A fairly good indicator that Rick Perry will make a strong general election candidate is the desperation you can smell in the left’s opening salvo of attacks against him. The early leader for the genre’s exemplar is this piece from the formerly proud The Atlantic (which has sadly been reduced to a gay gossip site and anti-Semitic conspiracy newsletter). The author, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, first attempts lamely to argue that Rick Perry’s private prayer session from last Sunday was unconstitutional because it was Christian, a contention so stupid that even Doug Mataconis would not make it. However, Townsend’s heart is not really in that contention, so Townsend moves on quickly to her second (and contradictory) point: that Rick Perry is not really a Christian at all.
The press has traditionally been unwilling to question politicians about their religion. But in Perry’s case, Christianity is front and center on his platform. I hope David Gregory will ask him some of the following questions when he next appears on Meet the Press, and that other members of the media won’t shy away from them either.
Townsend’s contention that “Christianity is front and center on his platform” is completely unsupported by any evidence other than the fact that Perry led a prayer in which Christ was mentioned. In this respect he is completely indistinguishable from literally every single President who has ever served in the history of the nation, including Obama, Clinton, and Carter. There’s certainly nothing unusual or unprecedented about Rick Perry’s willingness to pray in public such that his faith is subject to more criticism than would normally be appropriate, but that is ultimately beside the point. Townsend’s criticism shows that she has no understanding whatsoever of what Christianity requires of the Christian, and her criticism is completely without merit. As you might have guessed, Townsend’s contention is that Perry is not Christian because he is not very socialist:
I see a fundamental inconsistency between Perry’s concerted opposition to government social programs and his promotion of himself as a Christian politician. When asked about the impact of Texas’s low-tax, low-service policies on the poor, he suggested that people who wanted more government services could find them in New York or California.
Christ teaches us to feed the hungry and care for the sick, not to abandon them. Perhaps Gov. Perry hasn’t read that part of the Bible where Christ admonishes us to care for “the least among us.”
Townsend is correct that Christ did indeed admonish Christians to feed the hungry and care for the sick. In fact, that is one of the central responsibilities of Christians. The entire point of this admonition, if one reads further into the passage, is that in so doing, the Christian reflects the heart of Christ by selflessly giving of him or herself to others. Supporting government services to the poor, however, reflects something a little different: a complete unwillingness to sacrifice one’s own money for the poor, in favor of having the government take it from other people (read, the “rich”) and give it to the poor. It takes a cynical heart completely unfamiliar with the teachings of Christ to suggest that God would be pleased with a no-cost vote for confiscatory taxes on other people to pay for the poor.
Townsend has a leg up on most social justice liberals, in that she at least acknowledges that this fraudulent interpretation of Jesus’ teaching is not without controversy:
Maybe he believes, like some socially conservative evangelicals, that these passages refer only to personal charity, not government programs. But I don’t see any place in the Bible that says we shouldn’t use all the tools we have at hand to help the poor, the sick, and the hungry.
The main reason most conservative evangelicals believe those passages refer only to personal charity is that by the plain language in the passages, they refer only to personal charity. Fortunately, we are not left to wonder whether a Christian can discharge his responsibility to God through the expedient of paying taxes, as Jesus was somewhat clear on the “render unto Caesar the things that are Ceasar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” thing.
The Christian’s obligation to personal charity is a point on which Christ was repeatedly explicit. However, the appropriate size and scope of the government is a question on which the New Testament is wholly and completely agnostic. And year after year, the evidence conclusively shows that Republicans, who are generally in favor of smaller government, are consistently vastly more generous with their giving to charities, who are invariably more efficient in helping the poor in any case.
The truly astounding thing, however, is that liberals are already so desperate about Perry that they are willing to embarrass themselves by at the same time falsely claiming that he’s pretending that Jesus is on his side, and at the same time attacking Perry by pretending Jesus is on their side. This is the sort of independent-alienating derangement that liberals usually don’t feel comfortable showing in public until someone has already been President for three or four years – which I suppose should be taken by Perry as something of a positive.
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
I have no problem with Perry's religion.
acat (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 6:51PM EST (link)It appears clear, to this cat, that Perry understands that, while his holy book specifies care for widows and orphans, it doesn’t say anywhere that government is the preferred vehicle.
While I may disagree with Perry, I disagree far more with those who use religion to manipulate.
See also this article, Agnostics for Perry over at Pajamas Media. (http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/08/14/agnostics-for-perry/?singlepage=true)
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Perry's religion SHOULD be a point in his favor
YnotNOW (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 7:06PM EST (link)even though it will be a negative point for all the liberals that assume anyone that is Christian must be going to create a theocracy and impose their religion on everyone else. Which is as far from the truth as you can get – (which religion led to nations that respect freedom of conscience- – islam? atheistic communism?).
Christianity at the least should imply that every person is given the inherent dignity of bearing the image of their creator. And every Christian leader bears the conscience that they ultimately answer to God, and therefore should not abuse their position even if they can get away with it.
