To Critics of Republicans:
Show me the Legislation where GOP pushes its beliefs on others
In a comment to a recent post, reader Paul expressed one of the standard (but inaccurate) criticisms leveled against the Republican Party:
In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away their rights)
Many of those who offer this opinion have never talked (for any extended period of time) with a Republican, have never attended a Republican gathering and have rarely (if at all) read essays, Op-eds or blog posts where Republicans talk about their overarching political philosophy or the policy proposals they advocate. They get their news about us from the MSM and left-wing blogs.
It’s amazing how misinformed these critics are about the object of their derision.
While there is abundant evidence from the current Congress of Democratic legislation which would push their ideology on others, limiting our liberty and regulating the way we build our homes, run our businesses, purchase our health insurance and interact with others in the marketplace, I wonder if Paul (and others who offer the same criticism of the GOP he does) can he (or others who share his viewpoint) can cite actual legislation Republicans have proposed which would “push” our beliefs on others?
Legislation that they have pushed with as much vigor as the Democratic President and congressional leadership has pushed their statist agenda?
50 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Don’t you remember? Bush unilaterally installed a Theocracy…..or something.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 3, 2009 @ 11:23 pm - August 3, 2009
Ooh! Ooh! I have an example right here of conservatives forcing their values on the gay community.
Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today.
The Senate’s legal affairs committee is studying a Harper government bill that would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It will almost certainly pass — no political party has opposed it — but queer and youth-led groups came out Feb 22 to insist on their sexual freedom.
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
Or here:
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off……
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 4, 2009 @ 12:21 am - August 4, 2009
The “pushes beliefs” and “legislating morals” canards are some of the more aggravating things I read and hear – but little in the way of specifics.
Comment by SoCalRobert — August 4, 2009 @ 1:02 am - August 4, 2009
Which part is inaccurate? That there is a large contingent of evangelical Christians in the party? Or that many of these Christians do wish to push their beliefs and legislate morality? Sally Kern being a case-in-point.
I do understand, however, that sort of thing would generally fall outside of conservative philosophy. And that the evangelicals do not set the goals of the whole party.
Comment by DRH — August 4, 2009 @ 1:04 am - August 4, 2009
so, DRH, did you read the post? If we’re such a moralistic party, please provide the evidence. In other words, respond to the change posed in the very title of the post.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 4, 2009 @ 2:27 am - August 4, 2009
Dan, I couldn’t agree more.
I don’t know any Republicans or conservative Christians for that matter who are trying to legislate away anybody’s right to do anything. About the only issue anybody can point to is abortion, but even on this issue, most conservatives merely want common sense restrictions that are supported by the vast majority of Americans, such as parental notification, etc.. So, aside from the sacred liberal “right” to kill unborn babies (or if you’re Barack Obama, the sacred right to kill BORN babies), what other rights are all the leftist loonies crying about that Republicans and Christians are supposedly trying to take away from them?
Let them take Dan’s challenge and make a list… it’ll be fun shooting down each one of their silly examples (if they can indeed come up with anything).
Comment by Elephant in the Room — August 4, 2009 @ 2:28 am - August 4, 2009
In contrast, there are abundant examples of leftists using the power of government to force their values onto others, not the least of which is through control of the public school system. You may think it’s wonderful that public schools indoctrinate students in diversity, multiculturalism, environmentalism… but these are all belief systems and they are not universally shared, or shared in an identical way among all people.
There is also the “comparable worth” legislation the left is pushing, where the government and not the market would set the labor rates for different occupations. This is based on a belief system that the state must equalize outcomes in defiance of market realities.
Similarly, Title IX is another example of the state forcing outcomes, in this case in athletics, in defiance of the preferences of the people. Male-oriented sports programs, especially wrestling, are shut down in the name of the feminist belief system.
There’s also gun control legislation, wherein the state limits or eliminates the right of individuals to self-defense, based on some people’s belief system that “guns are icky.”
The whole cap and trade scheme is based on a belief system, and not science. But Americans will be forced to pony up millions of dollars at the altar of Gaia, for no measurable environmental benefit.
Comment by V the K — August 4, 2009 @ 7:37 am - August 4, 2009
DRH motivated me to check Sally Kern out in Wikipedia. OK. She is definitely outspoken on homosexuality, but it appears her attempts at legislation involving her belief system regarding homosexuality have gone down in flames. And even if she were successful in her legislation, she is one of how many state legislators throughout the fifty states?
