A case in point, Gingrich calls Obama ‘anti-religious’
Apr 8th, 2009 | By Mike | Category: Republicans |
After posting today about the Republicans pandering to the religious right, Mr. Gingrich reinforces my criticism by calling the Obama administration “anti-religious” for putting an Harry Knox, a former methodist pastor and openly gay activist, on the advisory council for faith-based initiatives. The board consists of 25 members, and Mr. Knox will be the only gay member. Sounds like fair representation to me. The USA was founded on the principal of seperation of church and state. The purpose of this government was to effectively avoid pressuring one groups religious beliefs on to the nations citizens. The Republicans have clearly overstepped this boundary and are now the party of the religious right. What baffles me is that Newt Gingrich, no less than a week ago, made the prediction that a third party will be present in 2012 if the Republicans didn’t “shape up”. Too bad he can’t take his own advice.
Criticizing Gingrich a week after noting his recognition of the need for a third party — in the same breath as citing the erroneous “separation of church and state” dogma — does no one, including the Whigs, any good, Mike … this party ought not seek a nihilistic road to nowhere. But, then again, it’s your party!
Hi Greg,
You make a good point about my choice of language, I apologize for that. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the government was designed to not favor a particular religion, and respect people of all walks of life. Can we at least agree on that? I think we could also agree that the Republicans have become woefully handcuffed by religion, as we can see with Mr. Gingrich’s comment (or do you think his dislike of homosexuals in faith councils stems from somewhere else?). McCain would have lost the base of his party if he kept his real “maverick” status and leaned towards the center on social issues. I’m not looking to live in a theocracy, but that is exactly where Republicans are headed.
Mike
You made a fair and sound observation Mike. I just had the previous story about Gingrich fresh in my mind. I don’t agree with all of his ideas, but an endorsement of the MWP from a heavyweight like him could give a real boost to visibility.
What should have been my only point: Until the MWP has a competitive candidate, there’s probably no point in criticizing potential allies … a Catch-22, I suppose, because you need to criticize in order to develop a candidate … holler if I can help.
@Greg:
If we start accommodating politicians views simply to get their endorsement, we are no better than the parties already in power. In fact, I would go as far to say I don’t WANT an endorsement from either of the major parties, because that will simply scare away future members looking for what all of us MWP members are looking for: a new party.
I suppose that it is either apathy or laziness that has caused many Americans not to search out the roots of the so-called “separation-of-church-and-state” dogma. The question posed to Jefferson regarded the establishment of a state-supported church like the Church of England. His letter to those Danbury Baptists was to quell their fears over such a state-supported church, & he quoted Roger Williams, a leading Baptist pastor of the day, in order to explain, using familiar terms, that the US had no intentions of creating a state-supported church. The phrase “separation of church & state” originated in the sermon of a Baptist pastor, not in the minds or intents of the early US government!! To carry the “tale” that the early US government or Jefferson is to carry politics to its endpoint; “when all else fails – lie.” When are the inhabitants of today’s world going to return to searching out & speaking the truth??
Regarding the issue of US officials/government being anti-religious – My question is simple – If the US supports the “separation of church & state” doctrine, it should be across the board. The US Supreme Court has ruled that both “atheism” & “secular humanism” are to be considered by the court as “religions” – the Court &/or US gov’t. should not give these viewpoints any more promotion than any other religion. The flipside to this dilemma is that NO religion should be singled out by the US for suppression or persecution either.
Somehow, in the Obama controvery, politics came to wish for the elimination of religion, & religion came to wish for the elimination of politics. Neither of these views were the original intent of the US founders!! I think it was the intent that politics & religion were to peacefully “co-exist”. Old World history was full of examples of the intermingling of Church & State – the outcome of which was never good!! The President is as free as any citizen to express or not express his beliefs!!