RSS Feed
Conservatism and Secularism: 2008's Losers
Barring a Late October Surprise, it seems likely that after November 4 American Conservatism is going to have a couple of years to just sit back and reflect.
While it spends 2008-2012 lounging about in sweat pants and thumbing through newspapers at the local coffee shop, it might notice a disheveled American Secularism blogging at the next table over. It too will be in something of a funk; 2008 was not a good year for nonbelievers and Church/State separatists.
Our two star-crossed social movements may not initially feel drawn to one another; Conservatism and Secularism have rarely embraced. Then again, before the Christian Right joined, and eventually overran, the GOP there were, at the very least, a handful of well-respected secular Republicans. I think of Barry Goldwater, Henry Kissinger, Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, and George H.W. Bush, to name but a few.
None of them, of course, was an out-and-out nonbeliever. But all were secularist in the sense that they were innately reluctant to mix religion and government. And all of them, I am surmising, would have been hard pressed to find a place in today's GOP with its relentless graffiti-ing and vandalism performed on the Wall of Separation,
If Secularism and Conservatism actually did get around to talking ("Hey, are you reading a biography of Ayn Rand? Man, I loved her in seventh grade!") here are three possible moments in their budding relationship:
Bonding through differences: Secularism and Conservatism don't have that much in common. Secular ideas have not recently had access to the corridors of power. Secular pundits do not have a vast and influential network of magazines, journals and websites through which they can promulgate their ideas, as do their Conservative counterparts. Few members of the House of Representatives would refer to themselves as "secular" lest they not remain in the House of Representatives much longer.
Conservatism by contrast has controlled the executive branch for eight years. During more than half of that span it ruled the House and Senate to boot. Conservatism has given rise to an impressive and well-respected class of public intellectuals whose ability to shape domestic and foreign policy is not inconsiderable. Accordingly, during the past two terms the American government has become an experimental space, a Biosphere 2 (remember Biosphere 2?) for every manner of conservative idea and initiative.
Whereas a secularist must bemoan his or her marginality, a conscientious Conservative can't possibly deny that the Movement has been given ample opportunity to strut its stuff (though some, astonishingly, do). And if the administration of George W. Bush truly represents Conservatism--a claim that many are now vehemently denying--then most Americans seem averse to Conservatism.
Ditto for Secularism (which never controlled anything and whose only functional Biosphere 2 is in France). But this is where the relation can sprout wings.
Identifying a shared problem: a certain strain of Conservative Evangelicalism: Most secularists are either Independents or Democrats and are generally supportive of pro-Choice candidates. This distinguishes them from Conservatives who tend to swing Republican and who in the past years have championed "a culture of life." But this needs to be reexamined.
It is not my intention to tar pro-life advocates as extremists who lack any moral grounds for their activism. What I will say is that political Conservatism has joined hands with forms of Conservative Evangelicalism that advocate views which are radical, politically disastrous, and theologically peculiar. It is one thing to be morally opposed to abortion. It is another thing entirely to start from the premise that life begins at conception, that a one-minute-old conceptus is a human being endowed with full rights under the Constitution.
How long can political Conservatism remain wed to this type of Zygote Extremism (as well as a myriad of other doctrinal quirks which presently grip Conservative Christendom)? How long can it maintain the dubious stance that the Scriptures (which had no understanding of what we call a zygote, or embryology for that matter) subscribed to Focus on the Family's rather novel view of when life begins? More to the point: how long can Conservatism be Conservative Evangelicalism's "co-belligerent" without conducting a risk/reward assessment?
Resolving to use their minds to make the world a better place: Opposing anti-intellectualism:New York Times Op-Edist David Brooks recently called attention to a debilitating anti-Intellectualism that has gripped the McCain campaign, and the GOP in general.
I concur. Governor Sarah Palin, in my view, is by no means unintelligent (liberals play this card way too often), but she is jaw-droppingly and distressingly anti-intellectual. Runnin' against "Washington," extollin' small town virtues at every country fair, smackin' around the "media elite," are time-worn populist tropes and as Brooks points out they are not accruing to greater good of the Republican Party.
The Conservative thought I have most enjoyed--anything from the journalism of William F.Buckley Jr., to the provocations of Allan Bloom to the fiction of Saul Bellow--has been meticulously thoughtful, erudite and almost tauntingly elitist. When we consider that thinkers such as Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill and Jean-Paul Sartre and hundreds of others are part of the Secular canon we realize that our coffee house companions have a shared love of refined thought. (They also have a mutual distrust of Joe the Plumber who, truth be told, strikes them both as something of a shmoo).
True, we have experienced a form of atheism as dumbshow in the past few years. But that should not obscure the fact that Secularists, like Conservatives, have little tolerance for anti-Intellectualism. And it is this joint commitment to advanced thought that they should explore together over the period of exile that awaits them.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
October 22, 2008; 10:47 PM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: I Am Not Voting in 2008 |
Next: Young Florida Jews for McCain?
Posted by: alan@atheist.com | October 27, 2008 9:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
testing
Posted by: Anonymous | October 24, 2008 10:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sam:
If you want to look at secularism, I think you should take a deep look at India, where a unique flavor of it does exist and has managed to survive against several forces. Secularism is an ideal all educated people who live there defend and accept is fundamental to the long term coexistance of that nation's future. Its far from perfect, but it has allowed a Sikh to rise to the highest office and a muslim to become President. Most people are actually conservative in their outlook and values, but still consider secularism as a fundamental principle. The beauty of secularism is freedom and choice. You can chose to follow your faith or none at all and no one will interfere between you and your God as long as you are as respectful of others as others are to you.
October 23, 2008 5:21 PM
_________________________________
Where is the American media on news such as this?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 24, 2008 10:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Vote Liberty writes
"Back in the 1930's, the "liberal" media outlets supported the socialist Hitler and trashed the conservatives."
You are an ignorant lying idiot. I cannot imagine a more ill informed statement than what you just wrote. You have made everybody on this forum stupider just by posting it.
Posted by: Marc Edward | October 24, 2008 3:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Enemy of the State, she would be described as ignorant or uneducated. Lack of knowledge is not a sign of limited intelligence, but of limited access or exposure to information or lack of intellectual curiosity. IQ is measured non-verbally as well as verbally. Even her continuing to erroneously attribute control of the Senate to the VP doesn't mean she can't learn; maybe she has accepted the Cheney doctrine in this case and looks forward to assuming dictatorial powers.
Posted by: ChuckB | October 24, 2008 1:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Considering the anomaly of the gay Republican group, Log Cabin Republican, why would imagining the formation of a secularist Republican group be so difficult. Also, the current lack of such a secularist group does not preclude the existence of individual Republican closet secularists who are only waiting for one of them to step forward as a coalescing force. If the truth be known, most, if not all, of the Founding Fathers who claimed to be Deists or Unitarians were probably really secularists. When we seriously analyze the fundamental principles underlying political groups, we discover that economic concerns are at least as important social and lifestyle ones; how else can one explain Log Cabin Republicans, other than serious self-image issues?
Posted by: ChuckB | October 24, 2008 1:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Great article. I agree on where the movements intersect although I must say that there is another category that find itself in a quandary, having no inkling whatsoever to vote for a McCain-Palin ticket but, although inspired by the candidacy of Obama, being fearful of what a vote for the latter means in terms of the stances of liberal movement - I know, I make no clear distinction between liberals and secularists, but you follow me - on issues it finds paramount to a strictly conservative Christian worldview (protection of the unborn and a life style along the line of traditional values i.e. heterosexuality).
As an African-American of a conservative persuasion (alas the term conservative is a loaded word nowadays), one who enjoys reading your article, I am proud of the accomplishments of Barack Obama and what he represents in terms of what his presidency would signal to the world about race relations in America, and the emergence an attitude devoid of hubris and contempt of dissenters while maintaining a strong and steady hand at the leadership of the free world . But I cringe at the ridicule to which faith has been subjected by certain journalists and pundits. It is doubtless that the vitriol is being appliend at both ends of the spectrum.
On the other hand, I am sympathetic to the platform on which the GOP attempts to stand although such platform is riddled with contradictions and hypocrisy (two examples: 1. they are the champion of the unborn insofar as it's able to make out of the birth canal at which point they declare "Mission Accomplished" and mostly rid themselves of any involvement with what they were calling precious, pre-partum that is 2. It would appear that MLK's pronouncement 45 years ago or so that 11 o'clock Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America is still a valid assertion in too many circles).
Let me come out and plainly say that I will not vote for McCain... too many boulders stand in the way... although I find myself enjoying the success of Obama over him and although the economic winds (storms is a better analogy) seem to have pushed Obama into high seas and perhaps way out of McCain's reach, my brand of conservatism is still holding me back...
Posted by: MAPL | October 24, 2008 1:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
RE: The comment "Governor Sarah Palin, in my view, is by no means unintelligent..."
OK, I'll bite - how DO you describe someone who can't recall a single magazine or periodical that she's read, claims she has foreign policy experience because she can see Russia, and can't seem to string together a coherent sentence without a teleprompter?
Posted by: Enemy Of The State | October 24, 2008 12:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I could be wrong but didn’t I read in the Washington Post some months back that the younger generation is more conservative in their views on abortion then the boomers and that this is the only issue where they are more conservative? I think it said in the article that this change has come about because of science and the revolution of ultrasound imaging to view a fetus. I really think that science is making the moral argument for them not against them. I am a secularist and when I say moral I am not talking about religion or the Bible. That being said I also do not see how this election is a victory for any form of anti-religion in public policy since both candidates talk about God and their religion. America is in the process of reinventing itself again and I don’t think any of the old stereotypes will hold in the future. You may see more pro-life, pro-gay, more environmentally friendly, secularist, spiritual voters that don’t fit into those round or square holes.
Posted by: Richard - New York | October 24, 2008 11:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Great post. It's hard to be "out" as a conservative nowadays, even among Republicans. Nevermind the shared political cannon of us and secularists, I often find it shocking that other Republicans have not read some of the books that I consider to be fundamental. Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative" immediately pops into mind as one of those guiding lights in conservative thought that seem completely lost on the modern GOP. Even a book the "Grand New Party" gets short shrift as being too "theoretical". I look forward to the four years of reflection with our secularist companions.
Posted by: JKatsos | October 24, 2008 10:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques,
I noticed your reference to "atheism as dumbshow" and visited that commentary. In it, you say,
"This calls attention to one glaring problem with atheism and agnosticism today: it lacks new ideas. The movement abounds in polemicists, but has not produced a thinker of real substance since perhaps the days of Jean-Paul Sartre."
Your comment ignores the fact that many thoughtful scientists are atheists. They are daily pushing the frontiers of human knowledge, allowing us to understand our existence without reference to supernatural beings or forces.
Our growing understanding of the natural world provides direct challenges to the supernaturalism of 2,000 and more years ago, including the notion that spirits cause disease, that healing can occur by the laying on of hands, that women were created from the rib of a man, that a supernatural being created all living things in their present form, etc.
Every day thoughtful people are finding additional evidence that our existence is entirely natural, that there are no spirits or gods ruling our lives. I would encourage you to not focus merely on the small number of atheists who are discourteous and scournful. There are many who are not.
Posted by: Jesse Chanley | October 24, 2008 10:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
There is much here I agree with, but one line is truly laughable:
"Secular pundits do not have a vast and influential network of magazines, journals and websites through which they can promulgate their ideas, as do their Conservative counterparts."
Have you heard of the New York Times, the Atlantic Monthly, the Nation, etc. ? I have about 500 channels on my Direct TV and access to millions of website on my computer screen. Every voice, including the voice of secularists, has a chance to be heard in this society.
On the substance of your argument, I think there is also room for cooperation between secularists and religious conservatives who feel that the political activity of their friends has hurt the Church more than it has helped the government. However, secularists will have to abandon that other extreme view on abortion, which holds that aborting a nine month old fetus that is only a few inches away from being born alive is simply a matter of personal choice that is not germane to public discussions about civil standards concerning cruel and inhumane behavior.
Posted by: DN | October 24, 2008 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm sorry but I find you simplify the meaning of secularism. Secularism does not reduce to atheism or even agnoticism; it equals the separation of church and state. Secularists like me believe people can bring their religious values to the public sphere, but keep it out of the machinery of government.
Fred Clarkson does a great job unraveling the confusion about secularism's many meanings here: http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n1/secular_fundamentalist.html
Posted by: Jewish New Yorker | October 24, 2008 9:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dobson does not speak for me, my family, or for that matter, my church.
Posted by: adevine | October 24, 2008 9:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I have decided I don't want to be a christian anymore. the church has proven it hates and does not love. GOP endorsed church is much like the KKK of old.
Posted by: carol | October 24, 2008 9:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you for your honest opinion, it is very good that you would stick to your values, i say thank you, but you don't have to listen to thousands of calls everyday about someone losing their homes to foreclosure, or being evicted from their housing because of a republican administration who forgot about the people and went after IRAQ. You sir should tell the american people they can have a another four years of losing everything. Four years of not being able to feed their children, having to work three jobs, because this administration won't help. A gop who calls every person of color a terrorist. thank you for showing america that you can go down with the ship. You have a job, your benefits are paid. ours are not. Yet John McCain would continue the legacy of sending our brothers and sister to fight a war in Iraq because he is Stubborn, Every election we the minority get to vote for white man, he eventually screws up and we have to take it. Now one thing we can look forward to as a commonality, people like your self and John McCain, palin too call us terrorist, Nigger, and anything else. you put a little old lady on tv and tell us how scared she is of the big black man and there you go. well as a minority. this is not the politics we hoped for. John McCain's values don't equal many in the Christian society, yet the american christian society who happen to be white paints a black man as a baby killer, (john mccain is a baby killer to the vietnamese) a terrorist (john mccain has his own history with this) and he associates with racist like Palin and separatist like palin. they label him a muslim, yet they don't listen when he says he is a christian. this is america, If Arnold the terminator can be Governor of California, then why can't Obama be president.