Dear me. DRH also notes there is a “large contingent” of “evangelical Christians” in the Republican party. I wonder what constitutes a “large contingent.” I would assume that if you were to herd all “evangelical Christians” into one area and thoroughly poll them, that more would lean Republican than Democrat. I base that assumption on the understanding that “evangelical Christians” tend toward social conservatism.
But while we are polling these “evangelical Christians” why not find other characteristics that cause them to form “large contingents.” Does DRH have any evidence that one such “large contingent” would be comprised of those who wish ill upon homosexuals?
Without belaboring the point, DRH seems to get the willies when “evangelical Christians” enter the equation. He then transfers his fears to the Republican Party which has not acted to drive away the “evangelical Christians” and their attendant ghosties and goulies and things that go bump in the night.
There is an enormous difference between libertarian and a social liberal. No libertarian plans solutions around a larger, more intrusive government. Social liberals, however, relish state force, complete with hate crime laws and activists judges who will compel the populous to eat the spinach du jour. No social liberal can exist without the bete noir that is his direct opposite, because then he would not be at the vanguard. No social liberal strives to be seen as average.
Meanwhile, let us all contemplate a “large contingent” of social liberal “evangelical Christians.”
Comment by heliotrope — August 4, 2009 @ 9:09 am - August 4, 2009
Seems to me the hardcore progressive socialist contingent of the Democrat coalition is far more successful at getting its desires translated into legislation than the Christian right contingent of the Republican coalition.
Comment by V the K — August 4, 2009 @ 9:19 am - August 4, 2009
I used to support Dems now I support Repubs. In 2004 elections, Extreme christian groups supported Bush through pro-life and anti gay advertisements. I do not know if this was everywhere, but in Ohio there was a lot. Going to the extreme christian sites they pretty much applauded themselves for getting Bush elected. Groups like Focus on the Family and Christian Coalition. This, I believe is what got people pissed off at Repubs. Understandably, imagine a Dem being backed by extreme Liberals, oh, that’s happening now. I believe that to a lot of people, it appeared as if the extreme christians infiltrated the Repubs. That is the impression, I believe people had and still have.
To get to your question, what about DOMA.
The only one I can come up with. Anyway, that is where I came from, however for the sake of our country and our constitution, I am supporting the Republicans again. Groups like yours make me proud to be a part of it. I thought that to support equal rights I needed to support the democrats. I was wrong. Democrats are actually threatening individual rights. I am grateful to have woken up before the dream gets uglier.
Comment by Kt — August 4, 2009 @ 9:40 am - August 4, 2009
DOMA was at least a bipartisan effort, if not a Democrat led one.
The Federal Marriage Ammendment *might* serve as an example, had it passed, but even that is opposed by some Republicans (Dick Cheney for one). It also might be seen as a defensive measure, rather than ‘pushing their belief on others’. I know that’s how the Ohio DOMA worked.
Comment by The Livewire — August 4, 2009 @ 10:44 am - August 4, 2009
Dan, I never claimed you were part of a moralistic party. I do not believe that, in general, Republicans are pushing Christian beliefs on others.
Yes, the “evangelicals” give me the willies, heliotrope. I grew up with quite a few. They would willingly make the Ten Commandments law here in the US, given the chance. The First Amendment would take a backseat to blasphemy laws! There are people like Roy Moore out to enforce his vision of God’s will on us.
So I would like the insider’s view on this element of the party. Considering they are considered to be a key voting bloc in most election cycles, it’s hard to claim they have no influence.
Comment by DRH — August 4, 2009 @ 11:01 am - August 4, 2009
DRH is misguided. The rise of the Evangelical Right was a defensive response to the aggressive secular humanist agenda of the left. If the left and the ACLU were not working overtime to scrub all Christian expression from the public space, not using the public schools as tools for left-secular indoctrination, if Christian values weren’t under constant assault by the entertainment media, if abortion had not been forced on the states by judicial fiat… the Evangelical movement would never have become politicized.
Meanwhile, the horrors of the so-called Christian Theocracy are dramatically overblown… primarily because creating a Christian Right boogeyman has been an effective tool in getting votes from the idiot left. The way the left would tell it, the USA was a Christian Theocracy until the 1962 SCOTUS ruling banning prayer in public schools. During that time, we managed to win two world wars, abolish slavery, and become the world’s greatest economic superpower. And we did it all without sending non-believers to Death Camps or unleashing a Saudi-style morality police to beat up young girls for showing ankles in public.
