« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

HuffPo’s Frank Schaeffer to Obama: Purge The Heretics

He Was Once An Evangelical

Much was made, during storied campaign 2008, of the notion that we are all one people, needlessly divided. That from the many would come the one. There is not a liberal America, and a conservative America, there is the United States of America, after all. Heal this nation, we heard. Make us one, they pleaded. A lovely sentimentality, that. And an utterly false affectation, of course, as we’ve come to see over the last few weeks.

Despite left-wing bloggers’ Ministry of Truth efforts at rewriting history, to even the most casual observer it should be clear that the vaunted promise of achieving common goals through compromise or "reaching out" was discarded by the new Democrat regime just as quickly as their suit coats and the "The President’s Own" Marine Band. "I Won," says the One. "So say we all," say his attendant masses.

What replaced the fiction was what was underneath it all along. The Democrat idea of becoming one nation is the Democrat idea of becoming one party, one mind. When they claim to want to heal the nation, the cure they fix their sights upon is neither stitch nor coagulant, but amputation. In campaign rhetoric this was always hidden behind the media-made veil of the Obama mythos, but in the wake of the stimulus tragedy that veil is lifted. Through with hiding, the totalitarian impulses of the Obama faithful are free to scurry into full view as they raise their voices to declare what is just and what is not, to determine which life is valuable and which is not; an entirely familiar calculus for Democrats, one might add.

From among the scurrilous, one particularly odious overture is enjoying acclaim on the front page of the Huffington Post this weekend. Frank Schaeffer, once an evangelical he’ll be sure to remind you every few seconds, has penned an open letter to the President urging him to drop his nonexistent overtures to the Republicans. Not, mind you, in terms regarding the cynicism any of us may have regarding politicians, particularly of the opposite party. No, in a much more sinister and chilling assault on the Republican voter, or "rabid core constituents" as Schaeffer, once an evangelical, puts it.

Schaeffer, once an evangelical, wants the President to understand the context of this letter, being that it comes from someone who was, in the past and famously, once an evangelical.

As a former lifelong Republican, son of a co-founder of the Religious Right; my late evangelical leader father, Francis Schaeffer, I’m in a unique position to tell you a few things about the Republicans from inside perspective.

The left, they do love to claim authority through authenticity, do they not? Why shouldn’t Schaeffer, once an evangelical, try to establish credibility based on his life’s story? This is the basis for the Obama legend is it not? Schaeffer, once an evangelical, would have a stronger case if the very next parenthetical weren’t "(As you know I left that movement in the mid 1980s.)" As you know? He must indeed be a man of consequence, to be so certain the President knows this. Of course, it is a bit of a reach to still be claiming a unique, insider’s perspective on a movement from which one is twenty plus years truant, regardless of the degree to which the current President is already aware of said timeline. Indeed, he is not merely absent from the movement, but a best-selling and self-declared enemy to it, contra his famous father.

Of course, one could argue that Schaeffer, once an evangelical, was gone from the movement not for its rightism, but for its temperance, as during his wilderness wandering in the nineties he was nothing if not far more extreme than the movement he now makes pretense to disown. Perhaps it is his own sordid path for which he seeks forgiveness, and not that of the mainstream conservative Christian movement.

Schaeffer’s letter (he was once an evangelical), is crystal-clear in intent, if not grammar, style, punctuation, or presentation. He is the enlightened, formerly the barbaric, here to report on the barbarity of his former fellows; to advise his new spiritual leader to depart from the Republicans. He is here to convince Obama and America to repent of the right, and be reborn the left.

As someone who appeared numerous times on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson, as someone for whom Jerry Falwell used to send his private jet to bring me to speak at his college, as an author who had James Dobson giveaway 150,000 copies of my one of my fundamentalist "books" allow me to explain something: the Republican Party is controlled by two ideological groups. First, is the Religious Right. Second, are the neoconservatives. Both groups share one thing in common: they are driven by fear and paranoia. Between them there is no Republican "center" for you to appeal to, just two versions of hate-filled extremes.

His argument throughout is to abandon the conservatives, leave them exposed upon the hillside. Rabid, hateful, despicable, backward creatures are we. Vile and unreachable. The enemy of all that is good, as embodied by the great and wonderful Obama.

Republican voters are the "lunatic fringe." Obama is "a brilliant, articulate and decent man." It is strange, coming from Schaeffer, once an evangelical, to name the religious and the conservative as a lunatic fringe. It was only last year that Schaeffer, once an evangelical, was making the gymnastic argument that Reverend Wright’s hateful rhetoric shouldn’t be damaging to Obama because his own father (Dad, meet under the bus … again) apparently said the same thing, so therefore it meant … well then therefore Obama was as bad as the evang … err, somehow, therefore, Obama’s hands were clean. Only now, the apparent argument is the opposite, that those who reside in the pews are the guilty and the deranged, and Obama must cast them out.

