About Me

Name:Mark McConnell
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Reasonists to Religionists: "Save yourself from yourself"

RedState blogger, Rory Weeks worries, "Have Religious voters blinded us from real politics?".   He's joining the chorus of "Goldwater conservatives", social-libertarians from John Dean to Andrew Sullivan,  who are embarassed by the "Jesusland" caricature of the "red state" conservatives.   "The sudden reincorporation of religion into politics is dangerous.", Weeks warns.

Weeks' blog entry was sparked by Heather Mac Donald's OpEd column for USA Today 10/23, titled, "Conservatism doesn't need God".  Atheistic and agnostic Republicans appear to be afraid that we are losing voters to the Libertarians and even the  Democrats, because the "Religious Right" so dominates public perception of the GOP.  

But, if all that these writers want the world to know is that conservative politics is not the same thing as conservative religion, that much would be obvious to anyone who knows the history of either, the Christian religion, or the current conservative political consensus.   These writers are saying more than this. 

Andrew Sullivan says that the GOP has "lost its soul", and John Dean warns that the GOP has no "conscience".  Everywhere, there are alarms raised against the people Goldwater called "religious kooks", who according to Weeks "want to see America turned into a theocracy".  Weeks, MacDonald, Dean, Sullivan, and many others, are saying that there is no such thing as a "conservative" politics, if it is also "religious" politics.  As MacDonald's sub-head dictates: "The GOP has become the party of religion, and Democrats have been scrambling to play catch-up. The truth, though, is that piety doesn't belong in politics."

These authors all assert as a postulate that needs no proof, that Reason is the only rule given to direct us in how to glorify and enjoy humanity.  They take it as axiomatic that Reason only produces good results in government, and that piety only produces evil.  Bad results arise only from bad reason - obviously!  

Therefore, Rory Weeks thinks he sounds scary, when he says:

"For those 'moral values' voters who would like to see America turned into a theocracy remember that the last time the world had one people got burned at the stake."  

It's interesting that this commentis "for" the religious voters themselves.  He means to adopt the tone of a sensitive husband, cautioning his captive wife to be on guard against her genetic tendency toward insanity.  Remember, Christian, although you don't know it yourself, what you really want is to burn people at the stake.  Once let yourself think that you can go outdoors by yourself, without the gentle tutelage of Reasonism, and you will become the monster that you are prone to be!  Don't ever forget, dear Christian, that when God became involved with politics,  in the end he died in an asylum! With no brain at'all!  

According to Weeks, the clear lesson of American history is that credit for the greatness of America belongs to the Constitution; certainly not to God.

"Our founding fathers resisted the simple path of incorporating God into the Constitution; in spite of the fact, he had been placed consciously in the Declaration of Independence and many of the colonial laws of the day. The fact that the founders sought to keep religion and politics separate is indicative of what has made this country great throughout the centuries."

"Incorporating God" was "the simple path" (the childish way), that blinded the earlier colonies from real politics, until the constitution steered the new nation into adulthood.

The only thing proven to the free-thinkers by the practically incalculable evil of thinkocrats since the French Revolution is that, no government has yet appeared on the earth, sufficiently purged of "piety":  The lesson uniformly taught by history, and especially by this country, is that as religious people acknowledge God less, the better off they are!  

The conservative consensus will not be maintained on the terms dictated by the social libertarians.  What's next?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Outing scandal

According to the sexual progressives, the reason they deserve to win elections is because their sex-lives determine public policy, unlike the Republicans.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Merging Church

Portland "Emerging church", Imago Dei, got spotlight attention from The Oregonian, this weekend.  Missing from the online version are the pictures, which really formed the centerpiece of the article;  but that's okay, because whatever the emerging church is, it cannot be photographed. 

Can it be an accidental joke that this movement which is so noisy about rejecting the market-driven megachurch is portrayed by the article as being so carefully packaged for consumption by its target populations? 

It must surely be for our amusement that this movement is called "emerging", when the most consistent characteristic, according to the article, is that these churches are indistinguishable from their landscape. 