I don’t understand why the left is so horrified by Christian values … do unto others, love thy neighbor, don’t be selfish. Wait a minute, maybe I do understand why those values offend the left so much. All of liberalism is based on selfishness.
Comment by V the K — August 4, 2009 @ 11:21 am - August 4, 2009
Dan, are you only referring to legislation that passed the United States Congress? For it is certainly true that Republicans tried their best to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. Regrettably, the Republicans do not always adhere to their own stated beliefs and philosophy.
Comment by Cecil — August 4, 2009 @ 11:26 am - August 4, 2009
Yup, but Cecil, would would the Federal Marriage Amendment have done to push Republican views on others? All it would have done is barred the state from recognizing gay marriages, it wouldn’t have prevented gay couples from living together openly and calling themselves married.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 4, 2009 @ 11:35 am - August 4, 2009
And given that Obama Party members and gay organizations endorsed and supported the FMA, why exactly was it an example of Republicans “forcing values”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 4, 2009 @ 12:20 pm - August 4, 2009
DRE says: “They [Evangelicals] would willingly make the Ten Commandments law here in the US, given the chance.” Really? Can you name ONE mainstream evangelical Christian organization or political leader who is calling for such a thing? Or are you just being hysterical?
Comment by Elephant in the Room — August 4, 2009 @ 12:26 pm - August 4, 2009
Excuse me, I meant DRH…
Comment by Elephant in the Room — August 4, 2009 @ 12:27 pm - August 4, 2009
Hysterical gay liberal? Do you mean that mythical creature actually exists? Who knew?
Comment by TnnsNE1 — August 4, 2009 @ 12:59 pm - August 4, 2009
Dan, now I understand. Republican religious views are not Republican views.
Comment by Cecil — August 4, 2009 @ 1:33 pm - August 4, 2009
So, simply because most attempts by members of your party press their moral agenda on those of us who don’t give a damn about it FAIL, that means it’s okay? That means they are not a reflection of the Republican party membership?
Thanks but no thanks. Fail all you want, as long as the Republican party welcomes the smoney of those who would prefer I live in the closet, they won’t see a dime from me. I’d rather throw my vote away on a libertarian who at least shares my values than give money to a party who welcomes these blowhards.
There is certainly a difference between a progressive push for a secular society, which somehow you see as democrats forcing their beliefs on you than those would have their religious beliefs dictate law. Whether they are successful at it or not is frankly beside the point to me. Your party made their bed with these people…until they get a clue, their little “r” republican ideals can fail as well.
Comment by Victor — August 4, 2009 @ 1:51 pm - August 4, 2009
#20 Ever heard of a subset? You know like Catholics are Christians, Baptists are Christians but not all Catholics are Baptists. I know that logic may be difficult for you to follow, but do try and keep up.
Comment by TnnsNE1 — August 4, 2009 @ 2:12 pm - August 4, 2009
“In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away their rights)” is an old mantra thrown out by those who can’t come up with a better argument.
As a former card carrying member of the religious right, I say the movement ended around 1997 with the departure Ralph Reed. Many leaders have retired or “Gone to be with the Lord”. Another fact is the shift to center left via Rick Warren in evangelical circles, others like Cal Thomas or myself left because e the religious right is in error for trying to use Christianity to a political platform for social change than proclaiming the Gospel of Christ. In my case return to my Anglican traditions and reformed in my theology.
Comment by Scatcatpdx — August 4, 2009 @ 2:43 pm - August 4, 2009
Victor, first, please respond to the challenge posed in this post to provide legislation that the GOP proposed.
And second, in this so-called “progressive” push for a secular society, some seek to deprive people of faith the freedom to practice and live their faith. That said, don’t you see the mandates in the president’s proposed legislation? And how such mandates limit our freedom.
Once again, you attach your attack on the GOP (and defense of Democrats) to a post where I asked critics like you to put your money where your mouth us–and show us the evidence.
You have not done so, merely continued the type of attack which spurred me to write this post. Says a lot about folks like you that you’d rather rant against the right than show why their policies are particularly unpleasant.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 4, 2009 @ 3:15 pm - August 4, 2009
I can’t believe I have to do this, since I generally agree with your post, GPW. But in 2005 I felt the Republicans and Bush did, in fact, go to far in pushing their beliefs on others when they intervened in the Terri Schiavo case.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/bill31905.html
Whatever your personal feelings regarding the case may have been, the federal government had no business getting involved.
