Understanding, Accepting, and Finally Celebrating The Conservative Chessboard
Ann Coulter zaps Naomi Wolf with one of her satirical bolts
Yesterday David Horowitz had a post in which he disagreed with David Frum about the importance of the contribution of figures like Glenn Beck to the conservative cause.
In a piece titled “GOP Surrenders to Beck’s Mob Rule” at New Majority, Frum took issue with Beck’s characterization of Cass Sunstein, the recently confirmed director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. (Apparently Frum knows Sunstein personally and points out quite legitimately that while one might take issue with some of Sunstein’s ideas we’re not dealing with another Van Jones here.)
Frum concludes:
We conservatives are submitting our movement to some of the most unscrupulous people in American life. This submission disgraces conservatism, discredits Republicans, and damages the country. It’s beyond time for conservatives who know better to join us at NewMajority in emancipating ourselves from leadership by the most stupid, the most cynical, and the most truthless.
Horowitz confronted Frum’s call to drum Beck-style conservatives out of the movement:
My real quarrel with Frum is that he denigrates Beck (“mob rule” indeed) and expresses the hope that Beck will soon be gone. This is more than over the top on Frum’s part. It is a betrayal of the conservative cause (much as his unseemly attack on Limbaugh was, too). Without voices like Beck’s and Limbaugh’s — and Ann Coulter’s for that matter — the conservative cause and the cause of this country would be hugely damaged. On the other hand, if Frum’s website were to fold, nobody would notice. (And let me add this: the insinuation that Glenn Beck is one of the most unscrupulous people in American life is an outrageous, even psychotic statement worthy of Ward Churchill or Cynthia McKinney — to put the characterization in its proper perspective. And to put it further in perspective I don’t recall an instance where David Frum ever defended a conservative with the ferocity with which he now defends Cass Sunstein.)
I sympathize with Frum’s concern about some of the sharper-edged, aggressive voices on the Right. Like Frum I tend to consider myself something of a centrist conservative and find myself bristling at some (though hardly all) of the more aggressive rhetoric of many voices on the Right. (Including occasionally some of my colleagues at NewsReal and FrontPage who I cherish and respect as dear friends and allies.)
But I still edit and strongly encourage NewsReal’s more intense bloggers and ultimately support Beck, Limbaugh, and especially Coulter. Now why is that? How could I support people who I disagree with sometimes?
Answer: Because every piece on the Conservative Chessboard has its role and its value.
The ideological, political war in this country is basically a chess match between the Left and the Right. Beck and Frum are different pieces with different styles and abilities. Beck, Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, most of Fox News, and most of talk radio constitute our side’s Rooks. They are strong, fast, blunt, effective (at what they do) and aggressive. They are tremendously valuable pieces in the game.
Frum and many other quieter, intellectual conservatives or center-right writers are more akin to our side’s Bishops. They’re not quite as valuable and effective as the rooks but they still provide an elegance and sophistication that is necessary in the defense of America. They do things that the rooks cannot do.
(And by now no one should be wondering where Coulter fits in. She exhibits both the aggressiveness of the rook and the intellectualism of the bishop. As I’ve stated before, she’s our queen — the most valuable piece on the board.)
The King of the Right is not an individual. It’s the American Idea — the one idea that all pieces are working together in their different ways to defend.
Now if we are to be successful in preventing the Left from checkmating our King then all the pieces must be working together and supporting one another — which does include correcting one another when one piece goes too far or another does not go far enough. The founders’ concept of checks and balances is one of the ideas that has held this country together. Keeping this mentality in mind will work for the Right too.
(And all this said, I still maintain that the Right should separate itself from the kooks — those that embrace conspiracist, racist, anti-Semitic, and downright ugly ideas.)
Naomi Wolf
For an example of the different pieces working together just consider the Wolf-Chesler battle. Jamie Glazov, John Perazzo, Robert Spencer, and David Horowitz deliver their aggressive intellectual rebuttals. Coulter shoots off her satirical lightning bolts. And I send out friendly emails to leftist feminists encouraging them to enter the debate. (Including Wolf who has ignored my invitations for space at NewsReal to answer these rebuttals.) Now all that’s necessary is for one of the Right’s rooks to get in on the story and shoot it out into the talk radio or Fox News world.
That’s about as far as I’ve gotten with my chessboard analogy. Who we cast as the Knights and the Pawns is something I open up for discussion. (Sometimes I wonder if we Generation Y conservatives might be somewhat Knight-like in the way we move. We might not yet have the reach and strength of the Boomer and Gen-X rooks and bishops but we can jump over many of the ideological stereotypes and problems of those that came before us.)
I wonder what Frum would think. And, now that I’ve described Coulter/Beck/Limbaugh in this fashion, would he be so eager to throw away our queen and our rooks when the Left sure as hell isn’t going to discard any of their power players? Does he really want to disarm America as the radical assault increases in intensity?
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
- Steynian 383 « Free Canuckistan!
- Salon Screeches Intellectual Ad Hominems in Smear of Beck, Horowitz, and Conservatism « NewsReal Blog
- Ron Radosh Brings His Calm, Even-handed Erudition to the Frum/Horowitz/Beck Debate « NewsReal Blog
- The Conservative Chessboard « Calvin Freiburger Online
- Generation Y Conservatism « Calvin Freiburger Online
- Terry Krepel Accidentally Confesses That Media Matters Smeared Glenn Beck « NewsReal Blog
- Ann Coulter: Retreat in Afghanistan? « NewsReal Blog
- NewsReal Vs. David Frum « NewsReal Blog
What about Steven Crowder and Alfonzo Rachel as examples of Conservative Knights? Both are young, energetic, adept in using humor to make their points, and understand the importance of using the ‘Net to connect with their audience.
Better Ann Coulter as queen on our side than Barney Frank on theirs!
Great analogy! Thanks for seeing the importance of the Becks of this world. We “the people” have been stirred ….by the actions of this administration…to no longer remain SILENT. Mr. Beck has been a source of information to spur us to peaceabley…get rid of the corruption that is DC. Let no one tell you any different …this is peacful. Politicans need to be remind who they work for. WE THE PEOPLE!
2010….let’s clear out as many as we can…replace them with people of character….I don’t care what their party! Integrity is a must.
Lovely article. Well said.
Thoroughly enjoyed the article; I will find myself looking for the Knight and pawns! Where is Fox news in your analogy?
Fox News is pretty much a TV-equivalent of talk radio. So most of its major personalities fit into the role of rooks. Though they’ll often have bishops on as well.
Frum is a lib trying to mislead and derail conservatism. Won’t work, we’re not libs!
Love the analogy. Mr. Frum seems to be listening to the Democrats and their crew when it comes to what Republicans or Conservatives need to be doing. Whydo so many people on the right think we need to do what the left sees as the best strategy for us? Does anyone really think the left understands or has the right’s best interest in mind when they wonder outloud who the leader of the right is?
Because those folks on the right may be right of center but they’re not conservatives. We know what we stand for, what is right and what is wrong. If you one thinks by listening to some Marxist their going to gain some insight into what Republicans should do, they’re hopeless and should be bypassed. Conservatism is the constant application of Judeo-Christian values.
We’re at war, a civil civil war between people with Judeo-Christian Values and marxist-leninists whose only morality is defined by whatever will advance their depraved ideology. This is a battle between good versus evil.
Great analogy, David!
Let’s all remember, though, the diffence between the stakes that we are playing with now, and those of a simple game of chess.
David’s analogy is apt. What we need is a general, though. No war can be won without one. We need to take the insinuations of “astroturf” and make it real. No war was one without organizing.
On a little not-too-aside,
We need to take insinuations of “rightwing extremists” and “religious right” and wear them as badge of honors. The biggest weapon the left has against us is that we are scared of being called what we are not. Right strategy at this particular point in time is—don’t let the enemy scare you by his name-calling. Neutralize it. By saying proudly. “Astroturf”? Tell the enemy with a Colgate Smile, “Thanks for the great tip. We will build the greatest astroturf in history.” And then do it. “Special Intersts”? Sure, we are specially intersted in individual rights, and defeating you Leftist nuts. “Corporate Intersts”? Of course. We love corporations—who don’t come begging to us to be saved themselves when they fail. “Partisan Interests”? Absolutely. That’s why it is called war. “You call our president liar … protocol …” Sure thing. *Someone* had to do it.
We are glad Joe Wilson did it. Any questions?