Those are both positive aspects, even if you don’t share his religious beliefs.
YnotNOW
If not me, who? If not now, when?
Christianity and Perry
msjallen Tuesday, August 16th at 2:08PM EST (link)Christian Presidents have never pushed their beliefs on the American public and never will. The left needs to stop lying and listen to the truth and learn some history about this Nation.
Everyone has the right to believe the way they want to and that includes presidents; even O who I believe is not a Christian and determined to bring America to disaster.
Nahum 1:3 – The LORD is slow to anger and great in power And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, and clouds are the dust beneath His feet.
I Would Say So
Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 2:15PM EST (link)I’m reminded of this piece by “Spengler” – Benedict XVI is magnificently right
Which mentions this better (but considerably longer one) by Pope Benedict himself.
Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler
5^ infinity, acat
Xasteius (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:40PM EST (link)I’ll sooner vote for a conservative atheist than a liberal Christian (my House representative in college was Rev. Emmanuel Cleaver III (D-MO5) *gag*).
Don’t leave the party, hijack it back!
The only poll that counts is the one at the ballot box.
I don’t want to be Reagan. I want to be a Chance/Soros hybrid.
Townsend
Daniel Horowitz (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 6:58PM EST (link)is such a loser that she lost a bid for Governor against a Republican in MARYLAND!
As a Christ-follower, it irks me to no end
runner12 (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 7:06PM EST (link)when the Left twists Scripture to fit their agenda. First of all, Christ’s admonition is for individuals to give of their time and their money to the poor. It is NOT an admonition to abdicate that role to the government.
Secondly, government programs do not help the poor! They keep them in a perpetual state of despair and dependency. These programs hurt the poor, rather than help them. They do not raise people out of poverty nor teach people to discover their own potential.
Private charities do more good than the government ever could do because they are not a group of bureaucrats who have created a corrupt system. Private charities deal with people on a personal, one-on-one level and truly change lives. These are the organizations doing the Lord’s work, not the government.
5! nt
Vegas_Rick (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 7:27PM EST (link)nt
“God is great, beer is good and people are crazy.”- Billy Currington
“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan ‘press on’ has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.” Calvin Coolidge.
Hear! Hear!
Adjoran (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 3:52AM EST (link)The bureaucrats do not set out to create a corrupt system, but it inevitably becomes a system which best serves the bureaucracy, its true constituency, with the clientele relegated to a secondary role.
Love the title: "Drooling idiocy" is a perfect description of the liberals understanding of Christianity.
d_lamar Monday, August 15th at 7:06PM EST (link)The socialists / marxists are quick to criiticize conservatives for being anti-christian because we are against social welfare programs. Of all the people who don’t have a clue about Christianity and its beliefs, it would be the leftists, almost all of whom are either atheists or agnostics.
Their god is government.
Leon, I’m glad you so correctly pointed out that Jesus never commanded anyone to give to the Roman government, so that it could provide for the poor. Rather, Jesus clearly commanded us, individually, to help the poor, widows, and orphans. Anyone who understands Christianity knows that the only kind of help that really helps the poor is provided by private individuals developing a personal relationship with them, which in turn, may allow us to convince them to accept a personal relationship with Jesus.
Socialism is directly counter to being a Christian because it works against all Biblical teachings: personal relationships, financial and moral responsibility, and having a personal relationship with our Lord.
Of course, he also doesn't command us
aesthete (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 7:43PM EST (link)to institute legislation regarding gay marriage, pornography or drugs (and Biblically speaking, compelling people to give up those external behaviors without a corresponding heart change does nothing for them). Some on the right do unfortunately need to be reminded of that fact now and again. The adage about glass houses certainly applies, and unlike secular leftists manipulating scripture without truly caring for it, Christians who find themselves on the right should be concerned with letting politics inform their religious beliefs, rather than the other way around.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
I agree.
d_lamar Monday, August 15th at 7:47PM EST (link)I think there are too many well-intentioned Christians who believe that sin should be made illegal. Jesus never made the case for using government to punish sinful behavior.
Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal
Tbone (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 7:59PM EST (link)come readily to mind along with a few others.
The erroneous concept of the inability of legislating morality is a basic tenet of the Left. I see you have embraced it.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Let me know when you figure out how to legislate "thou shalt not covet", 'kay?
acat (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:02PM EST (link)Just because some of the 10 work as laws doesn’t mean they all do.
Or .. did your mind control experiments work?
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Did I say they all did?
Tbone (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:56PM EST (link)Where was that? I do believe “few” is less than “all”.
My point is that sin can be legislated against though, as with all laws, enforced with varying degrees of difficulty.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Then we don't have a problem.
acat (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 9:29PM EST (link)Other than figuring out which morality is the domain of the government and which is left to the private sector..
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Like roads and defense, adultry should be handled by government.