Comment by Draybee — August 4, 2009 @ 4:20 pm - August 4, 2009
There, fixed it for you. And that doesn’t even take into account the socialist thieves actively trying to force their collectivism onto our bodies, our income, our wealth, etc.
Seriously, don’t even THINK of pretending conservatives are the threat to liberty you hypocritical jackass. Get bent.
Comment by American Elephant — August 4, 2009 @ 4:52 pm - August 4, 2009
Hey, where did all the strike-throughs go?
Comment by American Elephant — August 4, 2009 @ 4:52 pm - August 4, 2009
lets try that again…
There, fixed it for you. And that doesn’t even take into account the socialist thieves actively trying to force their collectivism onto our bodies, our income, our wealth, etc.
Seriously, don’t even THINK of pretending conservatives are the threat to liberty you hypocritical jackass. Get bent.
Comment by American Elephant — August 4, 2009 @ 4:55 pm - August 4, 2009
I felt the Republicans and Bush did, in fact, go to far in pushing their beliefs on others when they intervened in the Terri Schiavo case.
The Democrats in congress also voted to intervene.
Comment by V the K — August 4, 2009 @ 5:24 pm - August 4, 2009
Um, dude, ALL legislation is pushing your beliefs on others. Thats exactly what legislation is. Its written force of law that tries to enforce your beliefs on someone else. So we don’t think people should murder, someone who thinks they do and acts on it, has our beliefs enforced on their behavior… thats the way it is.
Comment by Doc Merlin — August 4, 2009 @ 6:28 pm - August 4, 2009
this is more fun than those boring days in High School Civics class.
amazing V here is something about the Schiavo Palm Sunday Compromise:
One senator who voted with the rest of the unanimous Senate but later came to regret that vote was future president Barack Obama. In the primary debate on April 26, 2007, in a presidential candidates debate, he characterized his vote for the bill as his biggest professional mistake and that the Senate deliberations “left the Senate with a bill that allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn’t have.” At the February 26, 2008 debate, he admitted that his vote was a mistake and that “As a constitutional law professor, I knew better”.
At the same time, the so-called Schiavo memo surfaced, causing a political firestorm. The memo was written by Brian Darling, the legal counsel to Florida Republican senator Mel Martinez. It suggested the Schiavo case offered “a great political issue” that would appeal to the party’s base (core supporters) and could be used against Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida, because he had refused to co-sponsor the bill. Nelson won re-election in 2006 wiki
Comment by rusty — August 4, 2009 @ 6:35 pm - August 4, 2009
V’s right. 47 Democrats voted for the bill and 5 Republicans voted against it (in the House). But that doesn’t change my point. It was primarily a Republican bill and it pushed the pro-life views of their base in an incident that did not require federal intervention.
For what it’s worth, that’s the only instance I can think of.
Comment by Draybee — August 4, 2009 @ 7:09 pm - August 4, 2009
#25: God forbid that a man not be able to kill his inconvenient wife off (after signing a court order that he’d take care of her in order to get her insurance money) so that he could be with his new lover. God forbid that politicians should wish to step in to prevent a murder.
It’s a lifestyle choice, dig?
What I love though is the POV of so many on the left that, in a nation founded by folks eager to practice theri religon in the public sphere, an American has no right to make decisions about his or her politics if those decisions are informed by faith. It’s almost like the First Amendment never even existed.
Comment by DaveP. — August 4, 2009 @ 9:34 pm - August 4, 2009
American Jackass, er, I mean Elephant …
The environmental nutjobs give me the willies, too. Please don’t go putting words in my post that aren’t there. I didn’t pretend to think ALL conservatives are a threat to anything. You can’t possibly construe anything I wrote as claiming such a thing.
But this denial of the existence a political factio who would gladly deny me my freedoms (and perhaps evnen my LIFE) does bother me.
Comment by DRH — August 4, 2009 @ 9:34 pm - August 4, 2009
But this denial of the existence a political factio who would gladly deny me my freedoms (and perhaps evnen my LIFE) does bother me.
Unless you’re talking about the Islamist fanatics courted by the Obamacrats, then this is pure paranoid delusion. Stop being such a drama queen; No one in the Christian Right is out to kill you.
Matt Shepard was killed by drug-addled tweakers; not Christian fundamentalists. The left depends on gullible saps like you who fall for the boogeymen they create.
