Harsanyi On God And The GOP

Does it irk you as a conservative, as it does me, if some youngish, clear-eyed wonder often with a bad haircut if they're male asks you, "Are you a Christian?" The women often do better in the hair department, but not always, unfortunately.

It isn't the question that irks so much as it is a realization based upon experience that you had better be able to point to certain feelings, beliefs, experiences and political positions if you want to have a "yes" answer accepted as fact.

A confession of sorts, I was tossed early with palm fronds in hand from my Methodist six-week summer Sunday school at about age ten for sharing some snarky comment with the class after the instructor told me to do that very thing when I was caught talking. Maybe I was a natural blogger way back then, who knows? I never went back.

Don't get me wrong. The GOP and conservatives need religious voters and we should welcome them into the fold. Most really are great people. But at some point Republicans need to reveal a political truth to the brethren.

This thing is a political discussion we are having and there are good reasons why Religion and Politics should only mix to a point. That also shouldn't mean values are off limits and shouldn't be fostered in general terms - but with a light, not a heavy hand. Honestly, a small government party should not abide moral edicts from a Federal government based upon Religion or anything else, not because they aren't "right," or good for the country, but because it isn't our governments business and our politics is not the best place for that discussion.

It's an important societal discussion, though not necessarily a civil one, perhaps?

David Harsanyi addresses the issue today at The Denver Post. Check it out.

No, evangelicals are not "ailing" the Republican Party, as Parker contends, but the acceptance of the traditional value wing should not be a prerequisite to being a "real" conservative.

Comments

[eleni]

I think that religious conservatives (myself included) need to learn to argue for their moral beliefs without referencing the bible, God's will, etc. There is an argument from reason to be made against abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and other issues we care about. It doesn't help to persuade anyone when we give the impression that we think we are God's minions sent to crush them. We need to exert ourselves to learn to make the case without coming across as holier-than-thou, and so do non-religious conservatives who do oppose some of thee things but don't bother to make their case.

[anon]

I agree.

I don't believe the bible is the 'word of god'...i have a hard time understanding those who do believe the bible to be the 'literal' word of god or anyone who believes their particular dogma/book was authored by the creator of the universe.

There are plenty of good, solid, FACT BASED arguments that can be proven any number of ways that support the traditional family structure, the idea that 2 parents are better than one, sex without love is damaging, promiscuity is damaging and so on...which if you made the case for some of these things in terms of overall good outcomes instead of "morality" you would do a lot better.

I won't get into abortion since I don't believe that first trimester abortions kill "babies" or that fertilized eggs deserve legal rights...best for both sides to stop trying to recruit the other and instead find out what you CAN agree on.

[anonymous]

Does it irk you as a conservative, as it does me, if some youngish, clear-eyed wonder often with a bad haircut if they're male asks you, "Are you a Christian?"

Not at all, because it's a great deal of fun to try to have sex with them (I'm not really gay, I just play one around evangelists).

[mark l.]

would much rather argue for restrictions on abortion based on viability as opposed to 'god's plan'.

22 weeks is the record(5 months), and that should be the fine line for abortion. The argument would be ridiculously easy, sans god. The best position for the gop remains to oppose all third trimester, and let states decide on 2nd trimester viability.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17237979/

Should 5 months be the end of the argument? no. Is it a good start? yes.

catering to the minority who wants to make it illegal in all cases is a recipe for disaster.

The stem cell debate, had the gop argued it correctly, ended several years ago with the successful extraction and filtration of adult stem cells from the host patient.

[yo]

I think some people are in complete denial here. I understand this with democrats, but when I see conservatives in denial, it bothers me.

What, you ask, am I referring to?
This notion that republicans should welcome religious voters because they 'need them'. Are you stark, raving mad? The republican party is a party of the religious and the religious welcome the secular conservatives. If you can't see that, just take a look at the party platform, the platform commitee, and take yo head outa yo butt.

[Dan Riehl]

That's BS, yo. Just because a group seizes the infrastructure by design doesn't make them "king." The demographics across the country don't support your statement. And a number of God voters are increasingly fiscally liberal, or more in line with Huckabee's populism.

That will increase as times get hard driving more God voters to the Dems. When it comes to eating, even God sometimes gets the back pew.

[MKS]

The Republican Party began in the mid-1800's as a combination of Whigs, Know-Nothings and Free-Soilers, who combined in their desire to advance industry and oppose the spread of slavery. As such, they greatly honored the concept of private property, but did not think that human beings should be property. Much of the party opposed slavery for religious reasons. The modern GOP fights for lower taxes, limited government, pro-family, and pro-life legislation for the same reasons. There is no benefit in making the tent smaller by alienating the country-club wing or the tent-revival wing. Human rights and property rights are the goals, and they are not antithetical.

[Anon]

The country club wing is already alienated, half of them voted for the most liberal presidential candidate in 30 years.

The GOP could have had all of those Blue Dog Democrats as Republicans if the Republicans had been a little more flexible and a little less crazy on the buzz issues.

It also wouldn't be too bad to stop the knee jerk reaction against anything that smacks of caring about or protecting the natural enviroment, and possibly conceding that human convenience or profit possibly should not always be the deciding factor.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- This thing is a political discussion we are having and there are good reasons why Religion and Politics should only mix to a point. That also shouldn't mean values are off limits and shouldn't be fostered in general terms - but with a light, not a heavy hand. Honestly, a small government party should not abide moral edicts from a Federal government based upon Religion or anything else, not because they aren't "right," or good for the country, but because it isn't our governments business and our politics is not the best place for that discussion. --"

Hallelujah! He's seen the light! Just in time for minority status.

I expect this new found respect for small government and Church/State separatist spirit to last until A) we see a Huckabee / Palin '12 ticket or B) Republicans get back into the majority again. Then the bible thumping and pulpit pronouncements will begin anew and we can all relax knowing that if you oppose the new Theocracy, you clearly hate both Jesus and America.