Tbone (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 10:56PM EST (link)If you have ever paid for a divorce attorney, you know that having it adjudicated in the private sector is very costly.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Handled =/= penalized
aesthete (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 11:01PM EST (link)Presumably, a government penalty would be attached to adultery if government were to address the moral component of adultery.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
There's a difference between ethics and morality
aesthete (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:17PM EST (link)Sin is a pretty broad category which includes things that we both legislate and which we leave to the person himself — conservatives accept this differentiation (even as they don’t have a particularly clear line dividing what should and shouldn’t be legislated). That being the case, no Christian should be inferring anything about the Christianity of someone else based on their political beliefs — nor should they be promoting “pro-Christian” policies, given that the only thing that the NT really says about the subject of government is that 1) government in the abstract is legitimate, 2) we should follow its commandments where it has jurisdiction, and 3) that we should pray that government leaves us in peace. Anything beyond that is human opinion (though some opinions are certainly more nonsensical than others).
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Wait a minute, aesthete
runner12 (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:26PM EST (link)What you seem to be advocating is that someone is one way in church and another way outside of it. Is that not hypocrisy? One cannot separate the policies they support in office from their faith. Christianity is not a compartmentalized form of religion. It is all or nothing and all encompassing in one’s life, or at least it should be. I may have misunderstood your point, but this is what I derived from your words.
As to the NT words on government, you are correct. Except you left out the life of Paul. Paul touted his rights as a Roman citizen and used their judicial process to further preach the Gospel and appeal the unjust sentence placed on him.
I'm not suggesting compartmentalization
aesthete (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:38PM EST (link)In fact, quite the opposite: I’m saying that, in just the same way that the morality of traditional marriage doesn’t make it OK for a husband to beat the stuffing out of an unfaithful wife, it’s not OK for government to initiate force against people who are doing admittedly immoral things without reason. The question of when and where use of force to prevent or stop ongoing immorality is one that is answered only in part by the Bible (which was not written to be a comprehensive list of dos and don’ts, but rather as the “Good News”). There is no pat answer on this subject, and I find it offensive that some people on the left and the right insist on pretending that there is one, and shaming people into getting onto the “right” side of the line by impugning the sincerity of their faith over what is a very difficult issue which has divided good people of faith for millenia.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
I understand where you are coming from and no
runner12 (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:46PM EST (link)one is suggesting that we adopt laws like radical Muslim countries. I am not sure where you received the impression that this was so. But our country does have laws that address morality, that is a fact. These laws are what prevent our society from disintegrating into chaos.
No one should shame anyone as to the sincerity of one’s faith, as that is God’s business and not ours. The Bible is the Good News, but it is also a book of Truth and it does not mince words between right and wrong. Relativism does not exist in this text.
Relativism? No
aesthete (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 9:12PM EST (link)However, comprehensiveness is not an accurate descriptor of the Bible, either. The Bible, unlike the Qu’ran or the primary text of some other religions, really doesn’t give that much guidance for what we should be pursuing as a matter of law — what little guidance the epistles give us (essentially, that government keep the peace, punish evildoers and leave Christians to their own devices) can (in theory, anyways) be fulfilled just as much by a miniarchist government as it can by a (non-Marxist) socialist one, so long as both are fulfilling those requirements. I was at one point a social conservative and still have many family members, friends and congregants who qualify as such; I know that they’re not trying to institute anything as radical or comprehensive as fiqh. I also know that the vast majority are concerned with liberty — and for that matter, the vast majority of the ones that I know wouldn’t qualify as busybodies or dominionists, either.
However, by that same token, there is no real reason for Christian politicians and congregants to advocate for laws, and to impugn the status of another’s faith, or the strength of their resolve on moral issues. Religion is rightly a powerful force in the world: we don’t need people bludgeoning their fellow adherents simply because they’ve come to a different political conclusion than their fellows. While there are obviously some political views which are incompatible with Christianity (Marxism or Islamic theocracy, for example), it’s sometimes missed that Moses brought down the Ten Commandments, and not the RNC party platform or the Democratic Socialist Manifesto, down from the mountain. People need to recognize that ultimately, social conservatism is a *political* movement, rather than a religious one, and respond accordingly.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Social conservatism and the RNC platform have
runner12 (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 9:27PM EST (link)very little in common. I identify myself as a conservative, not a Republican for the record. I might also add that while you are railing against social conservatism, you failed to address the attempts by the radicals in the gay rights community to force their morality on others (which I pointed out above).
I might also add that not one person on this thread has impugned anyone’s religious sincerity, based on their political differences. But there are principles that line up more with the Bible than others, but that is another topic for another site.
As for social conservatism being a political force rather than a religious one, I strongly disagree. I am a social conservative because of my faith, not because of politics. If my faith did not line up with social conservatism, I would not be one. My faith is an integral part of my conservative beliefs and I would bet that most social conservatives feel that way.