Comment by V the K — August 4, 2009 @ 9:46 pm - August 4, 2009
DRH: “But this denial of the existence a political factio who would gladly deny me my freedoms (and perhaps evnen my LIFE) does bother me.”
Dude, honestly, get a grip. There is no one in the Republican party or the conservative Christian community who wants to deny you your freedom or your life. You are trapped in a liberal hallucination. The only people on the American political landscape who support killing gays are leftists, who support the right of women to abort their unborn gay children, should a “gay test” ever be perfected (ironic, isn’t it, that a conservative Christian would fight tooth and nail to save the life of an unborn gay child?). When you finally see the light, come on over to the right side, we’d be glad to have you… and we don’t bite (except on request).
Comment by Elephant in the Room — August 4, 2009 @ 10:14 pm - August 4, 2009
Ha! It cracks me up that I have you call you a jackass to get an invitation to the right side.
That’s appreciated in a perverse way.
If we take some people at their word, then yes, they do want to deny freedom to gays. Take others at their actions (just read Box Turtle Bulletin’s hate crimes section), and it is obvious some intend to harm us for no other reason. If the Kerns and Moores are being denounced by mainstream conservatives, then please, say so.
As for the life bit: after my grandfather said “I’d rather kills gays then look at ‘em, and therefore you must not be gay” … well, I broke ties with him. I’ve been a bit sensitive about it since. The sentiment is still real, though.
So really, I am trying to learn more. That’s why I’m visiting here frequently. But it’s impossible to pick out the salient points from the chaff when some comments are met with “dirty leftist liberal gays LIKE YOU” instead of clear, informative responses.
Comment by DRH — August 4, 2009 @ 11:55 pm - August 4, 2009
Hey, DRH — I’m a different Elephant than the one you’re mad at. I never called you those names. But in any event, I don’t know who Kerns and Moore are, and I have no idea what they believe, but I wouldn’t judge conservatives by a couple of obscure politicians. As for what your grandfather said to you, that’s pretty awful, so I certainly understand your sensitivity. However, please know that his cruel sentiments are not shared by any conservatives or Evangelical Christians I know (and I know quite a few).
Comment by Elephant in the Room — August 5, 2009 @ 12:47 am - August 5, 2009
I think as others have mentioned before, it’s not been specific legislation that’s come to pass. We have enough legislators on the left and in the middle that reject the kind of societal intervention that Republicans usually seek to enact. But if Republicans and conservatives had their way I think it’s easy to see what they would pass if they could pass by what they’ve tried to pass. Republicans and conservatives seek to shape societal norms and abuse government to favor individual prosperity at the expense of others.
For example, there are constant new challenges to pro-choice rights. Most Republican and conservative politicians aren’t shy in their desire for a complete overturn of Roe v. Wade including John McCain. Many prominent Republican and conservative leaders would go so far as to require cases of incest and rape go to term. It’s a desire of Republicans and conservatives for the state to intrude into a personal medical and moral decision. The 2004 party platform stipulated the desire of a “Human Life Amendment” to the constitution.
It was three Republican appointed supreme court justices that dissented in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy ruling, supporting the “right” of states to regulate the personal sexual behavior of individuals in their own home. A number of Republican dominated state legislative branches were determined to keep sodomy laws in place.
H.R. 3396, better known as DOMA, was authored by a Republican. and cosponsered by 118 congressmen, 102 of those were Republicans. Only one Republican voted no. This was a bill to institutionalize a particular ideology onto American society, contracting the liberty of the individual.
Compare that to the recent introduction of H.R. 1283 which seeks to repeal DADT. It’s written by a Democrat and of 168 co-sponsors only 1 is a Republican. DADT established punitive action for the public disclosure of sexual preference, not for actual sexual activity or, further, sexual activity that was found to be disruptive to fellow soldiers. It’s essentially punitive action for a thought crime, something Republicans and conservatives are usually so against in what they consider unnecessary hate crime legislation. “To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that America’s Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.”
In the current debate on healthcare, we see as a nation that we pay the highest amount of money for less than average quality of care. Our pharmaceuticals also cost the most of any industrialized nation in the world. And yet we see Republicans, who overwhelmingly receive the majority of healthcare lobbying dollars fighting to not only deny reform but to eliminate restrictions altogether. I don’t see how this is an expansion of liberty except in allowing those of means to continue to take advantage of the less fortunate. Over and over again, despite the rhetoric, we see more prosperity and “fiscal responsibility” for the whole under Democrats leadership. A true free market is a myth that allow Republicans to take advantage of the system.
