BEASTWEEK: Evil Christian Candidates Want to Rule World, Bring Back Slavery
Radical progressives are just peachy with 7th Century ideas if the offending party prays to Allah instead of Jehovah, but if you happen to be a Christian—especially a living, modern-day one—rest assured they can't wait to smear you as a nutter.
The author, Michelle Goldberg, seems to be a progressive feminist with half-baked delusions of Christanity tied together with murky and tenuous associations and assertions. It would be amusing if fellow leftists weren't so easily duped into thinking that such off-the-wall conspiracy theorizing wasn't well, the gospel. And yet in every election in recent memory where the Republican challenger is a practicing Christian, the left trots out their "theocracy" scare card. That Tina Brown's rage-rag is reduced to retreating to this schtick so early in the 2012 Presidential run merely serves to indicate how badly the left thinks Obama will fare. The early panic is, I dare say, heavenly. MIKE ADDS: I've been fascinated and disgusted by this utterly insupportable tactic of the left. The only truly political movement of contemporary American Christians was the Moral Majority, led by the Rev. Jerry Fallwell from 1979-1987. It collapsed of its own internal political and theological contradictions, and while it could claim some electoral successes, since its self-extermination there has been no organized Christian political movement that could claim even a tiny fraction of the influence of the Moral Majority. Cal Thomas, a high ranking Moral Majority figure, left that organization in 1985 and in 2000, published Blinded By Might, in which he repudiated the imposition of Christianity through politics and once again fully embraced the Gospel. Many others have done the same. In truth, the Christian political threat imagined by Leftists hasn't existed since before 1987. In fact, the Gospel does not support such political machinations and never has. The Rev. Fallwell and many of his followers were surely guilty of hubris, but were never capable of coming remotely close to imposing a theocracy. Ms. Goldberg and others are erecting a smokescreen to distract people from the real and continuing threat of Islamism and the related machinations of the Left. To paraphrase Shakespeare: "Methinks she doth protest too much."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:11 PM
Comments
1
Bob,
Thanks for the great blog and for your work at PJM.
I run a tiny low-hits secret of a blog called Si Vis Pacem. It's theme is in the libertarian-conservative interest. There is a sticky post that maintains a continuous round-up of GunGate related articles... h t t p://tinyurl (dot) com/gungateroundup
I have a different take on the Roman concept of 'si vis pacem': If you seek peace, seek first liberty. That is not to disagree with the idea of preparing war: that is a moral imperative inherent in liberty. It is also a moral imperative to speak-up and to seek wise counsel. Both of these are the bases for the Constitution's first two amendments.
Cheers.
Thanks for the great blog and for your work at PJM.
I run a tiny low-hits secret of a blog called Si Vis Pacem. It's theme is in the libertarian-conservative interest. There is a sticky post that maintains a continuous round-up of GunGate related articles... h t t p://tinyurl (dot) com/gungateroundup
I have a different take on the Roman concept of 'si vis pacem': If you seek peace, seek first liberty. That is not to disagree with the idea of preparing war: that is a moral imperative inherent in liberty. It is also a moral imperative to speak-up and to seek wise counsel. Both of these are the bases for the Constitution's first two amendments.
Cheers.
Posted by: Ran at August 16, 2011 09:28 AM (xSeWe)
2
Toss in Pat Robertson, and his 1988 presidential campaign. He proclaimed that he would only appoint "good Christians" to government office.
Apart from that, though... yeah, you pretty much nailed it.
J.
Apart from that, though... yeah, you pretty much nailed it.
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea at August 16, 2011 01:54 PM (YWXmX)
3
Dear Jay Tea:
Thanks for reading and for your comment. I didn't include the Rev. Robertson because his candidacy was very much a vanity candidacy in the vein of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton: he never had a chance to win the nomination to say nothing of the presidency. By 1988, whatever political power a semi-unified but always internally fractious "Christian" movement might have once wielded was long gone, and Robertson's brief campaign served only to remind Americans that theologically based politics was a ridiculously bad idea in 1776 and in 1988 as well.
Some might mistake values voters for some sort of evil Christian political front, but they vote for the kind of solid values Americans of any faith--or no faith--have traditionally respected. For these voters, their Christianity certainly informs and guides their lives, but they represent no unified, monolith "Christian" voting block and pose no threat whatsoever to anyone, quite the opposite.
Thanks again!
Thanks for reading and for your comment. I didn't include the Rev. Robertson because his candidacy was very much a vanity candidacy in the vein of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton: he never had a chance to win the nomination to say nothing of the presidency. By 1988, whatever political power a semi-unified but always internally fractious "Christian" movement might have once wielded was long gone, and Robertson's brief campaign served only to remind Americans that theologically based politics was a ridiculously bad idea in 1776 and in 1988 as well.
Some might mistake values voters for some sort of evil Christian political front, but they vote for the kind of solid values Americans of any faith--or no faith--have traditionally respected. For these voters, their Christianity certainly informs and guides their lives, but they represent no unified, monolith "Christian" voting block and pose no threat whatsoever to anyone, quite the opposite.
Thanks again!
Posted by: Mike Mc at August 16, 2011 03:31 PM (7BLuT)
4
Mike, I understand that, and it makes sense, but I'm a lifelong New Hampshirite. Robertson had a serious campaign presence here in '88. His main goal, I agree, wasn't to win, but to pull the eventual nominee towards the religious right. Fortunately, he failed, but I do recall seeing plenty of campaign paraphernalia -- buttons, bumper stickers, signs, and whatnot. He might not have expected to win, but he certainly did try.
And good lord, did I despise him. And still do, 20-odd years later. We get to see all the candidates. I once got to talk one-on-one with Jack Kemp, snubbed Bill Clinton (refused to shake his hand), and twice saw the whackjob with the boot on his head (Vermin something-or-other).
Gosh, I love living in New Hampshire...
J.
And good lord, did I despise him. And still do, 20-odd years later. We get to see all the candidates. I once got to talk one-on-one with Jack Kemp, snubbed Bill Clinton (refused to shake his hand), and twice saw the whackjob with the boot on his head (Vermin something-or-other).
Gosh, I love living in New Hampshire...
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea at August 16, 2011 04:02 PM (YWXmX)
5
Dear Jay Tea:
Thanks again! I was sure you were aware of that, but added the comment for the benefit of readers who hadn't been following Robertson. I share your view of the man. My favorite Robertson story was something Dan Rather actually did right in interviewing him. Rather asked him if he ever said that only Christians should be allowed to serve in government. Robertson denied it. Rather showed a clip of Robertson saying just that on the 700 Club, and Robertson still denied it! Rather did that to him four or five times in a row on different matters and despite being presented with unassailable evidence, Robertson lied, time after time. Amazing, and quite un-Christian.
Americans usually make the right choices, at least until Mr. Obama.
Thanks again! I was sure you were aware of that, but added the comment for the benefit of readers who hadn't been following Robertson. I share your view of the man. My favorite Robertson story was something Dan Rather actually did right in interviewing him. Rather asked him if he ever said that only Christians should be allowed to serve in government. Robertson denied it. Rather showed a clip of Robertson saying just that on the 700 Club, and Robertson still denied it! Rather did that to him four or five times in a row on different matters and despite being presented with unassailable evidence, Robertson lied, time after time. Amazing, and quite un-Christian.
Americans usually make the right choices, at least until Mr. Obama.
Posted by: Mike Mc at August 16, 2011 09:06 PM (7BLuT)
6
All creation is a THEOCRACY. God is in control. When God does TAKE full control to mandate HIS OWN KINGDOM -- everything will be perfect again. I'm all for THEOCRACY generated by the Spirit, not the State. The Christian theocracy is instituted by spiritual means in the private sector. "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven". I'm all for Theocracy. Just not through the State and not by any human means. By Jesus coming by His Spirit more and more through us as we are conformed and transformed into His image in perfect liberty. God's Theocracy is the only system that produces Liberty. It's not THROUGH THE STATE -- it's through the heart -- and has power to manifest dominion spiritually with NO force or compulsion of man nor government. It is ISLAM that seeks to UNITE "church and state" to create political fascist theocracy. The Christian theocracy is in perfect liberty as God does His work by His Spirit and no force of human compulsion by man or state.
Posted by: laura at August 16, 2011 09:43 PM (M6ErA)
7
I know I'm wasting my time here, because I'm sure "laura" is one of those drive-by dipshits who thinks that she's doing God's work by cutting and pasting her drivel wherever she can, but I just can't let this slide:
laura, bite my hairy agnostic ass.
(Apologies, Bob and Mike)
J.
laura, bite my hairy agnostic ass.
(Apologies, Bob and Mike)
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea at August 17, 2011 01:52 AM (YWXmX)
8
Wow Jay Tea, that was totally unneccesary. Since you are agnostic, someone else's free speech concerning their God should not bother you in the least.
I think your apology should go to Laura.
I think your apology should go to Laura.
Posted by: Trudy at August 17, 2011 12:38 PM (yvWwu)
9
Dear Jay Tea:
I must agree with Trudy. We all get along well here. Am I going to need to send a "does not work and play well with others" note to your mother?
I must agree with Trudy. We all get along well here. Am I going to need to send a "does not work and play well with others" note to your mother?
Posted by: Mike Mc at August 17, 2011 12:44 PM (7BLuT)
10
Dear Laura:
Thanks so much for reading and commenting. I'm afraid I must differ with your view of a theocracy, which denotes a religious government. This is in fact one of the reasons why the Moral Majority was rejected by most Americans. They understood that a theocracy is the antithesis of Christianity. All come to Christ voluntarily. One believes--has faith--or one does not. One may also choose not to believe at any time. It is only under a democracy, particularly that practiced under our Constitution, that all religions may thrive.
All forms of government are inventions of man and exist, if one is a Christian believer, because God allows them to exist. Christ was quite clear on the Christian's proper relationship to government ("Render unto Caesar..."). If we wish to continue to have the freedom to practice Christianity, we must oppose any kind of theocracy. One may believe that God is sovereign over all, but this is a matter for the realm of faith--where it properly belongs--not of government.
Again, thank you!
Thanks so much for reading and commenting. I'm afraid I must differ with your view of a theocracy, which denotes a religious government. This is in fact one of the reasons why the Moral Majority was rejected by most Americans. They understood that a theocracy is the antithesis of Christianity. All come to Christ voluntarily. One believes--has faith--or one does not. One may also choose not to believe at any time. It is only under a democracy, particularly that practiced under our Constitution, that all religions may thrive.
All forms of government are inventions of man and exist, if one is a Christian believer, because God allows them to exist. Christ was quite clear on the Christian's proper relationship to government ("Render unto Caesar..."). If we wish to continue to have the freedom to practice Christianity, we must oppose any kind of theocracy. One may believe that God is sovereign over all, but this is a matter for the realm of faith--where it properly belongs--not of government.
Again, thank you!
Posted by: Mike Mc at August 17, 2011 12:51 PM (7BLuT)
11
Well, for God's sake, Ms. Goldberg, stop going into churches. Stop listening to those people.
Start reading some of Marx, and have a nice cup of fairtrade tea. Lord have mercy, calm down, Ms. Goldberg.
Start reading some of Marx, and have a nice cup of fairtrade tea. Lord have mercy, calm down, Ms. Goldberg.
Posted by: Pine & Palmetto at August 17, 2011 11:54 PM (LII4+)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0096 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0075 seconds, 19 records returned.
Page size 13 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.