thank you
letter to your other reporter. but regarding the church. the american church has lost it's way
Posted by: leslie | October 24, 2008 9:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Voting ourselves into a fully secular world which is prepared to eliminate life in utero, not only at conception but throughout the pregnancy, lest one or one's child should be "embarrassed" or inconvenienced is not only questionable but it flys in the face of God's law: "Thous shalt not kill." If life itself can so readily be sacrificed, who can trust the secularist to stand strong for any other person or group of people when it becomes too difficult? Changing the composition of family in this country by superimposing the secular support of Gay Marriage is an obscenity that has every chance of being disasterous for our country. The hate and venom that have been spewed by the press toward Sarah Palin has been diabolical. The secular world says she is not "intellectual" yet there is no serious emphasis on the intellectual talents of the VP choice of the Democratic party. The argument is made that there are relatively few people in the State of Alaska which somehow excuses their election of Sarah Palin as their Governor. Certainly that type of thinking truly implies her supporters are limited in their intellectual ability to determine who should govern their State. Is it her folksy, straightforward way of speaking that is so threatening or is it truly a sexist bias? Ah yes, let's fully embrace secularism and its values and see where the road leads us? If God is in his heaven and his word is truth, let those of us who are non-secularists prepare outselves, our children and our grandchildren for the trials ahead.
Posted by: Peggy | October 24, 2008 8:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Remember that George H. W. Bush came from the generation at cold war with the Soviet Union. The Soviets were refered to as Godless Communists. We have 'Under God' in our pledge because of the cold war. It is not suprising, under the circumstances, that Pres. Bush the Elder would express distain for atheists. That does not make him a Christian Right zealot.
Posted by: George in Texas | October 24, 2008 8:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I think this is a lot to ask of the recently disenfranchised. Bitterness and disdain will prevail most assuredly from the conservatives. There are many issues (gay marriage, abortion) on the table that will more than likely keep both sides engaged.
I am impressed that you contrasted the conservatives with the seculars vs. conservatives vs. the otherwise-religiously-inclined, or even, heaven forbid, the atheists. But I know that wasn't the intent of this article in particular.
Brilliant piece.
Posted by: Average Jane | October 24, 2008 6:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
With all due respect to Mr. Berlinerblau, a secular comeback is just right around the corner. The same cannot be said for the latest incaration of "conservatism." No, the secular comeback isn't going to happen overnight, but it is coming and you can see the seeds of it everywhere. The same cannot be said for conservatism. The anti-secular, anti-intellectual evangelical movement is a product of the Boomer generation. It's most zealous adherants are mainly Boomers and older Xers. This movement peaked around 2005 or '06. We are now witnessing what happens to a powerful (but minority) movement when it becomes radicalized, over-reaches, and then becomes marginalized - it gets louder and nastier as it goes down.
There's a younger, more rational (and less radical) generation exerting it's power this election cycle, and as Mr. Berlinerblau and his generation plot the future from extrapolating from the recent past - this new generation has other ideas. Ideas that won't become apparent or even register on the radar screen of most older people for at least a decade.
It's a conceit of the present-day, middle-age generation that their issues, their trends and their ideological obsessions will always be on the forefront of our culture. Fortunately for the country, that will not be the case.
Posted by: Darryl Leedy | October 24, 2008 6:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Am I missing something? Why are secularists in the wilderness after november 4?
Posted by: aussie | October 24, 2008 2:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
There are no longer many "respectable" Republicans around. The party is in the death grip of religious zealots, simple-minded zenophobes, racists, homophobes and whateverphobes. It is the part of fear, hatred and division and it's hard to see how anyone following the actual words of Christ (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love thy neighbor as thyself, if you have done it unto to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me) could support today's GOP. It is time for religious people of good will to abandon the politics of hatred and turn to a society that cares about "the least of these" our neighbors.
Posted by: Dolph T | October 24, 2008 1:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
He he. You called Joe the Plumber a (shmoo) sexual protrusion from a yeast cell. I am not sure how that fits into your arguement, but I still agree with you. Those of us who don't think our religion dictates our politics, think that we should put intellegent leaders who are well trained in office to make the big decisions. What I would give for a Thomas Jefferson rather than any candidate who wears his/her religion on their sleeve.
Posted by: Beerman | October 23, 2008 10:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
JB, this will be my last post because several reasonable posts from me have been deleted, AFTER it was posted.
Once a pro-life professor was invited to a university to defend his stand. His interlocutor drew a line on the board and wrote conception at the beginning and birth at the end of the line. He asked the professor to mark the point when human life began. The pro-life professor extended the line beyond the point of birth and wrote "at tenure."
So you are truly alive and well JB. A "mere zygote" simply will never get to find out if it has the chance to experience your kind of life if it not given a chance to live and grow in accordance with its innate capacity to live and grow if it is treated as non-human being in non-development and killed. Nobody ever says that killing an infant does not constitute murder because it is not an adult yet. Yet that same logic is used for a growing child in the womb. Killing it while it is in the womb is not killing because it is growing within the womb and not outside it. It is the same human that is killed whether it was in the stage of a zygote, a 20/30/38 old fetus (which means 'little one')or a born child/adult.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 23, 2008 10:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
the post's columnists might find it profitable to discuss with readership the two strains of christianity which always have informed christian thought for several thousand years.
the early church, post Pentacost, was divided into the 'old testatment' strain, James and his crowd continuing to worship at the temple, and the Pauline strain, those pagans not qualified to set foot in the temple.
for practical purposes, you could divide christiainty into two halves, the old testament christians, and the new testament christians. The evangelicals tend toward the old testament variety, which is exclusive to those "saved" and the more open main line denominations whose viewpoint might be considered as "salvation as a process -- ""almost there, but not yet"".
each appears to rely on the scriptures in a different fashion. Old testament christians find support more often in the Old Testament, while the New testament christians rely on the New.
evangelical reliance on Old Testament support places them among the successors to the old testament christians of Jerusalem. The Acts make clear the rather stiff necked and outrighly impolite and ungracious attitudes of this group -- withness the refusal of a donation to help the poor in the Holy City made by christians outside the Jerusalem group, because, "they were outside the pale" of perhaps in contemporary terms === their voting record was not 95% conservative, not right on abortion, not patriotic enough, wrong state, too well educated, etc.
it would be interesting to see a dialoge among readers regarding these two strains, how they use or abuse the scriptures, and the question discussed, "when reference is made to scripture as a justifying source, which has the more probity, the Old Testament or the New"???
Posted by: mike wisocki in portland | October 23, 2008 10:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
JB, furthermore the case against abortion was made by Hippocrates, the Father of Western medicine. Abortion was common enough among the Greek pagans of his day, it is not a modern invention. Our consciousness regarding human rights ought to evolve forwards, not backwards. Hippocrates set an example in his day when abortion was commonplace.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 23, 2008 10:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is not my intention to tar pro-life advocates as extremists who lack any moral grounds for their activism. What I will say is that political Conservatism has joined hands with forms of Conservative Evangelicalism that advocate views which are radical, politically disastrous, and theologically peculiar. It is one thing to be morally opposed to abortion. It is another thing entirely to start from the premise that life begins at conception, that a one-minute-old conceptus is a human being endowed with full rights under the Constitution.
How long can political Conservatism remain wed to this type of Zygote Extremism (as well as a myriad of other doctrinal quirks which presently grip Conservative Christendom)? How long can it maintain the dubious stance that the Scriptures (which had no understanding of what we call a zygote, or embryology for that matter) subscribed to Focus on the Family's rather novel view of when life begins?
___________________________________________
JB, there is no excuse for wilful ignorance. For someone who is against anti-intellectualism even less. Your blog included dozens of posts providing science to back up the anti-abortion stand.
The life of every human being, every human being begins as a zygote. That is a scientific discovery, not a religious one. The zygote derives only oxygen and nutrients from the mother, just as a born baby derives only oxygen from the atmosphere and food from outside to grow into an adult. A born baby needs more help from other persons to develop normally than a growing child in the womb does.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 23, 2008 10:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
someone:
Conservatives used to favor Less government. Unfortunately my friends, Right wing social conservative encoding their morals into law, to try and enforce their morals on fellow citizens is MORE government. Will Conservatives admit their administration has been a COMPLETE FAILURE as it created an entire new wing of the government, the Homeland Security Department. Then proceeded to oartially nationalize AIG, Freddie Fannie, and various banks. Are any of these actions "Conservative"??? Oh yeah, bringing the debt up from 4 or 5 to 10 trillion, real conservative!
October 23, 2008 9:38 PM
___________________________________________
Yesterday a YouTube video clip was posted on JB's previous thread was posted (but was deleted within minutes) showing that the Freddie etc issues were discussed in a Democrat majority Congress (they have in the majority for two years, remember?) with the Republicans calling for more government oversight. It was the Democrats who argued everything was fine as it was. The crisis the Republicans had warned about came much later.
It is a good idea to research REAL facts.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 23, 2008 9:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am a confirmed atheist who obeys the laws (well OK I jaywalk sometimes), pays my taxes, and tries to live a decent life. I do so out of because I wish everyone would, not because I fear divine punishment. I am also a natural-born citizen who loves his country enough to criticize when I feel it is not living up to its ideals (which will always be true to some degree).
Sometimes I think that "accepting Jesus" is like a free get-out-of-hell card. You can sin as many times as you are inclined to, and then be saved as many times as you repent. Great racket....wish I could join in....NOT!
Posted by: jrosen | October 23, 2008 9:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Conservatives used to favor Less government. Unfortunately my friends, Right wing social conservative encoding their morals into law, to try and enforce their morals on fellow citizens is MORE government. Will Conservatives admit their administration has been a COMPLETE FAILURE as it created an entire new wing of the government, the Homeland Security Department. Then proceeded to oartially nationalize AIG, Freddie Fannie, and various banks. Are any of these actions "Conservative"??? Oh yeah, bringing the debt up from 4 or 5 to 10 trillion, real conservative!
Posted by: someone | October 23, 2008 9:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sam:
If you want to look at secularism, I think you should take a deep look at India, where a unique flavor of it does exist and has managed to survive against several forces. Secularism is an ideal all educated people who live there defend and accept is fundamental to the long term coexistance of that nation's future. Its far from perfect, but it has allowed a Sikh to rise to the highest office and a muslim to become President. Most people are actually conservative in their outlook and values, but still consider secularism as a fundamental principle. The beauty of secularism is freedom and choice. You can chose to follow your faith or none at all and no one will interfere between you and your God as long as you are as respectful of others as others are to you.
October 23, 2008 5:21 PM
___________________________________________
If you'd like to have a taste of what India would be like if Hindu fanatics took over, read the posts of Deb Chatterjee and Jai Kosla on this forum. (They are both Hindu Brahmins who live in the US but who preach intolerance, hatred and violence against non-Hindus in India! Deb Chatterjee specializes in hatred for Islam and to a lesser extent for Christianity; Jai Kosla is all out against Christianity.) There is a Hindu militant fascist party in power in at least three states and would dearly return to power at the federal level and declare India a Hindu nation.
Militant fascist Hindus, which has a political wing to support them, are targeting Muslims and Christians. They fear Muslim retaliation so they have increasingly begun to target only Christians. The likes of DC and JK, living in the US, express support!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 23, 2008 9:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"I ask you, if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? I'm not a scientist but basic biology taught me for life to be created the sperm had to integrate with the egg."
Not to quibble, but "development" begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg. Life exists in the egg and sperm (and in every cell of your body- dead eggs and sperm cannot develop into anything.) so insisting life begins at conception is really not accurate.
the biggest problem we face is that people seem to think theirs is the only religion that has the correct answers, and therefore they have a right to put these beliefs into law. I'm not denying your right to believe Christ died on the cross for mankind's sins, but I am not of your faith. It's not what I was raised to believe and my belief and religion are equal under the laws and constitution to yours. So, I don't believe a " that a one-minute-old conceptus is a human being endowed with full rights under the Constitution." Nothing in my faith teaches that, and nothing in my study of embryology supports it.
we're both free to believe and practice our faiths- I accept that. That is what this country is about.Why can't you?
Posted by: sparrow4 | October 23, 2008 9:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Back in the 1930's, the "liberal" media outlets supported the socialist Hitler and trashed the conservatives.
Today, the "liberal" media outlets support the socialist Obama and trash the conservatives.
But, here is the difference. Hitler came to power and Obama will not.
Anyway, the most disturbing thing is that the "liberal" (in fact, they are godless socialists) media outlets are in the tank of the party of hate, racism, slavery, intimidation, and violence -- the Democrats.
Setting the Record Straight (part 1)
http://www.freedomsjournalmagazine.com/blog/?p=207
The President Who Stole Christmas! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doChINcDTJU
The Antichrist Has Come! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7vh5LJjJhc
Posted by: Vote Liberty | October 23, 2008 8:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Err..you know that religion is all made don't you? It's a way of keeping the poor down so they except their lot in life while falsely believing they will be rewarded for that sacrifice in some wealthy afterlife - meanwhile the Republicans run off with your money and enjoy life to the fullest.
Do any of you seriously think that if there were a God he would save any of you? He let's children be raped, people starve to death but he's going to let selfish, greedy, materialist people who won't even share enough to give people health care have some sort of afterlife so they can do it all over again?
We had paradise here on earth, we've hoarded it, deprived the poor of it and destroyed it and yet still you delude yourselves..incredible.
Posted by: kate | October 23, 2008 8:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The hypocrisy of the republican "Christians" is astounding. They seem to think that they can go to church on Sunday and be "saved", then spend the rest of the week spewing lies, hate, bigotry and divisiveness. They are going to lose this election badly, something they have brought on themselves, because of their hatred. Thank God that the majority of Americans have finally seen the evolution of the GOP into a hateful, mean-spirited and deceitful party that they will no longer support.
Posted by: Pearl77 | October 23, 2008 7:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am tired of the limitations of the "pro life" movement and using religious beliefs to back it up. I could better accept both if "pro life" went beyond "pro birth" and if it included babies, children & adults from all nations, creed, skin color,gender, religion, political affiliation and gender orientation. It doesn't. Apparently the white American child is more important than an African black child or a Chinese female baby or a Muslim Middle eastern baby, child or adult. When will taking care of a baby born with challenges so severe (in the USA) they are not adoptable, be as important post birth as "pro life" deems it at birth? How can anyone use their diety for a "pro life" stance and then cheer when we pre-emptively bomb a country killing thousands of babies, children, adults who did nothing to hurt the USA? Where does Christ come into this equation?
Whatever a person's religious path, when it is used to support intolerance, fear, violence and hate, it is not (in my opinion) a good religion. For all who believe life begins at conception, then respect it post birth. When the USA can take care of it's children, prevent the Andrea Yates', the (alledged) Casey Anthony(s), the Susan Smith(s), the pedophiles, the abusers.....when the laws keep these people off the streets, then "pro life" will mean more than "pro birth"!
When children can go to school and not be bullied for "whatever" reason, when adults can be free to worship their choice without being called Arab, or Jew or terrorist or ni__er! I'll respect people who say they believe in their diety. When people mind their own business and take care of their own marriage first and foremost, I'll respect their personal view of marriage. Until these times come to past, I will feel sad for what "religion" has come to in the USA . When war becomes the last resort, I will respect someone...anyone who will sing "peace on earth goodwill to man" during the holidays.
Posted by: Leah1946 | October 23, 2008 7:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If the Religious Right could be somehow persuaded to give up on the Republicans and form their own political party, we might see a return to the principled conservatism of a Dwight D. Eisenhower G.O.P. - without the likes of Richard Nixon, Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn, of course. They started the rot that led to Carl Rove who enlisted the religious Right, with the diabolical results we see today. If traditional conservatives in the G.O.P rebuff the Dobsons, et al, where are the fanatics to go? The G.O.P. is headed for a period in the wilderness as it is; what have true conservatives got to lose?
Posted by: Norm Blondel | October 23, 2008 6:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
CATHERINE ROGERS
You wrote, "And if Jesus Christ didn't believe EVERY LIFE was precious why did he die on the cross for all sins?".
How right you are and wouldn't it be something if more people who call themselves "Christian" would actually take that to heart and proclaim the "GOOD NEWS" rather than the 'good enough news'.
God's Plan is for ALL to be with Him in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth, and He asked us to be active participants in His Plan and His Plan will come to Fruition.
Take care, be ready.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: Thomas Baum | October 23, 2008 6:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Your article on atheism is basically all wrong, most (intelligent) atheists just want to be left alone and they don't worry about the hereafter.
The world would be better off if we had more Bertrand Russells, more Christopher Hitchens, more Richard Dawkins than the Jim Jones, Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and dozens of other TV hucksters.
Posted by: George | October 23, 2008 6:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau,
I ask you, if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? I'm not a scientist but basic biology taught me for life to be created the sperm had to integrate with the egg.
Yes, conservatives have had their chance however they choose not govern by conservative principles. Not too many are willing to take a strong stand on principle when the media and others trash their prositions.
This conservative won't be in coffee shops talking about what might have been. As Lou Holtz once said, the good Lord put eyes in front of your head so you can see where you're going and not in the back of your head to see where you've been. Conservatism does work friend because it's the ability of the individual to accept personal responsibility while at the same time being given the freedom to create and help others that works.
And if Jesus Christ didn't believe EVERY LIFE was precious why did he die on the cross for all sins?
Posted by: Catherine Rogers | October 23, 2008 5:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If you want to look at secularism, I think you should take a deep look at India, where a unique flavor of it does exist and has managed to survive against several forces. Secularism is an ideal all educated people who live there defend and accept is fundamental to the long term coexistance of that nation's future. Its far from perfect, but it has allowed a Sikh to rise to the highest office and a muslim to become President. Most people are actually conservative in their outlook and values, but still consider secularism as a fundamental principle. The beauty of secularism is freedom and choice. You can chose to follow your faith or none at all and no one will interfere between you and your God as long as you are as respectful of others as others are to you.
Posted by: Sam | October 23, 2008 5:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As a Christian I have been very distressed about the divisive rhetoric coming from the pulpit. Whether it is J Wright, Pat Robertson, Hagee or J Dobson I lump them all in the same group. Dvisive and hateful this is not what christianity is about. I go to my pastor to hear him talk about God. I take the information and study it myself. I don't want his political opinion. The Bible tells us to choose whom we will serve and God does not force us to serve Him. Why must Evangelicals insist on pushing their own agenda down the throats of their congregations. There have been many more Republican presidents than Democrats in recent decades but they have never sought to actively overturn Roe v Wade. It has satistically been proven that abortion rates drop under Democratic leadership because of intervention programs. Where was the Religious Right when Bush was lying to the American people about war. Where were they when scandal after scandal like Mark Foley and Scooter Libby came to light in the most corrupt Administration since Nixon. I am sick of Republicans thinking they have a monopoly on belief in God and equating liberals to the devil. There is a reason the Bible saids give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is HIS. Also the Founding Fathers hads it right church and state does not mix
Posted by: Anonymous | October 23, 2008 4:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think it will be a tough few years to watch as liberalism engulfs our government. But it took 4 years of Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan, so I have hope.
There are very few good concervatives that are running for government these days. It was hard to find one among the candidates. Concervatives have been labeled as haters and other horrid things. Just look at what has happened to Palin amoung the media. She is loved by Alaskans but the media just can't seem to find anything really good about her. It happens to most real concervatives and it is definitely a blow.
If this election turns out like it appears we will have some tough times these next couple of years. But when people figure out that liberal policies that are pretty much socialist, are not the answers, we will have a reforendum. And that gives me hope. You generally have to have a Carter to get to Reagan. It's just the way it is. Then we had a good 25 years of great times. Then the cycle will start over again.
There are very few concervatives and many that claim to be are not really. Socialist policies always sound good, so many Republicans advocate for them. But they never work and then we'll get some people to vote for a real concervative. I pray this happens.
We obviously don't need what Mr. Berlinerblau
advocates. I'm not into playing politics. Good policy will ultimately win out over bad.
Posted by: Kert | October 23, 2008 12:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
J BERLINERBLAU
You wrote, "It is one thing to be morally opposed to abortion. It is another thing entirely to start from the premise that life begins at conception, that a one-minute-old conceptus is a human being endowed with full rights under the Constitution."
I was wondering, what do you think "begins at conception"?
Take care, be ready.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: Thomas Baum | October 23, 2008 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
JACQUES BERLINERBLAU
You wrote, "It is not my intention to tar pro-life advocates as extremists who lack any moral grounds for their activism.", are you trying to convince the people reading this or are you trying to convince yourself?
I wonder what you mean by Secularism?
If by "secularism" you mean that America should not have an official religion and that America should not be a theocracy, I believe that the "Founding Fathers" were DIVINELY INSPIRED to insist on this.
If by "secularism" you mean that people should not be able to express their beliefs and live their beliefs to the best of the abilities while not trying to cram their beliefs down other people's throats then not only is this against the law of the land but it is also against God since God gave us free will.
You mentioned "extremism", have you ever noticed that "extremism" comes in all kinds of "labels"?
I just thought that I would mention that God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.
Also, God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE.
Take care, be ready.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: Thomas Baum | October 23, 2008 11:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
In a web discussion group I participated in several years ago, one writer pointed out that organizations started out for one purpose are eventually taken over by organizations interested in other purposes. This was just what I experienced while serving on my diocesan churchwomen's group in the Episcopal Church during the years following the 1960's. Without going into detail and whether it or not it was by design, the Episcopal Church of today has been reduced to an ineffective institiution no longer able to enter into serious debates.
David Brooks commented that the small-town/big city conflict was useless, but what we olders learned is that it was the big-city intellectuals that dismantled the institutiols upon which we used to depend and threw in LSD to boot. Believe me, I remember sending my children off to school with their ears plugged into the Doors while I watched with my heart in my throat.
So lesson number one: don't mess with the nest. Even we small-timers wouldn't ask Satre & Co. to contemplate big ideas over a bottled water.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 23, 2008 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Government keeps getting more expensive as we see in the national debt numbers. The national debt clock even ran out of numbers to keep count. Maybe God is teaching us to live without government. They're talking about printing unlimited amounts of money. That was tried before and it didn't work. You need to buy paper, ink and pay the people running the presses. The papers want to be more digital and unfortunately the earth is round. We'll soon be running the world without coal. The Middle East has tragically priced itself into standards of living it can no longer afford. The OPEC model seems broken and now they are working on a new OPEC model to keep energy less affordable. Government keeps getting less affordable, so energy is the important thing to conserve. It's a shared problem and we now have a big advantage. We'll see who is exiled. God only knows what's next. One group wants to exile Americans as if we are just visitors in our own land. I don't know what the others want. The global economy is looking bad and could be looking worse. Take care of your own.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 23, 2008 11:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
please check the background of conservatism and the background of secularism in order to claim if they realy embraced or not .
the termnology conservatism doesnot always mean republicanism nor is limited to evangelacalism.
there is a collision so far between conservatism and secularism despite the fact that both suckled and nippled on the same ideological breast ?
who inspired who juchristianity inspired secularism or secularism inspired juchristianity?
who the scholar of who?
Posted by: amorphous | October 23, 2008 10:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I can't agree on George H. W. Bush being secular:
When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice-president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates, had the following exchange with then-Vice-President Bush.
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
Posted by: Brian Westley | October 23, 2008 9:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
i don't know what "evidence uv been reading, but bushy #1 is pure christian right, along with his son. of course all ur mentions were probably lying to get the vote. A better name for yhem would be NAZIS