There's the problem
aesthete (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 10:58PM EST (link)You can’t criticize leftists for pointing out that you’re inconsistent in applying your religious principles to the subject of legislation when, well, you (generalized “you” here) are! Leftists’ own hypocrisy on the issue (attempts to have anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals, for instance) does not make this any less true. Letting people alone when it comes to the Christian imperative to give to the needy, while having government compel people not to abuse alcohol or look at pornography, seems rather arbitrary: both are commandments directed towards the believer, both are moral imperatives, and certainly the Bible does not compel laws regarding either.
I don’t have a problem with finding inspiration from religion for their political and social views (I certainly do), but when people who are undoubtedly Christian and earnest can come to radically different conclusions on politics, and when the Bible doesn’t say much one way or another, I find it irritating when politicians or preachers put words in Jesus’ mouth. Mike Huckabee’s use of his religion as a baton is but one example of what I’m talking about, and it is a good deal more prevalent than it should be. It is our Christian duty to help the poor, and (most important of all) spread the gospel. Even if we think they’re good ideas, it surely isn’t not our Christian duty to put up yard signs for Prop 777 (The One About Gays), vote for Politician GoodHair (The One Who Has The Nice Family), or even to defend the Constitution or reduce spending. There’s a moral and ethical component to all of those things, but not a sectarian one.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
What on earth are you talking about?
runner12 (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 11:30PM EST (link)I am in no way inconsistent in my beliefs and I have not mentioned one ounce of specific legislation. I also find it very interesting that you would rather defend the Left and attack my views than anything else.
Your last paragraph comes across as more of a defensive position on your part than anything else that I or anyone else has said. As to those things that you mentioned not being our Christian duty, how do you know that they are not for some people? If you can’t argue that they 100% are, then you certainly can’t argue that they are 100% are not. As you have pointed out, each person’s walk is different (and I could point out a half a dozen scriptures that would back the importance of reducing spending AND why Christians should support it).
As to supporting the laws against pornography and drugs, I support them 100% and I am not in the least ashamed of it. I support them because of my faith AND because I think it is sound policy. You may disagree with me all that you want, but please do not call me a hypocrite. I believe in limited government, not no government.
Inconsistent in the sense
aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 1:20PM EST (link)that social conservatives generally support government intervention to enforce some parts of the Biblical moral code (laws regarding sexual immorality, for instance), but oppose it in other instances (laws regulating blasphemy or compelling charity), and insist that there is no contradiction. If no contradiction exists, I’m not seeing it: why should government compel people to follow Christian standards regarding chastity, but not do so when it comes to Christian charity? I have yet to see an adequate response to this question from social conservatives. I’m sorry if you took that as a personal attack; it was not intended as such. I see it as a structural flaw in social conservatism, not a personal flaw.
At any rate, this thread has devolved into something that I didn’t intend: the point of my comment above was that conservatives (social and otherwise) should not assume that the left has exclusive purchase of manipulating the Bible to serve their own ends, or that they are the only ones looking to shame congregants into supporting a political movement. I would like for conservatives to be more aware of the Mike Huckabees and other politicians trading in their Christianity for votes and dollars, or to attack someone else; I’m sure that you can agree that using Jesus to get some advantage for yourself is unbecoming conduct for any Christian. I believe that shaming such people out of the public square would be good for social conservatives and the general public alike, but must confess that it is especially irritating for me on a personal level as a Christian to see people who should know better acting in that way. Clearly, I didn’t communicate that very well
Sorry about the confusion.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
One of two things must be true
JSobieski (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 1:39PM EST (link)Option #1: We agree that while laws are premised on morality, laws cannot and should not attempt to criminalize ALL moral failings. In other words, liberty has an intrinsic value (just as God gives us free will) and that liberty cannot survive (and one can argue goodness cannot truly exist) if good behvior is obtained through compulsion. Some forms of bad (i.e. sinful) behavior must be tolerated by the state (society is free to express scorn in ways outside of government power)
OR
Option #2: Laws against blasphemy and gluttony, as well as laws requiring compulsory charity (i.e. things liberal push on us) are justified. Gluttony, greed, lust, wrath, envy, and pride become areas ennumerated for government action.
Assuming Option #1 is selected, the question comes down to how does one distinguish between an immorality such as murder that requires government prohibitions and immorality such as being selfish with money that should not result in government action.
I don’t see how conservatives can think Option #2 is a viable option for an underlying framework for government power.
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
That's a good way of putting it
aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 1:44PM EST (link)So as to not continue an already quite lengthy thread-jack that I had a role in initiating, I’ll just say that social conservatives have not, from what I’ve read, offered a particularly strong set of principles delineating what is or is not an appropriate case for government intervention (and I would agree that the vast, vast majority of social conservatives accept Option #1 as true, regardless of whether they think they do or not).
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
I think most social conservatives accept option 1 as true
JSobieski (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 3:41PM EST (link)However, agreement on option #1 is the easy part.
Most of us agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, but exactly where the line between bad and illegal vs. bad and legal is to be drawn is unclear.
I know that many assert that the “harm” principle is where the line should be drawn, but the practicality of implementation is problematic. Liberals justify nanny-state laws on obesity, smoking, etc. on the basis of harm. Since any safety net costs money, cost can be justified as a harm.
