That is what Kathleen Parker believes. It is just sickening to me that someone would think this way. Our entire political structure was based around religion and morality and now those two things aren’t good enough?
Highlights from The Washington Post:
As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I’m bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh.
Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.
shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party — and conservatism with it — eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one’s heart where it belongs.
Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can’t have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.
But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won.
Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base — or the nation may need a new party.
The War on Religion continues. And once again it all the big bad Republican Christians fault. Evangelicals are "oogedy-boogedy" and the Lowest brows? What does that mean? That Evangelicals and other religions aren’t allowed to have a say anymore?
To all the people who read this who hold their
Religion in their hearts - WAKE UP! How much more are you willing to give up before you realize that the secular groups want to eliminate us! They don’t want to be tolerant of us, they want us gone. No longer are we allowed in schools, the courts, or in Public. Now they want to take politics away from us. How much longer are we going to let them do that to us?
What I think is funny about the whole Dems are colorblind BS is that they refuse to see the black conservatives. Colin Powell, although supported Obama, is a conservative and when he worked in Bush’s white house the liberals called him an 
Uncle Tom. The liberals called Condi Rice an Aunt Jemima. They ridicule and make fun of almost all black conservatives that hold any kind of high office. And what is the BS about the Republican convention looking like an annual Depends sales meeting? I saw a lot of young, vibrant people there. All pictures in this post are from the MTV coverage of the RNC 2008 Convention. I wonder what convention Ms. Parker went to?
For anyone who would like to tell Ms. Parker how wrong she is her email address is: kparker@kparker.com.
Tags: Conservative, Liberal
Related Articles
13 users responded in this post
But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won.
I didn’t realize that young, black people didn’t believe in God or have morals. Hmmmm…you learn something new everyday.
I wonder why Prop 8 lost then. I could have sworn it was the “black/hispanic” vote. I must have been wrong. oh well.
I’ve been thinking about homosexuality a lot lately, and it is getting me to really see the bigger picture about how confused our notion of separation of church and state is. People don’t take atheism to its logical conclusions. Ravi Zacharias talked about this in one of his latest “Let me People Think” episodes and it makes a lot of sense. At least with men like Nietzsche and Sartre you had atheism being take to its logical ends; that is, no objective morals, no right or wrong, man has ultimate purpose and no ultimate nature. What is good is good for you, what is right is right for you; you determine right and wrong, you determine your own reality. But for the modern atheists, it’s a pick-and-choose kind of game. “It is objectively wrong to deny rights to homosexuals.” Where does such a value come from? How can there be some sort of “value” system above man if man is the pinnacle of all there is? It’s simply a preference, an opinion, no better than someone who believes that all homosexuals should be rounded up and executed.
Atheists need to sit down and logically asses the consequiences of life without God. Sartre’s whole existential philosophy was built on one starting assumption: atheism. See where it leads. His logic is flawless. Those who wish to keep God out of politics are inconsistent in so far as there would be any objective reason outside of ourselves to want one policy over another. There is no basis for objective moral values without God, and there is no consistent way to keep God out of politics because then you are God, deciding for yourself what is good and evil, what is right and wrong.
Bobby,
You need to read C.S.Lewis’ “Abolition of Man”.
3 chapters.
Short book.
Everything you just said, the way only Lewis could say it.
3 ways of thinking.
1. objective moral law
2. personal law which is strictly followed. This law, while denying that it is “God’s” law (as in Buddhism, Hinduism) nonetheless draws it’s laws, knowingly or not, from the objective moral law.
Hence, these laws are nearly identical to ours.
3. No objective law. Which means it is all about feelings. Which means that stronger men impose their laws on weaker mens. Which means that even if you don’t see it, you are still following a set of laws. You can tell yourself that you are following your own laws, but you aren’t. You are following laws that were set down generations ago, and making laws that future generations will have to follow. You are following law, whether you admit it or not. You too have a law. It’s the law that says there is no law, which is an illusion.
This leads to an unraveling of the very thing that makes us human. We inevitably return to the laws of nature (not natural moral law) and become like the beasts. We react to instincts and impulses, no longer employing the will. In an effort to overcome nature, we end up be ruled by it.
Loss of humanity, return to beastial, instinctual behavior…The Abolition of Man.
You can’t work with something unless you know how it works.
Sounds good. I know Lewis was able to write a lot of good books with a lot of Christian messages hidden in fiction book, so I have to ask; is Abolition of Man a fiction book? Cause I don’t read fiction. (I pride myself on the fact that I’ve never read a fiction book my entire life; I”m that lame)
It is most definitely NOT fiction.
I must say, that while I think it is admirable that you only read non-fiction, there are a few fiction books that you SHOULD read.
To Kill A Mockingbird
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
(For Giannas sake…The Chronicles of Narnia)
If you never read another fiction book, those three should be mandatory. Seriously. The Lord of the Rings is the most incredible thing I’ve ever read…
For heaven’s sake, you’re an ex-wrestler…how much pride in your intellectual prowess can you have without laughing??? lol
To Kill A Mockingbird is supposed to be based on actual events isn’t it? Either way, it is an excellent book!
Bobby - you will have to break your no-fiction reading if I get my book finished and then published!
I have to disagree with the discussion of atheism. Atheists don’t look at the individual (at least not presently) but at society as a whole from the assumption there is no God. Simply, they look at laws in the sense that they should be used to protect individuals and their rights, wieghed by harm to an individual.
I know agnostics and atheists who have been able ot come to the same conclusions those who use religion do through simple logic and reasoning using the idea that society ought to be preserved but there is no moral governing body, and so laws are derived from that realm of thinking. God bless them, if I thought there was no God I would feel more lost than I already do, lol.
really Bobby, no fiction? You certainly need to do quite a lot of reading!
I agree with Lord of the Rings and To Kill a Mocking Bird. Never read the Chronicles of Narnia aside from a passage, but I definitely agre you of all people should give it a read. I would throw Harry Potter in as a great morality tale of love conquering all evil as well as a simple an amazingly written piece of literature that is well on it’s way to becoming a modern classic.
I’d also recommend All Souls: A Family Story from Southie (though its a memoir, not fiction)
Oh, and of course Gone with the Wind. And so many others.
You definitely need to broaden your reading list. lol
Dan!!!
We agree on something!!
I thought I saw pigs flying today…..
I loved the Harry Potter books. Unfortunatley I haven’t found time to read the last book - having two kids, I’m lucking to finish reading the newspaper, let alone an entire book.
Valerie-
YOU NEED TO FINISH. The ending is absolutely AMAZING. So good, in fact, WB is worried about messing up the movie so they’re making it 2 films
I think we agree more often than we think and on more than we know
Hey Dan. Nice to have you here. I don’t want to get into a back and forth here, but I will say this. I spent a whole year (just last year and part of this year) holding to the position that you do; that is, that the atheist has some objective moral grounds to work from. After a year of trying to figure out what that “grounding” is, I gave up and have now come to embrace the position that there is none. It is whatever value the individual wishes. Look at Doug. He’s always talking about personal values and assumptions. If you push him, he will admit that there isn’t anything intrinsically, objectively wrong with rape. He may not like it or agree with it, but there is nothing outside of oneself to say that rape is wrong.
So if our morals and values are just by-products of blind socio-biological evolution, then it really is arbitrary what is good and right. Of course, that’s from the atheistic POV, and I know you don’t agree with that personally. It’s very interesting to contemplate. God love you.
Bobby-
The way I see it is an instictual push to protect society, as societal relaction/interaction has provided the best evolutionary standpoint since humans began forming civilizations. That base would therefore lend itself to certain restrictions (say, laws against rape, murder, etc). I’m just playing devil’s advocate, but rationally it makes some sense to me.
Dan,
That’s exactly Lewis’ point. You have to ask yourself, if there is no God, no objective moral truth, then what is the motivation to “do good”, and that’s assuming that we know what “good” is.
This instinctual push that you talk of, to preserve society, really means that you are acting on impulses or “instinct”. But if the goal is to be civilized, and to “harness” or “control” human nature (which is what makes us human after all) and you revert to simply “reacting” to instints and impulses, then you are actually being controlled BY nature, the very thing you set out to avoid.
Which makes us like animals, and takes away our humanity.
So I ask you, what is the motive to do things? Where do the morals come from?
If you tell me that they come from a desire to better society, then please tell me what “better society” means. Better for who? The person making the moral judgments? Eventually, some men will be at the mercy of other men, following their version of what is right and what is wrong. This is a loss of freedom. Someone must rule, because if everyone does what they want/feel, there will be chaos. This chaos is exactly when “someone” will step in and take charge…do you see?
Leave A Reply