What's the plan for Rational Republicans?

[foggedinn]

Logical reasoning and rational thought.

Please go out and experience life. You will find out in short order that not 5% of the human experience can be explained by logical reasoning or rational thought. Greater minds than any on this board have ended up in asylums trying to fit their existence into a logical, reasonable framework.

Sometimes it's just the shred of hope that maybe logical reasoning and rational thought is a possibility, in which people want. A realm where logical reasoning and rational thought can survive, is much better than a realm where concrete preordained ideals can be justified as legitimate.

It's not perfect. But it's a step in the right direction.

Rationality/irrationality is not an either/or proposition. We all have some of each.

Logic and reason have helped to make great advances in the physical sciences. When it comes to searching out the human heart, they are of little use.

I suppose what brought on my post was the hubris expressed by some who insist that they will only base their decisions on logic/reason.

 

[Immanuel]

I was mostly refering to our local wingnuts. I know many evangelical conservatives, and have some in my family, that are quite conservative, that have changed their stances on political subjects after having investigated the facts. In fact, some of them are evangelical ministers, and are far less rigid in their political stances than most paint them.

Unfortunately, they are not the ones that are making the noise. In fact, an awful lot of evangelicals claim to speak for all, when they are really in the minority in their faith on an issue. Especially true of the TV Evangelists.

I notice you did not comment on yourself. Ever change your mind on something or does the saying, "You can't teach an old dog new tricks", apply to Old Rocks to?

Also, the REASON I am no longer a member of the Religious Right is because of those absolutely embarrassing TV Evangelists especially the ones like Joel Olsteen, Pat Robertson and the Late Jerry Falwell. Somewhere along the line, they seem to have lost the message of the Word of God.

Immie

Wait, what? How did televangelists make you stop being a member of the "Religious Right"? How are they embarrassing to you?

Have you ever listened to what they say? Have you ever compared their beliefs to what the Bible says?

About the only one worth listening to is Billy Graham and I really enjoy listening to him.

Just listen to Joel Olsteen, he mentions Jesus Christ about as often as Jesse Jackson i.e. only when he is cursing.

Pat Robertson has gone from preaching God's word to... well, a politician full of hatred for Democrats and anyone that does not send money to the 700 Club.

So many of these people have become "Prosperity Theologians" that I can't stomach them any longer.

I used to love to listen to Dr. James Dobson, but he has sold out to politics as well.

Do they ever preach the Gospel anymore?

I believe in Law and Gospel. The Law was designed to convict us of our sins. To show us that we need a savior. The Gospel was given to us to show us who that savior is. TV evangelists have lost the Gospel IMHO.

When you use the Law to beat a sinner to despair and then you don't offer them the Gospel, you have missed the message of Christ. That is what so many of our TV "evangelists" do now days.

As a Christian, I find that offensive. I have no more "right" to be saved than Charles Manson, yet, God loved me and gave me faith. Pat Robertson would leave me in despair wondering how "I" can save myself.

Immie

 

[Qball]

I think you're generalizing to let yourself off the hook. I've seen all of the televangelists you mention, and I don't know how you figure most of them have "lost the Gospel" or focus too much on politics. If anything, perhaps they're guilty of trying to relate the Gospel to things that are relevant in people's lives, i.e. politics. I've never heard Joel Osteen curse, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there, and I'm not sure what you mean by "beating sinners to despair" with the law. Lastly, I'm not sure how these televangelists are responsible for you forsaking your political beliefs. Nobody appointed Robertson or Dobson as head honcho in charge of the Religious Right.

 

[Immanuel]

I think you're generalizing to let yourself off the hook. I've seen all of the televangelists you mention, and I don't know how you figure most of them have "lost the Gospel" or focus too much on politics. If anything, perhaps they're guilty of trying to relate the Gospel to things that are relevant in people's lives, i.e. politics. I've never heard Joel Osteen curse, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there, and I'm not sure what you mean by "beating sinners to despair" with the law. Lastly, I'm not sure how these televangelists are responsible for you forsaking your political beliefs. Nobody appointed Robertson or Dobson as head honcho in charge of the Religious Right.

I understand what you are saying there, but let me clarify somethings:

1) I didn't say Joel Olsteen cursed. I said that he mentions Jesus Christ as often as Jesse Jackson who only mentions Jesus Christ as often as he curses. I've heard Jesse Jackson mention Jesus Christ twice and bot times were a curse.

2) Joel Olsteen does not preach the Gospel. Joel Olsteen is a salesman who preaches prosperity theology meaning "send money to me and you will be fulfilled".

3) I used to like both Pat Robertson and Dr. Dobson especially Dr. Dobson, but both have sold out to the world of politics. They don't speak God's Word anymore they speak praises of the Republican Party. Pat Robertson is especailly guilty of condemning people, such as homosexuals, and leaving them without any hope of salvation.

4) Are they really the Head Honchos of people of Faith? No, but they are the voices of the religious right and until people of faith speak out against their errors, they will be the only voice of people of faith.

5) about beating sinners to despair, let me just say this, that Pat Robertson is famous for condemning the homosexual or the pro-choice movement yet leaving them without any hope of turning to God for their salvation. He condemns yet leaves them feeling that people of faith despise them because they happen to be sinners. Guess what, I too am a sinner! I am not a homosexual, but I have committed sins against God that are just as wrong as the sins committed by homosexuals and if the homosexual is without hope of salvation then so, too, am I.

In my opinion, they all preach the law yet forget the true message of the word of God:

Ephesians 2:8-9

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Without God's Grace, I am without hope.

I am embarrassed that TV evangelists have gotten the Law part, yet cannot offer the Gospel part to those that are in need of it the most.

Immie

 

[garyd]

SC many would be about 5% of voters for give me if I'd prefer to have the votes of the Forty percent over the votes of the five percent. That's what I meant about basic math Most of which by the way would jsut find aome other reason to vote democrat if there were no social conservatives.


Oh and what if logic and reason arrive at those self same concrete preordained ideals?

 

[SenseCommon]

Oh and what if logic and reason arrive at those self same concrete preordained ideals?

What if you got AIDS from eating carrots?

 

[Gunny]

I'm interested in hearing from some of the rational conservatives here. It's no secret that I hang to the left, but I also believe that competition is good. And as long as the Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, anti-intellectual, irrationalist, and/or theocractic fringe are the movers and shakers of the Republican party, I can't see them as a viable alternative to the Democratic party.

So my question is to the more rational conservatives who I recognize are present here and in the general public. The conservatives who are not anti-evolution, obsessed with abortion, spouting over-the-top conspiracy theories, and who can debate on the merits of an idea rather than make-up patently false assertions are my target.

What comes next for you and the Republican party? Do you have any ideas how to regain control? Do you think the GOP should be conceded and another party become home for rational conservatives? What if the Democratic party officially split into Conservative Democrats and Liberal Democrats? (which seems possible these days). Would any of you consider joining a separate Conservative Democrat Party? Should you try to make the Libertarian party a viable national party?

I'm asking with sincerity. I consider it to my advantage if rational people control the opposition. After all, I don't like to think that if the party I generally support loses, then the country could have a Sarah Palin as president. I may frequently support the Democrat party, but I don't appreciate feeling like I have to support them because the alternative is so out of touch.

You better hope the GOP doesn't come up with a plan they can sell the majority of conservatives. A splintered GOP is thr only thing keeping any Dems in office.

 

[Dis]

I may frequently support the Democrat party, but I don't appreciate feeling like I have to support them because the alternative is so out of touch.

I ay frequently support the Republican party, but I don't appreciate feeling like I have to support them because the alternative is so out of touch.

 

[Qball]

I think you're generalizing to let yourself off the hook. I've seen all of the televangelists you mention, and I don't know how you figure most of them have "lost the Gospel" or focus too much on politics. If anything, perhaps they're guilty of trying to relate the Gospel to things that are relevant in people's lives, i.e. politics. I've never heard Joel Osteen curse, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there, and I'm not sure what you mean by "beating sinners to despair" with the law. Lastly, I'm not sure how these televangelists are responsible for you forsaking your political beliefs. Nobody appointed Robertson or Dobson as head honcho in charge of the Religious Right.

I understand what you are saying there, but let me clarify somethings:

1) I didn't say Joel Olsteen cursed. I said that he mentions Jesus Christ as often as Jesse Jackson who only mentions Jesus Christ as often as he curses. I've heard Jesse Jackson mention Jesus Christ twice and bot times were a curse.

2) Joel Olsteen does not preach the Gospel. Joel Olsteen is a salesman who preaches prosperity theology meaning "send money to me and you will be fulfilled".

3) I used to like both Pat Robertson and Dr. Dobson especially Dr. Dobson, but both have sold out to the world of politics. They don't speak God's Word anymore they speak praises of the Republican Party. Pat Robertson is especailly guilty of condemning people, such as homosexuals, and leaving them without any hope of salvation.

4) Are they really the Head Honchos of people of Faith? No, but they are the voices of the religious right and until people of faith speak out against their errors, they will be the only voice of people of faith.

5) about beating sinners to despair, let me just say this, that Pat Robertson is famous for condemning the homosexual or the pro-choice movement yet leaving them without any hope of turning to God for their salvation. He condemns yet leaves them feeling that people of faith despise them because they happen to be sinners. Guess what, I too am a sinner! I am not a homosexual, but I have committed sins against God that are just as wrong as the sins committed by homosexuals and if the homosexual is without hope of salvation then so, too, am I.

In my opinion, they all preach the law yet forget the true message of the word of God:

Ephesians 2:8-9

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Without God's Grace, I am without hope.

I am embarrassed that TV evangelists have gotten the Law part, yet cannot offer the Gospel part to those that are in need of it the most.

Immie

1. Oh, OK. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

2. Uh, OK? What does that have to do with you and the Religious Right?

3. So you're saying all Pat Robertson does is sit around and compliment the Republican Party? I think you know that's not true even most of the time. I have no doubt that he's in the tank for them politically, but he doesn't have to sit there and read Scripture the entire time, either. To understand the Gospel, you have to draw on examples in life. Politics is just one of those examples, and don't say that's the only one he ever uses, because we both know that's not true.

4. No offense, but I'm sick to death of this "so-and-so needs to speak out against so-and-so". Please. How about you have enough intellectual curiosity to seek out varying opinions instead of expecting life to just throw them at you? Liberals (and I'm not assuming you are or you aren't, just giving an example) do this all the time with conservatives: they only pay attention to the handful of people they trust will make outlandish statements, and then base their opinions about the entirety of conservatism based on those small handful of people. Then, when someone mentions that there's more to us than that, they start with that "well then you guys need to speak out and stop letting them speak for you" crap, as if it's our responsibility to monitor what other adults who have mouths and brains in their heads said. Get real. You can only take care of yourself. You might identify with people for some reasons or whatever, but elected officials and people who have a soapbox aren't the same thing. Pundits and televangelists don't "represent" me. They don't represent you.

5. Again, I get the feeling you're generalizing. I don't think it's smart to assume that someone as old as Pat Robertson, who's been around as long as he has, only condemns sinners and never gives them any hope for salvation. We're not talking about Fred Phelps. On the other hand, as many times as the media (and in particular, the gays) have taken his words out of context and lobbed insults at him over being publicly religious, well, maybe he has a certain ire against the institutionalizing of something he finds sinful, more than him seeing no reason to remind them that salvation exists for everyone guilty of any sin. But I've seen it time and time again how people will base the merciful aspects of the Gospel on its political manifestation. Because people like Dobson and Robertson are against stuff like abortion and gay marriage, people figure they're judgmental homophobes. They don't get the whole story, because they don't care about the whole story.

 

[Bfgrn]

Fuck you, eat shit, and die.
Thanks for playing.

Great response! You're only proving the point of the OP.

The "point" of the OP was to look for Republicans who will think like Olympia Snowe. Those people don't win national elections. When I pointed out how the GOP won national elections the response was immediately to denigrate those achievements and pretend they didnt exist. There is no arguing with someone like that.
And your sig line comes from Rep Steve Cohen of Memphis. You might want to credit him. If someone said it earlier than him I dont know.

Move FARTHER right pea brains...

BTW, have an adult help you cross the street, so you don't get creamed by the oncoming demographics semi... LOL

 

[Immanuel]

1. Oh, OK. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No problem. I hope I clarified what I meant to say.

2. Uh, OK? What does that have to do with you and the Religious Right?

It is the attitude that the "Religious Right" has taken. I don't see the Love of Christ coming out of the right any longer. I see hatred and nothing but hatred for anyone that does not send money to their particular organization. I see greed, corruption and downright dishonesty.

3. So you're saying all Pat Robertson does is sit around and compliment the Republican Party? I think you know that's not true even most of the time. I have no doubt that he's in the tank for them politically, but he doesn't have to sit there and read Scripture the entire time, either. To understand the Gospel, you have to draw on examples in life. Politics is just one of those examples, and don't say that's the only one he ever uses, because we both know that's not true.

No, I am saying that the only thing that matters to Pat Robertson IS politics, power and the Republican Party. I am saying that his fame and fortune have corrupted him. He should have stayed out of politics. That is not to say that he should not have had his say, but rather that when he got into politics, he too was corrupted by the lust for power.

4. No offense, but I'm sick to death of this "so-and-so needs to speak out against so-and-so". Please. How about you have enough intellectual curiosity to seek out varying opinions instead of expecting life to just throw them at you? Liberals (and I'm not assuming you are or you aren't, just giving an example) do this all the time with conservatives: they only pay attention to the handful of people they trust will make outlandish statements, and then base their opinions about the entirety of conservatism based on those small handful of people. Then, when someone mentions that there's more to us than that, they start with that "well then you guys need to speak out and stop letting them speak for you" crap, as if it's our responsibility to monitor what other adults who have mouths and brains in their heads said. Get real. You can only take care of yourself. You might identify with people for some reasons or whatever, but elected officials and people who have a soapbox aren't the same thing. Pundits and televangelists don't "represent" me. They don't represent you.

Please explain that to them.

I think that we do need to speak out. I think people of faith need to point out to them where they have lost the message.

Let me put it like this, the way I see the Pat Robertson's of the world today is as the Pharisee's of Christ's day. They point at themselves as being perfect men of God and people we should all aspire to be. They use the law to make people be like them, yet they have lost track of what Christ came to earth to accomplish... the forgiveness of sins through his own blood.

5. Again, I get the feeling you're generalizing. I don't think it's smart to assume that someone as old as Pat Robertson, who's been around as long as he has, only condemns sinners and never gives them any hope for salvation. We're not talking about Fred Phelps. On the other hand, as many times as the media (and in particular, the gays) have taken his words out of context and lobbed insults at him over being publicly religious, well, maybe he has a certain ire against the institutionalizing of something he finds sinful, more than him seeing no reason to remind them that salvation exists for everyone guilty of any sin. But I've seen it time and time again how people will base the merciful aspects of the Gospel on its political manifestation. Because people like Dobson and Robertson are against stuff like abortion and gay marriage, people figure they're judgmental homophobes. They don't get the whole story, because they don't care about the whole story.

Generalizing? Maybe.

If you know of a Televangelist that is worthy of mention in his/her efforts to further the word of God, please point him out. I'd be interested in learning about them.

I can grant you your point about them being taken out of context and the anger that they may have felt. The Prophets of old went through the same issues.

Did I call either one of them judgmental homophobes? Judgmental probably, but homophobes? I don't think so.

James Dobson used to be one of my favorites. Everyday I listened to Focus on the Family and Family News in Focus. But then he changed. His message changed. It changed from one of love and concern for the people to condemnation of the people and the government of the United States because of the abortion issue. I'd like nothing more than to see the complete end of all abortions worldwide, but that goal will not be accomplished by telling doctors, mothers and anyone else involved in the abortion industry that they are bound for Hell and have no hope of forgiveness.

The Pharisees of Christ's times tried just that. They were better than all those sinners and Christ rebuked them. If Christ were here today, he would do so again.

You appear to be a person of faith by your response to me. I have no idea how much you listen to these people, but since you are a person of faith, I'd ask you to listen to them critically for a change. Listen to what they say with God's Word in your heart. Don't let them preach to you and just accept what they say. Listen to what they say and see if it fits with God's Word and remember just because they quote a few Bible verses does not mean they are spreading the Gospel. I am not comparing them to Satan, but even Satan quoted verses from Scripture.

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

Logical reasoning and rational thought.

Please go out and experience life. You will find out in short order that not 5% of the human experience can be explained by logical reasoning or rational thought. Greater minds than any on this board have ended up in asylums trying to fit their existence into a logical, reasonable framework.

Sometimes it's just the shred of hope that maybe logical reasoning and rational thought is a possibility, in which people want. A realm where logical reasoning and rational thought can survive, is much better than a realm where concrete preordained ideals can be justified as legitimate.

It's not perfect. But it's a step in the right direction.

A step in the right direction would be for you to realize that you just posted this as one of those concrete, preordained ideals you just got done abhorring, instead of the matter of personal opinion (yours) that it actually is.

Children and the emotionally immature are so damned funny. They should really go out and take over the world now while they still know everything, before they grow up and realize that obnoxious arrogance was masquerading as knowledge and brilliance after all.

 

[SenseCommon]

Logical reasoning and rational thought.

Please go out and experience life. You will find out in short order that not 5% of the human experience can be explained by logical reasoning or rational thought. Greater minds than any on this board have ended up in asylums trying to fit their existence into a logical, reasonable framework.

Sometimes it's just the shred of hope that maybe logical reasoning and rational thought is a possibility, in which people want. A realm where logical reasoning and rational thought can survive, is much better than a realm where concrete preordained ideals can be justified as legitimate.

It's not perfect. But it's a step in the right direction.

A step in the right direction would be for you to realize that you just posted this as one of those concrete, preordained ideals you just got done abhorring, instead of the matter of personal opinion (yours) that it actually is.

Children and the emotionally immature are so damned funny. They should really go out and take over the world now while they still know everything, before they grow up and realize that obnoxious arrogance was masquerading as knowledge and brilliance after all.

Are you going to say anything that makes sense yet? Or are you simply going to continue to make excuses for how ridiculous the religious Right makes the Republicans look?

When you give your answer, make sure to quote the passage you got it from.

Boom!

 

[eots]

I'm interested in hearing from some of the rational conservatives here. It's no secret that I hang to the left, but I also believe that competition is good. And as long as the Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, anti-intellectual, irrationalist, and/or theocractic fringe are the movers and shakers of the Republican party, I can't see them as a viable alternative to the Democratic party.

So my question is to the more rational conservatives who I recognize are present here and in the general public. The conservatives who are not anti-evolution, obsessed with abortion, spouting over-the-top conspiracy theories, and who can debate on the merits of an idea rather than make-up patently false assertions are my target.

What comes next for you and the Republican party? Do you have any ideas how to regain control? Do you think the GOP should be conceded and another party become home for rational conservatives? What if the Democratic party officially split into Conservative Democrats and Liberal Democrats? (which seems possible these days). Would any of you consider joining a separate Conservative Democrat Party? Should you try to make the Libertarian party a viable national party?

I'm asking with sincerity. I consider it to my advantage if rational people control the opposition. After all, I don't like to think that if the party I generally support loses, then the country could have a Sarah Palin as president. I may frequently support the Democrat party, but I don't appreciate feeling like I have to support them because the alternative is so out of touch.

Obama's record on firearms triggers run on sales in state


GRAND JUNCTION — John Faulkner and his wife, Brenda, thought Wednesday was a good day to buy a handgun.

"I'm 37 years old, and this is the first time in my life that I am really scared for our future," said Faulkner, an oil field worker, as he perused the collection of weaponry in A Pawn Shop here.

At Aurora's Firing Line gun shop, Steve Wickham was also purchasing. "Anything I can get my hands on," he said as he cradled a $699 9mm handgun.

Same thing in Lakewood: "I was selling guns before I even opened the door," said George Horne, owner of The Gun Room. "It's gone completely mad. Everyone is buying everything I've got on the shelves. Sales have been crazy."

Obama's record on firearms triggers run on sales in state - The Denver Post

 

[Qball]

1. Oh, OK. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No problem. I hope I clarified what I meant to say.

2. Uh, OK? What does that have to do with you and the Religious Right?

It is the attitude that the "Religious Right" has taken. I don't see the Love of Christ coming out of the right any longer. I see hatred and nothing but hatred for anyone that does not send money to their particular organization. I see greed, corruption and downright dishonesty.

Another generalization. I'd say this is more of an issue with you than the Religious Right.

No, I am saying that the only thing that matters to Pat Robertson IS politics, power and the Republican Party. I am saying that his fame and fortune have corrupted him. He should have stayed out of politics. That is not to say that he should not have had his say, but rather that when he got into politics, he too was corrupted by the lust for power

This just sounds like a list of accusations. Where are you getting this from?

4. No offense, but I'm sick to death of this "so-and-so needs to speak out against so-and-so". Please. How about you have enough intellectual curiosity to seek out varying opinions instead of expecting life to just throw them at you? Liberals (and I'm not assuming you are or you aren't, just giving an example) do this all the time with conservatives: they only pay attention to the handful of people they trust will make outlandish statements, and then base their opinions about the entirety of conservatism based on those small handful of people. Then, when someone mentions that there's more to us than that, they start with that "well then you guys need to speak out and stop letting them speak for you" crap, as if it's our responsibility to monitor what other adults who have mouths and brains in their heads said. Get real. You can only take care of yourself. You might identify with people for some reasons or whatever, but elected officials and people who have a soapbox aren't the same thing. Pundits and televangelists don't "represent" me. They don't represent you.

Please explain that to them.

I think that we do need to speak out. I think people of faith need to point out to them where they have lost the message.

Let me put it like this, the way I see the Pat Robertson's of the world today is as the Pharisee's of Christ's day. They point at themselves as being perfect men of God and people we should all aspire to be. They use the law to make people be like them, yet they have lost track of what Christ came to earth to accomplish... the forgiveness of sins through his own blood.

Again: where are you getting this from? Exactly what do you think Pat Robertson owes you, me, or anyone else? You can formulate your own opinions instead of "appointing" people to take up the mantle for your causes. There's more of a tendency for the detractors of the Religious Right to put them on a perch just to knock them off, than for these people to appoint themselves as leaders. But that's just my opinion.

5. Again, I get the feeling you're generalizing. I don't think it's smart to assume that someone as old as Pat Robertson, who's been around as long as he has, only condemns sinners and never gives them any hope for salvation. We're not talking about Fred Phelps. On the other hand, as many times as the media (and in particular, the gays) have taken his words out of context and lobbed insults at him over being publicly religious, well, maybe he has a certain ire against the institutionalizing of something he finds sinful, more than him seeing no reason to remind them that salvation exists for everyone guilty of any sin. But I've seen it time and time again how people will base the merciful aspects of the Gospel on its political manifestation. Because people like Dobson and Robertson are against stuff like abortion and gay marriage, people figure they're judgmental homophobes. They don't get the whole story, because they don't care about the whole story.

Generalizing? Maybe.

If you know of a Televangelist that is worthy of mention in his/her efforts to further the word of God, please point him out. I'd be interested in learning about them.

I can grant you your point about them being taken out of context and the anger that they may have felt. The Prophets of old went through the same issues.

Did I call either one of them judgmental homophobes? Judgmental probably, but homophobes? I don't think so.

I wasn't accusing you of calling them homophobes, though I think you have come awfully close without exactly saying that. I was just giving an example.

James Dobson used to be one of my favorites. Everyday I listened to Focus on the Family and Family News in Focus. But then he changed. His message changed. It changed from one of love and concern for the people to condemnation of the people and the government of the United States because of the abortion issue. I'd like nothing more than to see the complete end of all abortions worldwide, but that goal will not be accomplished by telling doctors, mothers and anyone else involved in the abortion industry that they are bound for Hell and have no hope of forgiveness.

...and I seriously doubt that his message ever "changed" to that. There's a point when you have to be compassionate, and there are other times when you have to be firm. Again, there's a tendency among some people of faith to relegate righteousness to second place behind pleasantries or what's "fair"...usually for people who don't concern themselves with that type of moral quandary. Condemning abortion and condemning the reasoning used by those who support it isn't wrong. The way I see it is, the abortion procedure is more barbaric than anything one could say against it.

The Pharisees of Christ's times tried just that. They were better than all those sinners and Christ rebuked them. If Christ were here today, he would do so again.

You appear to be a person of faith by your response to me. I have no idea how much you listen to these people, but since you are a person of faith, I'd ask you to listen to them critically for a change. Listen to what they say with God's Word in your heart. Don't let them preach to you and just accept what they say. Listen to what they say and see if it fits with God's Word and remember just because they quote a few Bible verses does not mean they are spreading the Gospel. I am not comparing them to Satan, but even Satan quoted verses from Scripture.

Immie

I don't simply internalize the things the Robertsons and Dobsons of the world say. I completely understand that their message can be more political than spiritual, and occasionally they give into the combative nature of politics more than they should. But I don't think it's entirely fair to cast aspersions on the Religious Right on the words of a handful of people, popular or not, rich or not, nor do I think it's fair to act as if they're part of the problem because they occasionally step off the pulpit onto the soapbox.

 

[oreo]

I'm interested in hearing from some of the rational conservatives here. It's no secret that I hang to the left, but I also believe that competition is good. And as long as the Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, anti-intellectual, irrationalist, and/or theocractic fringe are the movers and shakers of the Republican party, I can't see them as a viable alternative to the Democratic party.

So my question is to the more rational conservatives who I recognize are present here and in the general public. The conservatives who are not anti-evolution, obsessed with abortion, spouting over-the-top conspiracy theories, and who can debate on the merits of an idea rather than make-up patently false assertions are my target.

What comes next for you and the Republican party? Do you have any ideas how to regain control? Do you think the GOP should be conceded and another party become home for rational conservatives? What if the Democratic party officially split into Conservative Democrats and Liberal Democrats? (which seems possible these days). Would any of you consider joining a separate Conservative Democrat Party? Should you try to make the Libertarian party a viable national party?

I'm asking with sincerity. I consider it to my advantage if rational people control the opposition. After all, I don't like to think that if the party I generally support loses, then the country could have a Sarah Palin as president. I may frequently support the Democrat party, but I don't appreciate feeling like I have to support them because the alternative is so out of touch.

You have a "intellectual--articulate" President who can give "perfectly pronounced speeches" read from a teleprompter. You have elected a President who demands that his press interviews are rehearsed--that all questions from the media are e-mailed to his staff prior to his answer. The reason this administration demands this of the media--is because Barack Obama doesn't have answers--so they need to plug in answers into the teleprompter so he doesn't look like a total idiot in front of the media. You have a President who has gone around the world to apologize for this country & NEVER gives credit to this country for liberating all of Europe--with blood & treasure.

You have a President who Hollywood is so fond of they persuaded the Pulitzer Price committee to award him the Peace Prise for accomplishing absolutely nothing.

So NO--I will take the studdering-the slang--the in-articulate-the real answers--not rehearsed or read from teleprompters--the real people such as Sarah Palin--simply because she in her very short term in the political arena literally demolished corruption in the oil industry & within her own party in Alaska. Barack Obama has not accomplished anything close to that. Yet you voted for him--primarily because of continual glowing coverage from the Obama media networks.

As far as Republicans--they need to get back to their conservative base & STAY there. If they don't do that--after seeing over 1 million Teapartiers in Washington D.C.--then they're just as stupid as this current administration.





"The problem with socialism is that government eventually runs out of other peoples money to spend"---Margaret Thatcher

 

[Bullypulpit]

I'm interested in hearing from some of the rational conservatives here. It's no secret that I hang to the left, but I also believe that competition is good. And as long as the Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, anti-intellectual, irrationalist, and/or theocractic fringe are the movers and shakers of the Republican party, I can't see them as a viable alternative to the Democratic party.

So my question is to the more rational conservatives who I recognize are present here and in the general public. The conservatives who are not anti-evolution, obsessed with abortion, spouting over-the-top conspiracy theories, and who can debate on the merits of an idea rather than make-up patently false assertions are my target.

What comes next for you and the Republican party? Do you have any ideas how to regain control? Do you think the GOP should be conceded and another party become home for rational conservatives? What if the Democratic party officially split into Conservative Democrats and Liberal Democrats? (which seems possible these days). Would any of you consider joining a separate Conservative Democrat Party? Should you try to make the Libertarian party a viable national party?

I'm asking with sincerity. I consider it to my advantage if rational people control the opposition. After all, I don't like to think that if the party I generally support loses, then the country could have a Sarah Palin as president. I may frequently support the Democrat party, but I don't appreciate feeling like I have to support them because the alternative is so out of touch.

"Rational Republicans"...An oxymoron. No such creature currently exists. The last one died when William F. Buckley Jr. died.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't simply internalize the things the Robertsons and Dobsons of the world say. I completely understand that their message can be more political than spiritual, and occasionally they give into the combative nature of politics more than they should. But I don't think it's entirely fair to cast aspersions on the Religious Right on the words of a handful of people, popular or not, rich or not, nor do I think it's fair to act as if they're part of the problem because they occasionally step off the pulpit onto the soapbox.

This whole discussion came about because you asked me why I felt the way I do about the Religious Right. I have done nothing but give you my reasons. The Religious Right has none of the love of Christ left in their message, period!

If they want to speak for me and other Christians, then they should put the Religion... the Faith, back into their message and/or they should be willing to hear our complaints and if they are not going to put the Faith back into their message, they sure as heck should quit sending us mail bragging about all the "good" they are doing and asking us to send every dime we can spare to help them brag some more.

Immie

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

James Dobson used to be one of my favorites. Everyday I listened to Focus on the Family and Family News in Focus. But then he changed. His message changed. It changed from one of love and concern for the people to condemnation of the people and the government of the United States because of the abortion issue. I'd like nothing more than to see the complete end of all abortions worldwide, but that goal will not be accomplished by telling doctors, mothers and anyone else involved in the abortion industry that they are bound for Hell and have no hope of forgiveness.

The Pharisees of Christ's times tried just that. They were better than all those sinners and Christ rebuked them. If Christ were here today, he would do so again.

You appear to be a person of faith by your response to me. I have no idea how much you listen to these people, but since you are a person of faith, I'd ask you to listen to them critically for a change. Listen to what they say with God's Word in your heart. Don't let them preach to you and just accept what they say. Listen to what they say and see if it fits with God's Word and remember just because they quote a few Bible verses does not mean they are spreading the Gospel. I am not comparing them to Satan, but even Satan quoted verses from Scripture.

Immie

Dobson doesn't JUST tell those Doctors, women and abortion advocates that they're going to hell... which they are, if they do no turn from their sin and accept God's grace... He also spends an inordinate amount of time telling them about God's grace.

But there are two sides to God's grace... the side of Grace and the side for those who reject it. One would be remiss to only speak of grace and omit the consequences of such.

You seem to be saying that Dobson's position is judgmental... you seem to be saying that God is not judgmental... and frankly Immie... if that is what you're saying, it's ludicrous.

God is all about the judgment... and the judgment from which there is no escape. One can rationalize around their behavior all day, every day... one may even enjoy the crippling sanctuary of popular cultural opinion; but the simple fact is that there is right and there is wrong and where one rejects the immutable principles... rejects the sacred wisdom inherent in those principles... one IS subject to God's judgment and that is without regard to Dobson investing his time to try and make us aware of it, or not.

Don't be fooled... as such is not an excuse; and I suspect it is the least of them all.

 

[editec]

Republicans want to win?

Try becoming nationalistic instead of interationalistic.

Of course that won't happen no matter what party is in office.

It amazes me that loyal Rs ad Ds still exist.

Niether of those mindsets has a party that represents what either of them believe.