The 100 trillion dollar question is conservative politics is how to decide precisely where to draw the line. I’m sure Milton had a good answer to the question, but I have no idea where to find it. I do presume that every conservative buys into option #1, but I could be proven wrong.
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
aesthete, I have to agree with what
lineholder (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 9:57PM EST (link)runner12 has stated above. My involvement in the conservative movement, as a social conservative, is inspired by my religious beliefs first and foremost, not the other way around.
It is probably impossible to quantify
Doc Holliday (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 10:23PM EST (link)how much my religious beliefs inform my conservatism. It would be like trying to decide what percentage hops play in my love of beer, and I don’t even like the over-hopped ones, so it makes it even more difficult.
It is tough for a small-government conservative who does not come directly at political philosophy from a religious point of view. I mean, lets face it, our Constitution tells us straight up that small-government conservatism is the right and lawful way. History shows that capitalist societies that respect freedom work the best and achieve the most. I don’t need to hear a sermon to know that.
On the other hand, our Founders had faith, and Western Civilization can not be separated from Judeo-Christian philosophies, laws, beliefs, etc.
One thing about Perry though. He can’t separate his daily life from his religion, that is true. But when he raises his right hand at the inauguration,, he will be swearing before God to defend all Americans, religious or not.
Molon Labe!
lineholder and runner12, I'm with you 100%.
Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 2:12AM EST (link)Not only can I not separate the two, I don’t want to.
Col. 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
That is my standard, even though I fall woefully short of it. I can’t and won’t remove Christianity from any facet of my life, and in fact, wearing it into the voting booths is actually one of the easier places to do so.
Selwyn Duke wrote that, “Truth be known, the admonition against legislating morality is only issued when that morality happens to diverge from what’s fashionable, and by that I mean “politically-correct.” It’s something certain people — usually those of a more liberal bent — warn about when the proposal involves morality that they don’t happen to like. ” The entire article here is a good read on legislating morality.
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)
Thanks RWM
runner12 (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 7:51AM EST (link)That is an excellent article with many good points.
But you *are* separating the two
aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 1:48PM EST (link)as is every conservative who hews to JSob’s Option #1 in this comment. The choice is not whether to follow God’s laws or man’s laws — that’s a false dichotomy that all but dominionists reject. It is *what* aspects of sectarian morality should be enforced by government that is at issue, not whether we enforce all of it or not.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
I think it has become very difficult to follow the tenets of Christianity and
Tbone (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 9:00PM EST (link)vote for Democrats. So much of what they do as a Party is actually institutionalized evil.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Well said.
runner12 (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:17PM EST (link)Our Founding Fathers firmly believed that morality had an important role in society and government, to a certain extent, had a role in preserving it. However, like any good thing in the hands of bad people the ” morality claim” can be used for bad ends. But morality is important if a free society is to survive, according to these men quoted below
“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”-Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence.
“It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.”
Patrick Henry
“He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man….The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people.”
Samuel Adams
“Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.”
Benjamin Franklin
There are many more where that came from. The question is not should government promote a moral code, the question is how much and to what extent?
Kowalski
runner12 (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:18PM EST (link)The ” well said” was for Tbone ( no offense aesthete).
None taken
aesthete (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:31PM EST (link)I have no problem with morality, only with the charlatans both left and right who insist on questioning the Christianity of people based on political beliefs, under the false notion that such equates to morality. I also must note that there is no contradiction at all between believing that certain things are wrong while not wanting government to have any say in them: much as one can support charity without supporting the forcible confiscation of wealth to support same, one can believe that traditional marriage is an unalloyed good (and drugs and unalloyed harm) without wanting those who deviate from those views to either go to prison or be forced to subsidize my beliefs.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
No one is advocating for anyone to go to prison.
runner12 (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:36PM EST (link)You pointed out that it can go both ways on the Left and the Right, and I agree with you. After all, is not the Lefy’s insistance that every state adopt gay marriage a perfect example of someone forcing their brand of morality on others?
“It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.”
gunslingr45 Tuesday, August 16th at 10:35AM EST (link)which is why they want to take God out of everything and make him illegal IMHO. IF they ever do, I reckon I will be an outlaw!
“The fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follow that, and in its turn wretchedness and oppression.” – Thomas Jefferson
Or murder, or stealing, or yelling fire in a movie house....
Paula (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 7:59PM EST (link)blah, blah, blah….
Christ doesn’t command us to legislate anything, but as a society, we have choose to “legislate morality” when we decide collectively that certain actions are harmful to society.
Paula
My blog: Bold Colors
Follow me on Twitter: pbolyard
That's true
aesthete (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:23PM EST (link)Meaning that we shouldn’t be shaming church ladies and “” into accepting X political belief because Jesus would have wanted it so.
(I’ll also briefly note that we need something a bit better than “society”‘s needs to justify government policy — after all, liberals use the same standard to justify universal healthcare, Social Security, and all the rest.)
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
No need to institute legislation
azrally Monday, August 15th at 8:25PM EST (link)As the Bible itself already warns us not to have homosexual relations, or other sexual activities that are forbidden (LEV 18:6-23), not to abuse strong drink (there were no drugs) PROV 20:1, and pornography basically fits under the Ten Commandments under adultery. I find no reason to allow politics to inform my beliefs, they are readily available in the Bible, and God’s laws make more sense than the recent laws of man. And yes, I try to follow as many of the Old Testament rules that I can, even though it is not required of Christians to do so, as Christ fulfilled the law with His death and resurrection. . .
“I would remind you that Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is no vice. . .”
Senator Barry Goldwater
So when can we expect
aesthete (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:45PM EST (link)conservatives to supplant the Constitution and replace it with the Levitical Code? I agree with mainline Christians that homosexuality is a sin, that abusing drugs is a wrong, and that pornography is wrong. I also think know compelling all that is required of the stringent moral code in the Bible through government fiat and human means would make criminals of us all, and would require a dismally totalitarian level of government.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
But azrally said exactly the opposite
Adjoran (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 5:22AM EST (link)He specifically eschewed legislation as unnecessary, then you expect “conservatives to supplant the Constitution and replace it with the Levitical Code?”
No one that I am aware of has suggested “compelling all that is required” in the Bible, especially the Old Testament Jewish laws. Where do you get this stuff?
What is the source of our laws? The Hammurabi Code predates the Ten Commandments, if laws originated then are they Babylonian?
Constitutionally speaking. . .
azrally Wednesday, August 17th at 7:46PM EST (link)Of course, Christians who are involved in our nation’s politics are not calling for the theocracy that would be required to “replace it(the Constitution) with the Levitcal Code.” That was the law of the theocratic nation of ancient Israel, and there have not been successful theocracies since. It is anti-thetical to our Constitution’s restriction of creating a national religion. I would like to see more consideration for the Christian ideals and influence that created the Constitution, and as a conservative, a more strict following of the Constitution’s original intent. I would also like to see less of the moral decline of the nation that is supported by our education and entertainment leaders by attacking the validity of Biblical morals at every opportunity. Relativism makes for poor governance. . .
“I would remind you that Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is no vice. . .”
Senator Barry Goldwater
Drooling idiocy
msjallen Tuesday, August 16th at 2:11PM EST (link)d_lamar, so very true, thank you.
He is my Governor
altexas Monday, August 15th at 7:14PM EST (link)and I have several reasons not to support him in a general sense. None of those reasons have been hit on by any site i have seen and I will not help those sites do their job.
Rick Perry has his flaws but he does not subscribe to black liberation theology which is just Marxism dressed up to look Christian while promoting race hatred. I do not think my Governor is obsessed with taxing rich white people who already pay the bulk of our taxes.
I support Herman but Rick is a damn fine choice too.
My gov too and I'm with you
trutexan Monday, August 15th at 7:57PM EST (link)While I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’d vote for a potted plant to get Obama out of the WH, it’s not that much of a stretch. No one else in the field excites the country the way Perry has so I was hoping he’d jump in.
I was anti-Obama before it was cool.
I'm not sure,
rickbull Monday, August 15th at 9:18PM EST (link)but I think, at this point, that I COULD support a potted plant to replace 0bama.
WE ARE THE 53% (who actually pay taxes).
Please
jlsankot Tuesday, August 16th at 7:07AM EST (link)give us your reasons for not supporting Perry.
What if the sites never let us know? Are we then considering electing someone that we shouldn’t even consider?
I think we need to start helping each other in this election by sharing any information we have. If it is something that is only your belief, then state that, and let the rest of us make up our minds. Of course, facts are also helpful. But we need to be well informed on all the candidates to make a wise choice.
I, too, like Herman Cain and proved it by voting for him in the straw poll. It was between him and Michele Bachmann but I was only allowed one vote!!
Thank you in advance for any information you are willing to share.
Sorry but No.
altexas Tuesday, August 16th at 11:49AM EST (link)I supported Rick over Senator Hutchison for Governor and I am proud to have him as the longest serving Governor in Texas history. My preference for Herman is a happy choice between several very good choices and Rick is one of those. I used to listen to Herman when he had his evening radio show on WSB in Atlanta. It was available online live just as Erick Ericksons show is now. Erick filled Herman’s slot Herman is particularly week on foreign affairs but light years ahead of Obama.
That I have some reservations about my Governor based on years of watching is factually based but still a judgement call. No Conservative need be overly concerned with him in the White House. Rick has attended Tea Party gatherings here in San Antonio and around the State. He understands and supports the movement.
As I said, I am not going to help the left attack Rick. He is target #1. Some other candidates may serve as distractions. Good.
Also Senator Hutchison has served our State with dignity. I thank her for her service. We will elect a more Conservative Senator next year.
Pray away.
pantera Monday, August 15th at 7:23PM EST (link)The poor are limited to widows,orphans,handicapped.
If a man will not work he shall not eat 2Thess 3:10 and younger women should work,marry so they won’t be busybodies (i forget this verse number).
The deserving poor.
I’ve never seen a politician LEAD a prayer before 110,000 people,80,000 online. That’s what we need in a POTUS if there’s really going to be a heart change.
Politicians excepted?
RDCook (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 2:10PM EST (link)“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
I cannot find any interpretation in the First Amendment that excludes politicians from the protections of the first amendment. If Governor Perry want to preach from a soap box on any street corner in the US it is his constitutional right to do so. If he wants to get down on his knees and pray out loud every morning on the steps of the state capitol that too is protected. If a thousand people want to join him that is protected.
Wake up America!
The "Great Awakening" phenomena.
msctex (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 7:28PM EST (link)They seem to come about two or three times a century in this country. Our failed flirtation with Socialism also follows this timetable to no small degree. Can any history majors/aficionados state whether or not there is a verifiable pattern? Wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
Ironic that Townsend admonishes us to
Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 7:28PM EST (link)take care of the least among us. Wouldn’t that be the unborn?
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)
Good job RWM
runner12 (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 8:03PM EST (link)That was quite a zinger to Ms. Townsend.
But, of course, the unborn do not count,
rickbull Monday, August 15th at 9:47PM EST (link)because the liberals say they don’t–and we, of course, know that the liberals are always right–because they say so! /snark>
WE ARE THE 53% (who actually pay taxes).
But, in all seriousness,
rickbull Monday, August 15th at 9:52PM EST (link)the pro-life mantra is one of the 3 legs of the stool of Conservatism. Life and politics is all about choices. The wrong choices lead one down a path of poverty and misery. The right choices lead to happiness and prosperity, and any choice that is easy to make is generally the wrong choice.
Choose Life!
WE ARE THE 53% (who actually pay taxes).
Considering that there must be at least 6 or 7 subscribers
Tbone (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 7:34PM EST (link)to the Atlantic that are potential Perry voters, I doubt that Kathleen will be able to move the needle much.
The amusing concept is a Kennedy writing on Christianity.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
That was my response as well.
Bill S (Diary) Monday, August 15th at 10:13PM EST (link)My guess is that Perry isn’t all that concerned about what the atheists and leftists think about him, and I doubt that those who he IS concerned about reaching are reading The Atlantic.
In other words: yawn.
(but Brother Leon’s diary is, of course, spot on)
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
Socialism is anti-Christian
mikew Monday, August 15th at 7:44PM EST (link)So-called evangelical “liberalism” has made a powerful comeback in the last decade and now wields inordinate influence in many mainstream evangelical churches. Much of the “emerging/emergent” church movement has bought into the whole Christianity as socialist/green/peace nonsense.
However, Jesus — and the entire Bible — takes for granted the right to private property. Private property, beginning with the right to own oneself, was granted by God as part of the Creation covenant. It is true that God will call people into account for how they use their property, but they must have property in order to be held accountable for their stewardship of it. Let us make no mistake: Socialism essentially denies the right to private property, and so denies the divine mandate that God Himself ordained.
The 1980s Francis Schaeffer/Michael Novak/Harold Lindsell et al defense of capitalism as eminently Christian needs to be revived and restated with confidence today.
Private Property
ru4fred Monday, August 15th at 8:35PM EST (link)Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew). You can do what you want with your own property. Anti-class warfare sentiment from the Old Testament, 10th Commandment…do not covet anything of thy neighbor.
spinoneone
spinoneone Tuesday, August 16th at 12:34AM EST (link)We can all pray for the 0. May I suggest Psalm 109:08?
8 Let his days be few;
and let another take his office.[ Acts 1.20 ]
The Psalms are, of course, Old Testament, not new, but many of those verses are incorporated in the New Testament by other authors. Oh, and by the way, as to who should help whom?
Psalm 108:12 suggests the following:
12 Give us help from trouble:
for vain is the help of man.
Christianity and our Constitutional Republic
paco12348 Tuesday, August 16th at 8:10AM EST (link)Both are under attack from the Left. They lift parts of the Bible to support their thesis and leave the rest behind that gives the true meaning to the phrase. They do the same to the Constitution.
The Left will spin the confrontation between Obama and the Tea Party in Iowa to their advantage but I think he needs to be confronted with the fruits of lies from the Left and his Administration. We respect the Office of the President but Obama’s lies and even more egregious, his belief in the end justifies the means attitude, has disgraced and shamed America. He goes around Congress, instead of working with them, he serves only his party, not the entire Nation. Obama, as a person deserves no respect and his blaming is infantile.
