« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Dana Milbank: Perry Is Not A Libertarian

By: streiff (Diary)  |  August 31st, 2011 at 03:35 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA


A few years ago NRO’s Jonah Goldberg coined the term Conservatives in the Mist to describe what happens when liberals set out to explain conservatives to liberals. Recently, we’ve seen The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza engage in egregious and hopefully painful self-beclowning while attempting to explain garden variety Christianity to his neo-pagan readership.

Now the Washington Post’s one-man Fifth Column, the absurd Dana Milbank, undertakes the task of using the Conservatives in the Mist methodology to explain to Republicans why Texas Governor Rick Perry is on the fringe. His killer argument:

Yes, Perry is passionately anti-government, or at least anti-this-government. But the man who suddenly tops the Republican presidential polls is no libertarian. Rick Perry is a theocrat.

I didn’t realize that Rick Perry had ever claimed to be a libertarian.

Like most Republicans he holds some libertarian beliefs as part of our general adherence to Ronald Reagan’s “three legged stool” of conservatism: national security, fiscal restraint, and social traditionalism. Though Reagan paid homage to the idea of libertarianism in his oft misappropriated quote about libertarianism being the “heart and soul of conservatism”, he was quick to point out that government was necessary and that  he didn’t think much of political libertarians.

So while someone might have thought Governor Perry was a libertarian — and you can find some number of people who hold any possible belief — I suspect those people could caucus in my garage… comfortably.

Milbank’s real problem with Perry is that he’s an unabashed Christian who holds very mainstream Christian views and doesn’t run from those beliefs.

One of the quotes that drives Milbank crazy is from Perry’s book Fed Up. This book has done more to cause bedwetting among liberals than any unresolved conflict with the father that rejected them. To wit:

In the book’s most talked-about passage, he likens homosexuality to alcoholism. “Even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol once it enters his body, he still makes a choice to drink,” Perry writes. “And, even if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex, he or she will makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender.”

Imagine those words crossing Bush’s lips [Ed note. This is part of the strange new respect for George Bush and his presidency]. Or these: “The radical homosexual movement seeks societal normalization of their sexual activity. .?.?. They must respect the right of millions in society to refuse to normalize their behavior.”

As a Roman Catholic, I find this opinion to be completely orthodox and unremarkable. Perry’s statement could have as easily appeared in a bishop’s pastoral letter. Note what it says – that as a society we are under no obligation to normalize deviancy. Note what it does not state or infer: that homosexuals should be the object of discrimination. If you’ve ever been near a Gay Pride parade you fully understand Perry’s comment about society not being under an obligation to accept  homosexuality as a norm.

Milbank goes on to attack Perry for having the temerity to actual believe in his religion:

Perry’s politics are religious in a way not seen before in modern-day mainstream presidential candidates. “Either faith in Christ can cleanse all people of their sin, or none, but not some,” he writes. “The truth of Christ’s death, resurrection, and power over sin is absolute. .?.?. What we believe about it does not determine its truthfulness.”

Perry has no use for those who “want to recognize Jesus as a good teacher, but nothing more.” Of those non-Christians, Perry asks, “why call him good if he has lied about his claims of deity and misled two millennia of followers?”

Again, as a Christian this seems little more than a restating of St. Paul from 1 Corinthians:

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

I find it difficult to conceive that anyone can believe that hypocrisy is preferable to faith, yet that is precisely Milbank’s position. He’s fine with that yucky Christian stuff so long as no one believes it. If you believe it, you’re a theocrat. I don’t know what, if any, religious beliefs Milbank holds though he seems to be very devoted to douchebaggery, but I suspect that were Perry any other religion that Milbank would not have written this screed nor would his editors have allowed it to be published.

From that point Milbank goes on to attack some very self evident observations Perry makes about society. I think most of us would take these as missives from Captain Obvious, but Milbank finds them troubling.

Among the things Perry “deems” harmful: universities (students “have been taught that corporations are evil, religion is the opiate of the masses, and morality is relative”); human rights commissions (“often nothing more than a front for attacking institutions that teach traditional values”); and evolution (he says “the weight of evidence” supports intelligent design). Perry polishes the old “war on Christmas” chestnut and finds a way to cast Mitt Romney (now his rival for the nomination) as a defender of gay scoutmasters.

I find little there to disagree with. Outside the inevitable food fight that starts when evolution is discussed the other assertions are empirically true.

So where does the “theocrat” come in? Who knows? Nowhere in Perry’s book, or in his actions as governor, does one find any indication that he wants to substitute the Ten Commandments for the Constitution which should be the sine qua non of theocracy. Quite to the contrary, his book is an exposition on how the current federal behemoth has run roughshod over the Constitution.

Contra Milbank, arguing for a moral and ethical government is neither arguing for theocracy or a big government. It is arguing on behalf of the nation that was founded in 1787.

The 2012 election promises to be a watershed election for the nation. On the one hand we have an incumbent who has carried out a successful single-handed war against our economy, the rule of law, and our international standing. On the other we will have someone who believes in the greatness of America whether that be Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, or Michele Bachmann.

What Perry has done is draw bright contrasts between what he believes and  the relativism and nihilism of the left. It scares Ryan Lizza, It scares Dana Milbank.

I can’t think of a more powerful endorsement for any candidate.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • acat

    than it takes stretching of christianity and conservatism to make Perry a theocrat.

    Mew

    • jcmooreusnret

      I don’t buy the liberal view that Perry is a theocrat. I see Perry as another candidate who has bought into the “democracy for the world theme, even if they don’t want it”. That is a “neocon” philosophy.

      • Scope

        the candidate who has bought into neo-nazi for the world theme, even if they don’t want it. That is a “neonazi” philosophy. Just check out his long list of nazi loving supporters, they are growing by the day. The latest Iran TV, and a paid Russian operative.

        Are you using neocon with the anti-semite definition? Most Paul supporters do. Nothing says Paul supporter like using the code word neocon.

      • streiff

        like it is a bad thing. I know RonPaulRonPaul doesn’t like the idea of democracy for other countries but the United States has been about spreading democracy since the era of Manifest Destiny.

        • msjallen

          we were NOT a democracy but have become one at an alarming rate. It is the worse kind of government:
          The United States was founded as a Constitutional Republic, but with the illegal and unconstitutional enacting of the Federal Reserve Banking Act on December 23, 1913, the United States stopped functioning as a Constitutional Republic and began to function as a Democracy.
          Under a Constitutional Republic, it is one man, one vote and the Country operated under the RULE of LAW AND THE MAJORITY RULES.

          Under a Democracy, it is more or less mob rule with those who have the loudest voice and the most money ARE OFTEN THE WINNERS which means that it is the minority who wins out over the majority. This is why ONE person can end school or public prayer, why a FEW can get abortion legalized and win gay rights.

          • streiff

            nt

          • al003

            A republic is a nation with set laws that the whole nation agrees to.
            It has nothing to do with voting unless that was also agreed to in the Constitution of the Republic at its founding.

            The U.S. of America was and is a Republic. The word Democracy does not appear in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence, nor is there even a hint of it in any way.

            The selecting of office holders by popular vote is a democratic function which was applied later, but this voting did not turn us into a Democracy. It merely allowed selection of representation by majority vote. No, we are not a Democratic Republic which is a complete mismanagement of political language.

            If a natioin has a set constitution as a Republic, then the mob cannot vote to destroy this position without first destroying the Republic itself.

      • acat

        What specific policy or statement from Perry’s time in Texas has given you the idea tha the wants to impose democracy, whatever that means, on other countries?

        Mew

  • aesthete

    Nice rebuttal, but I can’t help but think that you’re using a machine gun to kill a fly, here. The passages that Milbank cites have nothing whatsoever to do with libertarianism, theocracy (which, I note tediously, is rule by *clergy*, not just basing civil law on Biblical precedent), or any other form of governance. This shoddy article really speaks more to the quality of Milbank and the publications in which his op-eds are circulated, than it does to Perry’s governance in TX.

    • streiff

      but I think the lesson we learned from 2004 and 2008 is that we have to go nuclear at the first hint of a meme forming.

      • aesthete

        I was wondering about all the articles on the subject recently.

      • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

        Totally agree with “go nuclear at the first hint of a meme forming.”

        The roll-over-and-play-nice attitude of the establishment GOP is nauseating, suicidal, and needs to be scrapped.

        No one in the MSM, Hollywood or academia is going to defend us against lies and distortions — so we MUST stand up and do it for ourselves!

        Especially since the Alinskyite hate machine is already in full campaign mode, and accelerating rapidly. If you stand still or move too slowly, it will steamroll right over you before you even know what happened.

    • Bill S

      This is a pre-emptive strike against the same anti-Christian rhetoric that has been rampant in the MSM over the last week or two. Erick has hit it several times, but Milbank takes it to new heights with his screed. We cannot follow the GWB strategy of “ignore it and it’ll go away”.

      After all, Comrade Obama tells us to hit back twice as hard. So we are. Never let it be said that we don’t listen to our President.

    • bohemond

      make sure you know what you are talking about.

      A theocracy is, quite literately, rule by god. Theocratic governments are defined by the belief that their leaders are governed by divine will and write laws predicated on that belief. A ruling class of clerics would fall under this broader category, but the definition encompasses more than that. To give a concrete example, Saudi Arabia is generally considered to be theocracy, despite the fact that it is ruled by a king, not a clerical elite.

      • aesthete

        “the?oc?ra?cy? ?[thee-ok-ruh-see] Show IPA
        noun, plural -cies.
        1.
        a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
        2.
        a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
        3.
        a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.”

        Clerics need to be behind the power in government in order for it to be considered a theocracy. Saudi Arabia is certainly an unfree, totalitarian and medieval government ruled absolutely by corrupt and debauched dynasts, but it is most assuredly not a theocracy. This latter fact has been the cause of much consternation within SA’s large religious community which somehow sees the fanaticism permitted and enshrined in Saudi law as deficient, as a result of clerics merely being influences, rather than rulers, of the state. In no political sciences book will you find SA classified as a theocracy; rather, it will be listed (correctly) as an absolute monarchy.

        • bohemond

          You are so very wrong and you are making up evidence to try and cover your errors. here are a brief list of academic texts, most of them from political scientists or sociologists, that illustrate your error.

          The ?Blackwell dictionary of political? science uses Saudi Arabia as an example of a theocracy

          ?Islam in Southeast Asia: Political, social and strategic challenges for the 21st century ?uses Saudi Arabia as an example of a theocracy

          ?Contesting the Saudi State? defines Saudi Arabia as a ?theocratic unitarian state?

          ?The Political economy of theocracy? defines Saudi Arabia as a ?theocracy?

          ?Dynamism in Islamic activism? defines Saudi Arabia as a thecoracy

          ?Global Issues: Religion And the State? defines Saudi Arabia as a ?theocratic monarchy?

          The salient characteristics of a theocracy are not rule but clerics, but the recognition of a deity as a the supreme ruler and with a law code based on divine principles.

          From the OED
          “A form of government in which God (or a deity) is recognized as the king or immediate ruler, and his laws are taken as the statute-book of the kingdom, these laws being usually administered by a priestly order as his ministers and agents; hence (loosely) a system of government by a sacerdotal order, claiming a divine commission; also, a state so governed: esp. applied to the commonwealth of Israel from the exodus to the election of Saul as king.”

          • aesthete

            I think you can still agree that Dana’s use of the term was stunningly stupid, whereas my paraphrased definition was incorrect merely in the pedantic way that you point out — your posts were useful to me and I won’t make the same mistake again, but not relevant to my point. Heck, even if I *had* mangled the term’s definition as badly as Dana did, I’m not getting paid the big bucks to get it right. He is, and it’s incumbent on him not to make sophomoric posts whose main points are incoherent — which, under the OED definition that you provide, is still the case.

            If it makes you feel any better, though, below are some winners’ trophies of your very own, as a reward for your valiant efforts. You deserve it for exposing my clearly malevolent and scurrilous deceptions of the RS community. (For how else could my looking briefly at an apparently declasse dictionary and a poli-sci textbook, and leaving it at that, be construed?)

            I hope this inspires you to reach for bigger and better ways to improve the community — may I suggest focusing your efforts on the incorrect usage of “irregardless”, or perhaps the fine points of the Oxford comma? In any case, I hope that you continue your charming tradition of calling people liars when they get something wrong.

  • Finrod

    Despite trying to look like him in that picture (he forgot the cigarette and cigarette holder). For starters, HST was an excellent writer.

    I pretty much expect every liberal journalist talking about Perry to be malparaphrasing Perry’s words. If they got it right they’d have no case against him, so they have to twist and distort.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      undecipherable buffoon. Thompson was one of the most overrated narcissists who ever lived.

  • johnt

    It puts the old thing in a bad mood. This piece will be a wowser for the inbred misfits who buy into the archaic dogma of leftist government, less so for Normal People. I mean really, we have a mentally crippled president, routinely kept on a short leash by his not to bright themselves handlers, a country approaching ruin, and evolution, with plenty of holes itself, is an issue ?

  • altexas

    Separation of Church and State exists only in the wishful minds of those opposed to any church influence that might interfere with their agenda.

    Why would I support a man who says he believes one thing but votes another way. He may claim he is being ‘objective.’ I don’t care. Our system effectively limits us to two choices for President. This was not by design but evolved naturally. For good or for bad it is what we have. I want to know the candidates beliefs and if he actually believes them. It is a matter of honesty and what I can reasonably expect during his term.

    The current economy cannot and will not improve under a Marxist one cannot believe.. Black liberation theology is based on Marxism. Obama may not have the education or intellect to understand theology or philosophy but he liked what he heard from Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. His beliefs are known and Obama adheres to them.

    Rick Perry has made his faith in Jesus Christ known. He has been, is and will be persecuted for those beliefs. He has also acted most of the time in a Christian manner and apologized when he wondered off course, (school girl inoculations.)

    Obama clearly believes in black liberation theology even though he does not have the guts to say so. A person either believes a thing or he does not. There is no separation of church and state in an honest heart.

    I have been a supporter of Herman Cain and still would support him for President because as a Baptist minister, I know where he stands. The reality is, it ain’t gonna happen. Hopefully Herman will follow the advice of Erick Erickson and be the next Senator from Georgia. That would rock.

    My Governor has entered the race and that is a game changer. Perry/Rubio will be the next Executive branch and with luck, we may see a Rubio/(Palin) team in 2020. OK, I dream. LLAP

    • perry4prez

      Just so, @altexas. The libs and RINOs like Mitt Romney are attacking Governor Perry because he is unabashedly a Christian. People are seeing through it, which is why he is so popular.

    • msjallen

      I agree with you and would also like to see a Perry/Rubio ticket.
      As a Baptist Minister why do you use “luck” when believers should be using faith in God and prayer as to who will be our next candidate for the presidency?

      • altexas

        Herman Cain is an occasional minister for his Baptist church. I was referring to him and his unapologetic religious views. I am a Roman Catholic with 9 years of Seminary in residence and a degree in Scholastic Philosophy.

        Politics depends as much on luck as it does on skill or the grace of God.

        Sorry for the confusion and bad phrasing.

        • msjallen

          Thee is NO luck in the Christian way of life. That is what “religious” people believe who have very little or no faith in God and what His Word teaches.
          Col 2:10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over ALL rule and authority;
          Psalm 33:10-11 The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of nations. 11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation.
          Jeremiah 17:5 -Thus says the LORD, ?Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
          Jesus Christ is in control of history and our trust and faith in Him is our only hope. There is no “luck” that we can depend on.

          • altexas

            So a weekend of gambling in Vegas would not fit your “way of life.”

          • msjallen

            consider a week-end in Vegas as “luck” only foolishness.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      I thought he was one of those (and they do exist) Who thought to use the legal system to force his own choices and preferences on others.

      We have had a few of those types in local government here in Texas, going on crusades, trying to remove books from libraries, trying to close down bars and other businesses, etc.

      However, Perry has never done anything like that in his history, So I don’t care about his religious views, and would not care if he were Jewish, or Mormon, or whatever. It is your actions that are important not so much what you say you believe.

      Bill Clinton always said he was a christian, he went to church with a great big bible under his arm the size of a coffee table, but he never once acted like a christian in his personal life.

  • perry4prez

    Of course Governor Perry is not a libertarian in the Ron Paul sense of “legalize dope and cut defense spending”. Governor Perry believes in well-ordered Liberty, which has nothing to do with the “if it feels good, do it” mentality of the libs (and libertarians).

    • californiagold

      I’ll leave the discussion of Perry’s personal religious views to others, but regarding his record in public office, there are numerous issues where he strays from being a conservative.

      For example, while I don’t hold his support of Al Gore against him, I do find it odd that Perry seemed to be a supporter of HillaryCare. And then there’s the gardasil thing.

      Regarding states rights, Perry recently said that he had no problem with the citizens of New York passing laws that allowed gay marriage because according to him, it’s a states rights issue. Although Perry opposes gay marriage laws in Texas, according to him New Yorkers could do whatever they wanted. Then a few days later after receiving criticism from conservative leaders, Perry came out in support of the federal marriage amendment. (So much for states rights)

      If Perry is so quick to change positions on states rights, can we really expect him to hold firm on his positions if he actually becomes president ?

      I’ll admit that Romney is just as bad a flip flopper, (if not worse), but that doesn’t mean we should ignore some of the major inconsistencies in Perry’s record.

      • streiff

        1. Perry supported the Clinton health care reform before the details became known. The letter you refer to dates from when the initiative was announced. I think many of us think the health care system is working suboptimally and wanting to fix it.

        2. We’ve discussed Gardasil ad nauseam. I don’t think the decision was a good one but it is an easily defensible decision unless you’re saying protecting people from cancer is an inherently un-conservative position.

        3. Perry has always supported DOMA and the FMA. His position is the one most of us take here at RedState. We opposed gay marriage. If a state wants to allow gay marriage and the voters are fine with that, that’s that state’s decision, The FMA is needed to ensure that the “full faith and credit” clause in the Constitution is not used to require other states to recognize gay marriage. His position is a defense of state’s rights.

        But nice attempted troll. Better luck next time.

        • californiagold

          First, let me state that name calling doesn’t help your argument – and there is no doubt your argument needs help.

          Rather than waste too much time picking holes in your response, lets just go with this one…

          You stated that Perry’s Gardasil decision(in your words) was an easily defensible decision unless you?re saying protecting people from cancer is an inherently un-conservative position.

          Well then, I guess those who support RomneyCare and Obamacare hold conservative positions as well. Afterall, I’m sure if one digs deep enough into the fine print of those laws, they would find that Obamacare/Romneycare attempts to protect people from cancer as well.

          Hopefully the Perry campaign won’t defend their Gardasil decision as poorly as you did here.

  • runner12

    theocrat? Perry has never advocated for a theocracy. He is advocating following the Constitution and reducing the size of government.

    This is nothing but religious bigotry from Mr. Milbank. In essence, he is arguing that because Perry is a Christian he wants a theocracy. Well Mr. Milbank, Obama claims to be a Christian too. Why were you not saying the same about him in 2008?

    Oh that’s right, Obama is a Leftist. Therefore by default you and your colleagues at WaPo becoma a part of the propaganda wing of his administration.

    • perry4prez

      Exactly right @runner12, the mainstream news outlets and Hollywood Elites cannot stomach the thought of a Christian as president because he would be a counterweight to their secular values. So they are attacking Perry and trying to help Romney, because if Romney loses to Obama, which is highly likely they win big time with a Socialist in office. And even if Romney were to win in spite of O’Romneycare we would still have someone with a Tom Cruise/John Travolta set of beliefs in the Oval Office.

      • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

        Let’s not confuse the issue by comparing it with Scientology!! NOT helpful.

      • acat

        This is, from memory, the 3rd time you’ve gone out of your way to slap a group of five million people, many of whom vote Republican.

        It’s offensive, it’s unnecessary, and it’s just handing problems to the GOP if Perry doesn’t get the nomination.

        Knock it off.

        Mew

        • perry4prez

          Would you vote for a Scientologist for president, yes or no?

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            fiscal and government over-reach issues, absolutely.

          • perry4prez

            While fiscal conservatism is vital, I also believe that moral issues are even more important, because faith underpins our Liberty. Without faith, you are trusting the government to honor mere guarantees that it will not enslave us. With faith, you are demanding that the government RECOGNIZE our natural rights as citizens. We have all seen what happens when we trust the Governmnent to honor its word. If like me you believe this Constitution was divinely inspired, you would not vote for a Scientologist.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            can’t remember when.

            We’ve had over 200 years of people running the government who profess to be Christians, Jews, basically people of faith. And those people of faith are the ones who have put us in the position we’re in today.

            You can take your clap-trap about “…demanding that the government RECOGNIZE our natural rights as citizens.” and bury it. Are you actually fool enough to believe that the government gives a rip about you retaining your rights? Please. The people of faith will sell you and your “natural rights” down the river in a heartbeat. They’ve been doing it at an increasing rate for 200 years.

            As far as believing the Constitution was “divinely inspired”, so what. For the sake of argument, I’ll agree with you. And then I’ll tell you that the “inspiration” doesn’t mean a darn thing. What matters is the interpretation of the document. I’ll draw a parallel for you. The Bible was divinely inspired. And if you would bother listen to someone like the folks who are currently taking scripture out of context to promote liberal politics who call themselves – and have the degrees to prove it – Christian theologians you’d recognize the foolishness of your statement.

            I don’t care one way or another about a politician’s religious belief or lack thereof. What I care about is their fealty to the original intent of the Constitution – without regard to it’s inspiration or lack thereof – and their commitment to reducing the size and scope of government.

            George W Bush is a committed Christian. He’s also one of the worst excuses we’ve had as a President. He’s certainly better than Obama, but his politics and domestic policies were certainly not conservative and paved the way for Obama. No thanks.

          • rightwingmom52

            of your discussion with perry4prez, I would argue the point that “people of faith are the ones who have put us in the position we?re in today.” Yes, there are likely some people of faith who willfully and knowingly made poor decisions in their government service, and I’ve no doubt that unless they’ve repented, they will be held accountable. However, there are lots of people who claim to be religious but in actuality their actions are far from it (like those you say take things out of context). There are those who believe they are acting consistently with God’s will, but in reality know very little of what that actually is (and ignorance is no excuse). I think it’s far more likely that many politicians fall into one of the latter two categories and as such are hardly people of faith.

            Having said that, while I would prefer a faithful Christian president, I have no qualms voting for a person of other religious persuasion so long as their conservative credentials meet my standards.

            I just didn’t want to see “people of faith” indicted for the sins of those who are just pretending in one way or another.

          • acat

            to be driving at here is a point I’ve made before – having faith is not the same as being politically conservative.

            Historically, the U.S. has never had, in over 200 years, a non-Christian president…. and yet, we’re in a pickle.

            Historically, the U.S. Congress has been majority-Christian, regardless of which party is in control, for over 200 years .. and yet, we’re in a pickle.

            It seems to me a fair point to make that people of faith aren’t necessarily conservatives any more than conservatives are necessarily people of faith.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            With one small quibble. I would add the adjective “professing” to the term “Christian” in your comment.

          • rightwingmom52

            …

          • lineholder

            Did you really mean to convey, imply and insinuate that it is because of religious beliefs that our nation is in the mess it is in today? Because if you did, that’s the biggest bunch of BS I’ve heard in a long time. Seriously.

            You know as well as I do that the nature of politics in our country is corrupt and has been for a long time. You want to blame where we are now on something, becker? Then put the blame where it is justly due.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            No where do I imply a “cause and effect” relationship between faith and the mess we’re in. My point is that p4p’s commentary to the effect that you can’t be conservative unless you’re a Christian is utterly foolish. No, it’s a lie.

            I don’t think that “faith” necessarily drove all of the problem we’ve got, but I will say that I do absolutely think that it drove GWB to push NCLB and MedD. After all, where did the “if someone is hurting the government needs to help” meme of his domestic policy come from. And then there were “faith based initiatives” funded by tax dollars.

            The blame? It goes to the persistence of the Left and the complete unwillingness of the Right to stop them. And, let’s be clear, leaders on both sides of the aisle claim to be the People of Faith that p4p is yammering about. Again, I’m not imply a causal relationship, simply refuting p4p’s stupidity.

          • lineholder

            The comment hit me as painting with a broad brush. People of faith are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. We face temptations just like any other human being. We don’t always make wise choices. And we’re just as susceptible to frog-in-the-pot syndrome as any other member of our society.

            Were we as vigilant as we could have been about the creeping indoctrination that the left has found a way to incorporate into our society? NO. And there are plenty of us who know that and recognize our own culpability and our failure on that point. So, the manner in which our complacency may play into where things stand now is a valid one, and I apologize for over-reacting to your comment. Okay?

            OTOH, becker, for a lot of us, it is those faith-based beliefs that keep us to the side of what is honest, right and true in life itself. But it is a very tenuous tie of conviction that gets tested to the extremes at times, simply because of circumstances. Without it, we could easily find ourselves giving way to temptations that could have a devastating impact on our nation, particularly in regards to widespread apathy that could lead to lawlessness at an individual level.

            It bothers me when people do or say things that belittle those faith-based beliefs, because it seems to me that they aren’t considering what the outcomes would be if those of us who do still try to live our lives within those beliefs should suddenly lose what strength of conviction we do have.

            But I was wrong to take those concerns out on you and I apologize for it, becker.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            I dashed off that response to p4p when I was half asleep and I can see how you could easily come to that conclusion. And, just to complete the brackets, I responded to you this morning at some unGodly hour (pun intended) before coffee.

            I think we are in agreement on the base of this point.

          • acat

            Given your reply to Becker below, I do have to ask .. if you don’t support Perry – as your antics indicate that you don’t – just who are you supporting?

            As for your question, I don’t see that it makes much difference whether I’d vote for a Scientologist or not since our disagreement is much more fundamental.

            You believe that the only “true conservatives” are religious. This is provably false, in fact you went in circles with several others the last time you pulled this crap and yet you persist.

            Worse, you insist on smearing 5 million potential GOP voters based only on the fact that their god doesn’t look enough like yours.

            You, sir, are indeed a troll.

            Mew

      • Tbone

        for you to be so anti-Mormon. Update, the Mormon gave that up a long time ago. Tell her she needs a new explanation for her behavior.

        • perry4prez

          …but polytheism. Christians believe that is you are Godly and accept Jesus Christ as your savior you go to heaven. Mormons believe that if you are Godly in this life you can become a god on another planet in the afterlife. This is polytheism, and it is alien (pun intended) to our traditions. Mormons should of course be free to believe whatever they wish but polytheists should not be commander in chief. America is a Christian nation and our political principles flow from our faith.

          For acat: I am glad they vote Republican. If a horse voted Republican, would you elect him to the Senate? And if you are so concerned about “offending Mormons,” how about the other way around. The old Mormon liturgy used to depict a Christian minister as an agent of Satan. Is that acceptable to you?

          • acat

            That’d be one Senator who can be counted on to vote Neigh.

            Red State is about politics. Your attempts to incite a religious disagreement between Mormons and Christians is about your bigotry, nothing else.

            Troll.

            Mew

          • perry4prez

            See, when you try to distinguish between politics and religion, you are missing my point. As a free people, we need MORE room for faith in politics. We do not put up a Chinese wall between the two. That is not what the Founders wanted.

            So, again I ask, given our heritage, is it acceptable to you to have a commander in chief whose liturgy only a few years ago said that Christians were agents of Satan? How can Mitt Romney possibly be an effective advocate of social issues (school prayer, pro-life, marriage, Reverend Wright, sex education, etc.) if this is his religious tradition?

            I get that you think being a conservative is about national security and free markets. I think it is more than that.

            I give you points for making a better pun than me though LOL.

          • acat

            Freedom of religion means freedom of religion. Period.

            I probably agree more with Johnson than with Perry, but at the end of the day Perry is the better candidate, and will be an adequate (if not great) President.

            His religion is a minor quibble. So are Cain’s and Palin’s and Romney’s and Santorum’s. None of their religions are mine, so to me it makes no difference.

            Your argument fails, not because the founders did not prevent government from picking winners and losers among various religions, but because you insist on doing so yourself, when it is both unnecessary and offensive.

            Begone, troll.

            Mew

          • perry4prez

            @acat, the First Amendment states that Congress may not pass laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It does NOT say that there is freedom FROM religion, or that political leaders cannot be guided by their faith, or that individual voters cannot take faith into account when casting a ballot.

            And the Declaration of Independence expressly says that men are endowed by their Creator with Inalienable Rights. If you don’t like natural rights take it up with the Founders and Rousseau not me.

            One purpose of the First Amendment is to ensure that Government does not end up poisoning the clergy. Church leaders are not immune from corruption, particularly when they get too intertwined with Government. We saw this during the Reformation, in the Russian Orthodox Church today, also in Iran/Saudi Arabia etc. It also lets the clergy focus on theology without worrying how it will play in Congress. When Government starts paying the clergy we are in big trouble, no one wins.

            I am curious: do you say that Ronald Reagan was wrong to work with Pope John Paul II to topple Communism in Poland? Was he wrong to talk about the importance of faith in public life?

            Atheism was a cornerstone of Communism , and look where it got them – a society suffering from complete moral decay that still affects it today (alcoholism, corruption, street kids, abortion used as birth control, etc.) I’ll take the Declaration of Independence over this any day.

          • JSobieski

            The Founders did not have the degree of uniformity on religion that you suggest. They agreed that a certain moral decency was required for freedom, but even they didn’t agree on what needed to be commonly held.

            http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm

            Belief in Natural Law does not require a belief in God, much less a belief in Christianity.

            Nobody is saying that Reagan was wrong to work with the Pope. To even hint at that is to set up a straw man. A more relevant question would be what if Reagan tried to get American’s to stop eating meat on Fridays of Lent?

            What people are saying is that there are dividing lines between morality and religiousity. There are also dividing lines between moral errors that society must accept if there is to be freedom (for example, failure to tithe is not enforced by government power) and moral prohibitions that must be backed up by law (laws against murder for example) if freedom is to exist.

            The Founders thought that the purpose of law was primarily to support freedom. John Locke was cited by more of the Founders than Rousseau.

          • perry4prez

            @JSobieski, I must log off soon and cannot write a lengthy response to you, but I did want to respond to your question of whether it would be appropriate if Reagan had tried to get Americas to stop eating meat on Friday. But what about the National Prayer Breakfast? Every president (even Liberals like Carter and Clinton and Obama) has attended. The purpose is to promote prayer. Are all these Presidents wrong to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in an official capacity?

          • JSobieski

            Who is are you arguing with at Red State on the appropriateness of attending a Prayer Breakfast?

            Answer: NOBODY.

            The straw man style of debate is used by many because it is easy to implement. It is not however impressive or a sign of strength.

            To justify your positions, you put forth straw man arguments.

            Who is saying Reagan was wrong to work with Pope John Paul II? NOBODY

            Who is saying Presidents are wrong to attend the National Prayer Breakfast? NOBODY

          • perry4prez

            @JSobieski, the point I am making is that if it is OK for presidents to attend the National Prayer Breakfast why wouldn’t it be OK for Reagan to promote the eating of fish on Fridays, *if* he thought that was an appropriate goal? The reason why your Reagan example seems outlandish isn’t because it involves Reagan talking about faith and moral values. That’s exactly what Presidents SHOULD be doing. It’s because your example is of Reagan talking about a relatively minor theological point that mostly applies to one specific branch of Christianity.

            Another example, some Presidents have attended Passover seders. If Reagan had encouraged people to attend seders to learn more about Judaism, or if he had encouraged secular Jews to learn more about their heritage by observing Kasruth laws on Passover, what would be wrong about that?

          • JSobieski

            “So you want religion involved in politics? Kind of like Saudi Arabia or Iran?” — left wing liberal

            I suspect that such a person would say that they are only arguing by “analogy”.

            Their approach is as valid as yours. Broad brushed analogies don’t really address the underlying issues.

            Kind of like when liberals say that conservatives are against all government or when conservatives say that libertarians are against all laws.

            Its silly, non-substantive, and ultimately not helpful to the debate.

          • JSobieski

            depend on context to determine whether or not appropriate.

            It would for example be inappropriate for the President of the US to give a speach on accepting Jesus Christ as one’s personal savior while giving a speech at a Jewish school.

            NOBODY at Redstate would say that talking more about seders to a group of Jews or about abstaining from meat on Friday to a Catholic group would be inappropriate. More strawman arguments. You appear to be incapable of using any other form of debate.

            You seem focused on debating scenarios for which there is no argument. Not much of a workout.

          • perry4prez

            “NOBODY at Redstate would say that talking more about seders to a group of Jews or about abstaining from meat on Friday to a Catholic group would be inappropriate. ”

            @JSobieski, you originally brought up this example of eating fish on Friday. I gave some examples of where this might be appropriate, ie the Friday Fish Fry. Now you change the example to ask me President Reagan broadcasting a national message asking everyone in the country to eat fish on Friday.

            Isn’t that also a straw man? You have made the context so specific that it becomes indefensible, of course a president isn’t going to use the bully pulpit to talk about a specific practice by one particular denomination, he has more efficient uses for the bully pulpit. But the point is that within certain parameters, a national discussion of faith is acceptable.

          • JSobieski

            The following two settings are DIFFERENT:

            (1) Urging Catholics to abstain from meat on a Friday of Lent.

            (2) Urging Non-Catholics to abstain from meat on a Friday of Lent.

            Context makes all the difference. Nobody at RS is going to have a problem with (1) but (2) is a different context.

            Of course talking about faith is acceptable “within certain parameters”. The phrase “within certain parameters” is the smartest thing you have said so far on this topic.

            Nothing you have said previously even acknowledged the existence of such parameters. Nothing you have said previously put forth an actionable description of what those parameters are.

            The point is that the President should not get lost in sectarian weeds.

          • JSobieski

            It is a document grounded in a political philosophy that arose out of a Judeo-Christian ethics.

            Christianity is a religion focused on the relationship between an individual and God. The New Testament is not a blue print for government or political philosophy.

            There is no Christian equivalent of Sharia law. This is due in large part to the precepts of Christianity, and the Incarnation’s own admonition Caesar is to receive what is Caesar’s.

            The First Amendment is no doubt influenced by Christianity in that sense, but to go beyond that sense is to go beyond Christian teaching itself.

            Even the Polish Constitution of 1791 which went much further in terms of explicitly embracing religion and putting a particular Christian denomination (Roman Catholicism) as the “dominant” religion of the country did not put Christianity about any other religion in terms of the functioning of laws.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_May_3,_1791

          • rightwingmom52

            of what you’ve posted the last couple of days (i.e., your comments on Mormonism and Neocons), I appreciate this response, and I think I understand where you’re coming from.

            For faithful Christians to separate their faith from their politics is difficult, if not impossible. Our Christianity is to permeate our lives (as is commanded), and I have no intention of keeping mine out of my voting booth nor am I going to apologize for doing so. Having said that, I clearly understand the First Amendment, and I want no part of a government established religion which is prohibited thereby.

          • streiff

            but I’m going to make a non-negotiable requirement which is that you lay off the Mormon-bashing. Or the bashing to fhe religion/denomination of any candidate. I sort of like Perry and I’d rather that people like you not make me start to dislike him based on the posts you make here. I opposed Romney in 2008 less because of the candidate than the noxious nature of his fanboys.

            This is the only and last warning you will receive on this subject. Next Mormon comment gets you shown the door. And don’t even think about playing cute on the subject.

          • perry4prez

            @streiff, this is your blog, and therefore I will honor your request and not discuss Romney’s religion any further. There are strong reasons to oppose him that have nothing to do with his religion, such as O’Romneycare, his flip-flopping on pro-life, etc.

            I would respectfully suggest that your request may be short-sighted in that the issue IS going to come up in the primaries among Evangelical voters. And contrary to what an earlier poster wrote I have no objection to Mormons as neighbors, etc. – my objection is about the cosmology aspect. I agree that Mormons act in very Godly ways, e.g. not drinking, upholding family values, etc. If it came down to say Orrin Hatch versus Obama the choice would be Hatch, because he is politically conservative (unlike Romney). Also as I have stated before I think the Presidency is a special case, because the President is not only a political leader but also represents our Nation as head of state. The issue is less important to me in the Legislature.

            I do however think that general discussions of faith in the GOP and the conservative movement are legitimate and would ask you to clarify this point. President Reagan, Haley Barbour, and other Republicans have all said as much. I respectfully ask you – and be honest- would you vote for an atheist for President? A recent poll said that 52% of Americans would not. (That is all Americans, even liberals, not just conservatives or Republicans.)

            There is an old joke that Winston Churchill told. He asked some minor noblewoman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. The noblewoman said “er, well, maybe”. Then he asked the noblewoman if she would sleep with him for one dollar. She said, “what do you think I am?” Churchill answered”we’ve already established what you are, now we’re haggling over price”.This is why I think discussions of faith are appropriate. If you wouldn’t vote for an atheist, then you’ve established that some analysis of faith is OK and you’re haggling over details.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            with LDS. And I’m very sure I’m much more knowledgeable on the subject than are you. And I’ll also say absolutely that I’d vote for a small-government, original intent LDS Bishop before I’d vote for a rerun of GWB.

            Your theological arguments on purely political questions are moot. Oh, and they’re also stupid.

          • westcoastpatriette

            hahaha!

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            You have self-identified as an Evangelical Christian through several recent threads to lend supposed weight to your objections to Mr. Romney, yet have now so badly misstated the evangelium itself as to cast grave doubt on your understanding of the term; your injudicious use of that tiniest of words–”and”–not only exposes your ignorance of the storm at the heart of the Reformation–none of whose champions would have coupled your terms as you did–but of the most basic biblical formulae as well:

            Romans 4:5. him who justifies the ungodly
            Romans 5:8. while we were still sinners
            Romans 5:10 while we were enemies
            1 Timothy 1:15 Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost
            Mark 2:17 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners

            Your apparent conflation of Christianity, morality, and qualification for public office is troubling on several levels, if not downright strange–Jeremiah Wright is a social issue?–and contra-indicated not only for its corrosively anti-coalescent political effects but also for its mangling of the actual message entrusted to Christians.

            For those who have made it this far without all the lights going on, I recommend starting with The Common Good and Common Grace: Christians at the Crossroads in the Public Square (article by Don E. Eberly in the Sept./Oct. 2000 edition of Modern Reformation. Excerpted:

            The Christian right is guided by a set of mythologies which, at a minimum, weakens its chances of achieving even modest goals. Worse, they practically assure self-marginalization. Worse still is the fact that the political toxins of which I speak can quickly erode the integrity of the Gospel. Let’s examine them briefly.

            Myth 1: America as a Christian Nation
            The first myth is one that is rarely articulated but is nevertheless a part of the consciousness of many and that is the myth that America is, or historically was, a Christian nation. This is a false gospel which must be repudiated. The term Christian is mostly a noun, not mostly an adjective, and it most assuredly cannot be applied to a nation if we are to take the New Covenant seriously. Except for ancient Israel under the Old Covenant, there never has been a nation that had special favor with God.
            :
            The founders framed a constitutional republic, predicated upon a rather thin theism, not a muscular, prescriptive Christianity. Perhaps in doing this they were acknowledging that New Covenant Christianity is about the redemption of elect individuals, not special covenant relations with elect nations. In other words, they might have done what they did precisely because it is the most biblical ordering of the state, and because the idea of a Christian state is an oxymoron.

            Myth 2: Social Reform Requires Christians and Christian Language
            The second related myth is that social reforms are neither effective nor legitimate unless the concepts are advanced by believers and are presented in biblical language. It is odd that American Christians have a need to present their reforms in Christian terms, conveying several false ideas to a watching world: one, that Christians believe in preferentially appointing or electing Christians, as if they are more worthy leaders; and second, that there is something unique or superior about morality that carries a Christian label. Neither of these principles was considered true by Reformation theologians. Recall the famous quote by Martin Luther, “I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian” or John Calvin’s expression of confidence in the natural capacity of the unredeemed to rule justly.
            :
            Christian moralism in the public square produces another outcome: a low and condescending view of unbelievers and the appearance of self-righteousness among believers. As Westminster Seminary professor Michael Horton has argued, this is to think that “conversion is the only answer to temporal problems or to assume that unbelievers are worse then they are (denying natural capabilities for justice, truth and beauty) and that believers are better than they are (denying the ongoing sinfulness of the Christian).”

            Quite simply, this approach does not take full account of sin even in the life of believers, nor of the natural capacity of the unredeemed for responsible action. Horton states: “The Gospel is not the answer to everything. It is not the solution to the welfare crisis, to environmental decay, to health care. These are temporal problems demanding temporal solutions. Even if everyone were to become a Christian, the world would still require government courts, policy, and prisons because Christians are sinful.”

            New Testament Christianity presented a Savior; it did not present a new moral system.

            Full disclosure for all readers: I’m not your typically-well-informed RS policy wonk. My long disinterest in Mr. Romney is ultimately rooted in a viscerally negative reaction to his coiffure–but even such phobias can be tamed for the sake of the Republic. But while the conflict between the objective grounds of his faith and my own would never allow him to speak at my church, he would still be quite welcome in my living room–as long as he was willing to engage in an exposition of the Doctrines of Grace!–and, barring a better alternative, our Oval Office.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            and conversely, as much as I am currently intrigued by Gov. Perry–fueled in part by an ancient Vermont/Texas fascination-with-opposites thing–if I were to learn on reliable testimony that he intended to administer the Doctrines of Grace–on whose object all of my hope in this life and the next is fixed–from that bulliest of pulpits, my confidence in his integrity and understanding of his vocation would be seriously degraded–for the sake of the Gospel.

          • acat

            Especially for the Eberly article. (I have this uncle who has considered voting Dem because of Myth # 1 .. I hope it’s persuasive)

            Hoping you’re in for some pleasant weather.

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            and while I also agree with Myth # 1, I tend to avoid these discussions because some Christians–while well-meaning–insist we are a Christian nation. I always say “Nations cannot be Christians–only individuals can be Christians.”

            The end of the matter always leaves in awe of the brilliance of the system of governance that the founders set up–especially with respect to the First Amendment. While “separation of church and state” is no where found in the original documents, the concept of empowering the government to impose faith by force was guarded against. And for that I am grateful.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Christians, would the logical extension of Romney’s arguments for corporations as individuals be that corporations can be Christian?

          • westcoastpatriette

            so without that background, my answer would be the same. In the literal sense of the word “Christian,” a corporation cannot be one.

          • westcoastpatriette

            nt..

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Romney was speaking in terms of taxes, someone was discussing the idea that only individuals pay taxes and he noted that, for tax purposes, corporations are individuals. He’s right and he drew all kinds of crap from the left for the statement.

          • perry4prez

            @wetscoastpatriette, do you understand that there is a difference between government imposing faith top down, and voters asking for it from the grassroots up?

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            And the latter, in a form that you would likely approve of, will never happen. Praise the Lord.

          • perry4prez

            We will see, mbecker908. Don’t forget that the Christian candidate (Huckabee) won the Iowa caucuses in 2008 and that Perry is ahead in the polls now (I won’t be sidetracked into a debate over whether that makes him the frontrunner or not, but he is certainly in a good position to win the nomination and is more likely to beat Obama than Romney).

            And you are forgetting about Ronald Reagan, who openly talked about God in his campaigns and remains the only candidate to win 49 states.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Other than the ability of a liberal (Huckabee) to organize single issue “values voters” and lie to them about how he is going to get a Human Life Amendment – which he never bothered to define and they were to stupid to ask – passed and abortion would be no more.

            I’m not forgetting about Reagan. Reagan spoke in pretty general terms about his faith, and I doubt he said much of anything that Romney would be uncomfortable saying.

            Reagan won 49 states, you idiot, having nothing to do with his profession of faith. That election was won in part because Mondale was a complete jerk. People also had confidence in Reagan’s leadership in the Cold War, his relationship with Margaret Thatcher and his stewardship of the economy. Not to mention the fact that he single handedly made people proud to be Americans again. None of those had anything to do with “talking about God”.

          • acat

            your argument here is .. what, again? Water is wet?

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            Condescending little smart mouth. You are exactly the kind of person who masquerades as a self-righteous Christian that gives the rest of us who are trying to live it a bad name.

            Why don’t you get lost. You’ve caused enough problems here, today.

          • perry4prez

            You can’t refute what I said, so you start ad-hom inem attacks. It seems to me that constitutes ticking people off.

            And “self-righteous”? I have never said Christians are perfect or that non-Christians are “evil”, only that that faith has a proper place in public life.

            The fact that your only response to that is to start calling me names indicates that you really have no response to this.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Get lost. I don’t waste my time with phony, pompous people such as yourself.

          • perry4prez

            Well in another diary you were complaining that people in your local Tea Party club didn’t appreciate your “talent” and strong leadership skills. Big surprise there.

          • perry4prez

            @westcoastpatriette, I apologize for this post, which was uncalled for. It was wrong of me to make fun of anyone getting involved with a Tea Party group, that is what we WANT people to do. I can’t figure out how to delete the post otherwise I would. In conclusion I am sorry and will try not to respond in anger on this blog in the future.

          • westcoastpatriette

            And that is why people find you so irritating–you are reckless with your words.

            Have you ever read 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 or Galatians 5:22-23? You would do well to study them and ask God to help you develop them in your life as they exemplify the love that should exude from a true Christian’s conduct–if you really love God.

          • perry4prez

            Your prose is so verbose that I have trouble understanding what point you are trying to make. Boiled down you seem to have 7 points.

            1. “We cannot say that America is a Christian country, because Christian is a noun, not an adjective”. Good grief, this is about the silliest argument I have ever heard. It is playing word games. Please look up the word “Christian” in Webster’s dictionary, and it will say that it is BOTH an noun and an adjective. It is obvious that in a “Christian country” or a “Moslem country” that there will be people who follow other religions in these places, but the place is still Christian/Moslem etc.in culture. If you don’t believe me why don’t you go to Saudi Arabia?

            2. “Except for ancient Israel under the Old Covenant, there never has been a nation that had special favor with God”. Just because some academic says this doesn’t make it so. You sound just like Obama here, rejecting American Exceptionalism.. Do you believe in American Exceptionalism or don’t you? In fact you sound worse than Obama, even he ends his speeches with “God Bless America”.

            3. “New Testament Christianity presented a Savior; it did not present a new moral system.”. Note the operative word NEW, which conveniently forgets about the Old Testament. And the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plains were moral lessons, this is obvious.

            4. “I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian”. Talk about false choices! How about being ruled by a wise Christian? Then there would be no need to argue about which of the other two is the worse of two evils. And if Romney is the “wise Turk” why do you think he is so wise, when he gave us Obamacare 1.0 in Massachusetts?

            5. “The Gospel is not the answer to everything”. Maybe not, but it is the starting place, and if you are facing a policy problem the place to consider it with first principles. We do not start by saying “how can we compromise with the Democrats”, we start by asking what our principles are, whether those are conservative principles, Constitutional principles or Christian principles. Of course I do not say that that reading the Gospel or praying always makes the answer to everything obvious but it can eliminate unpalatable alternatives. For example some people say that Row v. Wade has reduced crime. That is well and good but consulting first principles obviously tells us that the ends do not justify the means.

            6. “Even if everyone was a Christian we would still need courts and government”. Thank you Mr. Obvious. We are calling for LIMITED government, not NO GOVERNMENT. Courts are necessary to make sure that the Legislature does not pass Unconstitutional laws if nothing else, and also to settle all sorts of petty disputes that are not political (eg “my neighbor’s dog is barking all night long”). Where are you getting this idea that everything Christians do in this world is perfect? I have never said that!!!

            7. “Romney is not welcome in my church but he is in my living room”. Again, this is completely begging the question. Romney can go to all the living rooms he wants in Iowa and New Hampshire to campaign, no one is trying to prevent him from campaigning (unlike O’Bumbling who knocked all of his primary opponents in Illinois off the ballot on technicalities).

  • jomo2009

    Olbermann ever did right was when he banned Milbank from his show on MSNBC. Imagine, he was too nuts even for Olby!

  • fmaidment

    …because Perry opposes his preferred theocracy: Intellectuals from the elite schools ruling from their atheistic pulpits lecterns.

    The problem with the Left on religion is that so many of them want to deny atheism is a religion, built on a faith in Man’s intellectual capacity to understand the universe. In a purely empirical sense, only agnosticism is rational. Taking the affirmative position that there is no God isn’t rational empiricism. It’s a leap of faith just as great as believing that Christ died for our sins and rose to tell His disciples to go forth and spread the Word.

    So when atheists attempt to enact secular humanism as our state religion in the name of Religious Freedom, they’re really being hypocrites. They’re requiring those of us who have faith in a pantheon of imperfect deities, spiritual forces, our ancestors, or a monotheistic omnipotent perfect God to give up or freedom and adhere to their theistic view of the universe.

    The First Amendment is about not enacting a state religion, not about separating anyone serving in public office (or anywhere else, for that matter) from their faith.

    • streiff

      there is no downside to believing in God.

  • Next93

    My thought when I saw that was, “ok, the last time we DIDN’T mix religion and politics (about 20 years ago), millions of people were sent to the gulags”.

    I’m not much of a Christian, but I’d really hate to live in a world in which Christian values weren’t allowed to shape thre legal system. If it wasn’t for Christianity, crucifixion would probably still be in use.

    Personally, I’d prefer a commander-in-chief who relied on the constitution, the bible, and a buttload of law books, but if it came to a choice of someone relying on any one of those, I’d have to say I’d we’d be better off with the bible.

  • jaykali

    Rick Perry has a legit shot to win both the Republican nomination and the presidency, I dare say he has the inside track on both. Despite what liberals think, the general public is not as crazy in love with Obama as they are. A BIG part of the reason Obama got in was dissatisfaction with the last guy and the down economy. Well surprise! Now it’s your turn! And you might say well they’ll just turn Perry into that last guy – how hard can it be…he’s from Texas! Well, ya but unfortunately for team Obama he’s got quite a good jobs record in a down economy.

    I laugh at how the MSNBC crowd like Morning Joe dismiss Perry so quickly. I would love for them to tell me what Republican they wouldn’t describe as terrible candidate…well there isn’t one! That is because they are liberals!

    They have to know in their hearts Obama is done. I mean they are hoping that Americans despise conservatism as much as they do, but in the end the presidency usually swings with the state of the economy and it’s bad people. Good riddens.

    • Christian

      Never made any “claims of deity.”

      • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

        “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father except through me.”

      • westcoastpatriette

        That is not a claim of deity? What was it then?

      • runner12

        and then come back and tell me that Jesus made no claims that he was a Deity.

        John 3:16-17 ( quoted by Jesus ) ?For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him. ”

        Jesus claimed to be God’s Son, which would make him a Deity.

      • Michael M

        … but there is, in my mind, an even better way to come at it. The claim is usually that Christ made no claims to be a deity, it came from his followers. If this was simply a story spread by his followers, why not write it more clearly into the Gospels? Luke, especially, could simply have put in a few “Yes, I tell you I am God” lines, and everything is good. If the deity “lie” started after the original apostles, it is unlikely it could have stood since by then many people would have known the truth.

        The easiest and cleanest way to reconcile these inconsistencies with the lie story is to assume that it was so completely accepted by early Christians that Christ was God and his behavior established that fact so fully that there was no need for him or the Gospel writers to beat people over the head with it.

        • aesthete

          Jesus’ trial and crucifixion hinged on the fact that he refused to disavow claims to his divinity at his trial. Seems to me that a man not preaching his own divinity would have a vested interest in staying alive to continue to be a “good teacher”.

          • runner12

            NT

        • westcoastpatriette

          He made the claim in so many different ways and for some reason, God enjoys using obscure ways to speak about himself. Think of all the parables Jesus used to teach about himself and his kingdom.

          I’m like you and I wish he would have come right out and said it more plainly but on the other hand, it is undeniable that he made it plain that he was deity. That is what enraged the priesthood–he claimed he could forgive sins and they insisted that only God could do that and so accused him of blasphemy–a crime worthy of death.

          • Michael M

            I think the evidence of his divinity is so obvious in his life that if he had summoned a bullhorn, stood at the top of the mountain, and shouted for all to hear: “I. AM. GOD. I. AM. THE. MESSIAH.” with angels piloting skywriters overhead, it wouldn’t impact who does and doesn’t believe his divinity today.

            The people I’ve seen converted (like, say, me) have been won over not by logic or by the words, but by the actions of Christians, inspired by the Holy Spirit. When those actions bring someone into the fold, the words the Lord has left us are than enough.

            And I swear that’s it for the heavy stuff tonight.

          • westcoastpatriette

            nt

          • Michael M

            Getting someone to respond to my posts about Religion (admittedly early in RS posting life) with “Amen” is an honor. Thank you for that.

          • westcoastpatriette

            That’s cute.

      • streiff

        Jesus said to him in reply, ?Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
        And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.?*Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

        Seems to me there were at least three claims of deity made here.

        • westcoastpatriette

          it makes you wonder what bible they are reading.

      • msjallen

        You need to study the Doctrine of Kenosis regarding Jesus Christ before you make your false accusation.

      • rightwingmom52

        Take a look at John 5 where he offers the proof. Read John 10, specifically verse 36. Read this article here, part of which is quoted below.

        In John 5, Jesus healed an invalid and the Jews were outraged that he did so on the Sabbath…

        On this occasion, their hostility toward Jesus manifested itself in their outrage at the fact that Jesus ?not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God? (John 5:18). The rest of chapter five constitutes Jesus? stunning discourse confirming their latter charge?what Luther labeled ?a sublime apology.? Jesus never denied the claim to be divine. Indeed, He asserted the claim Himself and defended it on numerous occasions, even before Pilate (John 18:37; 1 Timothy 6:13; cf. Matthew 26:63-66).

        I sincerely hope you will study and consider the comments I and others have made to you here.

        • jaykali

          Man we are off-topic here people…

          • rightwingmom52

            but I figured if streiff who wrote the diary commented on this thread, I could throw in my two cents without being in too much trouble. Not sure how it all landed on your initial comment.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Not really. If you read streiff’s article closely, there is one place where he quotes Perry from his book “Fed Up” where Perry is commenting on the deity of Christ. That set off this thread when the second poster denied that Christ ever claimed he was a deity. The rest of us are reacting to that comment–appropriately, I believe.

          • westcoastpatriette

            I guess if you compare the thread to your opening comment, maybe it is unrelated and I’m not sure why Christian chose to start the rant there. But in terms of the deity part, it is very relevant to the diary.

  • Menlo

    As a big “Laugh-In” fan, I thought he looked familiar:
    Arte Johnson

    • pttx333

      I knew he looked familiar. Never missed Laugh In and laughed every single second it was on. I can still remember very vividly some the skits – that was true comedy. Remember the Farkle family – and the twins, Simon and Gar? HAHAHA

      • rightwingmom52

        pretended to be a simpleton and was funny doing so. Milbank isn’t pretending and certainly isn’t funny.

        • pttx333

          …

        • ehosterman

          line doe apply to Milbank:
          “Verry interesting, but stoopid”.

          • pttx333

            I can just hear Arte saying that, too. He was hilarious, as was Laugh In.

  • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

    I would not put it past the Ayers/Soros Marxist/fascist regime to engineer something that would hit Texas really hard and thereby bust its good economic record.

    Remember, these people are avid fans of Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung, men who murdered tens of millions of human beings. Destroying the economy of the state of Texas would be as nothing in their moral calculus.

    I truly dread the next 16 months. Already, more than a year away from the election, the Obamafascists are shutting down companies headed by Republicans, overruling Congress through executive orders and regulations on everything from secret-ballot union elections to gun registration, organizing deliberately violent protests, inciting black-on-white flashmobs, aiding Islamist militants in other countries, leaking sensitive military information, etc., etc. Every day brings news of new outrages, and they are increasing in frequency and severity. God help us make it through this next year!

    • pttx333

      of destroying anything or anyone to finalize the destruction of our nation. They aren’t about to give up now, not when they are already so far down the road to completion. They have made known their hatred of Texas, as well as other states (i.e., Arizona). We must stand as one or our beloved country is lost.

    • msjallen

      Good response and adding to what you said; ONLY God can help this Nation but ONLY if We the People turn back to God and put Him first in our lives.
      “When we stop being a nation under God, we will be a nation gone under.” Pres. Reagan

      2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by MY name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
      HOW?
      II Peter 3:8? but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity.

  • Adjoran

    The leftist legacy press will be declaring jihad against anyone who gets close to the Republican nomination. They no longer care about any pretense of factual reporting or objectivity. They understand that if 2012 is a referendum on Obama’s performance, as nearly every reelection campaign has been, it will be a Democratic debacle.

    So they MUST make the campaign all about the radical extremist nominee – even though no one yet knows who it will be. They’ve done their oppo research and have attacks ready for Romney and Palin, but Perry is a relatively new figure to them, and Democrats in Texas have been unable to lay a glove on the guy.

    The legacy media will be sacrificing their integrity and whatever may be left of their reputations in suicide missions against any potential Republican challenger. They know it is Obama’s only chance.

    • msjallen

      counter every attack of lies the left progressives spew on National TV stations of all kinds including radio. We need to toughen up and not let them get by with their lies or even their half truths. We can not longer sit back and “take it” and just let it go. We need to fight back and make it stick.
      Proverbs 29:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked bears rule, the people mourn?.

      Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

    • californiagold

      Unfortunately, what I’m starting to see in the campaign is the republican candidates going negative on each other. Bachmann’s campaign released a negative hit piece on Perry, Santorum went negative on Perry, etc, etc,,,,and it’s only September. Unless Perry or Romney raps up the nomination early, the negative attacks will tarnish the eventual nominee to the point of unelectability.

      Romney will get attacked by Perry as a flip flopper who loves socialized medicine, while Perry will get attacked by everyone for his weak views on border enforcement.

      Whatever happened to Reagan’s eleventh commandment ?

  • http://wingright.org bnuckols

    That comment is from “On My Honor,” not “Fed Up!”

  • gunslingr45

    you like reading tripe like this Dana Milbank writes, take a look at this fool:

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/shooting-hogs-helicopters-fishing-hands-five-perry-approved-170245980.html;_ylt=AtIXAHdxDf.eaxv446TUuQRtzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTU0YjJ1ZDZ0BGNjb2RlA3dlaWdodGVkY3QuYwRtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNb3N0IFBvcHVsYXIEcGtnAzg4MzIxODIzLWY0ZjEtMzAzZi1hZTQyLWYzOWE1NmEyM2JjNwRwb3MDNQRzZWMDTWVkaWFCTGlzdE1peGVkTW9zdFBvcHVsYXJDQQR2ZXIDYWM4MmNhNTAtZDQzNi0xMWUwLTllM2QtMzQ0YzEwYjY3OWEz;_ylg=X3oDMTJyZ2wwdjhzBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDOTVkMTYwNmMtNzUxMy0zZTdkLTk2ZjUtMTJiNTc5MzI3ZGM1BHBzdGNhdAN1cwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2UEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=3

  • reaganbuckley

    1. No libertarian would support HillaryCare the way Perry did.

    2. No libertarian would engage in the corporate cronyism and nepotism that Perry engages in.

    3. I also liked his conveniently scheduled “Response” the week before he announced he was running for president. I prefer my pastor to do the preaching not a government official. Reminds me of Obama “conveniently” scheduling his speech to the joint session of congress during the republican debate.

    • acat

      Cronyism is played. HillaryCare is unproven. So he’s religious, so what?

      Mew

    • Scope

      Anyone who believes that scientists are more credible on Global Warming than politicians is a liberal. Anyone that posts that Obama takes criticism too is a liberal. Your posting history is more than telling. You chose a posting name that would attract conservatives, but you comments have been everything but regan buckely. You are a liberal troll. Prove me wrong.

      • reaganbuckley

        I’m believe in small government, am pro-life and also believe in a strong military. What more is there? Please let me know. Does one have to swallow the talking points of the Republican elite – hook, line and sinker – to be a conservative now.

        “Anyone who believes that scientists are more credible on Global Warming than politicians is a liberal.”

        I trust scientists over congress critters. That makes me a liberal? You may want to believe in an international conspiracy involving over 90% of scientist regarding climate change, but that seems unreasonable. Even if there is only a 10% chance of significant climate change, some prudent steps make sense. Your making me out to be some Goracle, man-bear-pig, which isn’t true.

        • acat

          Which horses do you think can go the distance in this race?
          Which candidate do you hope wins the debate?
          Who’s your personal fave?

          Mew

          • reaganbuckley

            Chris Christie for POTUS if he would run
            Not thrilled with other choices. Guess would have to go with Romney, but he seems a bit disingenuous. I like Ron Paul for sticking to principles, but am no Paultard. Couldn’t vote for him in the end given his stance on the gold standard and military policy.

          • acat

            You say you like that Paul sticks to his principles, and I could respect that, but then you say you’d support Romney, who sticks to his principles about as well as butter sticks to waffles – that is, it’d slide off if they weren’t waffled.

            I like Christie as well, but he’s been quite clear on not running, although he certainly is sticking to his principles in the Garden State.

            Since these three are quite different, I have to ask .. what about Romney do you like?

            Mew

        • Scope

          man-bear-pig liberal.

          You don’t have to swallow anything, but, you have a responsibility to not destroy the country while hugging the trees, and the lizards.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          is not whether it’s happening, of course it is and it’s been changing since the big bang. Or since God said let there be light! The issue is whether it’s being caused by man or whether it’s natural.

          If you think for one second that shutting down the economy of the world is a good idea then you’re actually a whole lot more stupid than you’ve already come off.

    • perry4prez

      @reaganbuckley, where is your evidence that Perry supported Hillarycare?

  • barry915barry

    nt.