On he goes throughout his letter, intent on urging the new power to set aside childish things, or rather, the things of Schaeffer’s childhood (he was once an evangelical.) Do not cast pearls before swine, he urges.

Schaeffer, once an evangelical, is not alone in his newfound freedom to advocate excision of approximately half the country. Janeane Garofalo, inexplicable cast-member on the new season of 24, is certain that conservatives suffer from brain dysfunction and an abundance of the big old meany gene (it’s "neuroscience"!) Mike Malloy has designated conservatives "domestic terrorists" for their opposition to Obama. Andrew Sullivan has gone from "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" to naming new dissenters saboteurs and shills, cold to the national interest. He comes shy, but only just, of calling Republicans outright traitors.

In Obama’s new America the left has found voice for their will, and it is as shrill as it is fascistic. It rings with the new jingoism of Obama loyalty. The left is prepared to reach across the aisle, but only with a strait-jacket in one hand, and a cattle-prod in the other. It is not even a question of bipartisanship anymore. The hysterics are naming heretics with intent that is clear: ditch the aisle, and all who would remain across it..

And this specter of the silencing of dissent is accompanied not, this time, by the sound of a thousand lockstep boots, but by an eerily echoing refrain … "Yes we can, yes we can."

- Caleb Howe

COMMENTS

  • EagleWatcher

    And this specter of the silencing of dissent is accompanied not, this time, by the sound of a thousand lockstep boots, but by an eerily echoing refrain ? “Yes we can, yes we can.”

    Once thought of as Right Wing paranoia, those boots are coming to smash your radio like they used to do in a Cold War era PSA for Radio Free Europe.

  • Kowalski

    As far as I can tell, the first publicly expressed version of this article was written by Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post, in a piece titled Roll Over the Republicans.

    Janeane Garofalo has her own problems, and I would be inclined to excuse them if it weren’t for the fact that so many other Democrats are following Eugene Robinson’s lead.

    A new President, a new hope: and what we’re seeing instead is a kind of rhetoric much, much worse than anything that occurred under the Bush Administration.

    Remember something: most of what liberals criticize is projection.

    • Caleb (absentee)

      Read Schaeffer’s diatribe. It’s not about the stimulus. His letter says Republicans are too vile to deal with at all, under any circumstances, for any reason. It’s a despicable “letter”.

      • Kowalski

        He’s a pretty sick puppy. He’s obviously very sad about the way he led his life up until now, despite the fact that he rode on all those private jets. The Huffington Post publishing his stuff is also pretty sad, moreso than the WaPo publishing Eugene Robinson’s stuff.

        The thing is really, I guess I don’t understand why you devoted so much time to criticizing him. He comes across as a zealot in almost everything he writes, and probably if you go back to his earlier times, before he had his “de-conversion”, the story would be the same. I’ll bet he was pretty weird even when he was still a member of the flock, in other words.

        I’ve never understood why Evangelical Christianity isn’t better at letting people who don’t want to be there **go**, myself. It’s probably because they feel they have a sacred obligation to “save” some of these people that they are so reluctant to get rid of them, but they shouldn’t be. Let them go at the second or maybe third sign of trouble. The harder you squeeze someone who really doesn’t want to be there, the more you can be sure they’re going to be angry when they finally slip out. You shouldn’t try to keep them doing something they don’t believe in.

        I just think he’s kind of sad, and a little deranged, and a publicity-seeker.

        He reminds me of a girl I knew in high school who was brought up by a father who was a very strict, religious, super-strident cop — she was nothing like that, completely rebelled against that, and turned into the biggest drug addict slut that you’ve ever seen in her Junior year. It happens all the time. It’s really better to let those people go at the first sign they object to what they’re doing. Otherwise they hang around and let it all build up inside and then they become like this guy.

        • Caleb (absentee)

          Didn’t think I’d have to defend my story. This is a top story at HuffPo and I had a problem with it. Sorry.

          You could, you know, not read it.

          • Kowalski

            I think the guy needs professional help, not the Huffington Post, personally. He’s obviously got enormous problems with his past that are almost completely controlling how he responds to the present.

          • Caleb (absentee)

            When someone takes the time to write a story, they probably won’t react well the comment “boy you sure wasted your time like some kind of tool.”

            Or maybe it’s just me.

          • Kowalski

            I’m sorry if you interpret them that way, but I never said either of those things.

            I just think that there are some people who wind up this way; they just were never meant to be where they were. It seems to me to be a lot like David Brock’s story. In other words, most of the vitriol that you’re citing there is not motivated by considerate thinking, per se, but rather because the guy has a personal problem. Probably a longstanding, grievous personal problem with himself and where he was. I don’t see what antagonizing him about it is going to accomplish.

            I don’t think you wasted your time by pointing him out, and I most certainly don’t think you’re a tool, but as someone who went through a kind of “Road to Damascus” moment himself, though, I know that for about the first two years you do tend to blame everyone from your past for everything that’s happening to you now, because you’re basically still angry. It sounds to me like he’s still pretty angry at his past, for whatever the reason. I just think people like that will take a long time to sort themselves out. In the meantime, I just tend to not care very much about what they say until they get the anger sorted out.

            I mean, he doesn’t make arguments, he just hates his former self. I would hope that a lot of the more sensible people reading the Huffington Post would recognize that he’s a little deranged.

            That’s all.

          • Kowalski

            I have no idea what made Janeane Garofalo so angry, but probably the failure of Air America as a viable concern had a lot to do with how hate-filled she sounds, and how she ascribes any failure to agree with her to neurological disorders on the part of others. I mean, read that article on Newbusters at the original source. Ironically the failure of Air America didn’t teach her that maybe something was wrong with the concept and with her participation — from the audience’s perspective! Maybe nobody wanted to listen to her, and that’s why they didn’t achieve a smashing success. Her ego can’t tolerate that possibility, I guess.

            I tried listening to her with an open mind for a while — even when I was still a liberal — and you just can’t get past the fact that she loathes anyone who doesn’t see things her way. Of course, she claims that’s because there’s something wrong with their limbic systems, so in addition to being a two-bit actress and a marginal standup comedienne, and a vegetarian who eats bacon, she’s also a neurologist now, I guess. She reminds me of Roger Ebert, the Noted Climate Scientist. If she was talking about an identifiable individual she’d be sued for libel, and if she was a doctor or a professor she’d be removed from whatever institution she worked for. But she doesn’t work for an organization, she works for herself. There’s no peer review in Janeane Garofalo’s world except the reaction she gets from the people who come to see her perform. She’s an actress and a comedienne, so she doesn’t have to worry about those things.

            The thing is that it’s a free country and she can get away with saying almost anything she wants as long as it’s about a nebulous group that she hates, or about a politician who isn’t going to retaliate against her personally. It doesn’t matter what her evidence is, it doesn’t matter how outlandish her accusations are, because that’s not what her rhetoric depends on — that’s not what her career depends on. It’s not something that stands up to scrutiny, but that doesn’t matter. It helps her hang on to the small group of people who like her, and will always like her.

    • http://brockwayfamily.spaces.live.com/ Erick Brockway

      Funny how that works, the left accuses to deflect accusation. A liar is most suspicious others are lying. A thief is afraid others are stealing from him. You know what it is? It gives them excuse to be vile, and say “But look at them over there, they do it/did it first”.

      It’s why when you point out the excessive spending, first words out are “But Bush…”.

  • Kowalski

    It really has to make even some Democrats uneasy that they’re listening to Cher…..right?

  • http://brockwayfamily.spaces.live.com/ Erick Brockway

    It’s been said all along by Rush and others, there is no bi-partisanship, no reaching across the isle, no just getting along.
    There is only victory, and to the victor go the spoils.

    When those in our party help those in the other, they aren’t looked upon with fondness by the other side. They’re looked upon as “Useful Idiots” by them, and what would that make them by us? Now maybe “traitor” applies.

    Schaeffer is a useful idiot trying to gain real status on the other side. Sounds like he’s found his niche and succeded.

  • USNJIMRET

    is the amount of hate and villainy and EEEEVVVVIIIILLLLL that so many on the left accuse the right of.
    Yet, for all that supposed hate and villainy and EEEEVVVIIIILLL, none of it ever seems to manifest itself in what one would assume would be even one physical attack on the left.
    If all of us on the right are either religious fundamentalists, or violence prone neocons, why is that?
    About the very worst that can be shown to have even a glimmer of truth to it are occasional mis-speaks of an “objectionable” nature.
    It is the tolerant and inclusive left which has a well documented history of shouting down opposing points of views, physically assaulting people presenting the other side of the issue.
    Which isn’t to say that there isn’t a deep desire to knock some sense into a few heads, just that as adults we recognize that emotion isn’t the proper way to run a country.

    • Caleb (absentee)

      nt

      • streetwise

        our overriding concern is people open to persuasion. It is here that Republicans and conservatives need to become much more aggressive.

        The devil always claims his own. This is the nature of Faustian bargains.

        • Caleb (absentee)

          is not letting them do what they’ve been doing for 8 years, which is spreading deceit for want of a rebuttal. The memes move from HuffPo to next do’ lickety split. We lose nothing in rebutting and risk losing much in silence.

          • streetwise

            their sacred texts (an Inconvenient Truth), its bizarre rituals (BDS hate church services), their brunches at the Tree of Knowledge (global warming, Frankenstein lab science)- for they would be as gods, and yet are just so whitebread, raving mediocrities.

          • streetwise

            “Yes, wormwood, we do preach tolerance and diversity in PUBLIC. It is a divinely inspired (if I may use so distasteful a word) strategy. Because it can be TWISTED so that the people in the zone of our influence become trapped in passion, anger, hatred. Oh, the exquisite evil JOY of it all!”

            See, that kind of thing.

          • Kowalski

            And I’m sorry if you think I was saying your effort was useless. I just try to compartmentalize these people and wall them off right now, but I know you do this differently, and I respect that.

          • Caleb (absentee)

            I hear you.
            - c

          • JSobieski

            Liberalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. Let them shoot themselves in the foot over and over and over again. let the hate filled maggots speak, shout, dance, and pout. The more they are seen, the better off we are.

  • streetwise

    So you can’t be too shocked at what they write.

    • Caleb (absentee)

      It’s a top story at huffpo, and there are thousands of kudos and dittoes in the comments. Like any left-wing talking head, it’s never just about them. They are nothing if not uniform. The point of the story is that he is merely exposing what is the common thought on their side these days. That’s why I make that point in the story.

      • streetwise

        worshiping Something Else.

        I think it is worthwhile pointing out the decadent, divinity-less religiosity of the left.

      • janis

        God knows they were bold enough during W’s years, but now that they have two out of three branches of gov. and a leader dead set on erasing our presence from public discourse, they will become increasingly more strident and fearless about attacking us.

        This has to be stopped while it’s still in its infancy, before it becomes a full-fledged and organized movement against us physically.

    • Caleb (absentee)

      We bitch about how the conservative message never gets out but the left wing one does. You think just letting it go really works? Really? After the last eight years? We ought to have people out there fighting the spin not shrugging and going, well what do you expect from lefies.

      • $peciallist

        I tried to get the conservative message out, alas the Zombies wouldn’t listen…

        I went home and fought for conservatism in the kitchen with my significant un-dead other….

        I had a couple drinks in quick succession and I was fighting the spin….but to no avail……

        great article…no shrugging and no giving up…..

        Like GC says, we will shine the 500,000 watt light directly on these Kooks

        • bs

          It wasn’t a total loss.

        • streetwise

          This is why I only talk politics to my cats. Since I control the IAMS, they’re very receptive.

  • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel
  • penguin2

    I’m glad you let us know about this, Caleb. We need to expose and fight back this constant portrayal of conservatives and Republicans as evil. This has been the insidious brainwashing the MSM has done for 40 yrs. A headline here, a comment there-you get the picture.

    Didn’t the Huffpo have a reporter at Obama’s news conference and he called on him?

  • Achance

    “REPVBLICANS SHALL NOT BE MEAN”
    I get the standard imposed by the other side; it is to their advantage that they can be as vile as they like while insisting that we be nice. What I don’t get is the insistence on our side that we be nice. There plenty who’ll hold forth rigtheously here about how awful Ann Coulter and some of the more vocal conservatives are. Sorry, Nasty Mouth Ann is a paragon of civic and feminine virtue compared to some of the more “moderate” lefty commentators.

    • streetwise

      should look into a mirror. Oh, wait, Dracula doesn’t do mirrors.

      Never mind.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        Rush is mean too but you don’t see him complained about nearly so much. There are reasons for that.

        • Tbone

          LOL

          • Achance

            Just sayin’

  • DONTREADONME

    is he dead or is this an oxymoron? I am not sure? Next isn’t the way he is acting just provide evidence that we Conservatives are not Paranoid? He is a living oxyMORON

  • INC

    I first heard of his father, Francis Schaeffer, in the early 1970′s. I was a new Christian (an evangelical who has remained one all these years). Schaeffer’s ideas were extraordinarily helpful to me and to many others.

    I first heard of Frank back when he still went by Franky. I knew little about him except he had artistic talent and worked on producing films with his dad and later C. Everett Koop. The first books I saw that Frank wrote were shocking to me because of the high level of causticity in his words. That’s back when he considered himself to be still an evangelical.

    The Schaeffers lived in Switzerland in post WWII and founded their work called L’Abri in the 1950′s. It began as a ministry to college friends of one of their daughers. WORLD Magazine in 2005 wrote this regarding their work:

    Taking the roof off

    “Half a century ago, an American pastor named Francis Schaeffer opened his home in Switzerland to anyone who was struggling with the basic questions of life. It was the beginning of L’Abri, a word meaning “shelter.” Over the years, student backpackers, troubled atheists, and thoughtful Christians found their way to this chalet in the Alps. Here they met biblical truth, explained not only with a sophistication that was then rare in evangelicalism?but lived out.”

    Francis Schaeffer had a far reaching influence on many, many Christians who came to adulthood in the 1960′s and 1970′s. I think that’s precisely why Frank Schaeffer is headlined at HuffPo. He’s their token once-an-evangelical who is seen as the person with the goods on Christians and who has the moral authority card to do the denouncing and defaming of theologically conservative Christians and as well as whatever conservative political positions they may hold.

  • INC

    If you are not familiar with the Schaeffer family and want to understand Frank Schaeffer’s angst, Os Guinness reviewed Frank Schaeffer’s book Crazy for God gives you the background.

    The article will also help you further understand why HuffPo is presenting his letter. In Frank Schaeffer, they have a “two for one”. He can denounce both Christianity and conservative politics at the same time. Because of his background, my opinion is that they consider him irrefutable.

    Fathers and Sons: On Francis Schaeffer, Frank Schaeffer, and Crazy for God.

    At L’Abri people came and stayed with the Schaeffers, interacting with them day in and day out. Guinness would have known the family intimately. He was even best man at Frank’s wedding. Guinness himself is a published author and an excellent one. His love and appreciation for the Schaeffers is evident as he describes the family and their work “warts and all.”

    Guinness describes the close relationship he observed between father and son, but goes on to say, “…no critic or enemy of Francis Schaeffer has done more damage to his life’s work than his son Frank…”

    He summarizes Frank’s presentation of his family in his book Crazy for God by saying: “For all his softening, the portrait he paints amounts to a death-dealing charge of hypocrisy and insincerity at the very heart of their life and work…There was a lie at the very heart of the work of L’Abri, and the thousands of people who over the decades came to L’Abri and came to faith or deepened in faith, were obviously conned too.”

    Guinness writes, “I challenge this central charge of Frank’s with everything in me. I and many of my closest friends, who knew the Schaeffers well, are certain beyond a shadow of doubt that they would challenge it too. Defenders of truth to others, Francis and Edith Schaeffer were people of truth themselves.”

    Guinness goes on to give his observations of L’Abri as he expresses both his appreciation and his disagreements.

    Of Frank and his family he writes, “Throughout the memoir he says he was neglected by his parents, which may have been true?though he was always central in the daily thoughts and prayers of his mother, and at the time he welcomed the neglect as freedom. Frank also hints at his ability to manipulate his parents because of their guilt over the neglect: “No one has more power over a loving father (especially if that father feels a bit guilty for neglecting his children) than a beloved son.”

    But neglect and guilt are not the deepest explanation. The real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of “fundamentalist missionaries.” Having been born well after his sisters, and having survived polio as a child, he was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied. As a result, he grew up a “little Napoleon,” as some of the L’Abri students called him. He would boast that he could twist his parents around his little finger, and time and again he proved it.”

    Of Francis Schaeffer himself, Guinness says:

    “One thing above all I will never deny, and for that I am eternally grateful, however great his flaws and however wrong he was on certain details of philosophy and history: I have never met anyone anywhere like Francis Schaeffer, who took God so passionately seriously, people so passionately seriously, and truth so passionately seriously. The combination was dynamite, and it is that vision and style of faith, rather than the content of his thinking, which is the debt I owe to him. With Nietzsche, Schaeffer could well have said, “All truth is bloody truth to me.” The idea that such a man was “crazy for God,” let alone a two-faced con man, is and will always be utterly anathema to me. I was there. I saw otherwise, and I and many of my friends have been marked for life.”

  • jarrod21

    For years, the liberal claptrap was, “could it happen here?” with regards to a new fascist government. This, of course, was ludicrous because the the environment was nowhere near that of the Weimar Republic (although with the just passed Debt and Inflation Act of 2009 we might just get there).

    Everyone has seen the just wacked-out and angry cult-like following The One has. With liberals the ends always justify the means. I hesitate to venture into Anne Coulter territory, but without religion or any morals to check behavior, maybe the real “could it happen here?” historical event to be considered is the French revolution.