The irony can't be lost on them, when they read about themselves, that what at least this one outsider described when looking at their experiment
(whether she saw it this way or not, I don't know) is that they are missing what they claim is most important to them: community.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Child abuse

Here's a little experiment. Just say "child abuse" when the subject of Christian child-rearing comes up.

"Our Father": sexist child abuse.
"Which art in heaven": anti-science child abuse.
"Hallowed be thy name": anti-diversity hate speech child abuse.
"Thy kingdom come": theocratic, youth-exploitive child abuse.
"Thy will be done": authoritarian personality disorder child-abuse.
"On earth as it is in heaven": plain and simple child abuse.

It works. Try it at home.

I already feel like taking my own children away!


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global warming at The Procrustean

The Procrustean, a townhall blog, has a nicely written post on global warming.  Be sure to follow the link to The Greenhouse Primer.

"The whole point of global warming, is not saving the planet, but providing excuse for economic and social changes that transfer power and prestige."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who's afraid of Christian theocracy?

I've read, appreciatively, several of Michael Medved's columns including Religion, madness and secular paranoia and, Why Does the Book Business Demonize Christians? , which arose on account of Sam Harris's fear of Christian influence in society.  Today also, Andrew Sullivan was on Michael's show, expressing concern about Christian influence muddying the conservative cause.  "Christianist" has entered our vocabulary, borrowing the same scary intonations as "Islamist".

Is there really an issue here?  It is to trivialize the facts, to say that there is not.  Here is a statement of fact, that rarely appears so boldly as this:  Christians are theocrats.

Christians pray, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."  They teach furthermore, that all authority in heaven and on earth - the sovereign rule which belongs to God alone - has been given to the man, Jesus Christ, who reigns at the right hand of God.  They feel duty bound to render unto Caesar what is made in Caesar's image, but by the same principle they render unto God what is made in God's image (is Caesar human?).

Christians believe in God and acknowledge from his law that it is wrong for anyone to covet or envy, lie or slander, compromise the covenant of marriage, deprive another of right to property or life, dishonor parents, rely for ultimate safety in any but God, invoke God's name meaninglessly, or to serve idols. Bottom line, Christians believe that it is foolishness not to have any god, and a moral failure for any made in God's image to have other gods than the Living One, the Eternal God, who befriended Abram and explains himself in Jesus Christ. 

You can paper this over with convoluted qualifications, or cast the false impression by duplicitous speech that the rubber doesn't meet the road until some later time,  but the fact of the matter is that Christians do not trust ultimately in pluralism, democracy or any other politics, or victory through warfare, for determining who should rule or how they should rule, because the Lord is Jesus.

If Christians are theocrats, believing that God's king over his creation is not yet to appear, for he has come: what difference will this make from now to the end of the world?  If they believe that his coming was not in vain, for he has risen from the dead: where is he to be looked for now?  If they say that he is not awaiting rule, for he has ascended to the throne of God: what is the evidence of his authority, the proof of his reign? 

As many as 2 billion people in the world profess to be Christians, and millions are secret converts in Muslim and Communist countries.  If only 5 percent of these are orthodox, they outnumber the approximately 100 million who support militant Islam.   You tell me, if that doesn't sound scary.  If people are more afraid of Christians than of Muslims, why do you ask why?

If you are a Christian, I invite you to ponder such questions, through the borrowed eyes of your non-Christian neighbor.  Consider, if the questions interest you, what this all means to those around you who do not believe as you do.

Christian theocracy is an offense and terror to the modern world.  Christians are regarded as one would a time-bomb, or a storm gathering strength offshore.  There is much misunderstanding of Christian theocracy, producing varieties of interpretations among Christians themselves, and this adds to its terrifying aspect.

I leave you with the question to ponder its implications: because I'm persuaded that it is a watershed question of history, the issue of the age.  Orthodox Christians are theocrats.  What does that mean, and what are you going to do about it?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Culture war

The Townhall blog, A Different Planet, has a series of brief and nontechnical articles about the cultural gap between us and Arab Islamic culture, its ancient tribalism, warring factions, and radicalizing influences.

