This is why I'll never be a "Conservative" no matter how much I agree with 99% of the rest of their stance.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Interesting commentary about the recent speeches made by the 2 current > republican frontrunners. > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/23/republicans-religion-secular-america > > Republicans v secular America > > With blatant disregard for the first amendment, Republicans' > intolerance of US secularism means things are turning ugly > > If you're part of secular America that is, if you're an atheist, an > agnostic, a religious liberal or even a mainstream believer who thinks > religion should be kept out of politics and vice-versa then you > should be very afraid of what the Republican party has in store for > you in 2012. > > No news there, you might say. The Republicans, as we all know, have > been in thrall to the Christian right since the Reagan era. But > there's something new, something more intolerant, something truly ugly > in the works. And if you don't believe me, let's start with Tim > Pawlenty, unassuming governor of Minnesota in his day job, > fire-breathing Christian warrior and aspiring presidential candidate > in his spare time. > > "I want to share with you four ideas that I think should carry us > forward," Pawlenty said on Friday at the annual gathering of the > Conservative Political Action Committee, or CPAC. After invoking > "basic constitutional principle and basic common sense," he continued: > > "The first one is this: God's in charge. God is in charge ... In > the Declaration of Independence it says we are endowed by our creator > with certain unalienable rights. It doesn't say we're endowed by > Washington, DC, or endowed by the bureaucrats or endowed by state > government. It's by our creator that we are given these rights." > > Never mind Pawlenty's fundamental and no doubt deliberate misreading > of the founders' intent. (Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the > Declaration of Independence, is well-known for having cut up a Bible > to remove all supernatural references to Jesus.) How, in practice, > does Pawlenty envision "God's in charge" as a governing principle? > > Pawlenty didn't say. But he oozed mild-mannered hatred for anyone who > doesn't share his beliefs. In a bizarre closing in which he invoked > the civil war general (and future president) Ulysses S Grant as some > sort of rough-around-the-edges, proto-Tea Party role model, Pawlenty > trashed anyone who attended "Ivy League schools" or who go to > "chablis-drinking, brie-eating parties in San Francisco". (You can > watch Pawlenty's address at CSPAN.org, starting at the 1:38:30 mark.) > It sounded like a parody of Pat Buchanan's famous 1992 "culture war" > speech. Except that Pawlenty is one of the Republicans' two most > plausible candidates for president in 2012. > > The other would be former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who fell > far short of the prize in 2008, but whose legendary self-discipline > has put him in a strong position for 2012. > > The trouble is that Romney has already declared war on secular > America. In December 2007, you may recall, he delivered a speech in > which he defended his Mormon religion at a time when he was under > assault from evangelical Christians. It was, in many respects, a > sensible plea for religious tolerance. > > Except that Romney called for tolerance only among believers, > explicitly omitting non-believers. "Any believer in religious freedom, > any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and > ally in me," Romney said. "And so it is for hundreds of millions of > our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion > rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith." > > As New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote the next day, "Romney > described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, > Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The > nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence > showing respect for the nonreligious." Brooks a conservative, though > a secular one warned that Romney was calling for "a culture war > without end". > > Romney and Pawlenty are the early front-runners for the Republican > presidential nomination, and it's a good thing: the most frequently > mentioned potential fringe candidates are even worse. If you have not > seen Sarah Palin asking God to build a natural-gas pipeline in Alaska, > well, do yourself a favour right now (see also her recent speech at > the Tea Party convention). Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, > personifies the Christian right in its purest form. "I hope we answer > the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ," Huckabee said > in 1998. There is no reason to think he's changed his mind. > > (I realise that I am leaving out Ron Paul right after he won the CPAC > straw poll. As best as I can tell, Paul actually does believe in a > secular government. But Paul is a libertarian who's entirely out of > step with the Republican party, regardless of how adept he is at > mobilising his devoted followers to pack events like straw polls. He > was unable to establish himself as a serious candidate in 2008, and > there's no reason to think he'll do any better in 2012.) > > Barack Obama, in his inaugural address, said that "our patchwork > heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians > and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers. We are shaped by > every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth." > > It is that simple, inclusive vision that we're in danger of losing if > Romney or Pawlenty or, God help us (so to speak), Palin or Huckabee > is elected president in 2012. In truth, the founders made it clear > in the first amendment that we need not just freedom of religion, but > freedom from religion, especially given that 79% of Americans believe > in miracles. > > "While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and > to observe, the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we > cannot deny an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yielded to > the evidence which has convinced us," wrote James Madison. > > In contrast to Madison, the Republicans propose a theocracy of > believers. It is an assault not just on anyone who isn't one of them, > but on the American idea, and on liberal democracies everywhere. > > * guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010 > > > -- > Larry C. Lyons > web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons > -- > The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do. > - B. F. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:312538 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
