What We Read Over The Weekend
Interesting Flotsam and Jetsam…
Most interesting was this piece by Steve Chapman at Reason. It strikes at the heart of why there is a separation of church and state:
It may have started in 1979, when Southern Baptist minister Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority to mobilize evangelicals behind conservative political causes. Reagan and other Republican leaders were more than happy to make use of religious sentiments to attract votes.
It looked like a perfect match: Evangelicals gained political influence, and the GOP acquired a loyal bloc of supporters.
But today, it looks increasingly like a bad bargain that dramatizes the risks of interweaving politics and religion. As these believers became more vocal and visible in the Republican Party, they sent an unmistakable message: If you’re not a conservative, you’re not a Christian.
So a lot of people who are not conservative but once would have gone to worship services have decided they don’t belong. They see the GOP claiming to represent the will of God and run the other way.
“Each year, fewer and fewer Americans identify as secular Republicans or religious Democrats,” write political scientists David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. “Formerly religious Democrats (except among African Americans) have drifted away from church, and formerly unobservant Republicans have found religion.”
That may sound like a reasonable trade for conservative Christians. Who needs skeptics and scoffers anyway? But it has some side effects they may come to regret.
If we are defining Christianity politically or the other way around, both lose.
Also very interesting, was Ross Douthat. I kept alternately agreeing and disagreeing with his analysis, but this was particularly good:
Americans have never separated religion from politics, but it makes a difference how the two are intertwined. When religious commitments are more comprehensive and religious institutions more resilient, faith is more likely to call people out of private loyalties to public purposes, more likely to inspire voters to put ideals above self-interest, more likely to inspire politicians to defy partisan categories altogether. But as orthodoxies weaken, churches split and their former adherents mix and match elements of various traditions to fit their preferences, religion is more likely to become indistinguishable from personal and ideological self-interest.
One more interesting read.
In light of Douthat’s analysis, who cares? Speaking of which, why is this in Politico? IN is a purely theological statement with no political ramifications other than those the left-leaning press want to try and create.
On Friday, we briefly mentioned some silly comments by David Gregory. Carl Cannon gave Gregory the smackdown.
Santorum cannot win – Romney enemy the Boston Globe is carrying story after story about that fact. And CNN says:
Santorum said that Republicans should nominate him now instead of repeating the mistake of 1976 by going with the moderate Ford, who lost to Jimmy Carter, but West said Santorum’s underlying strategy for staying in the race appears aimed at 2016 as much as 2012.
“Santorum does not appear concerned about hurting Romney,” West said, noting that Santorum ran “very tough ads” in Wisconsin against Romney.
“If he weakens Romney and Romney loses the general election, Santorum benefits in 2016 because he can say, ‘I told you so,’ ” West said. “That clearly is his strategy, because otherwise he would soften his rhetoric and drop out of the race.”
Think about that – Santorum seems willing to give us four more years of Obama for his own chances in 2016. That’s just ugly.
Speaking of other candidates, Newt is singing a new tune.
Did you know, “big oil” was really a Mormon plot? “Ask oil lobbyists, oil executives, and former employees and board members of the American Petroleum Institute how they describe API President Jack N. Gerard, and one thing they don’t say is soft….A longtime supporter of fellow Mormon and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Gerard has repeatedly castigated Obama for his energy policies.”
How long before this “woman thing” becomes a “Mormon thing?” Gonna happen you know.
It was a Jews and Mormons weekend.
Ugh, just ugh.
Not So Secret after all – Look CNN visited a Mormon Temple. But troublemakers remain.
Posted in Reading List | 3 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
JLF9999 on 09 Apr 2012 at 7:55 am #
It was an interesting weekend. Sunday’s Face the Nation wasn’t anything like I was expecting. Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver’s tolerance was unexpected coming from a member of the congr3essional Black Caucus and a Methodist preacher to boot. Kudos to the good Congressman from Missouri.
Of course Andrew Sullivan’s diatribe about religion was no big surprise. Neither was Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land who took him on a full-throated exchange of ideas.
David Gregory repeated his well rehearsed Leno piece on Meet The Press just about verbatim. He must have taken some time to write it in advance so his thinking about Mormons can’t be said to be off the cuff or in response to the direction the conversation was going.
The piece about the BYU homosexual students’ web site and that “The video has sent tremors through the Mormon community…” seems a bit odd given homosexuality is a prevalent among Mormons as it is among the population in general. Maybe the writer wants to believe there is an alternate Mormon universe where homosexuals don’t exist
Retrocon on 09 Apr 2012 at 9:27 am #
“Santorum seems willing to give us four more years of Obama for his own chances in 2016. That’s just ugly.”
…and deluded.
Santorum has no real constituency that will be with him in 2016 should Obama win a second term. His current base of support will drop him like a cold potato by the time they wake up Friday morning after the Republican Convention.
Santorum has been around since the beginning during this election cycle. He was in the first Republican debate last May (2011) before Romney had officially announced. That debate featured Santorum along with Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. I read an article about that debate (from Brad Phillips of Phillips Media Relations) that did not have much good to say about Santorum’s performance:
“Of the five Republicans taking the stage tonight, only one (Tim Pawlenty) is viewed as a viable contender for the GOP nomination.”
“If voters elected the most strident candidate, Santorum would win. Of course, they don’t. Otherwise, we’d be in the second term of President Howard Dean.”
And get this… “He notably received no applause when he declared repealing ObamaCare the most important issue facing this nation.” (the MOST IMPORTANT issue — an early tip-off that his campaign was focused on taking on Romney)
In subsequent debates, Santorum remained little more than an afterthought, always occupying the bookend position while other candidates were boosted center-stage to join Romney. So has anyone ever really been excited about Santorum? Does anyone care about him now as anything but the last Non-Romney standing?
Bookmarks 04/10/2012 « Conservative First on 10 Apr 2012 at 6:40 am #
[...] What We Read Over The Weekend [...]