We know so little about Islam and the subtleties of its traditions and sects.

I would say that it is crucial to study Islam intensely, in the future: except that, in the climate of multi-culturalism, this is a very dangerous proposition. If our institutions of learning continue to refuse to adopt the standpoint of our own culture and heritage, would the study of Islam strengthen us against its dangers or make us weaker?

The jihadists regard us with unyielding determination to possess us or destroy us, emboldened by an inexhaustible list of grievances and devoid of introspection. Our universities adopt a submissive posture, enervated by boundless guilt. What do you predict to be the result, intellectually and culturally, when such unequal forces meet?


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Frank doctrine

Mary Katherine Ham's article, The Foley Scandal to Turn Into An Outing Campaign?
decries the plan of various activists to expose the homosexuality of Republican congressmen.  Hugh also, this morning, points to a brief comment at the Corner .  The targets are victims of the "Frank doctrine", put into effect. 

If you are a homosexual in public life, activists guided by the "Frank doctrine" will watch you to make sure you don't make things difficult for homosexuals.  If you advocate "anti-gay" legislation, or if you work for someone who does, this is "hypocrisy" which morally justifies "outing" you, according to the doctrine. 

It is necessary for the politicization of homosexuality that discipline must be maintained, and this doctrine should be likened to an instrument of party discipline.  The "Frank doctrine" is a policy of blackmail, which seeks to align all homosexuals, regardless of their party affiliation, with the hard-left politicization of sexuality.  The "Frank doctrine" is an instrument then, for manipulation of the Republican party by blackmail and to consolidate the hold that political homosexuality has on the Democrats.

Infidelity in marriage, and sexual immorality of any kind, is scandalous and potentially career-derailing in the current Republican coalition.  Nevertheless, blackmail might be minimized by clarification of whether the public is more offended by homosexuality itself, or by the politicization of homosexuality.  

I suspect that the public will be tolerant of a politician who is "outed" by the mere allegation of being "gay", even if the politician admits to that allegation, as long as the public is persuaded that the allegations are based on historical indiscretions or mere "sexual orientation" rather than current activity; but that same public will absolutely condemn the influence of public policy directly motivated by the same factors.

If this is true, Republicans who are faced with blackmail, as defined by the "Frank doctrine", who uphold community standards which discourage homosexuality from becoming a progressive political cause, will not be subjected to markedly different censure by the Republican constituents compared to censure of heterosexuals.  In fact, and perhaps it is ironic in light of the "Frank doctrine", those who uphold standards by which they themselves are condemned will find the scandal mitigated among the Republican constituency, even while this hypocrisy will exacerbate the scandal among Democrats.  The Republicans are more concerned about preventing the erosion of public standards, than they are about private transgressions: the use of blackmail to influence public policy is the epitome of what the Republican constituency condemns.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Arggh! the Noise!

The roar of the Foley scandal mob is head-splitting.   The din of outrage and indignation drowns out any understanding of what's happening.

I'm getting out of it.  I'm not going to read another word of any article that starts with demands for action, instead of demands for facts.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Populism vs Patriotism

Samuel Johnson:

A patriot is necessarily and invariably a lover of the people. But even this mark may sometimes deceive us.

The people is a very heterogeneous and confused mass of the wealthy and the poor, the wise and the foolish, the good and the bad. Before we confer on a man, who caresses the people, the title of patriot, we must examine to what part of the people he directs his notice. It is proverbially said, that he who dissembles his own character, may be known by that of his companions. If the candidate of patriotism endeavours to infuse right opinions into the higher ranks, and, by their influence, to regulate the lower; if he consorts chiefly with the wise, the temperate, the regular, and the virtuous, his love of the people may be rational and honest. But if his first or principal application be to the indigent, who are always inflammable; to the weak, who are naturally suspicious; to the ignorant, who are easily misled; and to the profligate, who have no hope but from mischief and confusion; let his love of the people be no longer boasted. No man can reasonably be thought a lover of his country, for roasting an ox, or burning a boot, or attending the meeting at Mile-end, or registering his name in the lumber troop. He may, among the drunkards, be a hearty fellow, and, among sober handicraftmen, a free-spoken gentleman; but he must have some better distinction, before he is a patriot.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Those who live by the sword

Hamas and Fatah engage in negotiations: 11 killed, over 150 wounded. 