"-- This notion that republicans should welcome religious voters because they 'need them'. Are you stark, raving mad? The republican party is a party of the religious and the religious welcome the secular conservatives. --"

You are half-right, yo, and that's half the problem. The "Big Tent" Party isn't really one big united front so much as a coalition government composed of smaller tent southern evangelicals, tax evaders, and militant ultra-nationalists. Throw a party label over the top of it and you get the modern GOP, but don't think you can confuse the regional components with the creature at large.

Northeastern Republicans - now virtually extinct at the national level - fought for lower taxes. But the fiscal hawks, like Bloomberg, who once championed anti-tax wing of the party have become disgusted with Bush-era reckless spending. Western states that once housed the nationalists and libertarians have been rudely awakened to the fact that Republicans are only small government when they aren't running the show. So states like Colorado, Nevada, and Montana have begun to abandon faux-libertarian big government GOoPers in favor of business friendly libertarian Democrats. And that just leaves the South - a region that votes with its Bible (without really reading it) - and has been the final bastion of GOP support. GOoPers have maintained solid lip service, so the Southern evangelical wing has survived.

But that shouldn't lead you to believe that Western and NE Republicans don't exist. They feel betrayed by their party and have departed in the same fashion that Democrats abandoned Carter for Reagen. But they still exist. Their numbers rival their Godly counterparts. And they swing elections.

The puzzle before the GOP is how to resurrect the coalition government. Alienating any single part is a mistake, but so is confusing the whole for a single component piece.

[templar knight]

"The country club wing is already alienated, half of them voted for the most liberal presidential candidate in 30 years."

Good. They need to be the ones hurt the most by the guy they voted for, and hopefully they will. Generally, these people make a good bit of money, so they deserve to receive a good soaking for the benefit of the masses.

[Anon]

I can see where you are coming from to a degree, I am waiting to say "I told you so" to all of my idiot friends who voted for Obama to get their "middle class tax cut", think he's bringing the troops home in 16 months and that universal health care will be wicked easy to implement...and there is something comforting about knowing that the fools liking in multi million homes in Greenwich are going to get screwed by the very guy they voted for.

However, if the GOP had not abandoned its core principles for the last 8 years and stood by and supported, enabled and excused every asinine Bush policy that came down the pike then MAYBE John McCain would be president and the adults wouldn't be wondering exactly how much socialism and failure coddling we were in for over the next 4 years....because those country club Rockefeller Republicans would have voted and worked for McCain and some of them might have actually gotten re elected!

[templar knight]

Perhaps, Anon, but George Bush was hardly a conservative in anything other than name only, and spent like a damn liberal. I don't blame Bush for everything that happened, but do blame him for going along with the idiot who wanted to fight the war in Iraq on the cheap, and I blame him for not calling for sacrifice in the GWOT.

After the attacks in NYC, it should not have been business as usual, we should not have invaded Iraq, if at all, until Afghanistan had been subdued, and domestic spending should have been cut. You would think every world leader would know by now that you never...never...ever...fight a two-front war unless forced into it. Like we were in WWII.

[anon]

Sure he isn't and sure he did, but the Republican Party backed him 100%, and now he's going back to Texas to wait for history to call him a hero and the GOP is discredited and in shambles and the country is in the hands of a complete unknown who wants to 'redistribute wealth' and create 'ladders' for the poor.

So, whose fault is it really? Who let all those neocon nut jobs take over and what the hell happened to Dick Cheney, who previously was an apparently sane, hawkish conservative not a meglomaniac out of a James Bond movie.

Maybe Obama will be like Bill Clinton w/out the scandals...centrist with a liberal bent. Or, maybe not. The Democrats have been out of power a long time and the failures of Bush have given them a lot of political capital to burn....

[IslamoLlama]

"-- I am waiting to say "I told you so" to all of my idiot friends who voted for Obama to get their "middle class tax cut", think he's bringing the troops home in 16 months and that universal health care will be wicked easy to implement...and there is something comforting about knowing that the fools liking in multi million homes in Greenwich are going to get screwed by the very guy they voted for. --"

They passed a bipartisan "stimulus package" last year to the tune of $600 / taxpayer. Another $500 / taxpayer check doesn't seem outside the scope of reason by any stretch, so I'm not sure where you have all this doubt about no forthcoming tax cut.

The ink is drying on the new US-Iraq Force Agreement treaty, and Maliki wants us out by '11. Bush has been on board with this for months. The Iraqis, meanwhile, are pushing hard for getting US troops out even sooner. And if Obama has secret plans to keep troops on the ground a day longer than he has to, he's been playing that hand incredibly close to the chest.

And I've yet to meet a living soul - online or otherwise - who is under the impression that health care reform is going to go through without a fight. Honestly, I'd be horrified if it did. The worst bills we've seen in the last four years have been bipartisan.

[Anon]

What is the point of a $500 check? It won't stimulate the economy any more than the $600 check from Bush did. That isn't a plan, its a pathetic and very tiny bandaid. It also isn't the "tax cut" that most Obama supporters are expecting, they're expecting overall reduction in the income tax that they pay, not just a one time check in the mail. I think they're going to be disappointed, because even if he does by some miracle reduce income tax on everyone making $250K or less, which I don't believe will happen, they're going to be hit some other way so the sum total is going to be tax increase, not decrease.

Tax Cut+2 million jobs in 18 months+$50 billion more for health care+another several hundred billion more for infrastructure.

Where is the money going to come from? Oh yeah, the rich. LOL. Like the rich are a sitting duck target that will role over and pay whatever taxes Obama wants w/out any lawyers or loopholes. And from "efficiencies"..apparently, Obama will do what no other president has done in decades and he will improve efficiency [that means fire federal workers one way or the other] Yeah, that's going to happen alright.

I call that fantasy land, no different from the fantasy that Bush has been selling for 8 years.

[Ralph]

"Don't get me wrong. The GOP and conservatives need religious voters and we should welcome them into the fold."

That's mighty big of you. Who appointed you gatekeeper?

You should define what you mean by 'religious voter', because you come off sounding like the guy who wasn't even invited to the party pretending to be host.

Most Christians I know vote Repuplican and they are't idiots. They know American history, world history and understand human nature far more than most people I meet.

They vote Republican based on their understanding of all those. That understanding is of course informed by their faith.

Secular voters need to remember Christians created the Constitution. Christians know who gave us free will and we want a government that will protect. If it weren't for Christians who understood that the torture chambers in the all the cathedrals would still be operational.

[Dan Riehl]

"Most Christians I know vote Repuplican"

Then I guess you don't know the majority of them, more of whom voted for Obama this go around you intolerant asshat. You are precisely what is wrong with the GOP. You think you have the market cornered on being a Christian. Go save your ass somewhere else.

[syn]

"a small government party should not abide moral edicts from a Federal government based upon Religion or anything else, not because they aren't "right," or good for the country, but because it isn't our governments business and our politics is not the best place for that discussion."

Considering Democrat candidate Barack Obama's supporters voted AGAINST gay marriage while 54% of Catholics voted for Democrat candidate Barack Obama whose position on abortion is more extreme than NARAL I would say that Religion is not the problem it is made to appear.

I offer that the devoutly religious worship of Golden Entitlement Coins is the destoryer of small government and is also how the Federal government is able to get into out private business.

[syn]

One point, since we have yet to define the meaning of 'fetus' we will never come to any agreement on morality.

The law is highly irrational with regard to the meaning of 'fetus', it can change according to time, gender and need; because of this irrationalism all laws based upon 'fetus' are highly discriminatory (mainly against males)

Since there is such irrationalism in our laws there can be no Justice.

Example, trial lawyer and Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards is free to profit hundreds of millions by channeling 'fetus' to sue doctors under laws which do not recognize 'fetus' as life yet a male who at the request of the female kicks her in the stomach killing the 'fetus' is sent to prison for murder while she remains free to choose.

Irrational emotionalism. And whether males realize this or not they're are the ones who are really being screwed by all those laws based upon 'fetus'. Apparently most enjoy the overt discrimination.

[syn]

"Then I guess you don't know the majority of them, more of whom voted for Obama"

It begs the question why?

How has it come to pass that the Righteous worship Government as their God?

Seriously, how does a faithful person of God vote for the candidate who openly advocated against a Born Alive Protection Act in Ill consider themselves Righteous?

Perhaps the lust for Golden Entitlement Coins helps to relieve the guilt when betraying many aspects of faith?

Personally, I do not know the answer however I do recognize this division of 'Left-Right' Religion is a detractor from the underlying problem that being, the weakness of humankind's ego, lust and greed.

And since when has the Righteous ever whorshipped Government as their God?

[syn]

One more question, how can the charitable be Righteous if their goodwill depends upon the Government to do the Charity the Righteous will not do?

I am not a theologian nor a member of any institutionalized Religion however where is it written that the Creator commanded to the faithful that charity of the heart begins with the Government?

If one is a Righteous person then would not one wish charitable goodwill come from their own heart rather than the heart of Government? Or rather, if charity comes from the Government how then does it come from the goodwill heart of the Righteous?

It seems to me that if Government is the heart of goodwill then the Righteous are heartless, no?

Please no attacks on me for the confusion instigated by the Righteous who seemingly have conflicting views about the word of God.

[seekeronos]

Some thoughts on this:

"--- After the attacks in NYC, it should not have been business as usual, we should not have invaded Iraq, if at all, until Afghanistan had been subdued, and domestic spending should have been cut. You would think every world leader would know by now that you never...never...ever...fight a two-front war unless forced into it. Like we were in WWII. ---"

Brilliant revelation, TK... only problem is:

Where was this thinking on 12 Sept. 2001?

Why did our Congress surrender its authority to declare war to an Executive Branch that proved itself largely incapable and incompetent to wage a two-front war for nearly seven years with moderately successful but highly injurious social and financial costs?

Where was that ancient (well, as ancient as 70 years ago) sense of questioning and dare I say, non-interventionism (not isolationism) that girded the hearts of old worthies such as Sen. Robert A. Taft and Chuck Lindbergh?

We well could have left the extermination of Saddam Hussein and other enemies of the Republic to mercenaries or other non-governmental entities granted the letters of marque and reprisal per the Constitution, as the Hon. Dr. Ron Paul once suggested in a congressional discussion.

On religion:

America once *WAS* a Christian majority nation.

Not so anymore. There has been an apostasy, a falling away, and true, Bible-believing and Bible-obeying Christians are by far the minority. I'd venture to say that they are less than 1% of the population, outnumbered 3-1 by the LGBTs, who are yet another group of gadflies in the political ointment.

The facts on the ground are:

- we are increasingly a centre-left nation, as evidenced by the overwhelming popular election of a man so far to the left that the French are even blushing (and mind you, that's no easy feat).

- we are, and will be, increasingly Latinized over the next several years, which will have a fundamental change in our culture.

- the Constitution is increasingly either ignored or re-interpreted as a "living document" so as to be completely perverted from the original intent of its framers.

The way I see it, America is not in the end-times unfolding of God's plan, and once the store of God's grace upon this failed and failing nation is finished, His wrath upon this nation shall be swift and terrible.

Seek ye His face in a time (now) when He may be found, for this republic's days are certainly numbered and few.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Why did our Congress surrender its authority to declare war to an Executive Branch that proved itself largely incapable and incompetent to wage a two-front war for nearly seven years with moderately successful but highly injurious social and financial costs?

Where was that ancient (well, as ancient as 70 years ago) sense of questioning and dare I say, non-interventionism (not isolationism) that girded the hearts of old worthies such as Sen. Robert A. Taft and Chuck Lindbergh? --"

I believe it was washed away in a wave of terror induced patriotic frenzy, Seek. Perhaps you don't remember Condi Rice getting on national television and explaining that we absolutely have to give the President authority to invade Iraq, or the next smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud. Meanwhile, every right wing pundit and politician with vocal cords was demanding full fealty to the elected President, because he was the only one who could protect America from another round of attacks. The phrase "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" was used (dare I say) liberally against partisans and non-partisans alike who questioned the AUMF agreement.

I believe the recently reelected Saxsby Chambliss road into office in 2002 arguing that his opponent held strong ideological links with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, specifically because Chambliss didn't race to embrace the Republican war plans fast enough.

And it gets better (or worse) as the years went on. Future attempts to repeal the AUMF were strongly opposed by Frist and McConnell while Bush lawyers - with strong conservative support - argued that even a repeal wouldn't disallow unitary executive authority to conduct military action because of some pretzel logic surrounding Article I's commander-in-chief clause.

Meanwhile, anti-war activists and constitutionalists ranging from Cindy Sheehan to Ron Paul were roundly vilified for even suggesting the war was being conducted illegally. Attempts to pass actual war resolutions were tabled and dismissed in '03 and '04. Attempts to curdle Presidential power were filibustered by the Republican majorities and minorities in '05 and '06.

"-- Where was that ancient (well, as ancient as 70 years ago) sense of questioning and dare I say, non-interventionism (not isolationism) that girded the hearts of old worthies such as Sen. Robert A. Taft and Chuck Lindbergh? --" you ask? It was there. But if you have to ask about it, you probably weren't really looking.

[anon]

I don't think we are a left of center nation, I think we are a nation made up mostly of selfish, under educated morons who watch too much TV and so they think and reason in soundbytes. That is why we careened drunkenly from Bush in 04 all the way to the other end with Obama in 08 and why much more media time has gone to hair cuts, glasses style and sex lives than any of the serious problems facing this country.

To me, relying on The Bible as the literal word of god and refusing to incorporate new facts and circumstances is silly, it is no different than relying on 'chance you can believe in' to lead the country.

How many people do you think can even explain "universal health care" in terms of policy, 1/9? How many have any clue what a derivative is? 1/100,000?

When your country is made up of largely if stupid, gullible people who don't read anything other than Page Six who no longer even know HOW the government was conceived to work and who for the last 40 years have been given more and more an expectation that government will save them and fix everything...this is what you get.

I vehemently disagree that "god" is poised to show his wrath, where the hell has "god" been these last 2000 years, he saw fit to be personally involved with the 'chosen people' all the time for a couple of thousand years and then just disappears. Sorry, that is magical thinking.

The society is crumbling not because we turned away from "The BIBLE" and the christian god, but because we have turned away from traditional western values, from the values and the institutions and the modes of doing things that for the last 500 years have made The West successful and dynamic.

It is true that a good part of these traditions and value are rooted in Christian thinking, but they are also rooted in Classical thinking.

If everyone threw their bibles out and agreed that the Christian god was a fantasy, same as Zeus and Mithras but retained the values of The West and the values of our forefathers....of community service, personal responsibility, family commitment, patriotism, excellence, independence, education and sacrifice then we wouldn't have any problems.

It is not god that has abandoned us, it is that we have abandoned our own values the values that made us great.

Just like the Romans did when they traded Socrates in for Jesus Christ and saw their society fall apart over 300 years of Christian rule.

[syn]

Islamollama

I understand this may be quite difficult for you however please do try to remember Obama supporter Gen Colin Powell addressed the United Nations with regard to the removal of Saddam Hussein while also remembering that most all Congressional Democrats voted for the 2003 and 1998 liberation of Iraq.

In any case; with regard to Iraq, the incoming President appears to be maintaining the very same position of the out-going president.

I do not believe this was the Change you were expecting was it?

I dare say those dreaming of an Impeached Bush are about to find out that the ONE dream they want most in the whole wide world is about to be crushed by THE ONE; the incoming president will allow his perfect image to be soiled by any nasty impeachment trials.

I think this is called 'you've been pawned' my friend.

Do tell, what will you do when the incoming President goes to war to stop genocide in Darfur?

[seekeronos]

"--- "-- Where was that ancient (well, as ancient as 70 years ago) sense of questioning and dare I say, non-interventionism (not isolationism) that girded the hearts of old worthies such as Sen. Robert A. Taft and Chuck Lindbergh? --" you ask? It was there. But if you have to ask about it, you probably weren't really looking. ---"

Oh I agree it was there, Llama, in some small measure.

But apparently either nobody with policy-making power was really listening to those still small voices, or taking them very seriously.

For anon:

It is not God who abandoned us. It is we who have forgotten God, and have abandoned Him. But seeing as you are no doubt an atheist, or at the very least agnostic, I reckon we will not convince one of the other's position.

Yet for me, it is clear that we have abandoned our foundations, as it is written in Psalm 11:3 -

"----- If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? -----" (KJV)

Whether those foundations are of God or not, it is clear that by ignoring them and choosing to build our house upon the quicksands of moral relativism and wickedness, we will reap the due income of our national folly, and heap unto ourselves both judgment and dire consequences, first in this lifetime, and quite to our eternal peril, in the next.

But where you see only myth and imaginary deities, I see an all-loving Father who sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins, and who has ordained the universe to work in a certain manner: when we work against those ordained laws (the Founding Fathers called them the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God", in their largely Deist/Age of Reason worldview) things go tragically wrong.

God laid down certain laws to the Israelites, whose nation endured all of 440 years as a direct Theocracy (until the people clamoured for a king to rule over them just as the heathen nations around them had) and then for a little more than 80 years as a unified Israelite kingdom (under David and Solomon), and then as splintered kingdoms for another 300-odd years after that.

Both of those kingdoms fell away from the True God, the rebellious House of Israel first for its outward idolatry, and followed about 100 years later by the rebellious House of Judah for her inward idolatry (which had the Temple of the Living God, and STILL failed to keep God's Commandments).

And so they abandoned the True God, and God was left with only one recourse - to judge those nations and let them fall prey to their own wickedness which consumed them.

Their stories - in the Old Testament - are quite revealing: the Northern Kingdom (House of Israel) fell into grave sin rather quickly, setting up idols and Wiccan groves (Wicca is hardly a new religion) throughout the land, sacrificing infants and practicing the cultic male and female prostitution of the sort that had previously defiled the land and its previous occupants. They were judged of God by the Assyrians under Sennacherib. All of her kings after Rehoboam I were very wicked, and intrigued by their idolatry.

Judah endured for a few more generations, if only for the remnant of faithful believers and a few righteous Kings who served God faithfully. A notable handful of David's line did right in the sight of the Lord, and most were either indifferent or outright wicked. Yet Judah's pride at being the centre of the Temple worship system did not save her from the inward idolatry of its priests, the vanity of her kings, nor the dulling of her people into immorality and stupidity; and so also was she judged of God by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.

And we, as a Gentile nation are certainly no better than God's chosen people; it is only for our support and acceptance of the Jewish remnant in our midst, and for the few Bible-OBEDIENT Christians that God has thus far spared this Republic.

Whom shall God send to judge us and/or carry us off into captivity? I cannot rightly say. But there is coming an event that is without parallel or fulfilment in Bible prophecy - the fall of a great empire/city-state inside of one hour, which affects the economies of the known world, in Revelation 18. I sincerely believe that this refers to the Western economic hegemony, lead by the USA.

Now, you can spurn the True God all you like; I shall certainly not stop you. But He is very real, as much as the air you breath, but do also not see - and yet you believe and accept the existence of that air from which you draw every remaining moment of the life allotted to you.

God doesn't force Himself upon you (unlike some of His believers, I shall admit)... but He does give testimony of Himself, and through some of those same pesky believers who constantly remind you of your mortality, and also of the judgment to come after you die.

Perhaps this is what you see as a sort of a God who doesn't involve Himself very deeply in things, but He also chose to give us free will: He could easily have made us all a bunch of mindless robots.

[Anon]

Seek,

The Old Testament is as full of hate, murder, slavery, incest and bigotry as the Koran or any other ancient religious text. It was a product of its time and region, that's it. The same as the Ilyiad or the Koran or the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The Jews stole most of their beliefs from the Sumarians, the Christians melded Roman cults and Jewish theology and glommed it onto the teachings of Jesus, the ones that survived that is.

I absolutely do not believe that the creator of the universe spent all of his time talking and guiding the Jews while ignorning the rest of the world and that this same creator has stood idly by with no new 'directives' for humanity as we have proceeded to the brink of destroying the earth itself. Nor do I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of the creator of the universe and has also sat idly by while his philosophy was corrupted by the Church of Rome, while untold millions were tortured and murdered in his name.

All gods are one, all spirituality is one, goodness and morality come from the heart and they can come from Allah, Buddah, Christ or Mother Earth. That's what I believe, in the universality of "good" and "decency" without all the crazy rules, insane dogma and ancient belief systems masquarading as the word of god.

[Fred Beloit]

So values come from the heart, Anon? Goodness comes from the heart? A bit imprecise I am forced to tell you. I assume you mean the emotions, whatever that means anatomically, or the brain?

[Dan Riehl]

Syn,

I'm not opposed to people having good values. And I think, by and large, this country suffers on that scale these days. I'm not even opposed to some political rhetoric that stesses values. What I oppose is anyone of faith who sort of paints themselves in a way that suggests Government should somehow demand, or decree this or that value based upon religious beliefs.

All I advocate for is a healthy divide between Church and State, just as our Founders sought with firm conviction.

We should celebrate that America was founded in large part on Judeo-Christian belief. But what was founded was a secular state.

[anon]

Values have to be instilled, but if you strip away all of the cultural and historical baggage from almost all of the world's religions you will find they are surprisingly consistent with what they preach.

Don't lie, don't commit murder, don't steal, greed is destructive, be faithful to your spouse, promiscuity is destructive, family is important, hospitality is important, community is important, sacrifice is important, be thankful for what you have, respect your elders, respect tradition, excess of anything is destructive, protect the weak.

Universal values that promote a strong, stable society irrespective of what the alter looks like or what the name of 'god' is who is prayed to or what the rituals are.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Values have to be instilled,...."

Anon you make a very valid, true point BUT you seem unaware that if you even mention these values in public DaLLama's of the world will be buring you in effigy for "shoving your religion down their throats"

[WAHOO WILLIE]

By the way...the founders were not aLL Christians and they did NOT set up ours to be a Judeo-Christian society. They wanted a society free from a state religion like the Anglicans or the Roman Catholics. They wanted the freedom to be a mormon, baptist, catholic or to have absolutely no religion at all. (Did have a dim view of witches and native religions though, which sort of goes against the whole religious freedom idea)

[IslamoLlama]

"-- I understand this may be quite difficult for you however please do try to remember Obama supporter Gen Colin Powell addressed the United Nations with regard to the removal of Saddam Hussein while also remembering that most all Congressional Democrats voted for the 2003 and 1998 liberation of Iraq. --"

It's not something I easily forget. That said, of the 22 Senators who did oppose the Iraq Resolution in '03, only one of them was a Republican. That the Democratic Party is itself infested with warmongers and military contractor flunkies doesn't exactly warm my soul. But they're a damn sight cleaner than the alternative.

"-- In any case; with regard to Iraq, the incoming President appears to be maintaining the very same position of the out-going president. --"

I believe Obama plans to have troops out in 16 months. This is a departure from Bush's current plans to depart in 2011, which are in turn an even bigger departure from the original Rumsfeld/Cheney plans to have dozens of permanent military bases in the country a la Turkey or South Korea.

"-- I do not believe this was the Change you were expecting was it? --"

It's the Change he campaigned on, and its the best I can hope for.

"-- I dare say those dreaming of an Impeached Bush are about to find out that the ONE dream they want most in the whole wide world is about to be crushed by THE ONE; the incoming president will allow his perfect image to be soiled by any nasty impeachment trials. --"

I think Pelosi killed that dream back in 2006. And Bush will be leaving office in January. Not sure what the point of a quickie impeachment trial would be in the last 50 days.

"-- I think this is called 'you've been pawned' my friend. --"

Pwned. You've been "Pwned". Being 'pawned' would indicate I've been purchased by a flee market or independently owned resaler.

"-- Do tell, what will you do when the incoming President goes to war to stop genocide in Darfur? --"

We'll cross that bridge when we get to it, I suppose. Obama plans to redeploy troops into Afghanistan. And with pirates harassing the eastern coast of Africa, I'm sure he'll be directing the US Navy to handle protecting citizens and merchants abroad.

The bigger travesty of Iraq wasn't the just the fact that we invaded, but that the run up to the war was so a sloppy mess and the resulting fallout was repeatedly swept under the rug while the administration crowed over and over about "Victory". I'm not a fan of large messy quagmire wars, but I'm even less of a fan when the wars are launched on the cheap and devolve into trillion dollar money pits.

If Obama does go into Darfur, I expect he'll perform with the same grace and competency that Clinton used in Kosovo. If he's forced to mobilize the military in Pakistan, I won't worry that I'll be hearing about Abu Garab part deux in a couple of years. If he needs to send troops into terrorist-heavy Indonesia, I have confidence that we won't be hearing about military contractors raping each other on his watch by the time we're done with the expedition.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3977702&page=1

So yeah, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

" I expect he'll perform with the same grace and competency that Clinton used in Kosovo."

Well almost causing WWIII aside, let's hope it is more competent than Somalia and Haiti....those examples being more appropriate than Yugoslavia.

[Fred Beloit]

Llamette: "If he's[Obama's] forced to mobilize the military in Pakistan, I won't worry that I'll be hearing about Abu Garab part deux in a couple of years."

I don't get "forced". How could he be forced? He campaigned on this point.

Llamette must think that Obama will visit at three o,clock in the morn on random weekdays whatever prisons we use next time for terrorists to make sure there are no frat hyjinks going on. Alternatively, Llamette may just be comfortable that the Big Media wouldn't run an Abu story on Oboe's watch.

[WBestPresidentEver]

GOD IS GOD. Enough said. You either believe in a higher power or you don't.
May God bless America and all its people.
Without God in your life then you are the one that losses.
I do believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I do not believe that I am a decendant of an ape. LOL
It is up to the individual as to what you believe.
I do not argue religion with anyone.
I am not ashamed to say I am a christian and believe in GOD. If you are afraid to tell someone you are a christian because it may not be politically correct, then you are a sad person and you are NO christian !

[DC]

Interesting post and thread, Dan.

Magnificent Seven to settle all this:

1) Republicans get shellacked whenever they stray from conservatism, including the defense those traditional issues that the public is behind (i.e., traditional marriage, opposition to Obama's radical pro-abortion position). McCain barely mentioned these issues. Granted, the unprecedented and very untimely economic problems did make this an unusual election cycle;

2) The Denver Post column is oxymoronic in that it argues (alongside Kathleen Parker, the Obamaphile) that gay marriage isn't imporant and Republican efforts to stop it are ill-advised, but also states that Obama is against gay marriage. Obama's own website absurdly touted that he was pro-life. What did he know? Social issues that appeal to Christian and values voters aren't the end-all, be-all, but they are part of an overall winning strategy.

3) James Dobson's form of argumentation on issues often doesn't appeal to me, even though I am an evangelical Christian. I certainly sympathize with those who don't find Dobson persuasive or appealing. I think (as some have said above) that there are better ways to make the points than with an overtly spiritual/Christian message to an increasingly post-modern culture.

4) There is a lot of ignorance about the Christian faith in this culture (and bigotry, including statments like the ones above about how the OT is full of bigotry, hate, etc. Cite please? Dan, you pronounced a guy an "asshat" for noting that most of the Christians he knows voted for McCain, which I thought was harsh on your part, but meanwhile you allow the OT Emperor Moron to parade down the street naked?), and ignorance of our history as a nation, as well. One poster mentioned above how we should just eschew the Christian influences the making of our culture and go with the Classics, i.e., the Romans and Greeks. Essentially, we are just to be good, secular, "Good Guys". Problem is, that's not was America ever was. We have been, from our founding, a country whose culture argely flowed from the Christian faith. Thomas Jefferson, certainly no Christian but a great American, recognized that America was a "Christian nation". Google it, you doubting Secularists, to put your eyes on the the words on the page yourself ... and be healed! (Humor alert, Tolerance Police) Today's secularists seek to deligitimize America's Chrisian heritage to deligitimize the involvement of people of faith in the public arena.

5) Republicans have to coexisit with people who disagree to form a majority party and movement. Committed conservatives will normally be in the minority, as will committed Christians. This is human nature at work, and it shouldn't surprise us. People in the minority need to be able to build coalitions.

6) The Republican Party cannot survive and win national elections without enthused, committed Christian voters.

7) Christians, on the other hand, can survive without the Republican Party. That is, we know that there is more to this world than "meets the eye". Indeed, the most fundamental reality in all our lives is found in those things we cannot see, i.e., the love of a child, the purposes that we commit our lives to serve our communities, the love of our nation.

[Anon]

The OT is indeed full of bigotry, hate and evil. How many times does god direct the slaughter of women and children who are 'unbelievers? condone the stealing of virgins and taking them by force? leveling and murdering the inhabitants of cities? the story of the concubine alone is enough to turn the stomach of a sane person...wasn't Jacob a liar and a deceiver? did Moses not commit incest with his daughters?

The list goes on and on. And if anyone is still reading this do not bother posting the typical answers that such and such wasn't illegal yet or that this is an example of human mistakes or that these people were already evil.

No just god calls for genocide or atrocities committed in his name. Full stop.

You want to embrace the Old Testament as the word of god, go ahead, but then don't bother ever calling the Koran a religion of hate because it is exactly the same and says the same stuff as the OT in terms of unbelievers.

[DC]

What's with the "god" hating, anon? Yes, Jacob was a liar and deceiver, just like you and me. The Bible is very candid in its assessment of even its heroes. How about David? He was much worse than Jacob ... a philanderer who killed Bathsheba's husband and had his own son turn on him because he was such an awful father. Yet, he was called a "man after God's own heart". Figure that one out. Read the Psalms, and I think you'll see that David experienced God's love and forgiveness in a deep way.

Your logic meets post-modern full stop, anon. God can do whatever He wants. He leveled Sodom and Gomorrah (there were women and children there, although I think most people understand that sin has a way of ensnaring many in its grip), and He is merciful with many of us when we deserve the same. It's not bigotry or "genocide" when God does what He wills and wishes with His creation. Who are you to judge God? Are you His peer? Can you make a galaxy ... or two?

There is no blanket command in the OT to kill all unbelievers, a la the Koran. You are uninformed and/or are misinforming others with such a statement. Note all the "hateful" Christians and Jews who use the Bible as and excuse to kill unbelievers ... No, they don't. Christians and Jews have been at the forefront of every major human rights movement in history, often moving against current social trends in a major, groundbreaking way. How do you get such beautiful fried eggs from the purported scrambled bigotry that you paint the Bible to be?

As God's judgments have and do affect people who are not directly involved in the sin, so does His mercy. The Bible is replete with God working in the midst or horrific human depravity. People who mistake God condoning such depravity when He doesn't give up on the human race (i.e., read Solomon's lament about the mistake he made with all the wives) are missing the main point -- God's mercy on us all.

Show me a commandment in the OT where God gives a command to kill all unbelievers everywhere. The OT judgments you refer to were/are tied to specific judgments for specific acts, a la Sodom and Gommorrah and/or the child-sacrificing Baal worshippers. Your problem is you don't understand the Bible and don't believe it. You have the right to believe this way, but you are uninformed and you don't understand the examples you cite. You cite them in such a way to bolster your own preconceived notions.

As for the NT, I am sure you don't want to go there. The Bible doesn't/didn't stop in Malachi, IMO.

If the Bible isn't true, then where is the body of Jesus? Sure would have been easy for the Romans and Jewish authorities (the most powerful political, military and religious leaders in the world at that time) to find. Jesus, BTW, taught that the OT was the Word of God. Holy Smokes! So, He is part of the problem, too?! I have found that post-modernists who have learned much of what they know about Christianity from university classes and such aren't much for history. Jesus actually walked this earth, died, was buried, and rose again. He was born, oh, about 2008 years ago ... not exactly by the way, but our calendar -- history -- literally begins with Him.

Jesus rose from the dead, anon. He knows your name, too. He taught that the OT was the Word of God. He also said He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one comes to the Father, but through Him. If He was right, then you have a quandry on your hands, to say the least. I mean, what do you do with a God who loves you even though you hate Him?

[Ralph]

ME: "Don't get me wrong. The GOP and conservatives need religious voters and we should welcome them into the fold."

That's mighty big of you. Who appointed you gatekeeper?

You should define what you mean by 'religious voter', because you come off sounding like the guy who wasn't even invited to the party pretending to be host.

Most Christians I know vote Repuplican and they are't idiots. They know American history, world history and understand human nature far more than most people I meet.

They vote Republican based on their understanding of all those. That understanding is of course informed by their faith.

Secular voters need to remember Christians created the Constitution. Christians know who gave us free will and we want a government that will protect. If it weren't for Christians who understood that the torture chambers in the all the cathedrals would still be operational."

You:
Then I guess you don't know the majority of them, more of whom voted for Obama this go around you intolerant asshat. You are precisely what is wrong with the GOP. You think you have the market cornered on being a Christian. Go save your ass somewhere else."

Most to me is 50% plus one. How do you get intolerant asshat from that?

I know many Christians who don't vote Republican. Then again they never do. Christian Democrats if you will make up a sizable chunk of the Democrat party. That majority you speak of would include a plurality of those voters. Let me spell it out so there is no confusion. I am speaking of some but not all (I have to add all these qualifiers since you felt the need to argue like a democrat) Blacks, Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, liberal Catholics etc. Christians who vote Republican tend to be Evangelicals, Baptists, old School Methodists, Conservative Catholics, etc.

It's the latter group that seems to give you pause and need to ponder whether they should be allowed in the party. You answered in the affimative as long as they are given instruction. That is rather arrogant. I answered and you flipped.

[Ralph]

I would like to point out is how quick you were to TRY to read me out of the Republican party. That in a post about how welcoming you are. Shades of Kathleen Parker there.

Later you wrote to Syn: "All I advocate for is a healthy divide between Church and State, just as our Founders sought with firm conviction.
We should celebrate that America was founded in large part on Judeo-Christian belief. But what was founded was a secular state."

Yes that was kinda my point. Except my point included the fact that the idea of seperation came from Christianity. That is certainly the faith I grew up with and the faith of (dare I?) most Christians I know.

[DC]

Well said, Ralph.

Dan, you're great and an ol' blog buddy from way back, but you are wrong here.

[Anon]

DC--As I suspected your answer is full of rationalizations, nothing more. And just like most "religious" people you can't differentiate a distaste for organized religion and a belief in a higher power. So, if I don't believe the bible, including the OT is the 'word of god' then I hate god. Ridiculous. This is why religious conservatives alienate everyone else. I have repeatedly said that almost ALL of the values of religious conservatives have much merit and that you would be more successful arguing from a vantage point of universal values instead of Christian religion. But, agreeing with the core values isn't good enough. Nope. I am a god hater who better watch out because Jesus knows my name. Oooh, scary.

Jesus Christ is only known through the writings of others all who had their own agendas, just the same way "the bible" ...the living word of god...was creared by men who decided what to leave in and what to call heresy. Where is his body? You must be joking, where is Caesar's body? Who knows? When he died he was nothing more than a rabble rousing quasi revolutionary, one among many.

My opinion is that Jesus Christ repudiated most of what was in the Old Testament and that a lot of what has been preached as Chrstianity would also have been repudiated by Christ and his teachings. In fact, I can find more than one passage in the NT that could be read in such a way as to repudiate much of the OT. And I'm sure you know that there was much debate back in the day of whether or not to include the OT in the christian cannon, apparently not everyone was sure the two went together.

You probably believe Jesus Christ was really born on December 25th and that its just a crazy coincidence that is the same date as the Roman cult of Mithras celebration and the winter solstice...the time of any number of pagan celebrations.

As far as Christians not killing unbelievers or perpetrating atrocities like Muslims, I suggest you crack a history book.

I repeat, no just god commands genocide, therefore, in my opinion the god of the OT was made up by the Jews and has nothing to do with the creator of the universe or with the teachings of Jesus Christ, what is left of them, that is.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"My opinion is that Jesus Christ repudiated most of what was in the Old Testament and that a lot of what has been preached as Chrstianity would also have been repudiated by Christ and his teachings."

You're absolutely correct, as you are in most of your treatise, but your vitriolic attack is pretty offensive. See, I agree with much of what you say until the bile causes me to want to turn away from the discussion.

[anon]

My attack? Being called a god hater who doesn't know any history or anything about the bible but 'jesus knows my name' as some kind of threat was supposed to create a mellow and happy reaction?

I know a lot about early christianity, how the NT was put together the various permutations and changes that took place in the christian world in the first centuries after Jesus death and it is extremely insulting to be told that I know 'nothing'

For my money, I'll take the Gospel of Thomas over Deuteronomy and judges any day of the week,and my strong guess is that Jesus would have done the same.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

My apologies, your words seemed to me to be directed generally and I took offense. Sort of reactionary considering how much I agree with most of your conclusions on religiousity.

[David Perkins]

Dan,

I am a bible believing CHristian. I was raised in a totally god-free house, knew nothing about it, cared nothing, didn't want to know.

in my late 20's I started asking the existential questions, what am I doing here, who am I, is there a God, etc. Found answers that were satisfactory to me, explained a lot about how I felt, etc.

But there is MUCH more to it than that.

Why do we have rights?

Founding docs say 'self evident truth, God made us, God gave us rights that man can't take away'... if it's self-evident, they're not even going to debate it. It's just true.

Anyone want to argue that our constitutional basis for HAVING rights is not TRUE?

I have the right not to be killed (right to life), the right not to be enslaved (right to liberty) and the right not to be oppressed (to pursue happiness). I have these rights because God gave them to me when He made me. How the heck do we get rights if that premise is invalid? How does anyone demand rights while denying the ONE reference to how we got them that is specific in the founding docs?

THis is not just a matter of 'lightly treading' around religion. WIthout it, the documents themselves are invalidated. Atheists are saying 'we don't have any rights. The founding docs are stupid and wrong and mythological and superstitious, in the atheistic view.

Not to mention the Ten Commandments is the origin of our social certainty that murdering and stealing and fraud are WRONG, always have been WRONG and always will be.

No, Dan, you cannot just shunt religion aside and then continue to expect people to feel strongly about maintaining these principles without any reason to feel strongly about it. Keep your religion to yourself, but maintain your society on the principles that religion gave us? That's schizo.

[DC]

I seem to have struck a nerve, anon. I asked you twice to come up with a passage -- since you know the history/text of the OT and all -- where God authorized "genocide." Crickets.

And just how did the 12 losers who were the disciples "turn the world upside down" without weapons? Every one of them was martyred. I guess they made a pact to go down with the ship, usurp the known world, and ultimately conquer the Roman Empire ... all for funsies. Your faith is majestic, anon. The body of Christ could have been found in a heartbeat when Paul and Peter came back to Jerusalem (the site of the crucifixion) and preached about the resurrection. But it wasn't. You need to investigate the resurrection and take a look at the historical arguments (on both sides). That investigation is what led me ultimately to believe with my whole heart.

You mention all we know of Christ is what was written by biased sources. Much of what we call "history" could be viewed the same way. The Bible is by far the most reliable book of antiquity. Ever laid eyes on George Washington? How do you know what you know about him? This is how we gather info/evid. of historical figures. What day is it any way?

You complain about being called uninformed, and then you hide behind the argument that "Jesus would have agreed with you". No, He wouldn't, unless he changed his mind from what we know of Him. He repeatedly affirmed the OT scriptures. But you choose to believe in a self-constructed version of "jesus" that doesn't offend your sensibilities (presumably so you can claim you are not anti-faith, anti-"god" or whatever). And then you mock my faith? Try this with first-year philosophy students. Jesus, was, and is, an historical person.

OK, I will take you at your word that you are not a "god" hater. But ... if you're not a "god" hater, then what is with hating all those who love God? Why do you call him "god", as opposed to God?

Why is this discussion, and proving people like me wrong so important to you? Nothing I said was intended to "scare" you, anon. Was written with a smile on my face.

The point I was making is that ... with all your current beliefs in tow ... the God of the universe still cares for you.