There Is No God Problem

Republicans don't have a God problem, though I am becoming convinced that there are some conservatives who have a problem with God. 

Kathleen Parker, in her latest column assails Republicans for allowing the "the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP" to what?  Remain in the party?  Have a seat at the table?  Influence politicians?  

Parker lets the mask slip, however, when she says " the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows".  Now it becomes clear.  This is simply another attack by a self-described intellectual elite on a (sizeable) number of Americans who exasperate her.

I haven't set foot in a church in years, and have no desire to start.  My religious views are, as Parker suggests they should be for all, "in the privacy of my heart", but to suggest that ours is the only way to conduct ourselves in the political sphere isn't just lunacy, it's damning conservatism to irrelevance.  

Where is Ms. Parker's outrage over Barack Obama's plan to ensure that "we are all our brother's keeper", using the government to further his religious beliefs?  Where is Parker's disgust at the formation of left-leaning religious/political groups like We Believe Ohio and We Believe Colorado?  The Democrats are welcoming religious voters, yet Kathleen Parker thinks Republicans need to reject them?

You don't  grow a party by becoming more exclusive.  You don't win elections by alienating millions of Americans.  Kathleen Parker is showing the right way to become irrelevant as a political party, and I can only assume that her intellectual vapidity is worth it as long as the movers and shakers in D.C. can view her as one of those "acceptable conservatives".  

The GOP can be the party of religious diversity, but not at the expense of alienating evangelical Christians.  Thomas Jefferson was as close to a non-believer as you could find among the Founders, but even he recognized that freedom of religion protected the rights of the religious as well as the non-believers.  Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom was written in 1779, during the rise of the Baptist Church in his state.  A decade earlier, the sheriff of Spotsylvania County had jailed four Baptist preachers for 40 days.  In 1771, Edmund Pendleton (head of the Caroline County Court and member of the House of Burgesses), watched as the clerk of his court dragged Baptist minister John Waller down the courthouse steps, his head pounding "against the ground, sometimes up, sometimes down" and handed him over to the local sheriff.  After the sheriff whipped the preacher, Waller "in a gore of blood went back singing praise to God, mounted the stage and preached with a great deal of liberty."*

If Jefferson felt that "evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy" Christians shouldn't have a say in politics, one would think he would have mentioned it.  Instead, Jefferson and the founders explicitly protected the religion and speech of radical Christians as well as non-believers.  Perhaps it was because even Jefferson realized that the push for liberty had started with the human desire to worship God as one pleased, and that religious freedom had led to greater human freedom.  Kathleen Parker may want to exorcise religion from the political sphere, but she should at least acknowledge that if our own Founders had done so, this country would be a far different place... one undeniably worse than it is today. 

If Kathleen Parker had advocated coming up with a compelling secular argument for things like traditional marriage and pro-life positions, I would heartily agree with her.  It's not enough for a Republican to base their arguments on religion. Conservative principles shouldn't work only for evangelical Christians.  Conservatism needs to work for every American, but  that's a matter of messaging, not changing what it means to be a conservative. 

 

*The Unknown American Revolution, Gary Nash

0
Your rating: None

Comments

If you hadn't changed what it meant to be a conservative

you'd still be winning New Jersey, New england, and losing the South.

Next question please.

I find the idea of a theocracy to be repulsive, and the steps that Bush has taken towards reducing scientific freedom by allowing bigots to make scientific decisions that they lack the foundational knowledge to understand... hideous.

Nice strawman you are beating there

I find the idea of a theocracy to be repulsive

As do I. And I am aware from discussions with fellow Christian conservatives that they really want Govt to allow them to worship and live the life of their values and pass it on their children, as we have done in this country for centuries. They dont want the theocracy of enforced irreligion.

It would be nice to not have voluntary expressions of religious sentiment in public mis-labeled and mis-treated as 'theocracy' when it is not. It would be nice if secularists would like up to the 1st Amendment ideal and really allowed "freedom to worship".

the steps that Bush has taken towards reducing scientific freedom by allowing bigots to make scientific decisions that they lack the foundational knowledge to understand... hideous.

This is a lie -  A smear against Bush and honest men in the administration. Scientific freedom has never been stronger. But I guess since that is one of the Ten Commandments, I cant mention it. feh.

try telling noaa that.

when you run over another whale. (I like noaa, they stay under budget).

try telling nasa that, when we've seen all unmanned space exploration be docked.

I remain concerned about our Class M status, and my reports from Johns Hopkins suggest that certain people decided to circumvent the normal procedures for scientific accountability so that they could cancel research that they thought would "remove consequences from sexual acts outside of wedlock".

Dead people. That's what we're really talking about. The price in blood for "conservative values" continues to grow... And we needn't mention acephalic babies, need we?

Kathleen Parker, self-described intellectual elite

I understand that Ms. Parker graduated froom Converse College in Spartanburg, SC and the University of San Francisco, a Roman Catholic university.  I hardly think this qualifies her as a member of the elite Ivy League intellectual class, although it does raise a few questions about whether she's a "recovering Catholic" who's now decided to Just Say No to the opium of the masses and become an atheist. 

Like a stereotypical ex-smoker, the formerly religious atheist can be the most put off by anyone else enjoying their faith.  On the other hand, Parker was also a Mitt Romney supporter which may have led to many of the rumors about how Mitt insiders were hoping to sabotage Palin.  She's the only one I know of who was outspoken enough to call for Palin to step down (thus managing to disembowel both McCain and Palin in one dainty, fell swoop). 

Naturally I have no idea, I'm just spreading gossip and rumors because I don't like her.  Apparently that's what we Republican ladies do when we don't like other Republican ladies, as we've seen so often in this bitchy, edgy little campaign.  

The real problems - smartness, coolness and competence