage is a very good example of this. Some liberal judge decided he knew what was best for the rest of us instead of letting us vote. Where do you get the federal government telling us what to do out of that? I am of the opinion that people should be able to vote for what they want. This may not always turn out in my favor on certain issues but at least it will be fair. I have had it with judges declaring all kinds of stuff to be unconsitutional. Its ridiculous that one man on a bench should be allowed to decide what is best for a whole state. You want less government involvement? Lets have that at every level, state and federal.



Engineer
"The core constituency of the Republican party is the Christian right"

Disagree. It may be NOW, but it hasn't been historically."

By todays standards the entire nation 50 years ago would have fit very well into the definition of Christian Right. It was always there, it just never needed to be defined. Im just trying to hold onto a little slice of America before it all gets declared unconstitutional and legislated out. I cannot help but think we are moving in the direction of Plato's Republic. Maybe one day we will not be allowed to know our own children lest we favor or think more highly of one than another? This is not a slam on you engineer, really.. Maybe, in the end, its that we are both tired of the government sticking their corrupted noses where they do not belong.

Gestell
"When conservatives praise "limited government," they are praising a theory, an imaginative picture of a world we don't really live in."

Actually, it's not a theory. It is exactly what our Constitution embodies. The reason it isn't the "picture of a world we don't really live in", is because we have allowed our public servants to operate contrary to their oath of office to defend the Constitution.
-------------

"When conservatives get into government, they discover what every ideological movement discovers--left, right, or whatever--that they can attempt to implement their agenda by means of government power."

If they do this, then they have totally forgotten their conservative principles, because conservatism has everything to do with the Founders' intent of the Constitution and denounces BIG government statism. In other words, they have gone over to the dark side, along with all the other statists.
-------------

-snip-
"That's how it works, and why "big government" conservatism is merely the necessary consequence of conservatives in office. The core constituency of the Republican party is the Christian right, and what benefits them benefits the party by returning Republicans to office."

It most certainly is not necessary, nor is it conservative. Let's call it what it is... statism. It is the same very thing that we justly rail against the liberals for advancing.

There is no such thing as "big government conservatism". If you're for BIG government, regardless of the lofty reasons, you are not a conservative. Period. Remember the concepts of small government and why we believed it to be necessary for a free people and our liberty? If not, try to remember. It wasn't so long ago.
-------------

"My advice, by the way, to Republicans worried about the likely impact of the war in Iraq on the 2008 election is very simple: ramp up the religious/moral issues that grab the core constituency of the party, start talking a lot about gays, abortion, prayer, God, evolution, and the like, and watch those votes roll in on election night.""

This may work. Don't know. But, don't fool yourself that you are furthering conservative principles.

Ron Paul was right. The Republican party truly has lost its way.

Solo
"This is not a slam on you engineer, really.. Maybe, in the end, its that we are both tired of the government sticking their corrupted noses where they do not belong."

Yes, we agree there 100%. For me, it seems we had one party that LOVED government and everything it could do, and another party that was suspicious of big government. Our party professed to believe the government that governed best governed least. Now, the Republican Party supports and endorses big government. While it may seem okay now, the power we're giving the government can't be good for any of us who care about freedom, be it religious or personal.

Identifying the threat…

The American left has exposed themselves as totalitarians in search of power. Imagine if they had the power to implement their vision of the world. They have identified the religious right as the group to demonize. Do we need to draw the historical parallels?

This is the way it works out when men reject the gospel as the foundation of liberty; liberty in the spiritual realm as well as the physical. Personal freedom and social order under the rule of law is not the fruit of totalitarianism. With all her faults America has enjoyed unparalleled greatness for a reason. It is not who we are as a people, but what we believe that has made the difference among the nations. The Scriptures say that ‘as a man thinks, so is he’. As a nation the consensus of what we believe determines what we are.

Will we as a people reject the vain philosophies that lead to destruction? Will we return to the doctrines of Biblical Christianity that gave us the rule of law, limited government and personal responsibility based on the knowledge of a sovereign God who is not mocked, but ‘works all things after the council of His own will’?

The elites will not learn from history. They are given over to self-deception, believing that they know better. If they were in control, then peace and prosperity would cover the earth. But first, they must rid themselves of those who lack their vision.

In America the people still have the power to rise up and throw these usurpers and their enablers out of office and out of influence. Pray that as a people we will be able to discern the real source of our liberty so that we can easily identify its real threats.


TheEngineer
"Our party professed to believe the government that governed best governed least. Now, the Republican Party supports and endorses big government. While it may seem okay now, the power we're giving the government can't be good for any of us who care about freedom, be it religious or personal."

WELL SAID!

stedes

I take it you are O.K. with all the groups you are claming the Christian right blames?

to ValiantForTruth
Well said. You want traditional values, and you know you can't get them from the Federal government. Limited government works best.

With the limited government, libertarian-right, paleoconservative Republicans on board, we'll have an unbeatable majority, by which we'll have presidents like Ronald Reagan. Without us, the Republicans will be in the minority and we'll have presidents like Hillary Clinton. Which is better for traditional values?

Everyone: Vote for freedom. Tell your Republican congressman that they don't have to legislate everything they personally oppose. So-called big government conservatism isn't conservative. It's statist, and giving power to the state is a loser for freedom.

AUDIR10
Exactly Right!!
Your post (7:11) was excellent.

Uhh, Ken...
What have gays and lesbians to do with the article or the posts? This is about the tendency to want to blame someone, and the sad fact is that it is not just the left that wants to heap scorn on the "religious right". Open a discussion at this very site and watch how many "moderates" or "libertarian" leaning conservatives open up with both barrells on the big, bad Christians. I have heard other conservatives accuse Christians of trying to purge the GOP, wanting to see gays and lesbians killed, all sorts of wild accusations...and this from the right, no less!

BTW, I have new content on the blog. All are invited to stop by, read, and comment!

I'm not sure
but it seems to me that Engineer's point about "Republican congressmen...legislate everything they personally oppose" is a shade less than honest. I smell a pro-abortion viewpoint. Fine, but be honest about it. For the record, I too believe in limited gov't. But given the status quo it isn't going to happen and I believe the gov't will in fact expand even more. That is its nature, unless restrained by people who are morally courageous enough to not try to be-or give-all things to all people. But it isn't going to grow in the direction of protecting us from real threats from within or without, rather, it will go in the direction of the Kyoto treaty (that's been brought up again-God help us all if the Dems retain Congress and gain the WH as well), the Children's Bill of Rights, HillaryCare, universal daycare as well (known now as universal pre-k "school" and proposed by who else but HC) etc. That to me is far more frightening than telling a teenage couple they will simply have to accept the responsibility of caring for, or putting out for adoption, the life they have inadvertently created.

Okay, AliveInHim
Wow, where's you come up with me being pro-abortion? For the record, I'm pro-life, but I can't for the life of me figure out where you came up with that. So many social conservatives cannot believe there are good, moral people who don't support passing laws regulating people's personal behavior.

Defending our way of life doesn't require the Federal government to pass laws on individuals' behaviors. In fact, it calls for just the opposite.

TheEngineer
"Our party professed to believe the government that governed best governed least. Now, the Republican Party supports and endorses big government. While it may seem okay now, the power we're giving the government can't be good for any of us who care about freedom, be it religious or personal."

As well said as PJ O'Rourke's "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

Or Goldwater's "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have."


Dangerous Christians
I speak with many different types of people in my line of work and I have met those that feel Christians are the blame for everything. I guess it's those evil ten commandments and their believing in them. You know the part about "Thou shalt no kill" and what have you. Their rules is what makes them so dangerous. Christians are now being traditionally depicted as being whackos that are dangerous to others. Those on the left are starting to talk about Christians the way the Nazis talked about Jews.

To Tom, about Paul
I think you must be reading a different Bible than the one I read.... Paul, the Apostle, was run out of Damascus, was sent away out Jerusalem because of a plot on his life, had a run-in with a man named Bar-Jesus in Cyprus, was kicked out of Antioch, escaped from a plot on his life in Iconium, was stoned in in Lystra, faced down Peter in Jerusalem, imprisoned in Phillipi, attacked and run out of town in Thessalonica, involved in a riot in Corinth, chased out of Ephesus, had a plot on his life in Jerusalem the third time he was there, and was jailed and ultimately sent to Rome.

Here is what Acts says about Paul:

"....he (Paul) went ?in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. And he spoke and disputed against ?the Hellenists. But ?they were seeking to kill him. And when the brothers learned this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.
So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. Acts 9:28ff, ESV

When did the Church at Jerusalem have peace? When Paul LEFT.

Perhaps reading the ENTIRE Bible would be more useful than reading just a couple of nice verses, and ignoring the rest.

:-)

Russ

Brujo Blanco
"I speak with many different types of people in my line of work and I have met those that feel Christians are the blame for everything. I guess it's those evil ten commandments and their believing in them....Christians are now being traditionally depicted as being whackos that are dangerous to others."

Maybe these coworkers have issues only with certain fundamentalists who wish to legislate their ideas of faith through Congress. Believing in the Ten Commandments isn't the same as trying to force them on everyone else.

To Russ and eveyone who does not know me
Like Jesus, you will never see me be critical of anyone who does not carry the banner of Christ. I will, however, get in the face of certain people who claim to be Christians and are critical of those who do not understand Spiritual things. You never saw Jesus (including Billy Graham for this matter) get involved in Politics. We are called to be imitators of Christ. The times Jesus got angry and in your face was with His peers (fellow Jews, "Christians" was an unknown word at the time) and never the sinners (lost) of this world. He has been described as the "Great Sheppard" searching for His lost sheep. As Christians, we need to keep our priorities straight. First things first, preach the good news of Christ. Once a person comes to a saving knowledge of Christ then they will clearly see the errors of their ways. Being critical only chases potential Christians away from the cross of Christ. Where we spend eternity is far more important than the future of the U.S.

God has called me to preach to the Church (the future Bride of Christ) and not those who do not claim to be Christian. You can be sure I will be a constant thorn in the side of those that carry the banner of Christ and are critical of the lost in this world. I will be relentless on this website to the self-righteous who claim to be Christian until they come to terms with their hypocrisy. Like Jesus, I have zero tolerance towards hypocrites. And so do people from the outside looking in to find validity in the message of the Cross.

For all of you who continue to be put down by these ‘self proclaimed’ Christians, I will be your advocate to help you understand the true nature of Christ and His love for you.

My prayer is for the lost sheep in this world. Like a good Sheppard , I will leave the flock to save one lost sheep. Jesus said; “If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them wanders away, what will he do? Won’t he leave the ninety-nine others on the hills and go out to search for the one that is lost?” This Bible verse is found in Matthew Chapter 18 verse 12.

Tom

P.S. You may refer to me as the Contender from not on….



About the Christian Right
The Christian Right was never truly a 'constituent' of any party until fairly recently. Why?
Because what we now call the 'Christian Right' was once the prevalent outlook in America. I'm only 37, and even I can remember the difference.

Quite a few people (especially younger folks) pretend or do not understand that America was ever different than it is now. The truth is that the principles of the Christian Right are not swelling towards takeover... they are receding to the point that they are becoming a minority view.

One other thing: it is in IRAN, not the U.S., in which the relgious conservatives are trying to censor text messages (look it up).

State Religion
To the extent the "religious right" pushes a defacto state religion, they are evil. that's right, evil. No more. No less. To me, what this country stands for is religious freedom, not religious authoritarianism. Ultimately I believe there has to be a sense of religious autonomy coupled with an equivalent sense of moral and civic responsibility. In Buddhist terms, a "Middle Way."

In response to Tom
"Like Jesus, you will never see me be critical of anyone who does not carry the banner of Christ."

Tom, I very much agree that behaving in intentionally provoking ways is counterproductive to winning souls to Christ.

Just as long as we remember this: Christ never pretended that sin was okay. Remember his handling of the woman taken in adultry: he sent away the crowd who thought to enact punishment, then told the woman 'Go and sin no more'. If we don't inform people of God's moral requirements, we do them no favor. The trick is to inform out of love, rather than out of self-righteousness. And remember this: some people will be offended no matter how gentle you are, because what really annoys them is the notion that *anyone* dares to tell them that their actions are wrong, or that an authority higher than themselves exists.

DogJudge
Well, we have something in common. I graduated from Air Force pilot training in 1955.
In reading through other posts I see that most of us actually agree on some major points. 1. We don't want a state religion. instead of talking about the "Christian Right" we need to be "big tent" enough to include other religious people with similar values; example: observant Jews Buddhists and even some Muslims (although Islam is by nature a totalitarian religion). I have associated with people all over the world and find that most of us have a great deal in common. Although I myself am a Christian, our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they stipulated that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion". 2. That government governs best that governs least. We need to resist the temptation to demand a law to control every thing we personally disagree with. That is the lefties way of dealing with things. They just have a different list of pet projects. One of the most contentious subjects is that of abortion. I am decidedly pro-life but the question has to be asked: When does an embryo or fetus become a person WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAW. Until that time arrives, it is the personal property of the woman carrying it. If she wants to go to hell for aborting it, God has given her freedom of choice to do so. After that time, It is a person with rights under the constitution (subordinate to the mothers right to life but rights none the less) but the politicians who want to use this as a wedge issue, won't ask that all important question. 3. We want our borders honored. If someone wants in, let them knock at the front door instead of sneaking through a window.

The "Reason" is Wrong
How you came up with the false notion that Star Parker is: 1)unhappy and 2)looks for someone to blame...you've lost me on that one.

She laid out the facts she has obviously observed and researched.

What, in particular, did she say that you refute? I'll assume we are all open to a different viewpoint and would like to hear yours.

Tom
Blah,blah,blah. Why don't you go and read the parts of the Bible that beseech us to defend Christianity and God. If someone doesn't want to believe in God then that is their right, however they do not have the right to force that lack of belief on myself and the majority of the country. This is a war started and egged on by the MSM and the left. If the Evangelicals decided the Dems were the party for them then this so called war would not exist and atheists would once again be drummed out of society. But since they didn't the left declared war on Christianity, not all religion, just Christianity. They'll worship their false religions of course, so be it, and they'll appease the Muslims because they are afraid of them and so far the Muslims have done a fine job of talking out both sides of their mouth and telling them what they want to hear. In the meantime, I'll fight on for God and Christianity, and no, I will not hide my light under a bushel.

Buddhist Ghost
Your an idiot. Just the fact your allowed to practice buddhism means the right isn't pushing any state religion. You assume everyone on the right practices the same version of Christianity. They don't. Try doing your own thinking (put down the pipe) and stop letting others do it for you.

Wally
NO ONE can present an honest rebuttal of your words. Christians are not on the warpath to take over or indoctrinate our country.

To the contrary, we, and especially those who have been around quite a few years, have witnessed the gradual but steady decline of the values upon which our country survived and thrived.

Through ignorance or a twisted defense of their own selfishness and greed, those who have bought into the "me first" mentality are too self-centered or stupid to recognize that THEY are responsible for the upheaval our country is enduring.

Don't blame Christians. We are simply trying to hold onto, recover, the overall qualities of the very people whose efforts provided everyone here with a glorious country to call their own.

I suggest the troublemakers choose to spit on everything and everyone who came before them, including those who fought and those who gave their lives to keep their America a great country.

In response to LoLo
It is impossible to force ANY belief on anybody. Atheists can no more compel you or I to adopt their beliefs than you or I could compel them to believe in Christ.

The real issue is freedom of speech: some (certainly not all) atheists insist that Christians 'keep their beliefs to themselves' or 'practice their religion behind closed doors', thus limiting freedom of expression.
We should not reciprocate, nor should we give in to their demands.
And since some atheists will do their best to prevent our children learning about God in any forum that they control, we must do our best to teach Christian beliefs to our children.


wally
"When does an embryo or fetus become a person WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAW?"

Wouldn't the answer to the question be most accurately determined by the medical community, and not the law? Saying this, I seriously doubt that anyone will be able to prove the precise moment when an embrlo becomes a "human being".
Do you believe that's possible?

In fact, it has not been proven. Therefore, what right have we to decide a day, week or month when we can be certain that a "person" is not being murdered?

Because we really DON'T know, and the life of a unique individual MAY have begun at conception, I believe we have no right to risk the killing of an individual who is totally separate from all of us, including it's mother and father.

Murder is not only against the laws of God; it's also against our legal system.

The claim that a woman has rights over her own body in order to justify abortion makes no logical sense. First of all, when a fetus is conceived, it's innately separate from it's parents.

Secondly, what reputable doctor would remove part of a woman's body, for no medical reason, just because a demented woman asked for that?

No. Women and men DO NOT have complete control over their own bodies, in a normal sense.


In response to Wally
"When does an embryo or fetus become a person WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAW"

It used to be lawful for men to physically discipline their wives. The majority's view of that practice changed over time, and the law changed to reflect it.
It used to be lawful for people to own slaves. The majority's view of that practice changed, too... to the extent that some made war on others to compel change.

The law reflects only what the majority considers right. If the law's definition of 'personhood' changed tomorrow to include 'fetuses' as persons (thus rendering abortion illegal), would you still tout the authority of the Law?
The Law states that gays in the military 'don't tell' or else be kicked out. I support that law; do you?

Burning witches
C.S. Lewis observed that we did not stop burning witches because society decided that this was a bad thing to do -- in fact, it is a good thing to do -- but because we (society) decided that in fact there were no witches.

Christianity in all its forms is or ought to be able to adjust itself to a changing world view and so ought atheists, Sixties Hippies, and smug-faced college girls who have no idea that forty years ago Society would not have allowed them to major in Engineering because nobody would ever hire them for a job in that field anyway. We did not decide to allow girls to be engineers because the world changed, but because our view of the world changed.

Back when people used to sit around college dorms and talk philosophy (usually with no life experience to draw upon) there was a question for debate that went like this: "What if you could bring about a perfect society at the cost of knowing that one child was being permanently subject to torture to keep it so?" Nowadays when you can see children being tortured on internet websites, I daresay that question would be easier to answer. Our viewpoint frequently changes when we get life experience to build upon. Christianity and other religions give us the foundation but Christ Himself expected us to use the brains God gave us to apply His teachings to reality.

Taking personal responsibilty...
for our actions is powerfully liberating. It sets you free to accept both good and bad times. It is not the same thing as being liberal.

In LBJ's program personal responsibility was ignored and that is why it has failed. The war on drugs has ignored personal responsibility and that is why it has failed.

If you want a successful program it has to reinforce personal responsibility. But government want more dependency so it chooses to ignore personal rsponsibility.

A true test for government should be demanding 100% of the eligible voters cast a ballot on each election or the results are thrown out and the government grinds to a halt. Would our country fall apart because the government stopped? NO! The police and firemen fuctions would still be performed because they are necessary. They are a big part of personal responsibility.

Eran
"BTW I believe white out-of-wedlock births have also increased but not nearly as much."

In the time black illegitimacy went from 25-30% to roughly 75%, white illegitimacy went from about 5% to about 30%. Rep Moynahan rightly recognized at the time that 30% was a crisis that could not be sustained and would undermine civil society. He and Johnson simply got the solutions terribly wrong.



Jefferson, God, and Religious Freedom
Here is Jefferson's own rationale for writing religious liberty into our law... it wasn't because of secularism, theism, agnosticism, or concern that religious people/God/religion/the Bible/etc would have too much influence on society. Most liberals today would wail that Jefferson was to the right of Falwell and attempting to "take over the country." Jefferson had three accomplishments put on his tombstone- author of the Declaration of Independence, Founder of the University of Virginia, and the author of this:

VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

[Sec. 1] Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

Jefferson's telling
... anti-liberal statement:

"that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;"

Why do liberals believe they have a right to "compel a man to furnish contributions of money" to support evolution, abortion, "art", NPR, PBS, welfare, gov't healthcare, etc, etc, etc?

These thing are clearly and plainly a contradiction to my religious conviction.

Wally
"Until that time arrives, it is the personal property of the woman carrying it. If she wants to go to hell for aborting it, God has given her freedom of choice to do so. After that time, It is a person with rights under the constitution (subordinate to the mothers right to life but rights none the less) but the politicians who want to use this as a wedge issue, won't ask that all important question."

I mostly agree with you except that this would be the only case when we "assumed" something with a healthy metabolism for its stage of development was not alive. By law, you can't even stop giving mouth to mouth until medical personnel declare the victim dead, your life is directly endangered, or you cannot physically carry on.

We cannot build on an assumption that people don't have rights. We must build on the widest possible assumption that a living, metabolizing, human organism with unique dna and a unique destiny has the right to live.

why is everyone so selfish?
Most of the moral problems/ in the U.S. today are the direct result of our 'selfish' needs.

Abortion - people try to justify killing an innocent 'future' child so that they can have
sexual relations without facing up to the consequences of their choices. By the way, fetuses grow and change from the moment of conception - so without 'life' there a fetus wouldn't grow and change at all. It's easier to 'murder' the innocent rather than 'grow up'.

Homosexuality - The Supreme Court's decision to allow consenting adults the right to privacy did not in any way make it a law to accept homosexuality as 'normal' behavior. Nor did it justify homosexuals to expect to receive 'extra' rights whether through marriage or 'hate-speech' laws. Let's keep it private- quit trying to change sex-ed courses in our schools, re-write health books and indoctrinate our children etc. What most homosexuals want is to be treated with respect - they already have their rights! Making special 'laws' will only bring about more
prejudices and take away basic rights to freedom of speech/thought.

The religious right - I am a religious person but I try to leave the judging up to God. No Christian should slander another person's religion. It's a shame that some take upon themselves the name of Christ (or so they think), yet they show bigotry and hatred towards those who do not believe the way they do (even other Christians).
When you hear any person condemning others to HELL - that person is committing blasphemy, plain and simple. From such, turn away - better yet - run away. None of us knows the heart of another person and we could do with a lot more
tolerance, respect and decency.

There is so much finger-pointing today in the media. We have leaders who try and find fault in another person when their own life is far from perfect. Why don't we try and help and lift each other up? We need to quit thinking about ourselves. We need to fill our days up by giving service to some worthwhile cause.

And the media? Please ladies and gentlemen, go back to school and remember how important it is to get correct sources to back up what you say/report. It seems like all the media outlets are becoming "Entertainment Tonight".


capn
"The religious right - I am a religious person but I try to leave the judging up to God."

God has judged. I don't pretend to "know the heart of another person"... but scripture plainly tells us that we know them by their fruit. Therefore, I condemn the "fruit". Let the tree judge itself.

"No Christian should slander another person's religion."

Slander? Well, no. We certainly shouldn't make objectively false statements about others' religions. But it is appropriate to discuss truth and debate the merits/demerits of particular religious views. To attempt to shut down such debates even if they are contentious isn't tolerance... it is intolerance. Tolerance is when a Catholic and I can have a heated debate then at the end of the die agree that the other has every right to disagree with us without threat or suppression.

However most of the "slander" I've seen here especially has been by self-appointed experts on Christian fundamentalists... that have virtually no genuine knowledge of the subject they're talking about.

"It's a shame that some take upon themselves the name of Christ (or so they think), yet they show bigotry and hatred towards those who do not believe the way they do (even other Christians)."

That is true... when it is true. But what were you saying about judging another person's heart? I've been accused of being bigoted and hateful by others here for simply confessing biblical truth and disagreeing with what they believe.

Who would you say is being hateful or bigoted in those situations?

"When you hear any person condemning others to HELL - that person is committing blasphemy, plain and simple."

How so? I'm not talking about particular individuals but rather people who commit sins that God has declared cause for condemnation without repenting... How is it blasphemy to say that unrepentant liars as evidenced by habitual lying have a place in hell? Or insert any of a number of sins the Bible condemns in the NT.

And no, the point is not about moral superiority. It is about direction. Repentance doesn't make one perfect but rather sets a new direction for their life moving away from past opinions/behaviors. It is about one's attitude about and behavior concerning sin. Do we agree with God about sin whether committed by us or others or do we disagree with Him?

"From such, turn away - better yet - run away. None of us knows the heart of another person and we could do with a lot more tolerance, respect and decency."

Yet you reserve the right to make sweeping declarations concerning the "hatred and bigotry" of others or the blasphemy they may be committing in some unspecified act of "judgment"?

Tolerance does not equal agreement, acceptance, or support. It simply says we can disagree while not expecting either party to give up their rights or position. It is being able to live separately in the same space.

Respect? I could give you a very long list of grievances concerning how the left has disrespected religious conservatives over the years... Falwell just makes a good recent example.

Decency? Define decency and join us intolerant bigots. I don't think I've been belligerent with anyone here. I have made a point not to call names or use demeaning terms... unless you'd suggest things like "liberal" are insults rather than descriptions.

Disagreeing with some people will quickly earn you a number of labels including racist, bigot, hatemonger, homophobe,... and much worse.

sjt18 "Well said!"
I have never understood how a male, living, metabolizing, human organism with unique DNA and a unique destiny is but a part of the woman's (potential mother's) body--which is, at that time, her possession--and, thus, she has the right, under the Constitution(al- misinterpretation), to "terminate" that "male, living, metabolizing, human organism with unique DNA and a unique destiny" as a disposable object.

Harmony
"Wouldn't the answer to the question be most accurately determined by the medical community, and not the law? Saying this, I seriously doubt that anyone will be able to prove the precise moment when an embrlo becomes a "human being".

I seriously doubt that the medical community would be able to make such a determination. Indeed, who can say whether or not there IS an exact moment when that embryo becomes a person. Well, God knows, but our laws are not made on the basis of any particular religious doctrine. I don't see a just an ovum that has just recieved a sperm as having exactly the same rights as a baby whose head has just exited the birth canal; yet our Supreme Court presently makes no diferentation between the two. I believe that killing the latter is cold blooded murder. I don't believe that preventing implantation of the former is and it may be justified in some cases but it may also be very offensive to God if it is not justified.

The big difference between Christianity, Judeaism and an authoritarian religion like Islam is free agency. We have the perogitive to choose (not necessarily the right). We do not, however, have freedom from the consequences of our choices.

I believe in God. If God wanted to put is in a world where we had no choice but to do His will all of the time, He surely could have done so but that is contrary to his plan for us (as I believe).

Inasmuch as we do not have (and should not have) a "state religion" I can see no other alternative than a law based upon consensus as to when and for what reasons abortions may be performed. I don't for a moment think that that means that there may not be serious consequences to the decisions we make.

I did not argue that a fetus/embryo/baby is a part of a woman's body. That is a spurious argument. It is however a possession, hosted by the woman and she has certain rights just as you have certain rights when you host people in your home. You can't kill them unless they threaten your life. If they came in by force, you can make them leave. If you invited them in to begin with, you can't do them bodily harm for no reason without legal consequences.

I am not suggesting that our civil laws are necessarily "righteous" but when it comes to religious beliefs, they have to cover a wide range of religions as well as those who claim no religion.

Forest for the trees
Star, Star Star. “Conservative Christian activism has never been a move to take over the country”? You cannot be serious! Conservative Christian activists do not “just want to defend the little turf left where truth can be preserved.” What “truth” are they trying to preserve? Obviously not the Christian “truth.” Conservative Christian activists want to intrude on public life, making it possible to teach creationism or intelligent design and have Bible studies in public schools. What do you think the past two presidential elections have been about? At least the Christian Left, as well as the secular Left, sees the danger of melding public with private life. This is not a Christian Nation! Never has been; never will be.

Now who’s pretending?
The statement Star makes, “We just have the newest of a long historical procession of those who claim there is no truth… and that religion and morality and decency have nothing to do with each other,” is simply preposterous. To suggest there would be an absence of morality without religion is a clear indication Star has very little credibility.

Engineer
I agree with most of what you write, but there's a disconnect there. It seems that Solo has the better understanding of this. In a democratic society, whenever there is a fundamental change in the way society works, it should be incumbant upon the lawmakers to find out what society thinks about that change. The example of homosexual marriage is exactly a case in point. I know you'll disagree with the idea that legalized homosexual marriage will impose changes upon your hetrosexual marriage, but far smarter brains than mine have considered the costs and warned us that it's a great chasm the United STates is fixing to fall into. I look at just one simple issue. My friend Jon, a born-again Christian businessman, will be forced to provide health care insurance coverage to his employees "spouses" regardless of their gender. Legalizing homosexual marriage forces Jon to violate his religious beliefs one way or another. Either he discontinues health coverage to his employees families or he funds homosexuality in variance to what the BIble tells us -- which is that we're never to support sin (homosexuality listed as a sin). So, if you're Jon's employee and you've been getting health insurance for your spouse through his business, you're now going to have to go pay for it elsewhere because Jon's allegiance to God is higher than his allegiance to your spouse and he's dropped that coverage so he won't have to support sin.

Jon's human conscience is going to feel bad about his decision to leave your spouse without health insurance, but he can't in good CHristian conscience spend God's money allowing Doug's man-wife to stay home and take care of the adopted children.

The court-decided law allowing homosexual marriage -- a right that never existed before in the US -- affects Jon, every employee he has and their families. And, he's just one CHristian businessman trying to juggle his allegiance to God with what the government has decided is right.

Wouldn't it be better and more democratic for every state to vote on whether they want homosexual unions to be made into a lawful marriage? Let the people decide, like we're supposed to in a democracy. If the homosexuals can convince enough of us to agree with them that there is no harm to society, then they get their wish and can marry legally. If they can't, then they must remain living together in sin as they always have. For a born-again Christian, to suddenly call that which has always been a sin legal is to spit in God's face. If that's what a majority of the voting adults of the country want, okay, but at least it will be the choice of the people and not some judge probably taking a bribe in one state that is heavily politicized by homosexuals.

sjt18 / tallil2long
Please see my post to Harmony and yes I support "don't ask". The crime/sin in homosexuality is not in the orientation but in the conduct.

Wally
"I seriously doubt that the medical community would be able to make such a determination. Indeed, who can say whether or not there IS an exact moment when that embryo becomes a person. Well, God knows, but our laws are not made on the basis of any particular religious doctrine."

Since God only knows then we should always err to the side of caution, right? You are partially right. Medical science cannot point to a moment after conception when they can say "life just began"...

However even if one wanted to argue that as too restrictive, is there any doubt that a human being with a heart beat is alive? How about brain waves? How about normal human metabolism?

All of these are present in the baby very early on.

"However, I don't see a just an ovum that has just recieved a sperm as having exactly the same rights as a baby whose head has just exited the birth canal;"

But from a rational, "lawful" standpoint the onus should be on YOU to prove that life is not present.

"yet our Supreme Court presently makes no diferentation between the two. I believe that killing the latter is cold blooded murder. I don't believe that preventing implantation of the former is and it may be justified in some cases but it may also be very offensive to God if it is not justified."

Maybe you are right. Maybe such "prevention" is a legitimate compromise of not assuming it will successfully implant similar to the assumption of birth control that fertilization will not occur. However, there is a point where even staunch abortion proponents can't pretend that no life is present in the womb... and it is within the first month of pregnancy.

AudiR10, your first post
about "No one is the boss of me" is 100% accurate. You could add "Me, only ME, and what I want matters" followed by "life isn't fair because it isn't giving ME what I want, and gosh-darn it, I deserve it because I am ME."


Source of Law
"Well, God knows, but our laws are not made on the basis of any particular religious doctrine."

The thinkers and writers of our founding principles would not have agreed with this statement. They believed that rights and Law come from the Creator God... which in their mind WAS the Christian God.

Rob Ratten
"To suggest there would be an absence of morality without religion is a clear indication Star has very little credibility."

The Founders disagreed with you.

Direct, referenced, in-context quotes on this very subject can be found at Wallbuilders.com

Ms. Parker, another superb column!
Ben Stein and Phil DeMuth quoted in their book (Can America Survive) President Johnson as allegedly saying, "I'll have them (insert 'n' word here)voting Democratic for the next 200 years" as he launched the 1965 war on poverty.

Another worthwhile fact is that poverty of today is NOTHING compared to poverty of earlier decades (in America.) When "poor" people today have cars, cell phones, housing (some being homeowners), assistance with utility bills, enough food, free/reduced cost medical care and medications, money for drugs/cigarettes/alcohol, computers,television(s)decent clothing ($200 sneakers!)etc. the standard of "poverty" then and now needs to be brought up.


Ms. Parker states,
The takeover of our country has already occurred from the left."

I would add that mainstream churches have done more than their share of cramming liberal left ideology down the throats of church members in an effort to increase membership/donations. Conservatives are leaving these denominations in huge numbers (or splitting away as with recent Anglican/Episcopalian churches.)

Rob again
"Conservative Christian activists want to intrude on public life, making it possible to teach creationism or intelligent design and have Bible studies in public schools."

The first public schools were founded on the idea that they would better educate children to be able to read the Bible... and ultimately become more Christian and better citizens. Creationism and ID have just as much business in the science classroom as evolution. None are based on a scientific premise. None are proveable or falsifiable through experimentation. The very best any can ever do is present theories and conjectures that aren't contradictory to observed evidence... and regardless of what you might believe, evolution does the poorest job of the three.

Its main necessity, a means for species to evolve into higher species, has no known mechanism. We KNOW that mutations don't add complexity to a genome or come without costs. We KNOW that the complex coding necessary for life DOES NOT happen by random, undirected natural processes.

"What do you think the past two presidential elections have been about? At least the Christian Left, as well as the secular Left, sees the danger of melding public with private life."

That's a joke. It is they that have always advocated telling people BY LAW what to think and do. The Christian Right is a late comer to that game. While I think people like James Dobson go too far and have adopted liberal solutions to achieve conservative goals, liberals have a long history of melding their particular "private" morality with public policy... otherwise, let's deconstruct the welfare state, return to a gov't that can easily run on 7% of GDP and leave each other alone.

"This is not a Christian Nation! Never has been; never will be."

**[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.** John Adams

This WAS a Christian nation with a non-sectarian gov't up until the early 20th century when liberals began to impose their sense of morality on the nation through gov't action. In that period, the size, scope, and expense of gov't has increased tremendously... to the point that most people are now convinced that they have a right to ask gov't for what they want and expect it to be delivered even at the expense of someone else's rights. We have people who believe that rights come from gov't... and that gov't confiscation of rights is a legitimate thing.

"We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism."

1806, William Rush- Signer of Declaration of Independence




not ashamed
Liberalism owes a great deal to liberal Christianity. It was probably the theologically liberal swing to the social gospel of the early 20th century that gave them the political power to trample the USC and establish statism.

Fundamentalism battled the effects on the church... but there was no corresponding response in the political realm since the heart of conservative American Christianity is ultimately small "l" libertarianism.

sjt18
I agree that our rights come from God but I would also say that there is no right more precious than the right of choice. Dont you agree that He gave Adam and Eve a choice? He also gave them a consequence if they chose to disregard his warning. Who do you think put that tree in the garden? Why did He put it there?

I don't agree that the founders would have disagreed. They had a lot in common just as you and I probably do but they still disagreed with each other on specifics and sometimes almost violently. Notice I stipulated PARTICULAR religion. They were not all of the same particular religion and none of them claimed to be a prophet who could speak for God. So unless you are a prophet or know someone who is or can point to the chapter and verse specifically about abortion, I suppose we will just have to proceed on faith; now, whose faith? You might say "the one that is most cautious about preserving life" but is that fair to those who believe as strongly as you do but don't agree with your conclusions?

Don't get the idea that I am pro-abortion. In my belief it is a serious sin at any stage of development unless there is an equally serious justification for it but while I think that a selfish abortion at week 1 is a serious sin, I think that late term "partial birth" abortions are cold blooded murder.

The only question is: What is reasonable insofar as the law of the land is concerned, the law by which all can be judged irrespective of their religion or lack thereof.

Yo Wally -
>>>
"When does an embryo or fetus become a person WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAW"
>>>

Better still, Wally, "When does an embryo or fetus become a life WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM LIFE?"

Evolutionists would say life occurs the instant the DNA could replicate.

Should we we be able to arbitrarily snuff out a human life - particularly an innocent, defenseless life?






ROB RATTON'S CREDIBILITY IN ??
Rob Ratton writes: Tuesday, May, 29, 2007 2:55 PM
Forest for the trees
Star, Star Star. “Conservative Christian activism has never been a move to take over the country”? You cannot be serious! Conservative Christian activists do not “just want to defend the little turf left where truth can be preserved.” What “truth” are they trying to preserve? Obviously not the Christian “truth.” Conservative Christian activists want to intrude on public life, making it possible to teach creationism or intelligent design and have Bible studies in public schools. What do you think the past two presidential elections have been about? At least the Christian Left, as well as the secular Left, sees the danger of melding public with private life. This is not a Christian Nation! Never has been; never will be.
************************************************ ROB RATTON IS QUITE ILL-INFORMED:

1). THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Feb. 29, 1892
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. UNITED STATES
143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226
- Justice Brewer

"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."
========================

2). JOHN JAY (1745-1829), was thefirst Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, having been appointed by President George Washington. He was a Founding Father, a member of the First and
Second Contintental Congress and served as President of the Continental Cogress.

On Oct. 12, 1816, John Jay admonished:
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our CHRISTIAN NATION (emphasis mine) to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

3). HARRY S. TRUMAN (1884 - 1972), The 33rd President of the USA wrote to Pope Pius XII, in 1947, "This is a Christian nation."

One could go on-and-on quoting from the Mayflower Compact, Thomas Jefferson's reference to the "endowment of our Creator with certain unalienable rights...", the Constitution of each, and every one, of our States, reference the fact that congregations met for Christian worship in the House of Representatives and Supreme Court buildings of Washington, D.C. etc.etc.etc.

Get educated, Rob--and the rest of you secularists--celebrate the rich Christian history of your country!!




Not my kind of "Right"
As a non-theist (in more common terms, an atheist, though not quite the militant sort who claims religion is the cause of everything wrong with the world) I will admit that the description of the Christian right as "bogeyman" can be exaggerated. I don't think most conservative Christians are evil or corrupt or consciously filled with hate. I think they have a legitimate political point of view on *some* issues. And I think more libertarian, limited-government type rightwingers like myself (and TheEngineer, whose posts I agree strongly with) can form coalitions with them under the right circumstances.

However, that doesn't mean that the Christian right is above all criticism, even from others on the Right. Obviously, as a non-believer, I think the Christian right is wrong in claiming to have a monopoly on "Ultimate Truth". And I think they are wrong when they insist that "America is a Christian nation" and that "separation of church and state is a myth". And obviously, I am not going to affiliate with a political movement that regards me as, at best, a second-class citizen, and at worst, an untrustworthy, amoral, un-American monster. So the more the Christian right comes to dominate the Republican party and the conservative movement, the less interest I have in supporting either.

Re Christian Right - Issues and Israel
I'm a Christian, neither right nor left. I'm interested in individual issues and not be part of this or that faction.

For example, I am 'conservative' on some issues - against gay marriage, unbridled gambling, too much violence and sexual immorality on TV, etc. I never drink or smoke. Not boasting, just explaining where I stand. Never miss church where I have been very active.

On civil rights and peace, I am strongly pro-equality and very pro-peace as well. Is that right or left? I think it's both Christian and American.

What troubles me about many in the Christian Right is that they are pious and prissy about some things, but seem to have few qualms about killing thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq and don't fret very much about continuing prejudice against fellow Americans of a different color. I would suggest that this is not the Christian Right. Perhaps we might better call it the unChristian Right. Or the 'Christian' Wrong.

True Christianity looks beyond the 'realism' of this world and tries to follow the teachings of Christ in his Sermon on the Mount. Remember how Jesus said: "Why calleth thou me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?"

I also take strong issue with the bulk of the Christian Right in its blind allegiance to Israel. The USA should have had a policy that is pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. If we had shown genuine sympathy for both and not been misled by the Israeli Lobby and end-times Christian Zionists I don't believe we'd be in our present mess in the Middle East. That's where the hatred for the USA got its start. The notion that God has a Chosen People and that He is into real estate is so much nonsense. God is no respecter of persons but sees us all as the children of God. Both USA and Israel have been severely hurt by the influence of the Israeli Lobby which bribes, brainwashes and intimidates to control Congress and the various Administrations over the years. For decades we weren't even permitted to suggest two states without being accused of anti-Semitism.

In response to Roy
"What troubles me about many in the Christian Right is that they are pious and prissy about some things, but seem to have few qualms about killing thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq and don't fret very much about continuing prejudice against fellow Americans of a different color."

So, we can't address any other problem in the world until every person is America is free from prejudice?
you assume that NO Christians are concerned or involved with reducing prejudice. Or do you insist that EVERY Christian concern themselves with nothing but prejudice issues at home, perhaps because that is your pet problem? Can't we work on this problem and other problems *at the same time*? You know, there are other troubles in the world, like Sudan. Perhaps people being killed and enslaved there might call for attention?

As for killing 'thousands of innocent Muslims'-- have you been to Iraq? Do you read the papers? The people indiscriminately murdering innocent Iraqis are... the insurgents (or have you not noticed the bombs at Muslim shrines that kill scores or hundreds at a time?).
If we had not invaded Iraq, the majority there would NEVER have had an opportunity to make something better. They may not succeed now, but at least we gave them the chance. Is trying to give others a shot at freedom from oppression not 'Christian' to you?

As for the Israeli/Palestinian Arab issue: the Palestinians have always responded to Israel with hatred... since well before 1948. Now, you'd apparently prefer that we let fear of their hatred determine our policy decisions.
I say otherwise. Israel is a liberal democracy, whether you wish to believe it or not. And the Palestinian Arabs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2826963.stm
uk.gay.com/headlines/4096
http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/palestine/psnews007.htm
http://www.phrmg.org/monitor2002/Aug2002-3.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-06-palestinianviolence_x.htm
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer206/ruggi.htm
http://www.aina.org/news/20060119104907.htm
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=180
(search above page for 'mutilation')
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2295/context/outrage
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/07/palab14496.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15593267/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/world/middleeast/07palestinians.html?ex=1320555600&en=0db40422a07eda92&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.miftah.org/PrinterF.cfm?DocId=8564
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1446003.stm

Remember this statement?
"If you feel the need to champion authoritarian, patriarchal, theocratic, mysogynist, abusive and coercive states over a liberal democracy, then that is your chosen allegiance, of course."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AshleyHerzog/2007/05/23/the_college_hook-up_culture?page=full&comments=true#b5e2422b-f164-42d7-ae85-d74fa8febf0a

By the bye, America's support for Israel is not 'blind'. We have taken side against Israel a number of times, insisting upon withdrawal from Sinai, Lebanon, the West Bank, etc. Your claim is incorrect.

And about your 'two state' claim: The UN intended there to be two states from the beginning, and we supported that plan as did the Jews. It's the Arabs that sunk the peaceful two-state approach. Note the proposed borders of Israel under the plan: had the Arabs not decided to use violence, they would currently be in far better conditions landwise than they are now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan#Reactions_to_the_plan

Talli2long, that was a superb
post to Roy. By the way, Roy, those Muslims did not have any problem killing thousands of non-Muslims via multiple acts of terrorism (most recently during Clinton's and Bush's administration) in multiple countries. Is that the answer? Turn the other cheek and let them blow up thousands more?

As for that "sympathy" towards the Palestinians...Yassar Arafat had no problem smiling and shaking hands with various U.S. Presidents and then blowing up some more of Israel at the same time. So I do not believe 'sympathy' is the operative word here.The Palestinian's will not stop no matter how many concessions Israel gives them because to their way of thinking Israel should be abolished.

In response to not ashamed
Roy and I went through all this on another page just a few days ago. He denies that Israel is a liberal democracy despite the evidence that it is. He insists that Israel and the Palestinian Arbas be treated equally, as if the victim should be treated the same way as the victimizer.
He insists that the U.S. support of Israel is 'blind', despite the fact that we have repeatedly insisted that Israel rein in certain of its efforts (even when their opponents refuse to reciprocate).
Clearly, Roy and I will not agree on this matter. However, I thought it important that certain of his statements not go unchallenged, as they might deceive the less-well-informed reader.

In response to WRH Bill
"However, that doesn't mean that the Christian right is above all criticism, even from others on the Right."

Absolutely correct. No one is above honest, civil criticism. The problem I have with many critics of Christian conservatives is that they often misrepresent the facts.

"Obviously, as a non-believer, I think the Christian right is wrong in claiming to have a monopoly on "Ultimate Truth"."

Christians *should* understand and expect this. If a given individual believed that Christian conservatives have universal truth, he or she would be a Christian conservative, not so? However, unless you believe there is NO ultimate truth, then someone has to have it, and others have to be wrong about it. And EVERYONE, Christian Conservative or otherwise, believes they themselves have the key to ultimate truth (even if only by denying that ultimate truth exists; such denial is itself an 'ultimate truth').

"And I think they are wrong when they insist that "America is a Christian nation" and that "separation of church and state is a myth"."

Well.
First, the business about a "Christian Nation". None but a handful of the misguided advocate that America be a "Christian Nation" in terms of being a theocratic-type regime. Most Christians make this statement in response to the demonstrably false claims of a few atheists, that America was founded on purely non-theistic principles, or that America has no indentifiable Christian-majority heritage.
As for separation of church and state... the notion that this is the Constitutional view IS a myth. It may be Jefferson's view, but the Constitution says something quite different: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". We have no business substituting the individual view of one stateman for the official words of the Constitution. Now, if Americans choose to amend the Constitution to state what some atheists pretend that it already states, well and good. That is the will of the majority.
Again, most Christians are responding to the perceived use of this unConstitutional wording to repress free exercise of religion. If we DIDN'T have a few militants demanding that the Christian origin of Christmas be denied, or that federal chaplains be dismissed, etc, Christians would not be worried about it.

"And obviously, I am not going to affiliate with a political movement that regards me as, at best, a second-class citizen, and at worst, an untrustworthy, amoral, un-American monster."

There certainly are Christian conservatives who believe these myths.
There are others, like me, who don't. The only thing one can say with confidence about ALL atheists is that they don't subscribe to the belief that God exists.
I've met some pretty hateful, arrogant and, yes, immoral or amoral atheists. I've met others who are extremely good citizens and voluntarily live up to a high ethical standard. These should NOT feel unwelcome in a coalition of conservative voters due to the stereotyped views others have about them.
Unfortunately, the actions of the few often result in the many being tarred with the same brush. That's why I won't have anything to do with a progressive movement that views me and my religion as 'the source of all problems' or 'inevitably harmful', or at best to be tolerated as long as I am silent.
What Christian Conservatives MUST understand is that they will never have enough votes to do all that they want by themselves (by ourselves, I suppose). For purposes of influencing secular government, Christian conservatives need to understand that not everyone of conservative views is a Christian. it is VERY often possible to make common ground on matters of politics without compromising religious principles.

"So the more the Christian right comes to dominate the Republican party and the conservative movement, the less interest I have in supporting either."

I can understand that. Hopefully we can moderate some of these ideas, and hopefully you see that not all of us are quite so... whatever.

However, IF you are one of those who want Christians to pretend not to be Christians, to keep their religion 'behind closed doors', to sacrifice our freedom of speech, to call wrong right and right wrong, or to refrain from voting in accordance with conscience, then you deserve to be disappointed.
Based on your thoughtful statements, I am quite certain you are not one of those people.

wally
"sjt18
I agree that our rights come from God but I would also say that there is no right more precious than the right of choice."

Then I believe you are terribly wrong. NO RIGHT has any meaning or worth unless the right to live is held in the highest regard. That right should never be forfeited except for heinous crimes.

We can't continue allowing someone's life to be arbitrarily ended because someone doesn't like the consequences and responsibilities resulting from their "right of choice". Women do have a right to choose... whether to have sex or not. They do not have a right to kill someone else to evade responsibility for that choice.

"Dont you agree that He gave Adam and Eve a choice?"

Sure... but non sequitur. On one hand you attempt to argue that religion should not be a justification for outlawing abortion (which I agree with btw) then you turn right around and indirectly suggest that the "right" to choose abortion is rooted in Adam's choice.

"So unless you are a prophet or know someone who is or can point to the chapter and verse specifically about abortion, I suppose we will just have to proceed on faith; now, whose faith?"

I believe abortion is immoral. But that isn't why I think it should be illegal. I think that the behavior leading to virtually all abortions (consentual sex) is immoral but rightly legal.

There is only one legitimate reason for abortion to be illegal and that is priority of rights. The right to life is the premise upon which every other right is founded. If that isn't protected and guaranteed then none of the others are rational much less protected.

This isn't a strictly moral issue any more than laws against murder or rape are. This is a civil rights issue.

"You might say "the one that is most cautious about preserving life" but is that fair to those who believe as strongly as you do but don't agree with your conclusions?"

It isn't about being fair to either of us... and particularly not about our opinions. It is about what the rights of a person are to live and whether they can arbitrarily be terminated because someone else finds them an inconvenient consequence of a freely chosen action.

"Don't get the idea that I am pro-abortion. In my belief it is a serious sin at any stage of development unless there is an equally serious justification for it but while I think that a selfish abortion at week 1 is a serious sin, I think that late term "partial birth" abortions are cold blooded murder."

I agree with you and am not trying to be belligerent... but with regard to whether abortion should be legal or not, I could care less whether you consider it sin or not or if someone else doesn't. That isn't the issue.

"The only question is: What is reasonable insofar as the law of the land is concerned, the law by which all can be judged irrespective of their religion or lack thereof."

Precisely right... but that has nothing to do with how one person or another "feels" about it or perceives as "fair" from their own selfish perspective. You hit the key term: "reasonable". Any logic that can be applied to murder and reasons for its legality/illegality apply to abortion.

There are justifiable homocides. However I don't know of anyone who argues that a homocide is ever justified because someone finds another person inconvenient.

Murder is both illegal and immoral... but it isn't illegal because it is immoral. It is illegal because it violates someone else's right to live.

WRH Bill
"However, that doesn't mean that the Christian right is above all criticism, even from others on the Right. Obviously, as a non-believer, I think the Christian right is wrong in claiming to have a monopoly on "Ultimate Truth"."

Have you ever visited a fundamental Christian debate board? They are alot more contentious than this is. The harshest criticism of the Christian right comes from the Christian right.

"Monopoly"? I don't know that we claim that. We claim to have a relationship with the ultimate source of "Truth"... a big difference. Truth is truth whether you as an atheist derive it by natural observation of events around you or if it comes from the Bible. The Bible tells us in Romans 1 and 2 that man is without excuse because God has written into general revelation (creation) and man's conscience recognizable Law.

"And I think they are wrong when they insist that "America is a Christian nation" and that "separation of church and state is a myth"."

The founders distinguished between the nation and the gov't. The nation was the people as preeminent over gov't. The nation WAS Christian and very fundamental by today's standards. God was openly glorified and cited within gov't. Rights and Laws were founded on principles found in the Bible and other agreeable writings/philosophies/truths. Chief among those was the sovereignty of the individual... that rights belong to the people, not the gov't and that those rights come from God not gov't.

However the gov't was purposefully non-sectarian. Religion and Christianity in particular were generally encouraged but not transformed into a state-church as had been the case before independence. The texts of both the Danbury Baptist letter and Jefferson's response are available at wallbuilders.com. The idea of separation of church and state was not original with Jefferson... It was a Baptist "religious" conviction going back 2 or 3 centuries as evidenced by Baptist Confessions as early as 1644.

"And obviously, I am not going to affiliate with a political movement that regards me as, at best, a second-class citizen, and at worst, an untrustworthy, amoral, un-American monster."

Your freedom of conscience is directly due to the idealism of those you profess to distrust. Any Christian who ever says force or even gov't influence should be used to suppress you or make you adopt Christianity has ceased to be a biblical, fundamental Christian.

There are some who go too far. I think Dobson does. Though I agree with his aims, I disagree with him about the use of gov't action to achieve those aims. He is legitimizing the left's use of gov't to dictate morals and actions to the American nation in violation of their God given rights.

"So the more the Christian right comes to dominate the Republican party and the conservative movement, the less interest I have in supporting either."

That of course is your prerogative. But your rights are better protected with us than with the left and in particular the so-called "Christian" left.

I have said here before and genuinely believe that the people making up the "Christian Right" as opposed to the proclaimed leaders would be most satisfied with a very libertarian candidate who had respect for life. I definitely believe they could be convinced and won over by someone who taught absolute respect for rights and freedoms to include the freedom to reject Christianity. The left does not believe that others have the individual "right" to reject what they think is best.

That has been greatly proven here particularly in discussions about homosexual "rights".

BTW
For a genuine fundamental Christian, the means NEVER justify the ends. Our responsibility is the means... God is sovereign over the results.

Excuse me
should have said "the ends NEVER justify the means."

sjt18
Pretty good post! You sort of made my point for me in a kind of oblique way; that being, WHEN DOES AN EMBRYO BECOME A PERSON WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAW? also, Why will our politicians and courts not address that basic question? As it is now, it seems that the difference between an unborn baby and a "mass of cells" to be disposed of at will is simply whether or not it is wanted. I think you would agree that that has to be wrong.

Instead of thing in the terms or "rights" try looking at it in terms of "perogitives". I did not imply that it is right to make wrong choices. As for killing someone, it may be right under some circumstances (plenty of examples of that in the Bible) or it may be wrong. If I decide to go out and shoot an innocent person, will God stay my hand? probably not. Will I be subject to judgement because of it? Damn right! By both God and civil authority.

I know that in picking abortion to make my point, I picked a "hot button" issue, because you evidently believe that an embryo is a person at the moment of conception and I don't necessarily think that is so. I wouldn't consider sperm or ovum to be persons (despite the fact that they are alive with discreet dna) but I still consider an embryo worthy of protection and I agree that the woman's choice is really before conception (in the vast majority of cases at least). Civil rights? A person has civil rights, Sperm do not, neither does an ovum. What makes a "person"? The fact that you have living cells? You can grow those in a laboratory. Brain waves? maybe so! In my mind a "person" consists of a body and a spirit which together comprise a "soul". If I am wrong, and there is no such thing as a "spirit", then nothing matters anyway and our lives are meaningless and civil rights a convenient illusion.

"I believe abortion is immoral. But that isn't why I think it should be illegal. I think that the behavior leading to virtually all abortions (consentual sex) is immoral but rightly legal."

Exactly right!

"There is only one legitimate reason for abortion to be illegal and that is priority of rights."

Right again!

So we are back to the original question. Will we agree when that is? Probably not, so it becomes a matter of REASONABLE compromise, consensus (as close as you can get it).


sjt18
Oops, it was supposed to be "thinking" in terms of perogitives...

Hey again Wally
" You sort of made my point for me in a kind of oblique way; that being, WHEN DOES AN EMBRYO BECOME A PERSON WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAW? also, Why will our politicians and courts not address that basic question? As it is now, it seems that the difference between an unborn baby and a "mass of cells" to be disposed of at will is simply whether or not it is wanted. I think you would agree that that has to be wrong."

I'm not sure I've ever said anything different.

"Instead of thing in the terms or "rights" try looking at it in terms of "perogitives"."

Not sure exactly what you mean. Prerogatives assume that someone has a right to start with.

"I did not imply that it is right to make wrong choices."

You may not but I will. A person has a right to make a wrong choice so long as they bear the responsibility in a just way. I believe the right to make a wrong choice is the only way we can have a free society so long as it is accompanied by a responsibility for the consequences that may not be pretty.

Stigmas for unmarried pregnant girls seemed harsh and unloving but the US didn't have a 45% illegitimacy rate when they existed even before readily available birth control and abortion. A girl could make a bad choice but one of the consequences was that she was ostracized. Furthermore, she and her family had to figure out for themselves how to provide for the child. It wasn't considered "society's" problem as liberals would have it.

"As for killing someone, ... Will I be subject to judgement because of it? Damn right! By both God and civil authority."

Why the civil authority? Not because it is immoral but because it violates another person's rights.

"I know that in picking abortion to make my point, I picked a "hot button" issue, because you evidently believe that an embryo is a person at the moment of conception and I don't necessarily think that is so."

Actually I think that is where the evidence probably leads at this point. However, legally we already treat incapacitated people with little hope of recovery as "alive" if they have a heartbeat and definitely if they have brain waves.

Scenario: A car wreck results in a child being in a coma. The prognosis is a 5 in 6 chance of complete recovery and normal life. The child has an independent heartbeat and brainwaves but requires intervenous feeding. Now let's say the mother who was driving the car and was at fault decides that the child's medical bills and recovery care are too inconvenient. Should she have a right to evade those responsibilities by having the child killed by a doctor?

"I wouldn't consider sperm or ovum to be persons (despite the fact that they are alive with discreet dna) but I still consider an embryo worthy of protection and I agree that the woman's choice is really before conception (in the vast majority of cases at least)."

Pretty close.

"Civil rights? A person has civil rights, Sperm do not, neither does an ovum. What makes a "person"? The fact that you have living cells? You can grow those in a laboratory. Brain waves? maybe so! In my mind a "person" consists of a body and a spirit which together comprise a "soul". If I am wrong, and there is no such thing as a "spirit", then nothing matters anyway and our lives are meaningless and civil rights a convenient illusion."

My major point is that life has a beginning and current abortion law is very far from protecting it in an reasonable fashion. The first 5-8 days after fertilization are definitely a "gray" area. But when the cells begin to specialize, I don't know how it can be argued that human metabolism is not taking place.


sjt18
We are obviously a lot closer in our thinking than either of us realized in the beginning.

Probably the main point of contention would be at what point it becomes a legal matter as opposed to a moral decision and I don't pretend to know where that is.

With regard to the point I was trying to make with regard to Adam and Eve and choice is that choice is primary, a point with which you appear to disagree and that relates to one of the most fundamental arguments of all. An athiest would ask: "If there is a God, how could he let this happen? (You can name any of dozens of scenarios, from plane crashes to the Holocost.

I would argue that if "the right to life" trumps everything else, he wouldn't. We are here for a reason and that reason involves walking by faith and making choices. If I kill an innocent, I am the big loser, not the innocent. The thing that makes this hard to understand is that we see our earthly lives as lasting a long time, when in reality they are a passing moment in eternity.

I've enjoyed it
I agree we're close on most things. However because I am enjoying this so much...

"Probably the main point of contention would be at what point it becomes a legal matter as opposed to a moral decision and I don't pretend to know where that is."

Probably so and I agree that I don't know either. However if you were lying unconscious with a serious wound on the street would you want a doctor to pass by assuming that you were dead? Until you KNOW, you err to the side of caution.

The position I advocate until a better one is suggested is this: Keep asking if a child was alive a moment earlier until you come to the point of being able to definitively answer "no". At this point, there is no medical reason to believe that point is any later than conception.

However, unlike many others who hold this position, I believe that limiting abortion to the first 3 weeks would be far better, just, and reasonable than demanding "all or nothing".

"With regard to the point I was trying to make with regard to Adam and Eve and choice is that choice is primary, a point with which you appear to disagree..."

I agree that Adam and Eve had a choice. But their case is direct evidence of the premium that God puts on the life of things made in His image. Their choice of death broke fellowship with Him eventually requiring the blood of Christ to provide a means of reconciliation.

Life is a premium with God.

"An athiest would ask: "If there is a God, how could he let this happen? (You can name any of dozens of scenarios, from plane crashes to the Holocost."

He let's it happen because man did and does sin in rebellion against God. The real question isn't why God allows bad things to happen but rather why He makes good things happen. We all deserve death... we have no right to either the general or special grace He affords us.

"I would argue that if "the right to life" trumps everything else, he wouldn't."

That doesn't follow. God gave us life. It is a "right" in the very highest sense. It is man's sin rather than God's will that causes death.

"We are here for a reason and that reason involves walking by faith and making choices."

Of course it does and moreover the primary purpose of creation is the glory of God even when it displays His justice rather than mercy.

But even David asked how He could do the things we've said here if in the grave.





Israel, Christians and Peace
It will take several books to deal adequately with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As I keep saying, there is plenty of blame to go around. Two groups who have endured oppression - Jews and Palestinians - in conflict. We needed (and still need)to work sincerely toward a fair-minded peace, something that the USA hasn't done. Even Clinton, who probably was sincere, sent over three negotiators, led by Dennis Ross - all three strong Israeli partisans.

How can such a one-sided policy achieve justice? US politicians are afraid of losing money and votes from the pro-Israel community. Many Jews and Christian Zionists simply can't deal with the issue objectively. Understandable -but sad. Those Jews can't stand any criticism of Israel, especially from gentiles like me. The Christian Zionists use the Bible as some sort of ouji (sp) board. They look forward to the battle of Armageddon to occur in Israel when most Jews will be killed and those left will accept Christ. Reasonable? Are you kidding? Wierd alliance fostered by Israel-firsters.

Let's face it. Most (not all) of the Christian Right are decent folks but simple and superstitious when it comes to religion. Rather like Orthodox Jews in that respect. And like Muslim crazies, too. They all worship a book that is a mixture of inspiring poetry and wisdom, but also containing lots of stuff that mirrors a more primitive time, before the telescope and microscope, a tribal time when one group sought to control others. The writers did the best they could with what they had. But it's tragic that religion that should promote understanding and peace causes hatred and war instead.

I'm a devoted Christian - a 'big tent' Protestant - and I often wear a button which reads: "God bless the whole world. No exceptions." Anti-Muslim propaganda equivalent to anti-Semitic propaganda. Both are wrong.

By the way, the situation in Darfur is tragic. What troubles me just a little is that perhaps 200,000 have been killed in Darfur and we hear about it regularly. The Arabs are the bad guys. Meanwhile, over 2,000,000 have lost their lives in the Congo, and not a peep. No Arab villains there, I guess. Both situations cry out for assistance. If we hadn't been stupid enough to invade Iraq perhaps we'd have the manpower and means to do something major to save the people of Darfur.

Sooner or later the American people are going to tire of the Israeli situation, so to preserve Israel peace is a must.

PS I see that Bush nominated another Israel-first neocon to replace Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank.

In response to Roy
Plenty of blame to go around?
I weary of repeating myself of repeating history to you: how the Jews *accepted* the UN partition plan of 1947, even though it drastically limited their land (far less than they hold today), much of which was then-barren Negev.
Though the majority of the best land was reserved for THEIR state, the Palestinian Arabs launched unprovoked attacks on their Jewish neighbors, followed by attacks from the regular forces of neighboring Arab nations: all strictly contrary to UN Resolution 181.
Faced with the obvious fact that the UN-mandated borders were completely indefensible militarily and the fact that all of their neighbors professed and demonstrated an undying desire to murder every possible Jew (including children), AND the fact that no foreign nations (including the U.S.) were willing to go to war to defend them effectively, the Israelis took the only non-suicidal course open to them: they seized defensible borders and fortified them.

The simple fact is that if the Palestinian Arabs had decided not to try to murder their Jewish neighbors, they could have had a peaceful, considerably-enlarged Palestinian state in 1948. Through peaceful coexistance with their neighbors, they could have shared in the incredible economic success of Israel, greatly enriching their lives and those of their children.
Instead they chose the path of aggression; now after 60 years of brutality they are dependant on the generosity of others (including Israel, which has provided many millions of dollars in assistance to the Palestinian Authority), many are kept in concentration camps by their wonderful Arab neighbors, and they teach their children to be suicide bombers while they themselves beat their women, kill their daughters for 'honor', and sharpen their knives hoping that Israel deports more illegal-alien Palestinian homosexuals.

Now, I know that you understand these historical facts. Equally, I know you will continue to refuse to admit the truth of them.

Wow, typo
Should be:
'I weary of repeating history to you'.

Has anyone EVER started out a post with such garbled sentence structure?

Hey Tallil2long
It's LATE. Sentence structure does not count after midnight!

In response to Matthew
Thanks for the cover...
but it's lunchtime here. I can't accept the pass...

Lunchtime?
Where are you at again?

To matthew
Bagram AFB, Afghanistan.
The weather's nice.

The weather is nice in California also
We can't agree on Jerry Falwell, but at least we have something in common! :)

Be safe.

To matthew
Thanks!
I don't reckon we *need* to agree on Rev. Falwell...
:)
Talk at you later. Gotta go back to work.

Roy
"Many Jews and Christian Zionists simply can't deal with the issue objectively."

Here is some objectivity for you. So long as one side is dedicated to the absolute destruction of the other side and will not even recognize the legitimate existence of the other side... there is nothing to compromise over.

The only compromise the Arabs have shown an interest in is seeing Israel cease to exist as a nation. The Israelis do have a history of seeking peace with their neighbors. Those who continue to commit daily acts of terrorism against their citizens have never honorably negotiated or lived by a peace treaty.

Please post for us any offer by the Arabs with a specific land allowance for Israel. They aren't approaching negotiations honestly... yet somehow folks like you have sympathy for them.

If a group of American Indians began to demand that the US dissolve as a nation and return all lands to them, what would be your response? What if they would not offer any compromise that let the US keep any of the land? What if they began committing acts of organized terrorism against American civilians? What if each land concession given by the US was met with a violation of the treaty and continued terrorism? What if their public and continued goal was the destruction of the US?

If that were the case, you'd have somewhat of the Israeli perspective except that they have a historical claim to Palestine going back thousands of years.

More re Israel
You anti-Palestinian guys hand out the same old propaganda, as you have done for decades. I don't blame you entirely, as you are brainwashed, like I was before Israel attacked Egypt in 1956. It was then that I began to read both sides in depth. And I found myself sympathetic to both sides. What annoys me is that we get only one side in our media, and when one dares present a different viewpoint he is likely to be accused of anti-Semitism - the main McCarthyism of our time.

The USA has failed. We have been in a position to bring both sides to the table, but we have been pre-committed to one side. The Arab neighbors have proposed recognition of Israel in return to the 1967 borders, etc. Quite obviously, Israel still dreams of incorporating the West Bank into Israel. Otherwise, why the expanded settlements? How do they contribute to peace?

There are extremists in both camps. Most settlers on the West Bank - many from such places as Brooklyn - are wild-eyed Jewish nationalists who seem to think they're the Chosen People, that God favors them. Racist hogwash! Then there are the Palestinian extremists, aided by Israeli extremists. Hamas wouldn't be powerful if Israel had not encouraged it against Arafat some years ago.

There's no need going on and on as I have too little time. (I'm trying to finish another book and posting is a severe temptation - and I wonder if I'm wasting my time.) One of you referred to Indians. I am part Abenaki, by the way. True, it's too late to give all the USA back to the Indians. White folks have lived here 400 years. (My paternal family, 1663, Quebec; my maternal family, 1639, Mass.) The same logic can be used for Palestine. Were the Palestinians who lived there hundreds of years, likely well before 70 AD and the temple destruction, rightfully driven from their homes to make room for returning Jews? (And don't give me that fake line about Palestinians being newcomers!) More serious yet, should only Jews be allowed to immigrate to Israel? If the USA permitted only Christian immigrants, would we be a democracy? I have Palestinians friends who have the deed to property in Israel but are not allowed back. And Israel doesn't even grant Reform and Conservative congregations recognition.

But no more time for such debate. Don't let your understandable emotional, ethnic and religious ties keep you from recognizing the truth. Keep reading - BOTH SIDES - and you will find us agreeing.

Star is correct
It is a simple fact that the left wants to blame Christians for all the woes of the world; that is part of the plan to do away with Christianity. The simple fact is that the Christian viewpoint interferes with their ideas of a big government controlling every aspect of peoples' lives.

None said, "But my point is that there appears to be a rising danger in our country, and it's not from the right or even the far-right. Christians may have to take up arms in order to defend ourselves from outright persecution if the left gets much more radicalized and much more powerful."

This is a valid point, and indeed this sort of thing is one of the reasons that the left wants gun control. Remember how this nation was formed; people wanted freedom from the tyranny of the rather mad English king, and they took up arms and got it. I will state plainly here a simple fact of gun control. The only reason for any government to want information on who owns what guns is so that they can take them away from you if they so choose, leaving you defenseless and unable to take action if necessary.

Roy
Please cite specifically the earnest treaty offers that you mention that promise to give Israel recognition and a secure border. Name those who gave them and when. It does Israel very little good to have Saudi Arabia make such an offer while Syria does not. None of it makes sense until the Palestinians themselves acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

I sympathize with those caught up in this innocently. However there is a right and wrong side in this thing. Israel has given vast control of land in the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinian Authority. What has been the result? The attacks on Israel have intensified if anything.

Please show one credible piece of evidence that the Arabs are willing to make peace and stand by it.

sjt18
Sorry for the long break, had to work! If you are still following this line, I want to suggest a slightly different scenario to you.

"I agree that Adam and Eve had a choice. But their case is direct evidence of the premium that God puts on the life of things made in His image. Their choice of death broke fellowship with Him eventually requiring the blood of Christ to provide a means of reconciliation."

You are basically correct but it would be naive to think that God didn't know perfectly well from the very beginning that they would transgress. In fact it was a sure thing. Consider, they were like children and immortal and Satan had unlimited time to persuade them. (The Bible doesn't give us a clue as to whether it took ten minutes or a hundred years) So, there had to be a reason. It was necessary that mankind go through a mortal probation and learn from experience the difference between good and evil, but God, being perfectly just, would not cut them (or us) off from his presence so that they could do so except by choice and that choice had to be a transgression (as they were innocent and unable to make it any other way). Choice was all important. Had he wanted to make it impossible to for them to transgress, he surely could have done so. (As you pointed out, they chose mortality and eventual death which would require a Redeemer to provide reconciliation).

My point was that if God put such a "premium on life", innocent children (too young to choose to sin) would never be killed unjustly;

"We all deserve death... we have no right to either the general or special grace He affords us."

"That doesn't follow. God gave us life. It is a "right" in the very highest sense."

This is contradictory.

Yes, life is a premium, so is choice, but as I hope you can see, choice is number one.

As for our purpose being to "glorify God", I agree but I don't believe that God is narcisstic. We glorify Him by emulating Christ because He wants the best for us, just as you would want the best for your children.


In response to Roy
I wash my hands of this discussion.

You prefer supporting societies that you KNOW are abusive to women (honor killings, refusal of basic rights, frequently enforce seclusion); heedless of the bsic human rights of homosexuals (murder); abusive of children (indoctrinating kids to be suicide bombers in PUBLIC SCHOOLS); racist (if you are unable to honestly evaluate Arab hate for Jews, that is your issue); and demonstrably aggressive without legitimate justification.
In the interest of this preference, you misrepresent history without shame.

You have chosen sides, and apparently feel it is far too late to consider facts. The irony is that, if you were to be dropped into one or other of the two contending societies, you would inevitably choose Israel... where you have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and recourse to an independent judiciary rather than lynch mobs.

But so be it. Good day, and perhaps we can converse on other topics another time.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.