Liberals/Religion and Politics
rubb Tuesday, August 16th at 8:57AM EST (link)Every time I hear one of these left wing nutcases talk about why the government needs to do the work of the church in caring for the widows, orphans, elderly, sick, crazy and any other condition they deem worthy of my money, I just ask them if the gorvernment should do the other work the Bible teaches. Then the state can work to stop fornication, divorce, homosexuality, drunkenness, brashness, idolatry, sloth, abortion, and any other non christion behavior. Then I invariably get a lecture on the seperation of church and state with not a thought of their own idiocy and hypocrisy. I don’t think the answer woild be any different from Townsend.
Nice......
irishgirl Tuesday, August 16th at 10:06AM EST (link)Excellent comback……..
Huh? Thought we were talking about Perry's religion.
ihateliberals Tuesday, August 16th at 5:46PM EST (link)I can’t make heads nor tails out of what you could possibly be saying here.
Sorry this ws not meant to be here.
ihateliberals Tuesday, August 16th at 5:48PM EST (link)This was supposed to be about 5 post dwon from here. Never mind this. no way to delete it.
thanks
rubb Tuesday, August 16th at 9:28PM EST (link)besides my obvious lack of typing skills, I thought it was pretty clear, thanks for clarifying.
Pretending
renl57 Tuesday, August 16th at 9:02AM EST (link)“…and at the same time attacking Perry by pretending Jesus is on their side.”
Not all of them pretend that.
The Pew survey polls consistently show that a far greater percentage of liberals have no religion than is true for any other group. And on the left-wing blogs, many of these are honest about their belief that religion is a dangerous superstition; and having a Presidential candidate guided by it makes them uncomfortable. (What about Obama? Liberals were hoping that everything centrist-sounding and Christian-sounding he said in his 2008 campaign was just a lie to get votes. Yes, they’ve admitted that publicly too.)
But liberals are too smart to try to attack Perry or other Republicans in the name of atheism. They know that won’t sell to most voters.
Hence they put their token Christians forward, like Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.
But if you want to know what liberals’ real gripe against Perry’s faith is, you have to go visit where they all hang out. Not believe anything they say in the mass media when they know the CNN cameras are on them.
Gov. vs Religion
darl444 Tuesday, August 16th at 10:28AM EST (link)The government rules by force; religion by persuasion. That’s a big difference, is it not? Religion preaches (persuasion) providing for the poor, government forces providing for the poor. Religion preaches there is punishment for not donating–eternity in H-E-L-L, whereas Government promise is confiscation of property and perhaps time in jail as well. A significant difference, is it not?
Thou shall not steal! When one or more people(gov) take money by force, it approaches the act of stealing. It’s one thing for government to demand it’s fair share for the services that government provides equally to all. National defense, roads, water, etc., but it is quite different for govern men to take from some to provide for others, with no direct benefit for those paying is essentially organized theft.
Politicians that promise benefits to a class of citizens for which they don’t have to pay their fair share, creates a conflict of interest. Promising extended unemployment insurance is essentially buying the vote of the unemployed by bribery, and then theft to pay for it. It also creates a conflict of interest for the unemployed voter in voting for the politician.
Sick of you shoving Perry down our throats!
jeffreyrbrady Tuesday, August 16th at 1:31PM EST (link)For some reason…it seems that some talk show hosts and political site commentators think that the traditional Conservative wants to hear them slobbering over Perry.
Perry is a “recovering Democrat”. He hasn’t been a Republican long enough to win any Conservative’s vote! The GOP can take a hike if they think we will vote with a bad taste in our mouth like we did with McCain…You can take Perry home to your family if you like him so much. I’ll stick with the Conservatives!
well, bye
Doc Holliday (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 1:37PM EST (link)Molon Labe!
Would that be Ron Paul??
snowshooze (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 1:39PM EST (link)Gee…yo s’pose?
huh?
gekster (Diary) Tuesday, August 16th at 1:39PM EST (link)He ran as a conservative in Texas and won three terms as a conservative.
Just how long does it take for a Democrat to become a conservative Republican.
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
Long Enough?
rubb Tuesday, August 16th at 9:33PM EST (link)I don’t have a dog in the hunt yet on Perry, but he gave up the Democratic Party far enough back that a lot of our younger readers weren’t born yet. Don’t put needless artificial restraints on who you support or not. If you don’t like the way he governed, say so, but if we tell people that have recently seen the light that they are not welcome, then we have loaded the gun and pointed it fairly square against our own head.
Liberals are so paranoid about religion it is pathetic.
ihateliberals Tuesday, August 16th at 5:41PM EST (link)When was the last time a President signed any bill that cause you or me to have religion of any kind? The President of the USA has no religious influence without congress sending him a Bill to sign that contains it. After having a Muslim President it doesn’t seem to matter that much anymore what a Presidents religion is. What does matter to me is his politics. That is wht is going to affect my life more than his religion and they are not one and the same.
As for Rich Perry or Mitt Romney their politics worry me greatly. Romney with Romneycare and Perry with the Dream Act. These two are RINO’s and have no place on the Republican ticket. These Bozo’s need to just step aside and let the real conservatives handle this election. Oh yeah! there aren’t any left except for Michelle Bachman. Tim Pawlenty dropped out.