This is a combined post by
Robert Heid
and
Dr. J. Michael Bennett (Doctor Future)
Robert Heid says:
Thanks to Doc Future for calling attention to the article linked below, which tells us not only who the "Social Conservatives" (read "Christian Right") have "thrown their support behind," but the shenanigans which had to be used to accumulate that support.
Doc Future says:
Evangelical Mafia Anoint Their Minion,
Bully and Intimidate Their Christian Followers Into Compliance
Rather Than Independent Analysis
Our Christian "leaders" do not trust American Christians to discern and make their own informed decisions regarding societal matters -- Robert and I saw this first hand as witnesses at the "Values Voters Summit" in October, 2011 -- instead, they will do that decision-making for them, and send the edicts out to the masses, supported by intimidating guilt, and the support of corporate-sponsored Christian media! I wonder how much money they expect to ultimately make for this -- the head of the Iowa Christian conservative group is reported to have demanded up to a cool million dollars from Santorum for his endorsement! (Not that Santorum gave in to the extortion.)
Our evangelical leaders have now collectively endorsed a man who is:
(1) a self-professed Knight of Malta (who formally swears to defend the papacy, Rome and the Maltese principality, and "defend the Christian faith" as their Crusader forebearers did, while wearing their own Crusader capes and swords), and
(2) an official endorser and campaigner for Arlen Specter, a strong Republican supporter of abortion (and author of the "U-turn bullet" theory in the Warren Commission).
Why are our other Christian leaders silent about this? Are they intimidated by these insiders? Do they not care? Dare they agree with their findings?
Robert Heid adds:
I predict that the "Social Conservatives," -- in this case apparently led by Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, and James Dobson -- are going to experience "blowback" over this, from several directions:
Blowback from other conservative Christian leaders and rank-and-file who do still do not support Santorum. Santorum ran a distant third and received only one vote in six at the Values Voters Summit. (Ron Paul won the Values Voters Summit.) Who took it upon themselves to reverse this at a private "summit meeting" in Texas?
Blowback from the other Republican candidates who were shut out. Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and others have a right to be lastingly resentful at the treatment they have received from these manipulative people. Why should they "fall in" behind Santorum?
Blowback from the primary. Unless Santorum decisively defeats Romney in South Carolina, which I do not foresee, I think it is over for him. And with that, the Christian leaders will have reduced their future significance to just about zero.
I'm sorry that the Christian Right is going this route, because they could have made a real difference about many important things. But with their love of war, love of money, false sense of power, and very bad choice of spokesmen and office-holders, I think they are out of favor with both God and man.
For those of us who are their fellow Christians, this is going to be a shame, and we are likely to feel some of the blowback ourselves. Who can trust us? Who can count on our good judgment?
Our leaders reveal not so much their malicious intent here but their grave ignorance of Scripture and Tradition.
ReplyDeleteIf they really knew the Scriptures, had an active spiritual life, an understanding of the Sacred and knew well the writings of the various Church Fathers, they would know that the Iraq War was a classic farce that no Christian could ever support in good conscience. They would know, as well, to be suspicious of the war drums against Iran.
But our people (evangelical Christians) don't know the Scriptures. They don't understand the Sacred. They don't have an active spiritual life (unless reading Calvin counts). They have chosen to disconnect themselves from the wisdom and prudence of the Church and have gone out entirely on their own. They are more eager to support a pro-Israel foreign policy than a pro-American or pro-human one.
If all that these Christian movers and shakers did was sit and faithfully listen to what they had been taught at church they would still have come to the same conclusions, money or no money. That should bother us.
The real problem is theological and spiritual. Until you address that, you can't address anything else. My two cents.
Theologically and spiritually, the Catholics are closer on this one than we are. Both recent Popes have enough sense to oppose the war in Iraq and call for peace in Afghanistan. If Santorum had merely faithfully listened to what HIS Church leaders said, he would be in a good moral position. Not so with us. What does that tell you?
I agree. Your statement,
ReplyDelete( "If all that these Christian movers and shakers did was sit and faithfully listen to what they had been taught at church they would still have come to the same conclusions, money or no money. That should bother us." )
is the one that troubles me (and I agree with) the most.
Thomas Jefferson once said,
" I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."
Give me some room, Tom. I want to stand beside you on that one.
By the way,
ReplyDeleteIt looks like the "fall behind Santorum" thing
ain't working out.
A well-respected conservative state senator in South Carolina, Tom Davis, has just endorsed Ron Paul.
( Of course, I'll have to take it all back if I find that he demanded a million dollars from the Ron Paul campaign !! )
Otherwise, I'd say that the Christian Right just Tebowed themselves one more time.
Dobson has been outspoken in his support of torture. Yet he paradoxically considers himself (and is hailed by many of our Christian brethren) a great champion of the sanctity of human life.
ReplyDeleteClearly he should include some sort of asterisk in his words regarding life-sanctity.
This asterisk should clarify that "human life" does not include enemies, potential enemies, socio-political critics, nor potential socio-political critics.
The main lives considered sanctified and therefore worthy of the protection of both Church and State are the unborn.
Unless of course any particular unborn person is un-providentially conceived in proximity to the targets of "smart" weapons or drone aircraft.
Surely these are sinful even before birth.
And of course we (and our Faith -- by which is meant our Western Values) are secure only when "all options are on the table."
Unless we maintain a continued and robust commitment to the possibility of killing our enemies' children, we will no longer be free to homeschool our own.
On a related note, I just ran across an article from Garrison Keillor, published in the Chicago Tribune back in 2006, that cuts through the implications of the "Shenanigans."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-10-04/news/0610040035_1_three-republican-senators-combatant-enemy
This second piece shows his clarity of mind back in 2004 when I, among others of us, had not yet realized that the Iraq War was about freedom for an oppressed people about as much as Monsanto is about genetic diversity in soy beans.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/979/were_not_in_lake_wobegon_anymore/
Well, let the "blowback" begin.
ReplyDeleteThe Washington Times reports significant "Social Conservative" dissatisfaction with the ways and means that were demonstrated at the recent "summit meeting" in Texas.
Doug Wead had some interesting things to say.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/16/activists-say-pro-santorum-vote-was-rigged/
Justin, I'm going to use your asterisk point when mentioning these type of people. American babies are good. Babies from over there? Bad. Let's pollute their land with Depleted Uranium so they all their babies get fatal (and absolutely horrible) birth defects.
ReplyDelete