A Berkeleyite self-styled “communist” cousin revealed a very basic truth to me about the left. When i was trying to offer her reasons why communism is evil, she threw up her hands and said, “You are so full of yourself!” Not argue her case. But call me names. I told her, “Did you expect me to be full of *your* self? Indeed, i am full of myself, unless you can give me an argument to do otherwise.” Naturally, i haven’t heard from her in 16 years.
If we can not even call a liar a liar, how are we going to win a war against an enemy so entrenched?
Do not engage the enemy on his terms. Stop trying to appease or argue with him. Never has worked. Never will. Call him what he is. The most insidious evil that ever was. And fight him.
The philosophical rift exists more within the ranks of the conservatives, than it does between the right and the left.
America was founded upon a Christian cultural outlook. The founders never visualized the sort of society we have today. They presupposed a Eurocentric, homogenous culture where only whites would be full citizens and Christianity was the primary cultural influence. Religion was not to be mandated by the state, and no self-respecting Protestant would have tolerated that condition. Yet America was clearly envisioned to be Christian in nature, as confirmed by the Supreme Court for much of our existence.
Conservatism needs to be redefined, I suppose, to carry a more libertarian, secularist stance toward what David described. Christian theists and secular conservatives clearly cannot work together for much longer, if even now, within the GOP. Personally, I think the GOP will be the Libertarian party within 10 more years. Christian conservatives need to split off and form their own party to seek that moral America of the 19th century.
The effects of 40 plus years of liberalization of education has clearly taken its tole on country. We live in a world now where many American “conservatives” are more culturally Marxist in practice than Lenin was.
Communication is almost too instantaneous these days. Many respondents seem to send messages without the proper thought and evaluation before spreading their ideas to the waiting public, who are ready to pounce on each statement. Everyone of the fifty states of our Nation have acknowledged in their constitution’s preample allegience to our creator in some form of honor to our God. That should be a signal to all citizens to honestly consider what the founders of our Great Nation had in mind in the Freedoms that they desired and wanted imbedded into the basic foundation of our Nation. Oversized government and their unlimited taxable authority have gradually taken most of those Freedoms from us. How sad !
MikeD
I like the chess analogy. We do need all of the different pieces/players. I accept David as our General. What is our plan of action? Short term and long term. Do we need a leader? Who? I found MoveOn’s book at the thrift store. 50 ways to love your country. Great ideas.(What is our MoveOn, Tea Partys?) We seem a little scattered. Also got the Congress at your fingertips directory. Get it at congressatyourfingertips.com
I am calling every Gov. and Sen. in the U.S. and asking them to:
1. investigate and stop funding groups like ACORN.
2. investigate George Soros and his anti-American groups.
3. join with Congressman Dan Boren in stopping the czar situation.
I am at 75 out of 150
People who work can call in the evening and leave messages, no excuses. Do you support The Patrick Henry Caucus? They are trying to get politicians that will bring the power back to the states. Our youth is being indoctrinated in the schools, we need to address this.I am also concerned about the UN, with Pres. Obama being the Chairperson soon, who is watching them? We have a lot to do, lets not lose it in the small stuff.
David,I agree that Conservatives need to come together under “core” principals. My observation of the Obama adminstraion is that have internalized Alinsky’s search out,divide, and destroy approach.Divide and conquer. I am not a political analyst but I see the chaos created coming directly from the White House and it’s supporters. As long as they stir the pot, we cannot organize and effect a change. We must take our eyes off the created chaos and see between the lines. Failure to do so will be fatal to our beliefs. We must enlarge our tent in order to grow the message. There are so many out there that believe in the generosity and goodness of America and of it’s values reinforced over history and the lives of those that went before us. Ghandi had a simple perception of true power and how it is obtained. He believed that a small number of British could not control the huge Indian population is they did not want to be controlled. We must continue to stand our ground, and stand firm in the principles that form our beliefs. However, we must invite and embrace those with “like” philosophy, not necessarily “identical” philosophy.
Looks like we ran out of “Reply”
I hope you take no offense, but is John Rowe the best you have to dispute that the most of the Founding Fathers were not Christians, who believed in the God of the Bible?
What are his credentials? Why would anyone take his word?
Why not look at A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible at: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755
These are factual, not conjecture, like those sited by John Rowe.
I am an aging baby boomer, former feminist, who is very concerned about the direction this administration has already taken. I also find myself in agreement with your new kind of conservatism.
My strongly held Christian views inform my personal life, but do not entitle me to criminalize other citizens’ life decisions. Our national government should never require us to participate in a “true belief!” Political correctness does just that, while blatantly preventing free speech, if it includes opinions regarding morality.
But opinions are not laws. Ultimate judgment of right and wrong will wait. What God requires of man is that he loves mercy, and does justice. If I love mercy, I will care for my neighbor. Justice, not mercy, should be the concern of government.
In Christian terms, we balance grace and law. We should be free to join in association to extend grace to whom we will, not to have government extort our treasure for redistribution.
Laws are required for protection of individual rights, and security. But man was made for freedom, as our founders believed.
Because our founders were men of their time, their thought and philosophy were informed by the world view commonly taught in the universities. If you read the purpose for which they were begun, it was for the furtherance of the gospel. But the Enlightenment also informed their thought.
The Reformation’s call to follow scripture demanded a personal responsibility toward God and our fellowman. The individual stands naked before his creator, and has to acknowledge that only God’s grace, through his son, will save him. If I believe this, my neighbor’s life style will not be my concern. But my personal response to his need will be.
The impulse to right the world’s wrongs is held in common by people of good will on the left and right. The distortion by the left of personal responsibility into corporate guilt requiring extortion is what gives corruption it’s foothold.
A Christian view of the Constitution is consistent with history. But it threatens no one, because there is no requirement of individual citizens to have “right thought,” or correct theology to enjoy it’s protections. In fact, it offers protection to all, of any belief. That
incorporates the individual’s freedom to a right relationship with his creator, to live out in this nation.
David, in response to your use of the four apostles in your comment. It is like placing 4 people on different corners watching the same accident. They all observed the same incident, but came away with different views and perceptions.
Mark Levin’s new book “Liberty & Tyranny” – Chapter 3 = “On Faith & the Founding” discusses this quite well.
He essentially sums it up at the end of the chapter with a quote from Barry Goldwater’s ‘63 acceptance speech:
“those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom”
Something to think about anyway…
If I have to accept your sources, without question, while you ignore those I site, or you’ll stop discussion, then it’s you, David, who is showing your proferred method of debate.
It is you who is condescending, condescending towards Christians. You think that it’s ok for us to support Conservatives, as you decide what that is, but we must leave our beliefs at the door. Yet, you get to bring your beliefs in. In fact, they have to be the beliefs of everyone in the movement, as you define that movement.
I asked a lot of questions, which you ignored. What are your rules for debate?
I’m not willing to let you misrepresent the facts about our Founding Fathers’ faith, and what they said about that faith.
I could be wrong, but your view of Christians seems little different from that of the Left. That may be a problem in with Christians following blindly behind self-proclaimed “Conservatives.”
Sorry, you won’t continue to debate.
Define conservatism, in a way that both secular and religious types can potentially unify on for a starting place of organization?
That’s a tall order. Logically, why not start with healthy societal structures? I’d start with the family unit, since the family is the builder of the individual who then becomes a productive and worthy contributor to the nation. The person is the cell of the nation, but the family is the maker of cells.
There is a great divide between humanist and theist attitudes of the family and the individual in relation to the nation. But societies in all times and all places have placed great value on the family and child rearing for whatever purpose.
Thus, I say that good conservatism in a Constitutional Republic based on free market capitalism starts with adopting this creed:
To foster and nuture the health and welfare of the family unit, in order to foster the health and welfare of the child, is the highest responsibility of government. For out of the family springs all hope of prosperity and blessing for the nation as a whole.
Now, where the problem comes is in defining what a “family” is. And unfortunately, in the current climate of disunity and cultural relativism fostered by Marxist subversion in America… you can’t even define THAT anymore.
That’s why I say that Mukul is absolutely right. There’s only going to be one way to solve this problem, David. For the time being, however, I am going to do my part to foster action…
… by voting for the most leftist candidates out there from now on. It’s a bit of reverse psychology that I think will work. Having seen the success of Obama in rousing the “conservatives” of this country to action, I believe it can only rouse them even more if the country embraces Karl Marx for about 12 more years. I think we should work to see that the 50 percent who pay virtually no taxes now get taxed good and hard. And when conservatives finally see their freedoms and rights taken away, when ALL the country looks like Detroit, maybe we will finally wake up and put a stop to it.
What worries me is that, without a unifying religious culture similar to what we had in 1776, we will not see the America of 1776 ever again.
David,
One thing’s for sure, I’m no intellectual! I drive a truck and work with my hands for a living. I don’t recall my asking you to teach Logic 101, did I miss something or is this sarcasm?
It appears your conservatism is built upon the sand of socialism. Good day sir.
-swathdiver
P.S. We wouldn’t need to worry about the Left “checkmating our King” if the King of the Universe was still our King. That’s the problem with our disarray in conservatism and America as a whole. We’ve surrendered our king already.
Jonathan,
Well, I was a professional Divemaster and 1st Mate aboard a dive boat for a number of years. Thanks for the link to that article. Lost it when my computer crashed and forgot all about it. Just the other day I was reading about Gramsci! This is no coincidence!
Have also noticed the difference in the Navy and Marines of today compared to the 1980s when I was regularly amongst them. There was also a difference between us youngsters and our WW2 veteran mentors, they were tough! As a lifetime member of Proceedings, that publication has also veered left, some of the articles are infuriating!
Ohh David, I came across something last night that pertains to that link you sent me. Reading “Those Red Bears in Clergy Collars” it says those group therapy sessions were begun in the Soviet Union in the 1920s. This link has more detail about it(hat tip Jonathan!): http://www.newtotalitarians.com/WhatIsSensitivityTraining.html
And… Conservatism doesn’t change, doesn’t need changing. It works every time it’s tried. The principals are perfect, it’s we who are not and that’s why it is defined by the constant application of values to situations in life.
Brad Lytle,
I have JD MBA and LLM graduate degrees from Temple University, which makes me more qualified than David Barton to speak on this matter. He has only a Bachelors in Math Education from Oral Roberts University.
I haven’t had a chance to read this thread in detail; I will note though that I do NOT argue most of the FFs are “Deists.” However, it’s also a lie that virtually all of them were “born again Christians.” David Barton deserves the blame for giving winks and nods to evangelical audiences who wish to believe this.
But the slippery character that he is, Barton usually doesn’t come out and say they were all “born again Christians.” Rather he uses terms like “Christians” and “serious Christians.”
I’ve compiled much evidence that demonstrates the key FFs, ministers, and philosophers don’t pass the evangelical test for “Christianity.”
I’ll post the following on the newer thread for Mr. Lytle and others to view.
There is much confusion about the religious beliefs of America’s FFs. While I can’t prove all of them believed like John Adams did, I did see Mr. Lytle invoke Adams for his side. It’s true Adams did think of himself as a “Christian” and promoted “religion and morality” as essential for republican government.
However, I seriously doubt J. Adams could pass Mr. Lytle’s test for “a Christian.” Adams was most certainly NOT a “born again, the Bible is the infallible Word of God” kind of Christian. Rather, he was a Da Vinci Code kind of Christian who mocked the idea that Jesus was God, 2nd person in the Trinity who made an infinite Atonement for man.
Here’s a “taste” of John Adams’ Christianity:
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.â€
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816
I have much more.
Thanks.
How to fight the enemy today?
Civil Disobedience.
1) Tea-Parties should acquire teeth. Stop paying taxes. The enemy’s whole war-chest is funded by us. Stop funding him.
Many of us have salaried jobs and don’t have choice about it. The employer deducts the tax and sends it to the government. If enough number of employers refuse to do it, and enough of us self-employed refuse to pay, flat out, there are not enough prisons in the country to contain all of us. Of course, the enemy can literally mint the money, so it will not completely stop him.
But it will blow huge holes in his supply line—not to mention the sheer magnitude of the political fall-out.
2) Marches on Washington. If enough gather in Washington, we can actually prevent Congress from passing *any* bills, let alone the “Health Care Reform” and “Cap-n-trade”. Then media bickering about how few attended these “fringe right-wing demonstrations” will be a moot point.
3) Challenge the constitutionality of every aspect of the government’s grabbing of power that is going on at an accelerated rate. Build a permanent office in the parking lot of the Supreme Court. Don’t let the enemy rest. Because every time he rests, he comes up with more destructive agendas.
4) We still need a general. Republican party is in total disarray and is busy walking on egg-shells, worrying at every step not break any of the egg-shells. Libertarian party is too weak in numbers, and the libertrian/conservative masses are marching under a thousand generals, in as many directions. David, would you consider becoming a general? I mean, besides your usual and, tremendously useful, “being a sophisticated bishop” … ? Surely, you have no qualms about calling the enemy enemy, and hardly anyone else understands the inside of his head as well as you do. It’s time to use your Berkeley skill’s of organizing and fighting a war, don’t you think … ?
“Conservatism is the constant application of Judeo-Christian values.”
Respectfully disagree.
Conservatism is the defense of the political ideas of the founders as expressed principally in the Constitution, the Declaration, and other founding documents. It’s a defense of Democratic Capitalism.
The Freedom Center’s mission:
http://horowitzfreedomcenter.org/
The Mission of the David Horowitz Freedom Center is to defend America’s free society through educating the public to preserve traditional constitutional values of:
* Individual Freedom
* Rule of Law
* Private Property
* Limited Government
More on this subject from Horowitz:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=32708
But I have never embraced a theo-centric conservatism such as that common to Buckley, Kirk and Whittaker Chambers. These three anchor their conservatism in a religious faith. I do not. I am an agnostic. I have outlined my own conservative philosophy in The Politics of Bad Faith – a book Mattson also has not read. My conservatism is conceived as an effort to defend the principles of the American Founding. It is true that according to the Founders we derive inalienable rights from “Our Creator.†I agree that rights have to be derived from a source other than human will. If Mattson has another way to ground rights that are inalienable without invoking a “Creator,†I’m all ears, but until then this agnostic will defer to the Founders.
Great book for you if you’re interested.
Barry Goldwater – The Conscience of a Conservative
Thanks Brad.
1. I disagree with your argument that conservatives should stop paying taxes. That conflicts with the conservative value of respecting the rule of law. It also deprives your tax dollars of going toward things that you would support, like the military, the CIA, etc.
2. Marches, protest, and constitutional challenges sound better.
3. David Horowitz is a general in the cause to defend the American Idea. He has been for 20 years. And you can be one of his soldiers by supporting the Freedom Center.
https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=TIX4MTKCZ6NO
4. On your previous comment you said, “We need to take insinuations of “rightwing extremists†and “religious right†and wear them as badge of honors.”
I understand this sentiment but actually end up going the opposite way. I think conservatives should seek to reclaim the liberal tradition. What goes for “liberalism” today is what went for “leftism” 40 years ago. JFK’s liberal politics were basically identical to Reagan’s. Conservatives should start thinking of themselves as liberals, as the political center, and should start identifying their opponents as leftists. We “rightwing extremists” represent true liberal values of plurality and personal freedom.
Mukul, you make more sense than anyone I’ve heard in a long time. Tax revolts and civil disobedience.
And, we might start pressuring our governors to refuse to go along with the federal overlord too. Maybe a little more talk of secession or sovriegnity is in order.
Unfortunately “liberal” has become a dirty word
Conservatism as true liberalism (as opposed to the fake one), is a very good observation. i am not talking about that philosophy. (although not paying taxes was used by the same founders of conservatism as a first step towards the founding of this country.). We are talking here about not laying the foundations of conservative philosophy. I was specifically talking about how to fight the enemy at the door. And throwing a feast for him seems to be the least effective way of fighting.
David has been a theoretical powerhouse, no doubt. And on many fronts he has actully marshalled many many battles. Even entire fronts. Again I am talking about presenting a unified army of the Right. And doing things which are of immediate importance. The theoreticians have laid down the foundations and have been fighting for better part of past 100 years. What we need is a central organzation—similar to the Shadow Party of the enemy. And we need it last week. Actual, nuts and bolts of how to effectively stop the crimson tide. Because our sacred conservative principles alone are not going to win the war. Because the enemy doesn’t give a hoot about our principles. His is a more a realistic army. We better be one, too.
Biggest problem with us conservatives is in our belief that propriety will win wars. So we get the current mess we are in.
I contend, though, that if we don’t fight the enemy with appropriate weapons, we are bound to perish.
Again, the question is for David. Besides raising the awareness of people about truth and decency, is there anything else we can *do*—not as an ongoing cyclic cosmology of good-vs-evil, but winning the current war? Because it is obvious that whole nation can say no to these crooks and crooks will still do what they want. It is an existential crisis for the enemy. We better make it ours.
A unified front. How to achieve it, and how to effectively use it.
Any takers on that?
So has “conservative.” When my progressive friends and family find out that I’ve become a conservative they immediately fear that that means I hate gay people and want to criminalize abortion. Both terms have been covered with mud. That doesn’t mean we can’t clean them off.
