RightFaith Clouds military

Welcome To RightFaith
I Enjoyed Writing These
RightFaith BlogRoll

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Republicans Further Alienate Conservatives


How can the Republican Party further alienate itself from its conservative based?

[Here I attempted to find a modest picture of the answer but quickly realized my futility.] So, click here. My extreme disappointment in the Republican party is matched only by my distaste of the Democrat party.

Recently, I found out that a friend from college (my conservative, evangelical Christian college) was a blogger. A great guy; we served together on many committees. Last I heard he went to law school. But, as I perused his site I noticed a link to the Democratic Leadership Council. Examining closer, I saw enough to conclude, I have Christian friend who is a democrat.

I was obfuscated--deeply confused.

The inherent contradictions plagued my mind for days. What about abortion, euthanasia, and other life issues? Didn't he consider the DLC position on homosexual marriage and an unrestrained freedom to pursue licentiousness without responsibility? No doubt he was an intelligent guy, but I was perplexed...

...until I heard a sermon by Tony Evans (my favorite preacher heard here everday). He said that there are many Christians who are Democrats because they believe that Democrats more closely serve the social needs of society; serving the people being a biblical mandate. There many Christians who are Republicans because they believe that the Republican party will more closely vote in line with their social values. Despite the differences, God tells us to love one another. Not only so, but to consider others more highly than we consider ourselves.

Once I recovered, I began to consider my good friend's perspective (as I read about it on his blog) and realized that maybe I won't gather the church councils to condemn his heresy just yet. I agree with him that the church indeed has a responsibility to address the needs of the poor among us. We do have a responsibility to care for the homeless, widows, and orphans. Is the DLC the better party to do this? If so, does this outweigh the need to support legislators who more closely align with my conservative social values?

I haven't had to vote for any party just yet but don't anticipate a change; however, if the RNC keeps screwing up and fails to represent the conservative social needs of 'values voters', I foresee a third party endorsement.

It's possible that she was simply accepting an invitation to dinner. However, if the RNC plans to make Jessica Simpson their playboy bunny, well, bring on the third party.

Thoughtful Readers Speak:
Oh, that's nothing. If you'll recall, at some point last year Fox News was speculating that JS was going to release a Christian album...
Another blogger, sorry I can't remember who, suggested that we start another party and call it the CSP, Common Sense Party. Good idea.
JR, to be honest I always get a bit tickled when a Republican seems surprised that there are Christians who are Democrats. I am a Christian and I am a Democrat. I grew up in church and come from a long line of Democrats who are Christians. Most of the Democrats I know are Christians. Bill Clinton, a conservative, is a Democrat. Jimmy Carter was the first evangelical president and he is a Democrat. Most of the Democrats that have been president have been Christians.

Also, not all Democrats support gay marriage or abortion. Just like many of us are against the death penalty as well. I support Democrats for Life and People of Faith Against the Death Penalty. But, the Republican party does not speak for me ... especially in regards to social issues such as poverty, health care, child welfare, etc. Those who consider themselves "conservatives" don't speak for me because I just can't sit around and vilify gay people or welfare recipients like they are the enemy. I believe we are to care for the poor and gay people are no better or worse than anyone else. The last time I checked, my Bible says that if you commit one sin you have committed them all and that we all sin and fall short.

All of my life, Republicans and Democrats were never distinquished by which were Christians. It was always race and economic status. Republicans tended to be more wealthy and Democrats tended to be more blue collar and had a disportionate amount of black supporters ... which was probably due to that economic status thingie. :)

Actually, I am curious to know when all this "Democrats can't be Christians" mentality began. I wasn't even aware of it until a few years ago. Where I live, you just don't hear that kind of thing. People would look at you like you were nuts if you even broached the subject. And, the preachers ... oh, if you even tried to say something like that in church ... well, it would be on. :)
I gotta tell you J.R.. I agree with you. Bring on the third party!

I'm in my 60's and I have been a Republican since I registered the first time at 21 years of age. I've been a Christian since the age of nine.

I'm Lutheran. Non-practicing, I might add, as my church was hi-jacked by the liberals and is now verging on apostacy. The church has accepted and, not only supports the Democrat Party's agenda, but actively lobbies Congress in support of those Democrat ideals.

My two best friends are Democrats. One a liberal Democrat, the other a conservative Democrat. (Yes, the Carolinas still have Conservative Democrats!) One is a minister and the other, a retired person, like myself. Both those men follow the scriptures as God gives them the light to do so. So do I, but, not as well as I should.

I left my church because I felt very much as Martin Luther when he stated he would not recant and said: "Here I stand. I can do no other, May God help me, Amen"!

That is "pretty much" where I find myself with my church... and... with my political party.

The church went places I could not go due to my religious belief and the Democrat Party has gone places my religious convictions will not allow me to go. The Republican Party has come very close to crossing that line, and, may do so at any time. I will begin a search for a new party as soon as they cross that line.

I have advocated a new "Conservative Party" for some time now. Hopefully, such a party would draw the conservatives from the Democrat and Republican parties and become, quickly, a national player, and a powerful one, at that.

Our Republican leaders have demonstrated they either cannot govern, or, are too weak to provide strong leadership in the Congress. As a result, many, if not most, of the Conservatives are heart sick and, to say we are disappoinrted is an understatement.

This bodes ill for the Republican candidates in November. Many of us are going to stay home, or cast a protest vote. I intend, at this point, to cast a protest vote. It would not be necessary if the Republican Party would respond to it's base. But, for whatever reason, they cannot, or will not.

J.R., I have concluded we still have too many "Blue-Bloods" and "Country Club Republicans" in the leadership of the Republican Party. We need a purge in order to save it. If not a purge of the leadeship, then, there will be a purge of the constituents because we are fed-up and are looking for a place to go.
Well said, Angel. I come from a very socially conservative place where it is perfectly normal to be harassed if you're gay, non-Christian, and/or non-white. So the idea that conservatives have the monopoly on morality and values is laughable to me.
Also? "Obfuscated" doesn't mean "confused", in the sense of being unsure, puzzled, unable to think clearly. It means "concealed", as in hidden or occluded.
obfuscated is the transitive verb form derived from the latin--more accurately Old Church Slavonic-- past participle obfuscare meaning "to put a brown color in the way of" thus, it has the meaning you indicate; yet, its etymology like other words from 14th century latin has evolved over time (who says I'm not an evolutionist), has come to also mean "to be made obscure". Thus, while maintaining its transitive root, it includes the fuller meaning as well

did you really want to talk about word meanings?
Here's a thought about the social agenda of the Democratic and Republican parties which includes addressing justice issues around poverty as well as abortion and homosexuality: they are two sides of a continuum (please don't comment on spelling or word meaning). One seems to believe that personal comfort at all costs is the highest good. The other seems to believe in a roughed individualism that favors the rich no matter what the consequence to the populus. I believe in neither over-indulgence nor in strict self determinism. Is there a middle ground (certainly not the flavor of "moderate" which politicians of both persuasions are flocking to occupy.) We need to structure social policies in a different way: not a mind set to 'give all' for personal comfort at taxpayer expense nor 'make it or break' it in this 'land of opportunity.' There are among us the disadvantaged who are crippled in their VISION by oppression and
governmental policies. How can we offer opportunity in exchange for responsibility and accountability, while building dignity, personal achievement, self esteem and hope?
Post a Comment

<< Home
RIGHTFAITH: Where everything favors the stewardship of patrimony. All content is believed to be correct but may be amended based upon new information. The content of this page may be republished with proper citation without the expressed consent of the author. This site is not, in any manner whatsoever, associated with the religious philosophism from the Indian penninsula. All comments or emails to the author become the property of the author and may be published or deleted without notice or reason provided. Copyrighted 2005.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Social Conservative Action Centers

Web Blog Pinging Service

Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!
GOP Bloggers