I pose the same challenge to Republicans. Where do you see legislation created by Democrats that have somehow infringed on your individual liberties? How have you personally, negatively been affected by what you consider infringement on personal liberties? From my examples above, as an openly gay man I wouldn’t be able to serve in the military, continue to be denied marriage to the spouse of my choice, state governments would still have the option of imprisoning me for have sex with a man in my own home, and finally I should expect sub-par, expensive health coverage because of the collusion between Republican leaders and the healthcare industry. And god forbid I was a lesbian who was raped or sexually abused by a relative and happened to become pregnant if Roe v. Wade wasn’t in effect. Is there no moral dilemma to you when “individual liberty” means that only some and not all people in our society might benefit from those “liberties?”
Comment by Countervail — August 5, 2009 @ 1:01 am - August 5, 2009
it is obvious some intend to harm us for no other reason.
It is also obvious that none of these alleged perpetrators belong to organized Christian movements; all of which roundly condemn violence against gays.
But if you can cite even one example of a leader in the evangelical movement or a single minister advocating violence against gays, I’m willing to to hear it out. And don’t give me any of this, vague “but they create an atmosphere” bullcrap. Unless you have really strong examples of Christian leaders making specific statements demeaning gays as less-than-human, then that bullcrap is just a dodge to admit you don’t really have anything.
The left-wing media has no trouble mocking gay stereotypes and ridiculing homosexuals. But no one whines about them.
Comment by V the K — August 5, 2009 @ 5:26 am - August 5, 2009
So, let us stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that “evangelical Christians” have an ACORN sized grasp on the Republican Party and that they are a Trojan Horse for turning the United States into an evangelical Christian theocracy.
How do we go about identifying these people and what do we do about them? What should we fear most in their beliefs?
Comment by heliotrope — August 5, 2009 @ 11:23 am - August 5, 2009
As a new and enthusiastic Christian of the Lutheran persuasion, I will add I can’t tell a fanatic, self-righteous Bible thumper from a well meaning, passionate proclaimer of the “Good News” without a program or until politics becomes the conversation. The whole DOMA situation is a magenta herring of the rankest kind. The strong belief that marriage is an institution of God and not of man, causes so much angst for the gay community because God is not down with unrepentant sin, and the politicians are not down with keeping their hands off anything that has votes attached. Let me back up and connect something here. Marriage is an institution not a right or law. Rights of man and the attending laws we expect to support those rights, are not being addressed in DOMA because marriage is not a right for anyone. Equal rights and protection under the law is the Big Deal. The politicians set up the shallow Christians and Gays to be agitated over DOMA and Prop 8, so it would be easier to see which group is more likely to win them the next election or passage of the next bill with their name on it. This misinformation is SOP for the Pols and sh*t stirrers.
P.S. As a man working on authentic joy in true Christian understanding and motives, I must admit to all I am a horrible sinner. The second I judge anyone on the “his sin is greater than my sin”, I fail. To not offer the blessings of His Word to those I honestly believe may benefit from it, would be selfish and very un-neighborly. To force my belief on anyone makes my honest beliefs just so much dung.
Keep me learning guys. This is a great blog. Rant out.
Comment by Texas Tom — August 5, 2009 @ 4:37 pm - August 5, 2009
I think I was clear to make the point that simply because their legislation fails does not mean the rest of the party does not carry the burden of, if nothing else, the stigma evangelicals bring to your party for many people who, like me, might otherwise stomach voting for someone from the Republican party.
I guess most of the negative influence of the religious evangelicals in your party is limited because the very people in the party with power who could wield it are too busy banging other women than their wives (see: “The Family” organization members like Ensign and Sanford (if you don’t know what “the Family” is, look it up because it’s a glaring example of exactly what I’m talking about regarding the people who have influence in the party)).
And when you step away from national politics and focus on the policies of local/state politics, you see a lot more of this influence. Admittedly those are limited to most of the Southern and some Midwestern states, but that is irrelevant.
And I still am confused as to how the liberals/progressives oppress your right to free worship? Where’s the oppression on the other side?
Comment by Victor — August 5, 2009 @ 7:39 pm - August 5, 2009
The Silk Road Act – Sen. Brownback – “where capitalism goes, the Gospel follows.” Thus far not legislation that has passed, but doesn’t mean the influence in policy isn’t there. Many evangelical Christians with political power believe that capitalism is the will of God and that God has chosen some people to be wealthy and some to be poor. Now whether you agree or disagree, to think that thought does not dictate the policies in Washington is absurd.
It isn’t all about gay marriage or abortion.
Comment by Victor — August 5, 2009 @ 7:42 pm - August 5, 2009
Is there no moral dilemma to you when “individual liberty” means that only some and not all people in our society might benefit from those “liberties?”
Not really. After all, while everyone may be created equal, everyone’s level of talent, skill, entrepreneurship, and willingness to work is not. Indeed, attempting to guarantee equality of outcome requires a limitation on liberty, inasmuch as you must prevent people from working harder and doing better.
You see, Counterveil, your problem is that taking advantage of those individual liberties is work. Instead, you want to live in a state of perpetual adolescence in which you can do whatever you want and hand off the bill to your parents. The Obama Party realizes this, which is why their value proposition to you is to replace Mommy and Daddy with the government. To help you in this, they’ve invented a fiction that anyone who has more than you do stole it from someone else and is “exploiting” and “taking advantage” of them; therefore, they need to be punished and have their wealth given to you instead.
In your Obama Party world, it is immoral that someone who stays in school, works hard, and does a good job should make more than a pot-smoking slacker who sleeps on their parents’ couch and will go looking for employment “tomorrow”. Your solution is that the government must punish the former individual and give their money to the slacker, because obviously the former individual is exploiting and taking advantage of the slacker.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 5, 2009 @ 8:18 pm - August 5, 2009
[...] Ed Driscoll, Pajamas Media: “Obama Would Like You To See Government As Religion” GayPatriot: To Critics of Republicans: Show me the Legislation where GOP pushes its beliefs on others Gerald Warner, Telegraph.co.uk: President Pantywaist in retreat: Barack Obama hoists the white flag [...]
Pingback by Obama’s Annoying “We Inherited…” Radio’s Mark Levin Lets Liberals and Obama Really Have It for Imposing Their Will on Our Nation (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone — August 21, 2009 @ 5:20 am - August 21, 2009
[...] Driscoll, Pajamas Media: “Obama Would Like You To See Government As Religion” GayPatriot: To Critics of Republicans: Show me the Legislation where GOP pushes its beliefs on others Gerald Warner, Telegraph.co.uk: President Pantywaist in retreat: Barack Obama hoists the white flag [...]
Pingback by Sarah Palin Calls out Obama & Co on Giving Billions of your Dollars to Develop Oil Fields In Brazil instead of the USA « VotingFemale Speaks! — August 21, 2009 @ 10:02 am - August 21, 2009
[...] Van Jones Resigns GayPatriot: Van Jones, Obama’s “Truther” Green Jobs Czar, Resigns and To Critics of Republicans: Show me the Legislation where GOP pushes its beliefs on others and “The meanest people in American politics are on the left” Ed Driscoll, Pajamas Media: Van [...]
Pingback by Van Jones – Obama Will Miss His Racist Radical Communist Pal; Obama? Your Crap just gets deeper « VotingFemale Speaks! — September 7, 2009 @ 7:51 am - September 7, 2009
[...] of MSM in Age of Obama and Van Jones, Obama’s “Truther” Green Jobs Czar, Resigns and To Critics of Republicans: Show me the Legislation where GOP pushes its beliefs on others Behind Blue Lines: Meet Zampolit Jones George Moneo, Babalú, an island on the net without a [...]
Pingback by Crackdown on Czars: Sen. Collins’ Amendment to Restrict Federal Funds & Examine Obama’s ‘Shadow Government’ Army of Czars (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone — September 24, 2009 @ 3:00 pm - September 24, 2009
[...] Not Support ObamaCare GayPatriot: Van Jones, Obama’s “Truther” Green Jobs Czar, Resigns and To Critics of Republicans: Show me the Legislation where GOP pushes its beliefs on others Ed Driscoll, Pajamas Media: Van Goes Under The Bus — Updated and A 9/11 Truther In King Obama’s [...]
Pingback by Disgraced Former “Green Jobs” Czar Van Jones Given NAACP Image Award: “Judge People on What They are Doing Today for Tomorrow, Not for What They Did Yesterday” (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone — February 24, 2010 @ 6:21 am - February 24, 2010