I enjoyed your post very much. I submit that libertarians are the knights. We can jump over the “conservatives hate gays , want to criminalize abortion, and form a theocracy” barrier. As bogus as that theme is, it has become a formidable part of the leftist arsenal, and it’s effective at keeping people’s minds closed to conservative ideas.
Thank you Dan. I think you’re quite right. Libertarians are quite knight-like. And libertarianism is a key component of the developing Generation Y Conservatism.
Since you brought it up…
Deliberately murdering a person is a crime.
Arbitrarily choosing when one becomes a person, without the requisite proof, of course, isn’t a crime.
Thrusting that decision upon a nation, with absolutely no precedence, by 5 citizens in black robes, may not be criminal either, but it was a mistake, in my humble opinion.
I don’t think you are a conservative. I think you are a libertarian. Nevertheless, it’s time for a national “Let’s Define Conservatism” conference. We need to sort this issue out. None of the original values you list can be justified or defended without appeals to an authority higher than man’s. And to go even narrower, you can’t define them with appeals to one specific God either.
David,
I spent most of my life as an atheist and considered myself conservative until I gave my life to Christ. Now I realize that while I followed much of the Judeo-Christian ethic, I was far from being a conservative. I accept the conservatism of Chambers, Limbaugh, Levin and Reagan.
This is the full text of how I define Conservatism in discussions:
“Conservatism is the constant application of Judeo-Christian values to situations in life. It’s easy to be a liberal, you don’t have to do anything to be one. As part of original sin we all start out as little narcissistic sociopaths. Parents experience this with their children as the “terrible twos”. With love and discipline from our parents most of us get through that stage and become conservatives and indeed most people follow the Judeo-Christian ethic even if they’re not religious.
Conservatism believes in hypocracy whereas liberalism exists on immorality. Conservatism believes in the liberty of the individual, that our rights come from God. The liberal or statist believes that rights come from the State or ruling class.”
Those Judeo-Christian values are the foundation that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were built upon.
So one cannot be both an agnostic and a conservative?
Why do we need to sort this out? Are we going to ostracize people from helping us meet our common goals because we disagree with them on some of our goals? If I say to you I am a conservative, but I don’t fully embrace everything that you embrace in your conservative beliefs does that mean that we spend our time debating to that end or do we come together around what we agree on and agree to disagree on the rest.
My husband & I both claim to be conservative. Vermont recently passed a gay marriage law. He was not only disappointed in our state legislature for that action he was shocked to learn I didn’t give a darn who married who. We agree to disagree rather than beat each other up over it – while still working on the issues upon which we agree. It doesn’t mean we don’t discuss it…we just don’t let it prevent us coming together on other issues.
The Right cannot afford to be divided right now as you suggest. We need a bigger tent, not a smaller one. Sure secularist conservatives and Christian conservatives have their differences. But they share this important thing in common: they both embrace and want to defend American Freedom.
You’re familiar with the phrase “divide and conquer”? If Christian conservatives abandon the Conservative Movement then America will be much weaker against the onslaught of a thoroughly organized, well-funded Radical Left.
“Many respondents seem to send messages without the proper thought and evaluation before spreading their ideas to the waiting public, who are ready to pounce on each statement.”
To whom do you refer?
As a Christian, who is a Conservative, I do indeed “embrace and want to defend American Freedom.”
I believe that Secular Conservatives, as you say, enjoy their freedom because of the value placed upon freedom by our Founding Fathers, and the genesis of that freedom.
John Adams to Zabdiel Adams (June 21, 1776): “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.”
You can argue that John Adams was and is wrong, but you can’t deny that it was said by John Adams and many, many others.
Please see the evidence at: http://www.wallbuilders.com/
Let’s all be conservative about this basis for freedom. Nobody is insisting that everyone become Christian. But let’s not fool ourselves about what has guaranteed this freedom and what will preserve our freedom.
We are seeing efforts to remove this heritage from the record and limit religious freedoms. We have a President who says that we are not a Christian Nation, but that we could be counted as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Do Muslim nations guarantee the same freedoms to their citizens as the United States? NO!
It is time for Conservatives to come together, alright, but around principals that have proven themselves over time. Those are the principals which are taken from the texts of Jewish and Christian scripture.
Many in Conservatism sound like they would like to see “Progressive Conservatism,†which is an oxymoronic, and doomed to fail.
David, it doesn’t matter that we can’t afford to be disunited. We just are. It isn’t a matter of planning or will. It’s a matter of just “being”. But deeply principled Christians will not and should not support any party that even comes close to true libertarian ideals. Many of them are already abandoning the GOP.
The GOP is doomed, and for good reason. It is comprised largely of the worst sort of hack politicians; namely hack politicians who don’t even have the saavy to win for SELFISH reasons, much less valid and good reasons.
Most folks out here in the real world aren’t trying to rebel against anything. They just take America for granted as they go about their business. And, they’re constantly bombarded with conflicting messages that have rendered many into psychological zombies. The left has wildly succeeded in rendering America down to a relativistic society that is open to anything.
My wife teaches in a Christian school. Most of her colleagues don’t even know we had a financial “meltdown” last September. They haven’t heard. Further, many of them evidence psychologies that are more culturally Marxist than Christian. You can see it in the way they discipline their classes, handle conflicts, inculcate precepts in their children. We are in trouble folks. Deep and thick trouble.
If you really want to know a person’s character, look at how they handle children, their own or another’s. The first signpost: Do they mind a child calling adults by their first names?
We are losing because conservatism has lost it’s moral compass in this country. The entire country as a whole is losing, no matter WHO wins on which side, because we have ALL lost a common moral compass.
I agree with much of your comment.
“It is time for Conservatives to come together, alright, but around principals that have proven themselves over time. Those are the principals which are taken from the texts of Jewish and Christian scripture.”
Please specify what you mean by this. What principles do you want me and other non-evangelicals to come together around? I’m not a Richard Dawkins anti-religious nut; I just don’t take the Bible literally and prefer to think of God as a verb instead of a noun.
So what is your proposal, my friend?
And I don’t support “progressive conservatism” but I am an advocate of “postmodern conservatism” which I define and discuss here:
http://booksindepth.blogspot.com/2009/07/david-horowitzs-conservatism-postmodern.html
Thank you Julie. You’re always chiming in and saying the perfect thing.
David,
You introduced a term that I didn’t use: evangelical.
It’s only fair for me to know what you mean by that–don’t you think?
Sure. Most politically-engaged conservative Christians who make these kinds of arguments identify as “Evangelical” or “Born-Again” Christians and have a pretty specific corresponding theological understanding of God, Christianity, and the Bible. (Which I happen to disagree with having held them for about 5 years or so before abandoning my more literalist faith which has since been replaced by a more mystical, agnostic perspective.) That’s all.
It is usually Christians of this persuasion that make these kinds of “Christian Nation” arguments. If you don’t consider yourself Evangelical or Born Again then I don’t mean to stamp a a label on you or anything. Please take no offense, my friend.
I have taken no offense.
When you say that you are an agnostic, does that mean you don’t know?
By the way, I was quoting our President, who said that we are not a Christian Nation. I didn’t say that we were, or are a Christian Nation.
However, the men that did form this nation were, for the most part Christians, probably of the “born again” variety, having “a pretty specific corresponding theological understanding of God, Christianity, and the Bible,” which they expressed in their writings, which we still have today. Shouldn’t we use those to see what they thought?
1. I do not know if there is a deity or if there are multiple deities. I tend to lean toward rejecting a literalist interpretation of the kind of deity described in the Old and New Testament. This is how I tend to view God:
http://davidswindle.blogspot.com/2009/03/god-metaphor.html
(The whole dialogue of which this essay is a part can be found here:
http://relinquishingjunk.com/theological_discussion.htm)
2. Most of our founding fathers were not “Born Again” or evangelical Christians as we know them today. They were deists whose spiritual views would be attacked by most modern Born Again Christians. One of my blog friends Jon Rowe tends to blog about the facts of this pretty extensively: http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/
Rowe’s been blogging about this for years. He really knows this issue.
3. “I didn’t say that we were, or are a Christian Nation.” My apologies in my sloppy reading of your position. You are correct.
You say “The God of the Bible” as though there’s some consensus about the character and nature of the God described in the many books that make up the Bible. (Or consensus among people who call themselves Christians.) Heck, the four gospels don’t even agree about Jesus.
I’m always amused by that phrase “The God of the Bible.” Friends might ask me, “Do you believe in God?” I respond: “Which God?” Then they say, “The God of the Bible?” Then I reply, “Which God of the Bible?” Then they just look at me blankly.