What? You thought that contempt for law, misogyny, murder, lying, boasting and slander had the potential for building the next unified world?  The ultimate destroyer of Islamism will be Islamism.   It is in the nature of this cult of covetousness to seek its own death.

(ht)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Frist: Taliban comment distorted

There's a lot of talk saying Frist admits defeat, inviting the Taliban into the government of Afghanistan.

Frist on Frist:

First of all, let me make something clear: The Taliban is a murderous band of terrorists who’ve oppressed the people of Afghanistan with their hateful ideology long enough. America’s overthrow of the Taliban and support for responsible, democratic governance in Afghanistan is a great accomplishment that should not and will not be reversed.

Yes, he did say that the stablization of Afghanistan is not possible "purely by military means".  Wipe out the Taliban, and win the hearts and minds of the people who otherwise would be sympathetic to terrorism. 

What do you want? "Submit to secular Humanism, or die"?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Enemies of child rights

It is to advance the sexual revolution, not to protect children, that parents are denied notification of abortion. It is to liberate children from outdated, naive and oppressive religious and social standards, that the distinction between child and adult sexuality is being destroyed.

The refusal to notify parents makes sense to its promoters, not because children need to be protected but because they don't. They sell this to the rest of you, by representing their aims as the opposite of what they otherwise very openly advertise.

Read A parent's right to know by Debra J. Saunders, and follow the progress of California's Proposition 85 , Oregon's Measure 43 and other parental notification legislation.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PATRIOT Act and the "message" problem

The USA PATRIOT act of 2001 is crucial for the war on terror.  The bill is long.  You can read the whole thing at the Cato institute, if you have an iron will.   And you should read it.  But, if you are a conservative, you have long recognized that the PATRIOT act is a hard sell.  The tools that are provided by this legislation are of the sort that make a  small-government conservative squirm. 

The very terms that conservatives are given to make the case for the PATRIOT Act do not resonate with them.  They find themselves using annoyingly sentimental, vaguely collectivist terminology like "homeland security", where they might prefer more customary abstract generalizations, like "domestic security", or coldly mathematical terms like "U.S. territorial security".  

Along the same lines, the "homeland" is a battlefront in what we call a "war on Terror".  A conservative instinctively abhors the use of the word "war" to summon the masses for resistance to an anonymous threat.  They are not populists, who gather followers by exploiting paranoia, envy of the rich, fear of authority, and revolution against orthodoxy and organized religion.  They are not anarchists, either, with a cynical contempt for power; however, they reserve a special distrust for a government that would worry more about what we are thinking than what we are doing.  They trust the public that is persuaded by reason and action, and they distrust the public that is manipulable by uncertainty, angst, guilt and fear.

So this is the background to the psychological problem, and it is not a small one, when conservatives are in charge of leading the war on terror with the chief weapon in their arsenal being a powerful instrument for the coordination of domestic intelligence.  They are charged with the task of persuading people that the threat of terrorism is magnified, for the ironic reason that the planners of terror in our midst and around the world are now more disorganized and less disciplined than they were in 2001, because they are more numerous and more determined to disrupt and destroy us than ever.  

The problem with the PATRIOT Act is "message", "posture" and "spin".   Liberals are sensitive to such things, worrying about how people perceive them, following what people feel, and acting accordingly they will abandon the PATRIOT Act.  Conservatives are less sensitive to the fear of being misunderstood, if they are sure they are doing the right thing; and that's why the task of securing our territories against organized violence, kidnapping and coercion belongs in their hands.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Goldberg on the NIE

Talk about the NIE quickly went stale, after it became obvious that the only thing fresh about it was the imaginative reading that appeared in the NY Times.  The contention that the war in Iraq produces more terrorists has been answered.  But, Jonah Goldberg gathered together the best that can be said about the issue, and says it very well.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive