Old School is not a conservative and he is not a Christian, of any stripe. You’re trying to have a rational conversation with someone who lies about who he is, which makes him irrational. It’s a waste of your time, I can assure you.
This is the perfect example of what is wrong with fundamentalist Christianity and the religious right.
Because I don’t agree with Radio’s theology, I can’t be a Christian, and because I don’t agree with his theology driven politics, I can’t be a Conservative.
The Fundamentalists views are so narrow, that they exclude anyone who doesn’t meet their orthodoxy.
My gripe about the GOP is that it has become the political arm of the religious right - the fundamentalists. I disagree with their theology, I disagree with their methods and tactics and I disagree with them trying to codify their theology as the law of the land.
It is precisely her kind of religious-right conservative that I believe is doing so much damage to the Party and our country.
As a fundamentalist who isn’t a member of the religious right, I resent your characterization of the situation. :)
In way of an explanation of my stance, I agree with the morality which the religious right holds dear.
I don’t agree with their methods: using the power of the government to enforce the morals God commanded believers to follow upon people who are not believers.
Some things religious right advocates are a proper function of government such as preventing murder. If you think murder is happening, you’re supposed to use the law to stop it.
On other items of morality that don’t involve matters of law…
Believers are commanded to go out in the world and preach the gospel. Believers are commanded not to forsaking the assembling of themselves together to worship God. Believers are commanded to live a God life which will provide a witness to unbelievers.
Believers aren’t commanded to gain power in government and use that power to make unbelievers against their will behave according to God’s morality.
Your insistence that everyone adhere to your own particular social conservative orthodoxy, and refusal to even pretend to consider anything other than your own opinion is the biggest thing wrong with the GOP today.
That’s nonsense, Oldschool. You are the one who has been telling everyone who will listen that the Republican Party is being destroyed, not me. You are the one who insists that the he is the true conservative, not me. You are the one that is constantly pointing fingers at people, like me and Randoobula, for example and telling us we are ruining the Republican Party.
The only time I question anyone’s alleged conservatism or Republicanism is when they come on here and do nothing but attack conservatives and Republicans.
Your problem with me and other religious conservatives is that you despise our unwillingness to “compromise”, or in our view, surrender on issues like protecting life and protecting traditional marriage. I think this is rooted in an underlying antipathy to Christianity. You would care about my religion if I was “pro-choice” and “pro-gay marriage”.
the ironic thing is that I almost never even argue the issue of life from a religious position. Go look. You won’t find posts with me saying abortion is wrong because God told me so, it’s in the Bible etc.. I always argue on basic moral grounds, social grounds, philosophical grounds, science grounds and human rights grounds. Why don’t I use a religious argument? It’s not because I don’t think there is one. It’s because I am trying , very unsuccessfully in your case, to convince you on terms you can deal with.
There are a number of libertarian leaning Republicans and conservatives here that I have respectfully disagreed with on these issues. You really should consider the Libertarian leaning Conservative approach. Instead you are taking your ball and running home only to come back as a left wing stooge.
I have never heard G. Bush say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11...perhaps you could find a legitimate quote?
2003 State of the Union. “Before 9/11, many thought Saddam Hussein could be contained”. Or something like that.
We went to war with Iraq because they had continually violated the cease-fire agreement Sadaam signed in gulf war one...they were a threat to the U.S., in that they were continually putting off the weapons inspectors, which is a pretty good sign your rebuilding your WMD capability, or at least are pushing to see how far you can go, with the intention of rebuilding it in the future (probably when the U.S. had elected a weak-willed president).
Well, that was in the Authorization but it didn’t “medal”.
Given the organization of terrorists that had built up by then, an Iraq that was even hinting that they would restart WMD production, now or in the future, was unacceptable...never forget Sadaam hated us, had already tried to assasinate Bush senior, and would have found Al-Qieda a perfect delivery system to hit U.S. cities and still keep his hands seemingly clean.
I notice that we’re not talking about Osama Bin Laden. Yet the invasion was fueled by our overwhelming anger and desire for payback.
I agree that the way the press is presenting Sarah Palin’s statement, many will misconstrue this to mean some kind of “Christians fighting Muslims for God” crap, but that is not at all what she said...the work of God she speaks of is protecting American lives, as well as freeing people from tyranny and the one-sided propoganda used by those that maintain iron-fisted control through inciting unreasoning hatred (sounds a bit like Adolph, don’t it?).
“Free the Iraqi people” didn’t “medal” either in the Authorization but it was there.
As a fundamentalist who isn’t a member of the religious right, I resent your characterization of the situation. :)
In way of an explanation of my stance, I agree with the morality which the religious right holds dear.
I don’t agree with their methods: using the power of the government to enforce the morals God commanded believers to follow upon people who are not believers.
Some things religious right advocates are a proper function of government such as preventing murder. If you think murder is happening, you’re supposed to use the law to stop it.
On other items of morality that don’t involve matters of law…
Believers are commanded to go out in the world and preach the gospel. Believers are commanded not to forsaking the assembling of themselves together to worship God. Believers are commanded to live a God life which will provide a witness to unbelievers.
Believers aren’t commanded to gain power in government and use that power to make unbelievers against their will behave according to God’s morality.
My gripe about the GOP is that it has become the political arm of the religious right - the fundamentalists. I disagree with their theology, I disagree with their methods and tactics and I disagree with them trying to codify their theology as the law of the land.
It is precisely her kind of religious-right conservative that I believe is doing so much damage to the Party and our country.
As a fundamentalist who isn’t a member of the religious right, I resent your characterization of the situation. :)
In way of an explanation of my stance, I agree with the morality which the religious right holds dear.
I don’t agree with their methods: using the power of the government to enforce the morals God commanded believers to follow upon people who are not believers.
Some things religious right advocates are a proper function of government such as preventing murder. If you think murder is happening, you’re supposed to use the law to stop it.
On other items of morality that don’t involve matters of law…
Believers are commanded to go out in the world and preach the gospel. Believers are commanded not to forsaking the assembling of themselves together to worship God. Believers are commanded to live a God life which will provide a witness to unbelievers.
Believers aren’t commanded to gain power in government and use that power to make unbelievers against their will behave according to God’s morality.
(Note the emphasis on “against their will”.)
“Believers aren’t commanded to gain power in government and use that power to make unbelievers against their will behave according to God’s morality.”
This may be off topic, but that is exactly what Black Liberation Theology, Barak’s religion for 20 years, is about.
Do we have a double standard where it is alright for the Left to use government powers but it is not acceptable for the Right?
That’s nonsense, Oldschool. You are the one who has been telling everyone who will listen that the Republican Party is being destroyed, not me. You are the one who insists that the he is the true conservative, not me. You are the one that is constantly pointing fingers at people, like me and Randoobula, for example and telling us we are ruining the Republican Party.
The only time I question anyone’s alleged conservatism or Republicanism is when they come on here and do nothing but attack conservatives and Republicans.
Your problem with me and other religious conservatives is that you despise our unwillingness to “compromise”, or in our view, surrender on issues like protecting life and protecting traditional marriage. I think this is rooted in an underlying antipathy to Christianity. You would care about my religion if I was “pro-choice” and “pro-gay marriage”.
the ironic thing is that I almost never even argue the issue of life from a religious position. Go look. You won’t find posts with me saying abortion is wrong because God told me so, it’s in the Bible etc.. I always argue on basic moral grounds, social grounds, philosophical grounds, science grounds and human rights grounds. Why don’t I use a religious argument? It’s not because I don’t think there is one. It’s because I am trying , very unsuccessfully in your case, to convince you on terms you can deal with.
There are a number of libertarian leaning Republicans and conservatives here that I have respectfully disagreed with on these issues. You really should consider the Libertarian leaning Conservative approach. Instead you are taking your ball and running home only to come back as a left wing stooge.
That’s nonsense, Scott. Of course you don’t think the Republican Party is on the wrong track, your particular version of conservative orthodoxy has gained control of it. You (and many others here) are the ones insisting that I am not a conservative or a Republican, because I won’t accede to your views. You are the one who insists that anyone holding views outside your own narrow opinion is “left wing stooge”.
You consistently maintain that anything that doesn’t first come out of the RNC, Limbaugh, Hannity or Dobson’s mouth first, is liberal lunacy. You absolutely refuse to see the hypocrisy on display by our Republican leaders nearly every single day, and thus, refuse acknowledge the damage it is doing to the party. You insist on believing that when I point out that hypocrisy, and call out the people engaging in it, that it is proof I am a liberal, when what it actually reveals is that you have your head in the sand.
My problem with you and other religious conservatives is your insistence on forcing your theology upon me and mine via exclusionary laws designed to legislate your narrow view of Biblical morality. I don’t have an underlying antipathy toward Christianity or any other religion, I am a Christian. I have a difference of opinion regarding your fundamentalist theology in how it informs your political goals and tactics. You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care, as long as you don’t insist that I believe it too, or try to make it the law of the land.
You and I have been around and around the abortion issue. You will not respectfully disagree, but will only insist that yours is the only possible solution. The Libertarian view is that it is none of the Governments concern, and it’s one I agree with. But in the spirit of compromise, good faith and reasonableness, I could support something along the lines of outlawing third trimester abortion, restricted second trimester abortion and mind your own business first trimester abortion, along with an aggressive adoption policy, a sane and reasonable sex-ed policy, strong family values promotion and real support for single mothers who choose to keep their kids.
But we can’t have the kind of compromise that would dramatically reduce abortions, because people like you on the one hand, and the lunatics who insist on abortion as birth control on the other, insist on winner-take-all-or-nothing. It’s that kind of extremism on both sides that violates one of our most important founding principles.
I can make an equally valid argument about gay marriage.
I haven’t “taken my ball and run home”. I am here nearly everyday advocating for my position. Your problem with me is that I won’t give in to your views.
That’s nonsense, Scott. Of course you don’t think the Republican Party is on the wrong track, your particular version of conservative orthodoxy has gained control of it. You (and many others here) are the ones insisting that I am not a conservative or a Republican, because I won’t accede to your views. You are the one who insists that anyone holding views outside your own narrow opinion is “left wing stooge”.
No, I insist that anyone coming here posting left wing propaganda is a left wing stooge.
You consistently maintain that anything that doesn’t first come out of the RNC, Limbaugh, Hannity or Dobson’s mouth first, is liberal lunacy. You absolutely refuse to see the hypocrisy on display by our Republican leaders nearly every single day, and thus, refuse acknowledge the damage it is doing to the party. You insist on believing that when I point out that hypocrisy, and call out the people engaging in it, that it is proof I am a liberal, when what it actually reveals is that you have your head in the sand.
Bull. I don’t do talking points or parrot others and you know it. There have been way too many examples of me bucking conservative orthodoxy for you to push that garbage. You don’t point out hypocrisy, you prostitute yourself for the left because you are angry that you aren’t getting your way in the Republican Party. I have no idea what political philosophy you TRULY hold at heart, but you act like a rabid left winger on this forum.
My problem with you and other religious conservatives is your insistence on forcing your theology upon me and mine via exclusionary laws designed to legislate your narrow view of Biblical morality. I don’t have an underlying antipathy toward Christianity or any other religion, I am a Christian. I have a difference of opinion regarding your fundamentalist theology, and how it informs your political goals. You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care, as long as you don’t insist that I believe it too.
Name one, just one time when I have tried to force my theology on you. And don’t give me the abortion garbage. I have never used a religious argument for that with you. I always base that on other logic. You are the one who is constantly trying to make abortion about religion, not me.
In fact, you have absolutely zero clue as to what my theology is. I am NOT a fundamentalist. My religion, my experiences, my education, my family, my philosophy ALL inform my political goals just as your religion, etc. informs yours. I have never once, not once, even hinted that you should believe as I do religiously.
You and I have been around and around the abortion issue. You will not respectfully disagree, but will only insist that yours is the only possible solution. The Libertarian view is that it is none of the Governments concern, and it’s one I agree with. But in the spirit of compromise, good faith and reasonableness, I could support something along the lines of outlawing third trimester abortion, restricted second trimester abortion and mind your own business first trimester abortion, along with an aggressive adoption policy, a sane and reasonable sex-ed policy, strong family values promotion and real support for single mothers who choose to keep their kids.
No, it’s you that is angry because I won’t embrace your enlightened compromise. We disagree on the subject of abortion. Get over it. Just because I don’t agree with your supposed compromise doesn’t mean that I am unreasonable. Why don’t we outlaw SOME forms of rape, regulate certain types and tell the state it has no business involved in others? If you believe an unborn child has a right to life, your suggestion is no more reasonable than that nonsense.
But we can’t have the kind of compromise that would dramatically reduce abortions, because people like you on the one hand, and the lunatics who insist on abortion as birth control on the other, insist on winner-take-all-or-nothing. It’s that kind of extremism on both sides that violates one of our most important founding principles.
And we can’t have a type of compromise that would dramatically reduce child abuse or embezzlement or aggravated battery because of people like you. That sounds dumb, right? If you believe in a right to life as I do, it’s no more absurd an argument. You don’t approach a criminal, life taking act as though it needs an education campaign, you say it’s killing an innocent person and it is prohibited. You don’t agree. Fine. You don’t like it and consider me a fanatic? Eh. I don’t care.
I can make an equally valid argument about gay marriage.
I haven’t “taken my ball and run home”. I am here nearly everyday advocating for my position. Your problem with me is that I won’t give in to your views.
That’s what I said: you took your Republican ball home with you and brought back your hysterical criticism of all that is Republican, conservative and McCain.
My problem with you and other religious conservatives is your insistence on forcing your theology upon me and mine
There are few who refuse to evangelize, in some way or another. The last to be complaining about evangelism is someone who favors the illiberal policy points of Code Pink and the like, or at least of the Clintons, which are not so different.
It’s hypocritical for those promoting the ‘victimless crime’ in every possible forum, court and legislature to turn around and accuse those standing for what works in society, what works because it conforms to morality, and is just, of seeking to impose as if their own imposition, and further attempts to force such policies, had gone in every case unobserved.
No, I insist that anyone coming here posting left wing propaganda is a left wing stooge.
And your definition of “left wing propaganda” is anything that deviates form the religious right orthodoxy.
GScott - 07 September 2008 07:21 AM
Bull. I don’t do talking points or parrot others and you know it. There have been way too many examples of me bucking conservative orthodoxy for you to push that garbage. You don’t point out hypocrisy, you prostitute yourself for the left because you are angry that you aren’t getting your way in the Republican Party. I have no idea what political philosophy you TRULY hold at heart, but you act like a rabid left winger on this forum.
Of course you do. Nibbling around the edges of conservative orthodoxy doesn’t make you a maverick.
GScott - 07 September 2008 07:21 AM
Name one, just one time when I have tried to force my theology on you. And don’t give me the abortion garbage. I have never used a religious argument for that with you. I always base that on other logic. You are the one who is constantly trying to make abortion about religion, not me.
In fact, you have absolutely zero clue as to what my theology is. I am NOT a fundamentalist. My religion, my experiences, my education, my family, my philosophy ALL inform my political goals just as your religion, etc. informs yours. I have never once, not once, even hinted that you should believe as I do religiously.
You are perhaps this forum’s most rabid and extreme advocate for outlawing abortion in all forms, at all times. You would happily have a constitutional amendment outlawing it. That is you trying to force your theology on others.
You insist that when I oppose current republican policy, that it’s proof that I am a liberal, and talking out of the other side of your face, you insist that when you advocate for religious fundamentalism as republican policy, that it’s proof you aren’t a fundamentalist.
Simply arguing the point from a different angle doesn’t hide your fundamentalist theology.
GScott - 07 September 2008 07:21 AM
No, it’s you that is angry because I won’t embrace your enlightened compromise. We disagree on the subject of abortion. Get over it. Just because I don’t agree with your supposed compromise doesn’t mean that I am unreasonable. Why don’t we outlaw SOME forms of rape, regulate certain types and tell the state it has no business involved in others? If you believe an unborn child has a right to life, your suggestion is no more reasonable than that nonsense.
And we can’t have a type of compromise that would dramatically reduce child abuse or embezzlement or aggravated battery because of people like you. That sounds dumb, right? If you believe in a right to life as I do, it’s no more absurd an argument. You don’t approach a criminal, life taking act as though it needs an education campaign, you say it’s killing an innocent person and it is prohibited. You don’t agree. Fine. You don’t like it and consider me a fanatic? Eh. I don’t care.
Thank you for the compliment. It is an enlightened compromise, but your fundamentalist mindset insists that yours is the only valid point of view and you will not compromise on that. And you view that as a virtue.
I’ll start believing that you actually care about the “right to life” when I see you speak out about the senseless killing of innocents in Iraq and everywhere else, and speak up in support of a constitutional amendment to outlaw war.
You don’t like my views and consider me a liberal? That’s your choice.
GScott - 07 September 2008 07:21 AM
That’s what I said: you took your Republican ball home with you and brought back your hysterical criticism of all that is Republican, conservative and McCain.
You can bury your head in the sand and ignore the problems with the GOP, but that doesn’t make them go away. You don’t define what you are for, except for your extremist views on abortion, but are defined by what you are against - anything you label as leftist - which is anything that falls outside your narrowly defined fundamentalist driven “conservatism”.
Your blind support is as big a part of the problem as anything else.
Oldschool:
And your definition of “left wing propaganda” is anything that deviates form the religious right orthodoxy.
You are so dishonest. You have been here posting nothing but anti-Republican garbage and citing left wing web pages as sources. Ask any conservative here whether or not they consider your recent posts as anything but left wing garbage. Oh? Don’t want to take me up on that challenge? No surprise there.
Of course you do. Nibbling around the edges of conservative orthodoxy doesn’t make you a maverick.
That’s a pile of garbage and you know it.
You are perhaps this forum’s most rabid and extreme advocate for outlawing abortion in all forms, at all times. You would happily have a constitutional amendment outlawing it. That is you trying to force your theology on others.
I don’t know that I am the most dedicated to protecting life here, but I take that as a compliment coming from an abortion promoting leftist such as yourself. Oh, and yes, I do support he Human Life Amendment. No, I am not imposing my theology on you. Not that you have the honesty and the guts to address this, but I was an agnostic until 8 years ago. I became pro-life 4 years before my conversion. Was I forcing my theology on people then by advocating the pro-life view? You don’t have the intellectual honesty to touch that point. Just as you haven’t the guts or the honesty to admit you can find no example of me imposing my religion on you.
Thank you for the compliment. It is an enlightened compromise, but your fundamentalist mindset insists that yours is the only valid point of view and you will not compromise on that. And you view that as a virtue.
It was sarcasm. Try to keep up. Just because you are willing to compromise your principles doesn’t mean I am.
I’ll start believing that you actually care about the “right to life” when I see you speak out about the senseless killing of innocents in Iraq and everywhere else,…
I have been speaking out about the senseless killings in Iraq and elsewhere, that’s one reason I supported our liberation of Iraq, to stop the senseless killing and future senseless killings. It is also why I have supported our efforts to win and keep the bad guys from killing innocents as well as our troops. Iraq is becoming a success. No thanks to backstabbing defeatists like yourself. Be a man for once and admit you were wrong about Iraq.
and speak up in support of a constitutional amendment to outlaw war
That’s just stupid. And you say you aren’t a leftist? Go run over to your daddy Kos and cry to him about how you visualize world peace.
You can bury your head in the sand and ignore the problems with the GOP, but that doesn’t make them go away. You don’t define what you are for, except for your extremist views on abortion, but are defined by what you are against - anything you label as leftist - which is anything that falls outside your narrowly defined fundamentalist driven “conservatism”.
That’s a lie. You are a liar. I have repeatedly advocated various non Pro-life related issues. You know that.
You insist that when I oppose current republican policy, that it’s proof that I am a liberal, and talking out of the other side of your face, you insist that when you advocate for religious fundamentalism as republican policy, that it’s proof you aren’t a fundamentalist.
Simply arguing the point from a different angle doesn’t hide your fundamentalist
You are a leftist because you advocate leftist ideals and attack conservatives.
You clearly have no understanding of what a fundamentalist Christian is. I am not one. Go look it up. It has specific criteria. I don’t meet them. Find someone to explain it to you if you can’t understand.
My gripe about the GOP is that it has become the political arm of the religious right - the fundamentalists. I disagree with their theology, I disagree with their methods and tactics and I disagree with them trying to codify their theology as the law of the land.
It is precisely her kind of religious-right conservative that I believe is doing so much damage to the Party and our country.
As a fundamentalist who isn’t a member of the religious right, I resent your characterization of the situation. :)
In way of an explanation of my stance, I agree with the morality which the religious right holds dear.
I don’t agree with their methods: using the power of the government to enforce the morals God commanded believers to follow upon people who are not believers.
Some things religious right advocates are a proper function of government such as preventing murder. If you think murder is happening, you’re supposed to use the law to stop it.
On other items of morality that don’t involve matters of law…
Believers are commanded to go out in the world and preach the gospel. Believers are commanded not to forsaking the assembling of themselves together to worship God. Believers are commanded to live a God life which will provide a witness to unbelievers.
Believers aren’t commanded to gain power in government and use that power to make unbelievers against their will behave according to God’s morality.
(Note the emphasis on “against their will”.)
“Believers aren’t commanded to gain power in government and use that power to make unbelievers against their will behave according to God’s morality.”
This may be off topic, but that is exactly what Black Liberation Theology, Barak’s religion for 20 years, is about.
Do we have a double standard where it is alright for the Left to use government powers but it is not acceptable for the Right?
What double standard?
Political conservatism is advocating limited government by upholding the constitution which was written in order to limit the powers the government was to have.
Political liberalism is advocating using the government to advance their agenda, whatever that agenda happens to be and regardless of what powers they have to let the government seize in order to accomplish it.
No, conservatives shouldn’t use the power of government outside of the role it is assigned in the constitution. Because doing is the opposite of conservative philosophy.
Liberals under the philosophy of liberalism are free to do whatever they want.
For a conservative to use the national government to promote a morality agenda, they would need at least one constitutional amendment to give the government the authority to intervene. For example, the people who want a constitutional amendment to define marriage are approaching the problem from a conservative direction. The Defense of Marriage law that was passed addressed the problem but did it through liberal means by expanding the power of the federal government beyond its constitutional role.
The national government wasn’t give power to deal with marriage. That power is with the states through the 10th amendment.
Defining marriage was a good thing. But we aren’t supposed to be living as if the end justifies the means. And the bible doesn’t teach that the ends justifies the means.
Conservatives are supposed to follow the rules. Liberals just want the results that they want.
If the religious right decided in every case to follow the constitution rather than just have the government seize power in order to advance the agenda of the religious right, I could be fully on board with the religious right.
Then again, if the republican party decided in every case to follow the constitution rather than just have the government seize power in order to advance a republican agenda, I could be fully on board with them.
As it is, I’m a christian and a conservative who most of the time can support republicans. Someone has to be on the inside fighting the good fight.
I can recommend some reading materials on the difference between conservative and liberal political philosophy if you like.
Oh, and Old School, I can point you toward something that’d show the difference between fundamentalists and other groups who are conservative in matters of religion.
Using the word in the wrong manner really is irritating and borders on offensive.
I personally think their original term “religious right is the best description I’ve ever heard.
Oh, and Old School, I can point you toward something that’d show the difference between fundamentalists and other groups who are conservative in matters of religion.
Using the word in the wrong manner really is irritating and borders on offensive.
I personally think their original term “religious right is the best description I’ve ever heard.
Bowman, I’m well aware of the differences. If Scott is going to do it, I am too.
