Here's evangelical John Mark Reynolds on why he's proud to vote Republican.
Of all the bogus claims promulgated by evangelicals, one of the most pernicious surely has to be the implication that Republicans are morally superior.
Yes, in the 19th century the Republicans were against slavery - and at a time when many evangelicals were for it (something conveniently omitted by Reynolds -- see, for example, Daly's book, When Slavery was Called Freedom). Yet it is hardly possible to maintain that the Republican party of the 21st century is the same party. Heck, the Republicans abandoned black people only 11 years after the Civil War ended, with the Compromise of 1876. Seventy years later, we were treated to the spectacle of the Republican Eisenhower testifying against integrating the military.
The Republicans are now for "freedom of thought"? Hardly possible to maintain with a straight face - read The Republican War on Science. Republicans are, in general, far more censorious than Democrats - although the Demos have their problems, too.
Republicans are "are hesitant to make any person do good by the force of law"? Truly laughable. Republicans are at the forefront of those wanting to prevent gays from adopting and teaching in schools.
By all means, vote Republican if you think they're going to do a better job. But don't pretend moral superiority that doesn't exist. Reynolds' essay is a bad joke.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
"because when it came time to confront the original sin of the nation—slavery—the Republican Party was on the Lord's side."
Slavery in the Bible
And when it came time to accommodate the released slaves after the war and during the years that followed, the GOP, along with the Dems went to the dark side.
And then during the later half of the last century, it was the Dems leading for civil rights with the GOP stressing the status quo of Jim Crow.
And then the Dems lost the deep South for their civil rights stance and the GOP ran on its 'Southern Strategy' and religious coalition with folks like Jesse Helms rising to prominence.
And now the GOP is going after the Muslim boogeyman.
Progress.
< "Republicans are "are hesitant to make any person do good by the force of law"?
Truly laughable. "
You should have added the caveat, which came later in the article: "We will compel only when we must."
"And now the GOP is going after the Muslim boogeyman."
And the Democrats are too concerned about being P.C. when it comes to Muslims.
Miranda, you think the Democrats are being too PC with Muslims? Hardly. They're just as weeny as ever. Witness the cave-in over the Islamic cultural center in NYC by people like Harry Reid and John Dean. But craven as many can be, at least they don't demonize Muslims.
I'll give GW Bush credit where it's his due: He didn't try to paint Muslims as boogeymen. Actually, quite the opposite. Pity that others in the GOP can't seem to restrain their xenophobic tendencies.
"Pity that others in the GOP can't seem to restrain their xenophobic tendencies."
It appears that that terrorphobic, to you, is the same as xenophobic. That is thinking like the heads of NPR who fired Juan Williams. That's the kind of PC I was talking about. Or weeny-ness, if you will.
Is there xenophobia in the GOP? I'm sure there is. Prove to me it's the majority. Meanwhile, you painted them all as xenophobic, even though you decry painting all Muslims as boogeymen.
Frankly, I made the same overgeneralization when I wrote, "And the Democrats are too concerned about being P.C. when it comes to Muslims."
I thought of this when I read this link, showing the "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” of 2007:
Hee, hee! Judicial Watch. Larry Klayman. Good stuff! I needed a laugh this morning.
For your birthday, I'm going to buy you a dictionary so you can look up the meaning of the word "non-partisan".
Why don't you provide a similar list, one you consider truly non-partisan.
Miranda:
I'm not sure you're going to find a non-partisan list. My point was, without some good criteria about exactly why someone gets on or off, membership in lists like these can easily be manipulated to fulfil a partisan agenda - which is certainly true of Klayman.
Here's another such list, this time by a progressive organization. And guess what? 15 out of 26 are Republicans. Should we conclude anything from that list? Just as much, I guess, as from Judicial Watch's.
"It appears that that terrorphobic, to you, is the same as xenophobic. That is thinking like the heads of NPR who fired Juan Williams. That's the kind of PC I was talking about. Or weeny-ness, if you will."
Not 'terrophobic'; they're obsessed with terror, like they actually enjoy scarying themselves silly. They *love* terror.
But xenophobic applies too. This stems from the fear or dislike of 'the different' or that those 'different people' are going to enter the US, outbreed the rest and change things. And this is a natural outcome, a core impulse of conservatism' is resistance to change. Change is scary to some.
"Is there xenophobia in the GOP? I'm sure there is. Prove to me it's the majority. Meanwhile, you painted them all as xenophobic, even though you decry painting all Muslims as boogeymen."
I said *the GOP*. If I wanted to say that all members of the GOP as xenophobic, I would've said 'all GOPers'. The GOP, as an organization, is indeed promoting xenophobic tendencies as a means of securing its base (Hispanics invading! Yikes, I don't understand what they're saying! People with turbans? Fetch the smelling salts, Aunt Edna has fainted again!) . The 'fear them' strategy has paid off quite well.
To the extent that the GOP is "obsessed with terror," the Democratic party is callously dismissive of it.
While i'm reading this i am also listening to the BBC World service. They say that the National League for Democracy, led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, is boycotting the vote in Burma. She says that this election (the first one in 20 years) is designed just to keep the two junta-linked parties in place.
Personally, I feel just the same about US politics.
Our devoutly Christian former president waged a criminal war of aggression that claimed the lives of something on the order of one million innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. We are talking about the deaths of actual human beings: consisting of differentiated cells, possessing central nervous systems, with consciousness and self-awareness, etc. John Mark Reynolds describes this mass murder with approval. Since he is therefore utterly immoral, why are we interested in his opinions about anything?
Post a Comment