I was just pointing you toward one scholar who’s done a whole lot of writing on this. Are you already familiar with his work? Sorry, but the religious views of the founding fathers has never been a subject I’ve had much interest in debating. One doesn’t need to do much research to realize that they were deists, not Jerry Falwells.
Evangeline, good points! I am curious and would like more on what you term “new conservatism”… i.e. what’s new?
Julie
I followed David Swindle’s previous response to Brad Lytle, where David linked to “booksindepthblogspot” where he discussed postmodern conservatism. I found it surprising that I so closely identified with his Generation Y, since I am now 63!
There are many “been there, done that,” feelings about my life experiences, and a certain despair that those cannot be transmitted to my intelligent liberal children. Reading here, I learn that some young people are able to find their way out of the never-never land of false hopes and truly have their eyes opened.
Evangelical Christians have placed hope in forcing a form of religion on our nation, but the only true hope we ever have is for a change of hearts and minds. God has arranged our world so that poor decisions will have poor outcomes. Liberals try to remove the consequences of “mistakes” so that the lessons are never learned. The evidence of unintended consequences of misguided social programs is all around.
“Evangelical Christians have placed hope in forcing a form of religion on our nation.”
Where did you get that idea?
Maybe, there are Conservatives, who happen to be Christian, who happen to believe that Christian beliefs have were instrumental in the formulation of this great nation, and they want to “Conserve” that greatness.
Can you point to some people who have been forced into a particular religion? Isn’t everyone free to join any religion they want, or not?
This has been the history of this nation.
Thanks Evangeline, I look forward to reading more of your posts…
Thank you Evangeline. Send me an email sometime if you feel inclined. I’d love to discuss these issues with you further and learn from your experiences. DavidSwindle AT Gmail Dot Com.
Thanks Jonathan,
and i certainly agree with you about Secession route. I was about to list it in my “list” of things we can *do*. But i didn’t looking at the tone of this forum—where classic theoretical conservative thought is being hammered and rehamered. The prime analogy was a Chessboard. We are in a war, folks. And talking ad nauseam about what is conservatism etc is *not* going to win the war. This is not the time to bicker about our natural internal differences. This is time to unite against the enemy and *do* things that will win the war.
Just threatening secession, or raising the issue can be a potent weapon. If only Texas has a rally of 50,000 Texans in Austin, Texas, carrying the placard “Secession or bust!”… Even that alone will have a political (and public relations) fall-out of nuclear-bomb proportions.
I am from India (and a proud american). We have a saying in india, “Laaton ke bhoot baaton se naheen maantey”. Meaning,
“when you are trying to exorcise demons from a victim, some demons can be pursuaded to leave the victim by talk. And some can not. These latter you have to actually kick out of the vicitm.” We are dealing with this latter kind of demon here.
An earlier coment by David Swindle, “it goes against our conservative principles” etc. That is pure nonsense. And even if there *was* a conservative principle that says citizens must pay taxes, regardless of the hoodlums running the racket, it needs to be *changed*. Above all, conservatism is about common-sense. About what works and what doesn’t. Well, feeding the enemy is not only not working, it is having an exact opposite effect. For David Swindle, i have an analogy. If there is a buddhism monastery, where all monks have pledged “non-violence”. If bandits come to attack the monastery and destroy it, what is more important for the monks? To stick to their principle of “non-violence”, or to beat the sh** out of the bandits—so they will be left alone to practice their non-violence without further interference?
Also, taxes pay for military and CIA, so, it was argued, that we must pay taxes. Well, even after paying through our noses, military and CIA are getting a systematic shaft by these hoodlums. And nobody is suggesting we stop funding military and CIA on a permanent basis. Again, this is a war. And the idea is to remove the enemy which diverting your taxes from the military into the coffers of his buddies. If we all stop paying taxes, you think the enemy is going to stop funding the military? Exactly opposite. He will need that military even more to enforce his looneyness on the citizens. And if he stops funding military, even military will revolt against him.
Even of more tactical importance is just 50 million people coming out and *saying* that they will not pay taxes. That alone is enough to give a permanent spin to the enemy’s head.
Tactics, folks. Learn from the enemy. We can keep our “conservative principles” and kick butts. But kick we must. Or perish.
I have still not seen a general on the field. We actually need a Field Marshall.
Here are some practical tactical suggestions for someone like David (Horowitz)—he can, and with great results, forge a master alliance of conservative/libertarian/rightist organizations. And then call out the enemy. Because these crooks in washington are not going to be deterred by public opinion, or by anything else. “Laaton ke bhoot, baaton se naheen maantey.”
“One doesn’t need to do much research to realize that they were deists, not Jerry Falwells.”
C’mon, David–you can do better than that.
Do some research. Look at what they wrote on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible at: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755
Don’t just repeat what you heard in high school, college and the news media. Secular Humanists rule the educational institutions and the media.
And, really, is the Jerry Falwell comment meant to add to the debate, or “mud-slinging?”
“One doesn’t need to do much research to realize that they were deists, not Jerry Falwells.”
C’mon, David–you can do better than that.
Do some research. Look at what they wrote on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible at: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755
Don’t just repeat what you heard in high school, college and the news media. Secular Humanists rule the educational institutions and the media.
And, really, is the Jerry Falwell comment meant to add to the debate, or “mud-slinging?”
Let’s promote intellectual integrity!
I’ve done the research Brad. And I disagree with you and have very little interest or enthusiasm for debating this subject.
“Don’t just repeat what you heard in high school, college and the news media. Secular Humanists rule the educational institutions and the media.”
I don’t appreciate this condescending remark. As should be clear by the posts I write and edit for NewsReal and the work I do at the Freedom Center I don’t just repeat conventional leftist wisdom.
And I don’t appreciate your suggestion that I lack intellectual integrity just because we disagree on this issue.
“. And talking ad nauseam about what is conservatism etc is *not* going to win the war.”
Completely disagree. Conservatism needs to be restated and redefined so that more can understand it and participate in it. An exciting, unifying conception of what the American Idea is and therefore why it must be defended needs to be made so that the center, the apolitical, and the merely-misguided centrist liberals can join us.
“An earlier coment by David Swindle, “it goes against our conservative principles†etc. That is pure nonsense. And even if there *was* a conservative principle that says citizens must pay taxes, regardless of the hoodlums running the racket, it needs to be *changed*.”
Following the Rule of Law is a conservative principle. Choosing to ignore laws because you don’t like them leads to anarchy. Comparing to the anti-tax sentiment of the founding era is inaccurate. The cry was “No taxation without representation.” THAT was the issue. The colonies were being taxed and exploited by the Crown and they had no say in how their money was being spent. That’s not the situation here in America. You just don’t like how your money MIGHT be spent. Given the different situations the answer is not to withdraw from the political process (by breaking laws, seceding from the union) but to participate in it. Don’t like a law? Radicals break the law. Conservatives participate in the Democratic process to try and change it.
Remember your history of the Founding. The Founders didn’t leap to revolution right away. It was a long process and something of a last resort. To advocate revolutionary sentiment (breaking laws, seceding) 8 months into the Obama presidency ignores the lessons of the Founders. It’s radical, not conservative.
Dear Mukul,
I have read the sum of your postings here. You are absolutely right in all counts and respects as to what the situation is. You couldn’t be MORE right than you are. It’s too bad that more people don’t see where we are today. David, bless his soul, seems to be stuck in the mode that this is about Obama. So it’s a bit premature to rebel against a “center-left” administration in its 6th month, ey?
But, unfortunately, this war has been going on since the early 1900s. And Americans were very awake and very aware of Marxist subversion up until the latter half of the 1960s. It was at that time that things began to spin wildly off course culturally, during the time of the JFK and MLK assassinations. The failure of CONSERVATIVES to actively embrace the righteous causes that the leftists co-opted for their own nefarious purposes. WE failed to be community organizers, while Bill Ayers and Barak Obama succeeded wildly.
And because WE allowed a wholesale undisguised assault on religious freedoms that effectively muzzled the ability of CHRISTIANS to speak and unify politically. I’m speaking first of LBJ’s legislation to silence political speech in the pulpit in the 50’s. And white Christians failed to unify on the righteous issue of civil rights. The church failed at this critical juncture. And thus, you see in America, Christianity schismed on racial lines. Black and white, these are two different faiths, and they don’t agree with each other.
Really you can fault American Christians for being TOO decentralized and TOO ad hoc in their approach to the faith. American Christianity really has become ineffective largely because of it’s disinclination to police it’s own ranks, and to set forth at least some MINIMAL standards for orthodoxy. I am not sure, entirely, that Christianity really even exists in America anymore, except in scattered individuals. But there certainly is nothing remotely close to the horrible monolithic “theocracy” that the left is always fearful of.
Perhaps Mukul you have a different, perhaps larger, perspective than the average American has. Being from India (I think you said) perhaps gives you a better appreciation for freedom? I don’t know. But I DO know my experience. I am from a 4th generation career military family on the paternal side. My father, my grandfather, my great-grandfather. All my uncles, cousins, a few aunts. Virtually every war in the 20th century is represented by someone in my paternal history. I served in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Panama. I have seen some of the worst sewers on Earth.
I am absolutely convinced that evil exists on this planet, and that it cannot be appeased, it cannot be “convinced” to change it’s mind. In David, I’m afraid, I recognize what might be that inclination to view things that way. But sometimes, you have to look outside the paradigm and realize that we AREN’T DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW. Chess? You can’t play chess with people who don’t follow the rules of the game. Nor do you want to. The stakes are too high.
P.S. Mukul, The secret to winning this struggle is in the states. The states have all the weapons they need to win this struggle. All they have to do IS UNITE.
The references to Jerry Falwell, for example, do damage to the Christian heritage this nation should honor.
There has been a period of time in which individual morality was too seriously thought to be a proper target for government. I do have strong objection to tax dollars spent on immoral behavior. I simply do not agree that personal choices about life style must be a matter for legislation.
This desire to tidy up our citizen’s behavior, for example by the “Moral Majority,” damages our cause of freedom. The way that people go about their lives must be a matter of free will, or none of us will have the freedom to follow our conscience.
No one has been “forced into a particular religion,” but there has been too much focus on what should be private behavior. The valid business of government is not served. People who are socially liberal, but fiscally conservative, are not our enemies, but many of them are turned away and turned off by such statements.
Done properly, a truly conservative government would begin to show individuals the folly of their ways, because the government-social props for immoral behavior would disappear. I know that the stigma of illegitimacy was a terrible thing, but the lack of fathers present in their children’s lives does greater damage. “Natural Law” is a great teacher. There would be room for private charities, religious organizations, and volunteers to help, with more contributions available from lower taxation. Having government feeding programs in school, year-round, is an example. It becomes a “right,” whereas if charity is taken from individuals, providing for your own becomes the right thing to do.
You still don’t get it, do you?
You don’t have *time* to carry out this social transformation and reclaiming and enunciating and elaborating “conservative principles”.
The enemy is at the door and he has mined the field.
Chessboard—you can sit and argue about the best “chess principles” OR get a *player* who will *play* the game. And it is the end-game scenario. Wake up. In india, the last Moghul emperor was literally playing chess in his palace, messengers kept coming and telling him, “the British Army is 100 miles away..” Then “the british is 50 miles away …” Then “25 miles” …
He kept saying, ‘Oh they are too far from Delhi…we will see when he is close enough…” OF course he lost his empire. And we are about to loose ours.
Well, the “British” are in Washington and have noose around our collective necks. And the board under your legs is scheduled to slide next week or next month or so. Any questions?
You don’t like Civil Disobedience as the final weapon against a government run amok. At least don’t co-opt the whole conservative movement to support your likes or dislikes.
What is *your* solution? Besides sitting inside a weblog and arguing ad nauseam? Where is the wisdom in supporting a government that has obviously conspired against the people? It is not even *conservative* wisdom. Where is the representation? Majority of americans against these fascist agendas, and they still want to ram it down our throats. They don’t have enough votes, so they are preparing to use a sneaky backdoor they built in the previous legislation—the Reconciliation Route.
Get this—your enemy does not abide by any rules, any truth, any decency, any principles. If you tie your arms around your back, it will only aid the enemy.
In fact, i contend that Civil Disobedience is *only* thing we can actually *do* to defeat the enemy.
Keep on arguing. And wake me up if you come up with a single idea that can defeat the enemy here and now. I’m outta here.
Please go on disagreeing and agreeing and other such comfortable things.
The rest of us have a war to fight. We will discuss all these principles on the other side. Adios.
Sorry. I have a degree in political science. I know how the federal government works. I understand the nature of the political system the founding fathers created. I know how difficult it is to accomplish radical change. I’m not going to advocate secession or tax evasion or civil disobedience just because a Center-Left Democrat gets elected, proposes some bad policies and appoints some radicals. It’s not the end of America.
I guess I just have some faith in the system our founders laid down to protect our freedom.
But it doesn’t seem like I’ll be able to reason with you on this. You KNOW the Truth after all. Your mind seems made up and it’s not like you were ever really interested in debating.
Sure they did. And these four “witnesses” disagree with one another and their reports more resemble mythology than journalism.
One of my favorite religious books recently is Bart Ehrman’s “Jesus, Interrupted”:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173932/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252939242&sr=8-1
I don’t have a problem with someone having faith in Jesus being the Son of God, performing miracles, rising from the Dead, dying for sins, etc. What I have a problem with is when someone suggests that the Bible is the Perfect Word of God that has no contradictions or errors and that “proves beyond a reasonable doubt” the faith claims of my previous sentence.
I apologize if my comment was condescending.
It’s your blog…
“And I disagree with you and have very little interest or enthusiasm for debating this subject.”
So, you can terminate the debate anytime, but I don’t think it’s fair that you make a statement about the Founding Fathers being deists, as a fact, and then ignore the evidence of their own words.
This is not some non-essential argument, it goes to the very core of the basis for the principles of this nation. For instance, what is basis for the first principle of the Freedom Center?
“An appreciation for the concept of freedom as the central value of our society.”
The basis as stated in the Declaration:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
This is evidence…
What is the evidence that the Founding Fathers were deists?
Show me evidence that the founders believed the Bible literally and shared the exact same views as modern day evangelicals. Those quotes don’t do that and I submit that it can’t be done.
The evidence that the founding fathers were deists and non-orthodox Christians is all over the place. Surely you’ve encountered it. These wikipedia entries collect plenty of quotes and information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_washington#Religious_beliefs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Religious_views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Franklin#Virtue.2C_religion.2C_and_personal_beliefs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_the_United_States
Here’s one of many books on the subject too:
http://www.amazon.com/Will-Say-Christian-Jefferson-Correspondence/dp/1591023564/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252945004&sr=8-1
I’m not saying that the founders weren’t Christian, spiritual, or religious. All I’m saying is that they were not fundamentalists, evangelicals, or Born Again Christians. Talking about a Creator in the Declaration of Independence makes one a deist or a theist, not an Evangelical.
Is it possible that Wikipedia has an agenda of their own, promoting a certain story and ethic?
Please see “a growing list of examples of liberal bias, deceit, frivolous gossip, and blatant errors on Wikipedia.”
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_bias_in_Wikipedia
These are a selected few quotes, many out of context, and easily overwhelmed by the writings at the site I mentioned earlier, where you will find 144 annotated qoutes from “The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible” (It is way too much to post her, but I invite anyone interested to take a look.)
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755
The single book you site, by Bruce Barden, Editor, Prometheus Books, which publishes a great number of anti-Christian books, is trying to promote a belief, which he is free to do in this country, because we value freedom, because we believe that it is an unalienable right from our Creator.
I invite you to go to Prometheus Books an look at their other titles to see if they are providing a balanced approach:
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/
I don’t doubt that there are many books, from different perspectives, but we have a preponderance of writings from the Founders. Please read what they said, in context and fully annotated, so you can look at the full document.
Very discouraged by your decision to go ad hominem against Wikipedia and the company that published the book as a rebuttal. (While saying NOTHING about the quotes and facts that they cite.) You did the same thing when I mentioned Jon Rowe.
It’s always easier to debate this way — trying to disqualify sources instead of actually grappling with what they have to say.
I’m done with this debate since you’ve revealed that this is your preferred method of intellectual discussion.
David, Ehrman is a Statist. The majority of these folks are disingenuous at best. These books are put out to discredit their opposition and to further socialism.
Does it give you pause that most agnostics and unbelievers are liberals and think socialism is ok? It did for me so I read the book, The Case For Christ. Immediately following that I picked up a Bible for the first time in decades and started reading it. That was it for me! My life and that of my family has changed dramatically for the better.
It’s not just the words in a book David, it’s the interaction we have with Him on a daily basis. Once out of the night, it’s easy to spot His work in this world.
Something else to think about is the legion of former Communists who escaped from behind the Iron Curtain who became Christians. Why?
“I am absolutely convinced that evil exists on this planet, and that it cannot be appeased, it cannot be “convinced†to change it’s mind. In David, I’m afraid, I recognize what might be that inclination to view things that way. But sometimes, you have to look outside the paradigm and realize that we AREN’T DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW.”
You’re 100% wrong in your judgment of me. I fully recognize that there is evil in this world that cannot be negotiated with. However, not everyone who does or says incorrect things is evil. Many of them are merely ignorant and CAN be reasoned with and persuaded over to our side.
Far too many conservatives stick all of their opponents into the “evil” bucket when many should go into the “ignorance” bucket. Many leftists have the opposite problem. This isn’t a zero sum game here.
The malicious and the ignorant need to be dealt with differently if we are to be successful in our defense of America.
David, and Jonathan,
You are both onto something,the true nature of evil. We are in a spiritual battle, David, not a “Chess Game.” The stakes are too high.
The real test of a Liberal or Conservative view is the understanding of the nature of man. Is man “good,” or “evil?” Are we becoming better and better every day, or are we members of a fallen race?
We must avoid allowing the argument to become about religion. However, it is, at bottom, an argument about an individual’s place in the universe.
Our system was set up on checks and balances because our founders had this understanding of how power has, and will, corrupt any human. “The heart of man is desperately evil!”
The conservative cause will not succeed because Christians “save” every member of our party. Individual conscience should remain private business. Our founders’ individual faith is not the question. My private belief that Divine Providence inspired their actions, that the hand of God helped them to write the documents, need not be shared by all comers. We should accept all, at whatever point they may be on their private spiritual journey. This is not the “pass-fail” question for us, it belongs in eternity!
But, when someone tries to convince this country that they have a way to perfect our system, then we should be able to recognize that when we become too organized, we are ripe for totalitarianism. Our protection is in how difficult it is to effect “change!”
There is a false hope in liberalism, that when the right “good” man is found, he will lead us to utopia. Yet, their leaders all become corrupt. This is what must be shown as their downfall.
Conservatives lost the high ground with the fall of Nixon, and pretty much gave up their places in media. We took heart under Reagan, but were enjoying the discomfiture of the media.
The years since then have been less clear, with Republicans embracing too many liberal positions and actions, and Democrats, before this take-over, governing from the “center.” Today, we can see how we’ve been mislead. Surely we can seize the moment, and show Americans where this will lead. This is a good time to be alive, take heart!
I know it’s not a “chess game,” Evangeline. That was only a metaphor to demonstrate how different kinds of conservatives all have their role to play.
If I thought this was only a game then I’d probably pick a more pleasant game to play than the political fight to defend the American Idea.
Your ad hominem methods continue and now they turn on me personally.
“I could be wrong, but your view of Christians seems little different from that of the Left. That may be a problem in with Christians following blindly behind self-proclaimed “Conservatives.—
Tell that to Pastor Paul Cooper who I hired to blog for NewsReal. Now I REALLY don’t want to debate you.
Again with the ad hominem. Why do Christians always do this in their arguments? With another poster I mention wikipedia and a book and his answer? Trash wikipedia and the book’s publisher! Your answer: trash Ehrman to disqualify a book you haven’t read!
As soon as you take this mode of argument I immediately turn off from wanting to engage you in argument. This is how leftists debate — disqualify the speaker instead of engaging the argument. Read Horowitz’s “Indoctrination U” to see how this works.
I was an evangelical Christian for 5 years. I’ve read “The Case for Christ.” (And I’m not going to try and attack it in an ad hominem fashion as you did with the book I mentioned.) I know this stuff backwards and forwards because I used to use these arguments myself.
The saddest part of this debate, I think, is that it never had a proper starting point. The document starts out “We the People”, not, “We the Founding Fathers”.
It doesn’t matter what the founding fathers believed personally, as we assess the origins of our nation. What mattered was what the people agreed upon. The founding fathers rightly knew that the fundamental unifying energizer of their cause would be to invoke the Biblical God in stating their cause and aspirations.
And it doesn’t even matter theologically what the Founders believed. Christians believe God had a purpose in creating this nation, and he accomplished it in His good way, and in His good time.
It also doesn’t matter because here we are today with a fresh TODAY. The past gives us context and lessons if we are willing to appreciate them. But the past inevitably gives way to change. The Founding Fathers were men, like me. They put their pants on the same way I do, and they would have wanted me to believe that too.
Ehrman is a Statist, why would I care what a Statist has to say about God? He doesn’t believe in God and since Statists don’t believe in “Live and Let Live” either, they’re always trying to force us to live and do what they think is right.
The first thing one learns about Communists is that they lie, they lie about everything! They reject the morality of truthfulness for public lying to advance their agenda. Obama’s speeches are a textbook example of this.
I’ve read Indoctrination U and have coined several terms and rules when debating libs, check out my “Rules for Radicals” on the web.
One might argue that you were trashing their beliefs with Ehrman.
If you were a Christian then and now not, I would gather it was man, not God who led you astray.
All very well said Jonathan. Seems like we’ve come across the same “truths” as we endevour to uncover our real nations history!
Thank you Jonathan.
Well, I’m not a “statist” as is quite clear from my writings and my position at the Freedom Center. And I support Ehrman’s scholarship in “Jesus, Interrupted,” a book I have read and am therefore qualified to judge. You have not read it so you cannot judge it with any authority.
If you’ve read Indoctrination U then you know how radicals behave in argument. They don’t engage people’s ideas. Instead they make ad hominem claims about why a particular speaker’s ideas should be dismissed. You’ve just done the exact same thing with Ehrman. Another commenter did it with Wikipedia. Such behavior is not appropriate for intellectual debate.
Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies. And I hardly have the patience to be your Logic 101 professor. This is a textbook logical fallacy that you’re committing: “All communists are liars. Person X is a communist. Thus person X is a liar. Thus everything person X is saying is a lie and I don’t have to engage it with any seriousness.” You’re basically saying that if someone doesn’t share your politics you can label them a liar and ignore their arguments.
Saying that I personally don’t believe the Bible literally and recommending a book that shows some arguments why is not trashing your views. Saying “only a moron could believe the Bible literally” would be trashing your views. But I would never say that. There are too many people I know, love, and respect who hold such views for me to ever say something hurtful like that. I can disagree with your views and still respect them.
I think it was God who “led me astray” from Biblical literalism and allowed me to develop a more mystical understanding of Him. One must first understand God as a Noun before one can transcend to understanding Him as a Verb.
http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/stages.html
David,
Having studied Communism for 20+ years, I can say with authority that Communists do indeed lie. Their ideology is a lie. You misprepresent my position.
Since you did not address Ehrem’s writings to me directly I am free to criticize him. From what I’ve read of Ehrem, he’s little different then the atheist/Statist/Communist/Socialist/Liberal gatekeepers keeping the discussion of intelligent design out of science.
Rules for Radicals – A Guide to Debating the Radical Left
If you change the subject or resort to personal attacks I win the debate!
In our experience debating a Statist goes something like this:
Statist: “Bush lied and people died!â€
Patriot: “Could you provide an example of what Bush lied about?â€
Statist: “Bush lied to go to war! He wants to steal the oil!â€
Patriot: “Bush saw the same intelligence that Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, our Allies and the rest of the House and Senate. One could argue the intelligence is faulty or that the Chem/Bio/Nuclear evidence was moved out of the country.â€
Statist: “Bush let Bin Laden go in Afghanistan!â€
Patriot: “Can you provide a specific example of how Bush let Bin Laden go?â€
Statist: “You’re a neo-con fascist like Bush!â€
Patriot: “Can you provide a specific example of how Bush let Bin Laden go?â€
Statist: “Your mother raised a moron! I feel so sorry for you! You’re crazy! I can’t believe you defend Bush, he’s killed millions of Iraqis and 9-11 was an inside job!â€
About God, If one thinks of him as a verb, would an observer be correct in assuming that person never witnessed His hand in their life?
Galatians 4:17
17Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them.
Gotta get back to my book. -swathdiver@yahoo.com
“What worries me is that, without a unifying religious culture similar to what we had in 1776, we will not see the America of 1776 ever again.”
I have news for you, and it’s not going to be pleasant: we will never seen the America of 1776 again. In fact we don’t even know what that America was really like. Our conception of it is more our constructed fantasy than what “it really was.”
We must love and defend the America of today, as it is. We cannot succumb to radical fantasies of an America of 200 years in the past or some utopian America 200 years in the future.
Much of the rest of your comment was top-notch, btw.
Oh sure, you can be both conservative and agnostic. Conservatism is one component of Christianity, not the other way around. Thus, conservatism can also be a component of agnosticism. But, then again, who’s to say anymore? In this country, I’m not sure that we know what a “conservative” is anymore. I think it’s being redefined for us right before our very eyes.
I think “conservatism” has a very broad, ad hoc sort of flavor right now. As many flavors as there are individuals.
“I have news for you, and it’s not going to be pleasant: we will never seen the America of 1776 again. In fact we don’t even know what that America was really like. Our conception of it is more our constructed fantasy than what “it really was.â€
Alas we’ve come full circle? Both liberals and conservatives alike speak of the founding fathers and the Constitution, and to what avail? We all speak of the vision of America… a lost vision? Which of course leads to other interesting questions. If we’ve given up on the idea of the America of 1776, then why even bother with this entire discussion? This entire effort?
Conservatives! If we don’t know who WE are, how can we possibly seperate ourselves from the ENEMY?
“We must love and defend the America of today, as it is. We cannot succumb to radical fantasies of an America of 200 years in the past or some utopian America 200 years in the future.”
I have to be honest. I am very much doubting if I can love and defend the America of today. I have lost much respect for her people as citizens, and ALL respect for Washington DC. What I love is the Constitutional Republic founded two and a half centuries ago.
This goes backward on the same road we’ve trod here already. Conservatives in this country have no basis for unified agreement anymore about anything. There is no unity to preserve, David. Conscientious Christians will not embrace an America that affronts the Bible, or a political party that ignores it. Apparently, everyone else, conservative or otherwise, is just fine with doing it. So really, it boils down to an even finer point.
“I have to be honest. I am very much doubting if I can love and defend the America of today. I have lost much respect for her people as citizens, and ALL respect for Washington DC. What I love is the Constitutional Republic founded two and a half centuries ago.”
That’s what I was afraid of. This is why the Paleo-conservative Right and the Radical Left so often find common causes. They do not love America as she is. They can only be patriots of a fantasy America that only exists in their dreams.
But I challenge you, my friend: America as she exists today is still very much worth loving and defending.
“That’s what I was afraid of. This is why the Paleo-conservative Right and the Radical Left so often find common causes. They do not love America as she is. They can only be patriots of a fantasy America that only exists in their dreams.”
Wow David. I can’t relate to you at all. But yet, you ask me why I don’t think Christians can be unified with secular conservatives anymore. David, I’m sorry, but I can never accept citizenship in a nation such as the left has decreed for us today. A nation that you are willing to love “as it is.” I don’t believe David Horowitz does either.
I’m not asking for a fantasy America. I’m asking for an America where I have the right to own property, start a business and own a firearm. I’m asking for an America where I can go to church as I see fit, where I can have free speech and freedom of association. Where I have the right to vote and expect accountability from my elected officials. Where I don’t have to be told that I’m not allowed to own more than one car, or have more than one child.
Now, you can call that a “radical fantasy”, but I can assure you… we had that in America for a long time. We fought for it. We cherished it. That’s why Cubans rowed rafts across the ocean to get here. That’s why East Germans risked death to climb over the Berlin Wall. That’s why everybody runs FROM communism. Not to it.
The America I speak of only exists on paper: The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Absent those two documents, there is no America. I would just as soon be living anywhere else. There isn’t even a cultural heritage in this country to fall back on, as with most other lands. Russia, for instance, is Russia, no matter what the government. But America is ONLY America BECAUSE OF the Constitution. Without it, we are acutely screwed.
I cannot even begin to imagine what life will be like here in this ethnic stew pot in 50 years, with nothing but anarchy and corruption.
You know, sometimes I really wonder how many of these so-called conservative blog sites are actually front sites for the left. Collecting names and adding to the confusion of debate.
David,
I clicked the link and read the article. My “Commie Radar” immediately started buzzing.
After reading the article I checked into his sources. First we come to Alfred Jules Ayers. This fellow rejected Christ early in life, was a serial adulterer and regularly sided with Communists and radicals throughout his life. The 2nd fellow, Hixon was a new-age guru. A quick perusal of his web-site saw him extoling the virtues of Islam but little else.
Then I came back to Peck and was able to browse “People of the Lie”. In regards to statements written about the evils of communism or lack thereof and the fall of China, he’s either a lousy researcher or is attempting to revise history with false data. Communism is immoral and EVIL and China fell to Communism in 1949 and it was because of the United States, not in spite of America.
Now that we’ve identified these men as radicals at the very least, should we consider and debate what they have to say about Christianity and Conservatism?
Would you accept dietary advice from a fat guy if you’re looking to lose weight?
David Horowitz wrote this on the blog yesterday:
“When I listen to Beck I don’t have any sense that he does not love this country — the actual country we live as opposed to some fantasy of the way it might have been 200 years ago or 200 years hence. In fact I have the sense that he loves this country and will risk his career to defend it — and that’s good enough for me.”
And your final comment is paranoid and discouraging
“You know, sometimes I really wonder how many of these so-called conservative blog sites are actually front sites for the left. Collecting names and adding to the confusion of debate.”
Yeah, David Horowitz is running a front site for the Left.
This is not how intellectual discussion is supposed to work. I’m bowing out of engaging you in debate. I have more important things to do with my time than teach Logic 101 to True Believers who are convinced of their own rightness about eveything.
Swathdiver sounds like a guy from my generation. He reasons using inputs from the world without running the result through a political correctness filter. I read the same link. I reached the same conclusion as he did before I read his conclusion. Swathdiver refered to his communist filter. I have one too. My question is, shouldn’t you employ one too?
No, I don’t think Horowitz is running a front site. My comment was more inspired by this particular thread about blogs in general. Where I see the most suspicious material is on the so-called “Libertarian” blog sites. I think this creeping cultural Marxism is getting terminal.
There never will be an America of 1776 again unless the education system experiences reform. We have “conservatives” reading leftists in order to chart a map to “conservative renewal”. I suspect that you have been more influenced by this than you might care to admit – your tendency to agnosticism is interesting as well.
There is very little intellectual discussion at all on the internet, David. It’s 90 percent mud, sincere mud, but still mud. It’s 10 percent something more confusing.
“Thank you” to those who agree with you, and termination to those who disagree…
Intellectuals on the Right would appear to have some of the same traits as those on the Left, particularly when it comes to their disdain for those who don’t have the same level of college learning, as if that gave them any superior claim to reason, understanding or wisdom.
Brad,
Funny you mention this! I encounter this regularly when debating the latest graduates from our Marxist universities. Our children have been taught an alternative history and immoral values and this has skewed their views, even if they lean right, to benefit the left.
Under constant assault at school and the media, it’s impossible not to be affected by their agenda. It took me about 10 years to de-conflict and get back on the right path in life after school. Some are more vulnerable then others. Those without a firm foundation in Judaism or Christianity are ripe for indoctrination of marxist-leninism whethere they know it or not.
Indeed after spending hours or days in the gutters of liberalism doing research, I have to climb out, shower off and read my Book to once again smell the fragrances of Liberty and a Christian Life.
Brad, can you provide an example of such a right leaning intellectual i.e. name and description of how he/she would have shown disdain?
Jonathan,
Feel free to contact me anytime, swathdiver@yahoo.com
Swathdiver was replying to this post from our host David Swindle: “This is not how intellectual discussion is supposed to work. I’m bowing out of engaging you in debate. I have more important things to do with my time than teach Logic 101 to True Believers who are convinced of their own rightness about eveything.”
disdain: a feeling of contempt for someone or something regarded as unworthy or inferior
Brad, while I agree David S. came to the conclusion that continuing the discussion with Swathdiver wasn’t worth the time it was taking to come to some point of agreement or simply agreeing to disagree could (if taken just at that comment by David S) be considered disdain.
However, I read their entire conversations, and it is not the same as not engaging in a meaninful discussion at all because of their contempt for someone regarded as unworth or inferior – this is not what David S was doing and you know it!
Julie
Please give another example of a truly disdainful person on the “Right”.
Should read (if taken just at that last comment by David S)
Come on Julie. Showing disdain is a habit all of us indulge in at one time or another, on the right and on the left.
I think you are much more than just a truck driver who works with his hands, Swathdiver. You are being modest I think. Too bad that those who needed to pay attention most to your comment have already split the scene. But conservatives seem to be increasingly hard to seperate from the leftists. Soon, the world will be pretty much hostile to the Christians (Seems like I read that in a Book recently).
My wife is a teacher. I am 4th generation military. Both of us have seen firsthand the wreakage created in education by cultural Marxism. Have you considered the extent to which Marxism has infiltrated our military academies? Consider this essay from the Naval Academy:
http://www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool