A Modest Request

Kunk Fu Zoby Kung Fu Zu  11/7/13
With national mid-term elections less than one year away, I would like to address those conservative Christian voters who are actively involved in our country’s politics.

I believe the time has come for conservative Christians to decide what their primary political goal is. Is it to convert people, or support conservative policies in a way which will help bring about conservative governance?

It is not uncommon to hear Christians invoking the Bible when discussing their positions on political issues. While one’s religious beliefs may be an essential part of one’s life, the unrestrained reference to religious belief in political debate can be, in today’s America, damaging to one’s purported goals. Some of the potential pitfalls of such use are listed below.

1. To non-believers, the invocation of God or God’s law in the pursuit of any goal is meaningless. More importantly, it can be damaging as agnostics and atheists are often irritated by the idea that they should base government policy on a book which they do not believe to be divinely inspired. Plenty of these people will agree with the same policy goals as Christians, but do not wish to feel they are being preached at.

2. Many Christians do not believe it is wise or proper to mix the religious sphere with the worldly sphere. They have no desire to have the Bible cited as grounds for secular law.

3. Non-Christians of other faiths, will likely not be convinced by Christian apologetics, and could feel left out of the discussion.

4. The conspicuous use of religion in pursuit of political office, which many people view as a somewhat debased calling, has greater potential to sully religion than it does to cleanse politics.

5. Quoting the Bible as a basis for political goals gives the Left an easy target. Liberals can survive all sorts of moral depravities, but the media holds practicing Christians to a much higher standard than the rest of society. This is particularly the case for Christians holding political office. The media delights in nothing more than spotlighting the failings of professed Christians, especially those who have worn their religion on their sleeves. We all have failings, but those of Christians are magnified and amplified by the media so as to do the most damage to Christians who hold conservative views. This hurts the conservative moment as a whole.

Others could come up with additional reasons, but I believe the point has been made.

Virtually all political policy goals which today’s Christian conservatives desire can be supported and pursued with non-Biblical reasoning. I believe it would be very helpful if Christians applied their hearts and minds in thinking of ways to articulate these goals without excessive recourse to the Bible.
This doesn’t mean belief has to be taken out of the public square. But I would like to request conservative Christians reconsider their approach if their target is to win national elections and roll back the socialist tide which is sweeping the country. Conservatives of all stripes must unite in this aim, otherwise the America we know will vanish. • (3532 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to A Modest Request

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Faba, you’re back! 😀

    My actual grudge with Christians is that they don’t stick to their religion. If one adhered to “Thou shall not steal” and “Thou shall not covet,” it would be impossible to go down the road of socialism, as we are doing now.

    I’m all for Christians mixing their religion in the marketplace of ideas. They should bravely do so. But they should do so in order to institute the good ideas in the Bible, not the Bible itself for purposes of simply getting the government to affirm a religion. And I think we thoroughly agree on that, Mr. Kung.

    But we should be careful lest we begin to view “secular” as neutral. This is the con that has been foisted on us by the Left and “Progressives.” But hidden (not so hidden, if you ask me) in their supposedly neutral “secularism” is noxious Leftism, a religion unto itself.

    Our Constitution forbids the establishment of religion. And what this meant in the context of the Framers of the Constitution is that one denomination was not to be favored over another, for it would have never occurred to them that we were anything but a Christian people. Jefferson even spent government money printing bibles to be handed out to the Indians and others. The so-called “separation” that we now commonly think of is mostly a myth…a myth propagated by angry atheists and noxious Leftists who simply want to ram their religion down our throats.

    My advice is for Christians to be more faithful to their religion. It’s a good one if you follow Jesus instead of Karl Marx in the guise of “social justice,” “diversity,” “multiculturalism” and all these sneaky and clever ways the Left has crafty to mean “not America” or “post America.”

    • Kung Fu Zu says:

      My request is tactical and more about presentation than content. Western morals are, in large part, based on our Christian heritage. But some of the people who mix religion into politics do so for reasons other than religion. These same people, damage both religion and the conservative cause when they do so.

      The classic case is that egoist Todd Akins. While his utterance on a women rarely getting pregnant from a “legitimate” rape (the inference being that if a woman did get pregnant it wasn’t really rape) was not specifically religious, the media put it in the context of his being a conservative Christian nut. This did damage to Christians and conservatives. And I am convinced his silly remark cost not only him the election in Missouri, but hurt many other conservative candidates across the nation. Such things do not happen in a vacuum. If Akins were truly more interested in advancing the conservative agenda he espoused than personal gain, he would have withdrawn from the contest and let one of the other two conservatives who had run in the primary, take his place. He didn’t and by not doing so he laid himself open to the additional charge of being a hypocrite. Further fodder for the Left.

      Religion is a very sensitive subject. It always has been, thus I believe people who bring it into the political arena must be especially sensitive to the potential pitfalls which they may encounter.

      Politics is not religion and in the Christian context should never be. We are not talking about Islam.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The classic case is that egoist Todd Akins. While his utterance on a women rarely getting pregnant from a “legitimate” rape (the inference being that if a woman did get pregnant it wasn’t really rape) from a rape was not specifically religious, the media put it in the context of his being a conservative Christian nut.

        This is where we learn to live like prisoners of the media with a Stockholm Syndrome type of orientation to our captors if we are not careful. If just ONE Christian (candidate or otherwise) says something stupid, it tars us all. But when the Left — who regularly say not just stupid things but monstrous things — says something, it’s no big deal. It’s not considered to taint Democrats or the Leftist cause.

        I will not hold Christians to this false standard of perfection. If a Todd Akins says something that I disagree with, I’ll have no problem simply disagreeing with Todd Akins, and that is that.

        We have to realize that we (Christians, conservatives, libertarians, and anyone not of the Left) are under assault by Alinskky-like tactics of holding us to our own standards in order to destroy us.

        We must not give into those tactics by demanding that those who are on our side be perfect. That is precisely the road that leads to this milquetoast Establishment Republicanism that we all know and despise.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          This is in fact why some conservatives (such as Mike Huckabee) defended Akin and continued to support him after he made a fool of himself. (Incidentally, I’ve seen a suggestion that his peculiar notion comes from pro-lifers who talk only among themselves. As I’ve said elsewhere, groupthink is a potential problem for everyone.)

  2. Kung Fu Zu says:

    “This is where we learn to live like prisoners of the media with a Stockholm Syndrome type of orientation to our captors if we are not careful. If just ONE Christian (candidate or otherwise) says something stupid, it tars us all. But when the Left — who regularly say not just stupid things but monstrous things — says something, it’s no big deal.”

    You make my case. I am not saying it is fair, I am saying it is what it is. And as far as holding Christians up to a higher standard, that is the state of things. Christianity is a higher standard. You may not hold Christians up to it, but I assure you others do. Christians hold themselves to a higher standard.

    At no time did I ask for perfection. (don’t be an Alinskyite) I asked for consideration. I asked for thought, especially as regards to how to promote policy goals to people who do not believe the Bible is the holy word of God. That’s quite different from “perfection”.

    In the end, this only matters to me in so far as it helps or hinders conservatives in their goal of influencing political policy. I leave the saving of souls to the religious sphere, where it properly belongs.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      You make my case. I am not saying it is fair, I am saying it is what it is. And as far as holding Christians up to a higher standard, that is the state of things. Christianity is a higher standard. You may not hold Christians up to it, but I assure you others do. Christians hold themselves to a higher standard.

      Well, not being in the business of politics, I’m more engaged with what ought to be than what is. And very often if we raise our vision to what ought to be, we get it. But if we limit ourselves to what is, we get that too.

      It’s surely a careful balance between idealism and pragmatism. But pure pragmatism is making the Republican Party a hollowed out shell. It’s turned it into Leftism Lite.

      We need to fight back. I really don’t give a rat’s ass if some Christian out there believes the earth is 6000 years old, for instance. We need to come to the awareness that we are fighting Scientific Socialism. It’s the conceit of the Left/”Progressives” that all of their ideas are based on “reason” or “science” and not all that old-style ooga-booga of the Bible, which we all know is the domain of knuckle-dragging religious fanatics and numbskulls.

      But the truth is, we would be far better off being governed by people who believe the earth is 6000 years old because most of these people (in my experience) are morally decent people. And that is the central conceit (prejudice) of the Left that we have to face down. And that includes many, if not most, libertarians. It’s the idea that “reason” counts most, not those nasty and inconvenient things called “morals.”

      I think Christians have, by and large, been intimidated into silence by the Left. But short of all of us organizing under the Rotary Club, the Lions Club, or some web site such as this, the most potent force for positive change in regards to rolling back the nanny state exists within the doctrine of Jesus Christ. “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” — Paul

      Much of Christian doctrine has been dishonestly interpreted by socialists as pro-socialism. But it’s not. It’s a pro-personal-morality doctrine. It’s not (as some have bastardized it) a collective salvation doctrine. It’s about you and god. It’s about something being more central to life than a free phone from the government.

      Our society cannot long endure with a “secular” orientation. We are right now consuming our society from the inside out for no other reason than that we have totally focused on the material and forgot the moral. That’s what Marxism/socialism is. It says that all the world’s problems stem from material poverty.

      But Christianity is the truth in regards to the point that it is moral or spiritual poverty that is the true menace in the world. This being the case, I have absolutely no problem with Christians who fall short of their standards, for at least they have them, and the right ones.

      It matters not a jot if some Christian believes the earth is five minutes old and dinosaurs still roam some island in the Pacific if (as I think is usually the case) they are restrained and molded by a Christian ethic of “thou shall not kill” and “thou shall not steal.” Our culture has totally over-rated science and reason as a guiding principle for our nation.

  3. Kung Fu Zu says:

    “Well, not being in the business of politics, I’m more engaged with what ought to be than what is.”

    One of the problems of conservatives is that they are not terribly interested in the business of politics. Conservatives are generally getting on with life and too busy to devote much time or thought to politics,

    Well, we’d better wake up and get involved because, to paraphrase Trotsky, “you may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you”. And the only way we might get “what ought to be” is to get out and fight intelligently for it. We cannot always chose our battlefields so we must be prepared to fight when and where the fight is brought to us. An intelligent warrior does not send ammo to his enemy.

    “But pure pragmatism is making the Republican Party a hollowed out shell.”

    It is not political pragmatism which is hurting the Republican Party. It is personal self aggrandizement by corrupt professional politicians which is killing the party. And America, I might add. One of the reasons these professional politicians have been able to capture the party is that “conservatives” have been too busy getting on with life and have not devoted the needed time and effort to monitoring our political master.

    While the Left has certainly tried to silence Christians, I don’t think many Christians have been intimidated by Left. And they can certainly assert their beliefs as they wish. They simply need to be able to back up the reasons for these beliefs in ways which don’t rely solely on the Bible, if they wish to expand their political influence.

    “I have absolutely no problem with Christians who fall short of their standards, for at least they have them.”

    Of course Christians will fall short of their standards. That is the nature of man. Christian theology deals with this quite extensively. In general, when a Christian falls short of Christian standards, it is between the Christian and God, and possibly the person the Christian may have wronged.

    But Christians are clearly enjoined to high conduct among non-believers.

    “Let your conduct among unbelievers be so good that, although they now malign you as wrongdoers, reflection on your good deeds will lead them to give glory to God on the day when he comes to judgement. Submit yourselves for the sake of the Lord to every human authority, whether to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as his deputies for the punishment of those who do wrong and the commendation of those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence ignorance and stupidity. Live as those who are free; not however as though your freedom provided a cloak for wrongdoing.” First Peter 2:12-16

    So I think circumspection is called for in public life. Christian actions will speak louder than Christian words.

    In any case, this has drifted far from the subject of the original article, which was about a tactical approach to politics.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      While the Left has certainly tried to silence Christians, I don’t think many Christians have been intimidated by Left.

      Well, the Christians who post here are in no way intimidated. But many are. From my understanding, rare is the minister who will tell his congregation that abortion is evil, socialism is bad, and hard work (not welfare) is the better path for man.

      What has happened is that because society has moved so far leftward, such common sense views (whether based on the Bible or otherwise) are deemed “too political.” So many, if not most, ministers nowadays either avoid it altogether and thus you get a meaningless, disembodied mash of pseudo-Biblical preaching (the words but without the relevance to everyday life) or — as is all too often the case — you get Christians (and now most Jews) who simply integrate Leftism. Leftism comes to replace Christianity, although the outer trappings are still there.

      Let’s just say if God has a plan for my life he has infused me with all the gusto of an Old Testament prophet. “Oh, Israel, you have messed up. Oh, Israel, repent your ways or destruction will come your way.” “Oh, Israel, your walls will soon come crashing down unless you stop living a lie.” The greatest Old Testament prophets are full of that kind of stuff.

      And that’s precisely where we are in this culture. Most people have run off half-mad or fully disconnected. We’re left to proverbially shout from the mountain top, “Oh, stupid liberals, get wise to the con of free stuff.”

      My favorite part of the New Testament is probably the Sermon on the Mount. But a close second is the story in which Jesus overturns the tables in the temple.

      That’s what the Tea Party is. We are trying to overturn the tables of the Establishment politicians who have interests other than America and liberty. This is what this site is about as well.

      Oh, stupid “Progressive” liberals, you cannot build utopia based upon lies and feel-good kumbaya conceits. Repent.

  4. LibertyMark says:

    Mr. Zu,

    Are you proposing that Christians go as far as to preach the word of God AND Liberty as it was preached in the days leading up to and following the Glorious Revolution?

    Talking with a Four Square minister recently (I am not a member), I asked, ” do you preach freedom from the pulpit!” “No,” he said. It is not accepted to possibly alienate any parishioner.

    Here we stand again with : money. Money drives all politics. I find this insurmountably sad.

    Did you know that King George called the American Revolution the Presbyterian Parsons’ Revolution?

    Stand up, Christians! This is the last bastion of Christian liberty. Witness the Syrian and Egyptian purge (I.e. Murder) of Believers. Time to take a stand.

    • Kung Fu Zu says:

      I would have no problem of preaching freedom from the pulpit. I would have no problem with a minister going into the depth of moral depravity which pervades our society. I wouldn’t be bothered if a preacher wanted to call a spade a spade and told his flock all the misguided things they do under the illusion that what they are doing is sanctioned by God. I don’t think any preacher should be terribly concerned with alienating a parishioner if the message of freedom is what is irritating him. But remember freedom in the New Testament comes through belief in Jesus and being saved. It is quite different from what the freedom we are talking about in the political realm.

      I wish people would read what I wrote. I have no problem with Christians getting out and spreading the word of God throughout the land, but I do not, repeat do not think doing it in political elections, especially national elections is the place to do it. If Christians want to bring people to Jesus then get up and go into the community at large and start missionary work. There is plenty of scope for that sort of work in the USA without even having to go overseas. In fact, I believe this would be more effective as regards solving our societal problems than anything a politician could do.

      I have no problem with Christians standing up and fighting to maintain religious freedom in this country.

      But I am absolutely convinced that a politician running for the Senate, or House talking about the earth being 6000 years old or some such thing does Christianity and conservatism more harm than good.

      Again, I ask what the political goal is here? Do you want to convert people through politics or strive to influence governmental policy to move in a more traditional direction? I am thinking on strictly tactical political lines.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I think the true issue is if we are going to be embarrassed by our base. I am not embarrassed if someone thinks the world is 6000 years old, although I disagree.

        The Republican Establishment (and that includes almost all those at National Review) are embarrassed by the conservative base. And I do think that Rush is onto something when he says the Establishment Republicans would rather swap out that base for a different one, one that does not embarrass them with such unenlightened talk such as outlawing abortion or gay marriage – or, god forbid, expecting people to work instead of mooching off of others.

        I wouldn’t disagree if you were to say that the proper way to do things is to have one’s religion inform one’s politics rather than to directly be one’s politics. But even then, we must now realize that we are not debating this issue inside a vacuum. The Left has successfully forwarded the idea that even a second-hand influence of religious beliefs into politics is violating “the separation of church and state” (conveniently leaving room for the religion of Leftism to have free rein…as it is doing now).

        Therefore I urge my Christian brothers and sisters to not be cowed or intimidated. Speak up, for it will either be the religion of Brotherly Love that informs the politics of our society or it will be the cancerous religion of Leftism that is, if even in jest, founded upon Satan. (Saul Alinsky dedicated his “Rules for Radicals” to just that.)

        • Kung Fu Zu says:

          Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!

          “I think the true issue is if we are going to be embarrassed by our base. I am not embarrassed if someone thinks the world is 6000 years old, although I disagree.”

          You are not addressing my point, which is not about being embarrassed by Christians, which was never said or intimated in my posts. You understand English well enough to know that. The point was that going around saying the such things as the world is 6000 years old does not help getting elected particularly in areas where a goodly percentage of the electorate do not think the world is 6000 years old. Do you think such utterances help or hurt a person get elected? I would appreciate a simple answer from you on that.

          My posts have had nothing to do with the Establishment Republicans being embarrassed by the conservative base. As a matter of fact, I am part of the base the Establishment is embarrassed of. Not all conservatives are conservative Christians.

          My post has nothing to do with abortion or gay marriage. In fact it only touches on policy in a broad sense.

          I like your formulation that one’s religion should inform one’s politics rather than directly be one’s politics, but I wasn’t even addressing that.

          I was addressing a very narrow subject on a tactical matter. Whether conservative Christians wish to consider my words, is up to them. Whether they do or do not, matters to me only in so far as it effects elections. I would generally much prefer conservative Christians with traditional values (even those who believe the world to be 6000 years old) be elected to public office than the Left wing wreckers who are too often winning by small margins. I will continue to fight for such victories even thought you seem to think my intentions and methods are wrong.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            My overall point, Mr. Kung, it that you can’t regain the public discourse by being timid. And you can’t control what every single person says. And you seem to have under-rate my point that if the Left can say a thousand loony things and a Christian can say but one — and yet it is all of conservatism that is tarnished — then we must remake the playing field, not cater to it by making sure that no Christian anywhere says something stupid.

            I’ve got news for you. The idea of Jesus’ second coming or a 6000 year earth pales in comparison to the gravity of those who believe in global warming. To take a libertarian line, it costs me not a cent if a Christian believes either. But it is costing our civilization billions, and its freedoms, to believe in global warming.

            I say take the fight right to them. If a Christian says something stupid, repeat my last paragraph…over and over if necessary. And it will be necessary.

            The other option is to voluntarily put ourselves in the tight little box that the Left is building for us. I’m just not of the mind to do so or to take part in its construction.

            • Kung Fu Zu says:

              Please read my reply to LibertyMark. I have not advocated being timid. I am advocating being smart.

              And your line about a Christian believing the world is 6000 years old costing you nothing whereas the religion of Global warming costing billions is exactly what I mean about going on the offensive. We must form the discussion as much as possible instead of sitting there like ducks in a pond to be picked off.

              And I’ll take the whole question of the religion of science further. I believe the world has been sold a bill of goods by too many in the “scientific” field for precisely the reasons we have discussed in the past, i.e. the SOB’s think they are superior to the rest of us. Therefore, they should be ruling us. But to take an example of a “theory” which has somehow become a “fact” in the world, look at the Big Bang Theory. This is discussed as if it is absolute fact, whereas it is not. People talk about the universe being 14 billion years old as if this was something you could observe, like watching litmus paper turn color in an acidic solution. It is no such thing. It is unprovable period. It may fit nicely with mathematical models, etc, but it ain’t fact!!! People are now talking about string theory and the possibility of there being 11 universes existing at the same time in different dimensions. Very interesting to talk about but absolutely unprovable.

              My point is, that we will always have “educated” dunces out there in the general population who pick up a little knowledge here and a little knowledge there. In total they may not know very much, but they have to be dealt with and approached in a way that may possibly reach them. And some slacker who has a degree in sociology (C- average), works part time at a sporting goods store and likes to discuss alternate universes over a joint with his friends may just think he is smarter than those Christian rubes. Nevertheless, it should be our goal to reach him, one day.

              I may be exaggerating a bit, but not that much.

  5. LibertyMark says:

    “This doesn’t mean belief has to be taken out of the public square. But I would like to request conservative Christians reconsider their approach if their target is to win national elections and roll back the socialist tide which is sweeping the country. Conservatives of all stripes must unite in this aim, otherwise the America we know will vanish.”

    OK, KFZ, I can get on board with this. But I think you may be reacting to only half of a bi-directional malaise. The Left will try their Inquisition-esque interrogatories, regardless of whether CC politicians voice their bible beliefs or not.

    To wit, what should a CC politician say to this typical interrogatory, “Should intelligent design be taught in public schools?”

    Trick question! Gotcha question! Burn them at the stake question!

    So the desire of some CC’s is well matched by some MSM and Left types who relentlessly desire to expose those who believe in a literal bible, just as you observe their are CC’s who desire to overlay their bible beliefs on the public discourse.

    What’s a fella to do?

    • Kung Fu Zu says:

      Mark, I agree with your point and have tried to consider what might be done in such cases. We must accept that the Left will always be dishonest, slippery and
      we have to be SMARTER!!! If that takes more work and thought then let’s get with it.

      To take your example on intelligent design, I think the answer depends somewhat on the office for which one is running. If one isn’t running for a school board or some state commission which deals with education, I think the thing to do is aggressively attack the questioner, by pointing out very clearly that the office you are seeking has nothing to do with determining school curricula. With this being the case one should go further and jump on the questioner and point out that since the office one is seeking has nothing to do with curricula then the only reason the question was put was to divert attention away from the real issues at hand. Furthermore, one should point out that the questioner was not a neutral reporter but was carrying water for the Left.

      Now that may not be the end of it, but instead of meekly sitting there and letting the Leftist media form the argument, I think it might be better if conservatives gave some thought on ways to answer dishonest reporters instead of falling into the obvious traps which are being set.

      I think I could come up with ways to reply to most of these traps without quoting scripture. And I think it must be done!!! It does not matter whether you or I think the questions being put are traps or unfair. It does not matter whether you or I do not believe resorting to the Bible and belief when discussing a political platform is something that may be quite justifiable.

      What matters is, as Brad is constantly pointing out, that our society is full of “educated” dunces who have been brainwashed into believing that too many Christians are ignorant rubes. We must counter the daily propaganda put out by schools and the media that Christians are know-nothings. But you cannot use the Bible to show people who don’t know anything about the Bible, to prove anything politically. You don’t talk to a five year old about the writings of St. Augustine, and too many people that I have run into over the last few years are the equivalent of five year olds when it comes to history, psychology, cause and effect and life in general. They simple know what has been drilled into them by the Left wing institutions, which control too much of the flow of information in this country.

      Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to figure out the level on which these people can be reached. They vote whether we like it or not. They have too much control over our lives whether we like it or not. And I am not one to fool myself that they don’t. Some increasing number of them must be persuaded of the rightness of the conservative movement, or we are toast.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I seem to recall that when S. I. Hayakawa was asked about some minor issue in 1976 (I think it was about dog-racing), he said he didn’t care about it — “I’m running for U.S. Senator.” This may be a useful approach for such questions. Of course, as more and more of society becomes politicized, there are fewer and fewer offices for which such responses are totally appropriate. Any executive or legislator may find himself having to vote on a bill that deals with issues such as teaching ID. But it’s certainly true that conservatives need to find a way to deal with such issues, because they certainly will be asked.

    • Pokey Possum says:

      LM: “What’s a fella to do?”

      Certainly not roll over and play dead! And I think that is KFZ’s point. We must continue to fight to win. And to win requires great strategy. Great strategy can be straightforward and honest and uses what the enemy considers their strength as a force to overpower them. Like martial arts.

      LM: “To wit, what should a CC politician say to this typical interrogatory, “Should intelligent design be taught in public schools?”

      One could respond, ” Aren’t other beliefs regarding our existence taught in schools? Why not present all theories and let people evaluate the possibilities based on complete, unbiased information? Do we intend for education to brainwash and indoctrinate, or to inspire informed thought?” If it gets creationism back into schools, then that is a battle won.

      KFZ: “I think I could come up with ways to reply to most of these traps without quoting scripture. And I think it must be done!!! It does not matter whether you or I think the questions being put are traps or unfair. It does not matter whether you or I do not believe resorting to the Bible and belief when discussing a political platform is something that may be quite justifiable.”

      Absolutely!

      • Pokey Possum says:

        And while we’re at it, why not include the truth about what our forefathers meant by “separation of church and state”.

        • Kung Fu Zu says:

          Exactly! A friend of mine with a M.S. in biology once said something to the effect that the constitution strictly requires no religion to be considered in politics.

          I asked him if he had read the first amendment, and of course, he had not. He was surprised when I told him that the only thing it says regarding religion is “that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” He was surprised, but then fell back on the line that the Supreme Court had pretty much decreed what he thought.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        If it gets creationism back into schools, then that is a battle won.

        I would love it if schools taught creationism. After all, what harm would there be? But I’m sure there are some out there who assume that to teach creationism is to exclude all other areas of study, including Darwinism.

        I think the reason some might assume that is because they believe that those who push Creationism are religious zealots who brook no dissent.

        Well, to those who think that, I say welcome to the party. That is exactly that attitude of the “secular” crowd who push their religious-like agenda down the rest of our throats, including sexualizing children at an early age, teaching statism (via various anti-capitalist prejudices), and at every turn undermining families.

        I’m afraid I’m libertarian when it comes to the government schools. We would likely do better now to scrap them. It can be considered a good overall project to make sure that all kids get a good education. But current methods are failing. If the state governments (there should be absolutely no federal government involvement) must have a central plan it should be to issue vouchers to families so that they can send their children to wherever they want. There should be no public schools. We would be much better off if churches and private for-profit business was the method.

        As it is now, there is this battle (Darwinism vs. Creationism) in the first place because the government schools have become indoctrination centers for “Progressivism.” They teach state-friendly ideas when they are bothering to teach our kids anything at all. If only we could teach Creationism in schools, it would show that the schools were not the noxious pro-statist beasts that many of them have become, for there are three things that are most threatening to statists:

        1) Religion
        2) Families
        3) An intelligent and informed populace.

        All three of those things necessarily work against dependency upon government. You can add free markets in there as a fourth element.

        You will notice, I hope, that the government schools — by hook or by crook (intentionally or just how it plays out) — teach against all these things. Kids are now less educated. Christianity is marginalized under the guise of “separation of church and state.” (And to a good “Progressive,” nothing should separate us from the state.) And breaking family authority is one of the implicit, if not always stated, goals of higher education, and this tends to express itself in primary education as well.

        Personally, I’m much more comfortable with people quoting scripture to back up their ideas than by quoting Pastor Wright, Saul Alinsky, or William Ayers and his ilk.

        • Kung Fu Zu says:

          “Personally, I’m much more comfortable with people quoting scripture to back up their ideas than by quoting Pastor Wright, Saul Alinsky, or William Ayers and his ilk.”

          That’s the point. I would also be more comfortable with scripture, but I don’t recall ever hearing a Leftist running for office quoting Wright, Alinsky or Ayers. And I don’t recall ever hearing a reporter asking a politician if he thought the destruction of Western civilization was a good political goal. Or whether allowing a flood of illegal immigrants to become citizens and take jobs from millions of Americans and soak the welfare system in this country was a worthy goal. Or whether or not bombing a police station was a legitimate mode of political expression. Or whether a politician saw Lucifer as a role model since he was the first rebel.

          And if reporters did ask such questions, you can bet the Left would have thought about the best way to answer them without causing a stir. They already have the answers in diversity, equality, mistaken actions taken for a worthy cause and speaking truth to power through freedom of speech. Short sound bytes which are tried and tested.

          The Left seems to take politics more seriously than conservatives as that is their religion. Again, we’d better wake up.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            …but I don’t recall ever hearing a Leftist running for office quoting Wright, Alinsky or Ayers.

            Hillary wrote her college thesis on Alinsky.

            And that’s the nature of the Left…deception. We go around quoting Washington, Lincoln (accept for the Paulbots), and Jefferson all the time. We’re not trying to hide our agenda. As Rush says, these people couldn’t get elected if they ran on what they truly believed and wanted to do.

            So, indeed, we need to get in the game to “take politics more seriously” as you called it. I just don’t think we do so by becoming shrinking violets and worrying about what one elected official said somewhere. Let’s us set the agenda with truth. Let’s challenge these people on the issues. Lets show who, in practice, is engaging in a “war on women.” It’s the Left, because apparently these recessions have hurt women more than men.

            Let’s call them “Communists” instead of “Progressives,” for that’s what many of them are. New York City just elected a Communist mayor. Let’s hang the 100 million deaths last century around their ideology like an albatross. Let’s get out our Ayn Rand books and do a refresher in the true evils of collectivism.

            But, for god’s sake, let’s not play into their hands by worrying about what some Christian somewhere is saying. We know the Left will attack us with or without perfectly careful works. They will just make stuff up such as claiming that n-words were spoken in the face of Pelosi or someone.

            We’re dealing with evil, power-hungry people who use “compassion” as a mask for their own self-aggrandizement. This is the truth.

            I don’t expect reporter to ask the questions. We know the playing field is tilted at the moment. So let us talk frank. Let us encourage others to talk frank. Most people have been beaten down, their courage whittled away by the intimidation of political correctness.

            Let us shout from the roof tops, “The earth is 6000 years old.” I don’t care. It’s about time we got in the face of these people on the Left, and their conceited minions. We are facing (in both parties) people who really think they are morally and intellectually superior. They really do believe they know what is best for us.

            We need to puncture that. We need to go on the offensive and not give a rat’s ass if someone, somewhere, on our side has said something stupid. We need not hold ourselves to standards of perfection. We need to paint in bold colors, no wimpy pastels, to paraphrase Reagan. We need to go around the media and talk to people one to one, on the internet, or wherever. And I am certainly doing this here. I hope someone reads this and gains courage that they no longer have to shut up and just take it.

            • Kung Fu Zu says:

              “We need to go around the media and talk to people one to one, on the internet, or wherever. And I am certainly doing this here.”

              While I laud your efforts at this site, I must point out your audience here is quite different from the general population which politicians have to face. If that audience were anything like your audience here, the country would not be in the sorry shape it is in and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

              I don’t believe this site is so much about directly bringing people around to a conservative view point. Rather I find it is to try and raise the level of discourse among a smallish number of people and help those people pass on knowledge and try to stay sane in an increasingly insane environment. Hopefully, the knowledge gained here will be used by the various participants to expand conservative thinking in their own, non-Stubbornthings, circles.

              Of course, the site is, from time to time, also fun.

    • Kung Fu Zu says:

      Remember what Churchill said, “a lie will be half way round the world, before the truth has got its pants on”, or something similar.

      It is always harder to convince many people that it is best for them to be disciplined, reach for excellence, take care of themselves, to be moderate in their lives, to consider the correctness of their actions, than it is too say, “hey, do what you want. Your choices and actions are just fine. Nobody can tell you what to do, as you are special.”

      This fundamental divide has always been with us. It must be understood and addressed daily.

    • Brad Nelson says:

      Regarding the teaching of intelligent design, why not? Who would it hurt? Basically this is a metaphysical question anyway. Are metaphysics to be outlawed? Philosophy? Even the studying of religion? And could not the Thing that gave rise to all that is still intervene? It’s an obvious and interesting question. It’s a threatening question only to religious bigots and godless Marxists.

      The primary reasons there is so much controversy surround this subject is:

      1) It’s push-back from Christians who have seen our public school systems indoctrinate children in a worldview that they know is bad even if they can’t quite put their fingers on the idea that “Progressivism” is a competing religion. Their competitive instincts are ignited, and rightfully so.

      2) It is the attempt by Cultural Marxists (off all stripes, persuasions, and levels of awareness of this noxious creed) to marginalize Christianity for various reasons, none of them honest or good.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, it depends on whether you’re teaching metaphysics or biology in the particular class. As far as I know (and I’ve read a couple of books on the subject, natural history being one of my long-time intellectual interests) ID has not yet reached a stage where it can be considered good science. Unlike creationism, however, I can imagine that it could reach that point. Few people realize that the co-originator of the theory of evolution by natural selection (Alfred Wallace) didn’t believe that the human brain could be completely explained by purely natural means, thus making him the progenitor of the theory of intelligent design (though the terminology is much more recent, of course).

  6. LibertyMark says:

    OK! Good discussion on Intelligent Design. Now, all you very smart folks (no snark), let’s move on to some snappy answers to stupid Libtard questions put to Cons candidates. I’m not running, but this is all good for many venues.

    What would the effective Cons Candidate say when asked, when does a fetus become a human being? Let’s say this is in a State Legislator or a congressional seat election debate. Not a far-fetched question. (Recall El Caudillo Incompetente’s response to Rick Warren?)

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, the most important thing seems to be to come up with a good way of handling the question of abortion unborn babies resulting from rape. There is in fact no good logical justification for it, but even people who want to restrict abortion usually don’t want to go that far. Those who agree with the majority have no problem; those who disagree need to come up with an explanation that makes sense without insulting people or seeming to justify rape. My thought would be to say that as evil as rape is (and my housemate was once raped, long before I knew her, so I certainly wouldn’t treat it with any leniency), the child is not the perpetrator.

    • Kung Fu Zu says:

      If one has to split hairs, as I believe is necessary in this case, I think we can continue on the line that Timothy and I have mentioned, i.e. when do the brain and heart develop and show they are active.

      I think another avenue is when is the “fetus” sentient? I believe modern medicine is able to show that the fetus is able to feel things such as pain quite early in its development.

      On the overall method of answering questions about one’s position on abortion, I think it is important to avoid falling into the trap of yes and no questions. I think it would be best to preface any answer with something like, “regardless what one believes as regards religion, it is vital for us to agree that we are dealing with life and all its potential. It is also important to understand some of the biology regarding fetal development and when an unborn child actually can feel pain. These are not small questions. In fact, such questions about life are some of the biggest questions which human beings can ask. At their core, they concern the most basic human right, i.e. the right to life. This right takes precedence over every other civil right in natural law or any other legal system.”

      In no case, should anyone who is asked any question regarding abortion simply give a short reply without bringing up the biological and moral questions which are too often neglected in settings where the discussion of abortion is not the main topic.

      And frankly, any male politician who is asked any question about abortion should have the humility to say something like, “as I am not a woman, it is impossible for me to even imagine what kind of mental turmoil a woman who is considering abortion, especially because she is carrying a handicapped child, or is pregnant because she was raped, is going through. I think we must all keep this in mind and have sympathy with many of these women who are struggling with very difficult decisions. On the other hand, I find abortion as a method of birth control offensive to all human beings. Throughout history, whatever one’s religious beliefs or philosophy, the senseless and wanton taking of human life has been held to be wicked. I believe this is still the case.”

      Actually, all males should think about this as it is absolutely true. We can sympathize, but it we just aren’t able to feel this on the same level as a woman and a little humility on our part would go a long way. As just to be clear, I don’t think this is wimping out.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        That’s a good point about relying on science rather than religion. Ultimately, that’s the basis for my own standard, and the reason why I say that before that point it should be a moral question, and after that point (functioning heart and brain) a legal one.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    when does a fetus become a human being?

    On the second glass of wine. 😀

    Seriously…I might turn that around and ask a libtard, “When isn’t an unborn baby a human being and can be disposed of like a blister?”

    • LibertyMark says:

      I asked this of a so called “independent”, i. e. “Flaccid thinker”, who had just had a baby. The direct question was, “When did your newborn son become a human being in your wife’s womb?”

      His answer? Second trimester! WTF?! I said I bet your wife would disagree…

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I can recall reading once that some liberals complained that pro-lifers refer to “unborn babies” rather than “fetuses”, which they claimed was the normal term. I found myself wondering if there was any expectant mother in the country who ever referred to what was inside as her fetus instead of her baby.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          The truth is, Timothy, the the Left has to work awfully hard to break the natural, normal, and beautiful sympathy a woman has for her unborn child. I have heard that even for staunch pro-abortion advocates, actually getting an abortion often entails a real sense of loss and regret….as it should. Let’s always remember which political ideology uses dehumanizing as a matter of course. It’s not us.

        • Kung Fu Zu says:

          “some liberals complained that pro-lifers refer to “unborn babies” rather than “fetuses”, which they claimed was the normal term.”

          This is more of the Left choosing the language, defining the terms and picking the turf.

          I agree completely with Brad that we must be relentless in taking back the ball and aggressively moving against the Left. But I think the difference is that in the “political” game of football, I want to give my opponents as few opportunities to get control of the ball as possible. And in my opinion, shouting “the world is 6000 years old” from the roof tops is a fumble which could have been avoided.

          If one wants to shout it at a neighborhood game, I think that is fine.

          As this a cool November weekend in Texas, I couldn’t help the football analogy.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        What kind of *&#% would say a thing like that? That’s inhuman.

        • Kung Fu Zu says:

          A product of our modern educational system. So self absorbed and ignorant that he doesn’t even have feeling for the child growing in his wife’s womb until the legal limit set by the Left wing media’s propaganda ‘s machine.

          Believe me, there are many such males skulking around our society. How else to explain the millions of fatherless (at home) in our country.

  8. Kung Fu Zu says:

    “when does a fetus become a human being?”

    At root the abortion issue is a matter of which human right trumps the other. Does a woman have complete autonomy over her person, or as you ask, when does a fertilized egg become a human being and does that being’s life have precedent over the mother’s rights over her person.

    I have always thought the pro-abortion’s line that “a woman has complete control over her body” to be specious. I have had women say to me, “I’m not going to let some man tell me what I can or can’t do with my body” to be quiet silly. All of us, are being told what and what we can’t do with our bodies, in some way.

    It is illegal to drink alcoholic beverages until a person is 21 years of age in many places. It is illegal in most places to take intoxicating drugs. It is illegal in just about all places to take prescription drugs without a prescription. It is illegal in many places to be infected with the HIV/AIDS virus and have sex without telling a sex partner. Prostitution is illegal in many places. It is illegal to have sex with children under certain ages. It is illegal to buy cigarettes under the age of 18. It is illegal to walk around naked in most places. A kid can’t carry an aspirin to school. So if minors can’t do all of the about things, why is it legal for them to get an abortion?

    If I wanted to think about it further I am pretty sure there are other laws which restrict our control over our bodies to some degree or other. So I think these points can be used against that particular argument.

    The above arguments, notwithstanding, I do agree that a person should have significant control over one’s body. And that the restrictions on one’s person should be few. But the involvement of another human being, if only the potential human being and the question of life and death of that human being should tend to tip the “rights” scale more heavily to the pro-life argument as there is no more basic human right than the right to life. I think this should be hammered constantly.

    As to when there is a human there, the moment an egg is fertilized it has the potential to become only a human being. It can become nothing else. Since this is the case, I believe there is a good case to be made that induced abortions, are wrong. This position is not based on religion, but humaness. But this is a position that has virtually no chance of being passed into law, at the moment, or any time in the near future, in my opinion.

    Even though the fertilized egg has the potential to become human is not to say that the fertilized egg will necessarily become a human being as part of the process of becoming human is the egg attaching itself to the wall of the uterus and developing further from that time forward. If the egg does not attach itself to the uterine wall, it self aborts.

    By the 6th week after fertilization an embryo shows brain activity. In American medical practice, brain activity is generally used to determine the difference between life and death. So if one is not willing to accept the humaness of a fertilized egg, would brain activity be an acceptable line? As an aside, a number studies have shown about 25% of embryos have self aborted by the 6th week. A further 8% of embryos self about between the 6th and 8th weeks and another 2.5% after the period of 8.5 weeks. So, by week 8.5, nature has taken its course and about 35.5% the potential humans which started out as fertilized eggs have self aborted. After that period the percentage of such occurrences drops off dramatically. Thus from a biological point of view, if brain activity at six weeks is not acceptable, one could say that after two months nature has, by in large, taken care of itself and should not be interfered with.

    The main reason I am going into these numbers is that there is virtually no way to stop abortion completely at the moment, so I am trying to find some line which should be used to at least reduce the number of abortions. In Texas the law was recently changed to stop abortions later than the 20th week after fertilization. In the recent past, premature babies have been able to survive around 24 weeks after fertilization. Now, this number is moving down to 20 weeks. I think this is moving in the right direction and other states will follow.

    I will try to follow up on this tomorrow.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I used to think in terms of viability, but that’s a very vague concept. Later my housemate persuaded me that the best standard was a functioning embryonic brain and heart, particularly since those are the means we use to determine death. Certainly we should ban second-trimester abortions; a case can be made that before that period it should be a personal moral decision (and one not to be taken as lightly as Molochite liberals advocate) rather than a legal one.

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        I have had a fair number of people use the “viability” point as a guideline for when an abortion was acceptable.

        My answer has been that is an artificial construction as a one day old baby is not viable without the care and protection of its mother. Unlike most other animals, a human being is not able to survive on its own until some years after birth. Does that mean a child is not human until it is six years old?

        • Timothy Lane says:

          That’s pretty much what “bioethicists” like Peter Singer use as their justification for infanticide (or, as I derisively call it, post-natal abortion). As I said, I don’t use that standard now.

          • Kung Fu Zu says:

            That a scoundrel like Singer could even be called a “bioethicist” tells you how the miscreants have captured the language.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *