Explains briefly the affect of censorship on debate and the ability to see the whole. by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Republicans have failed in their principle responsibility as a political party, to understand the world as it is, and develop policies consistent with American view of life.
The real trouble with today, in America, is that there appears to be only one national course, articulated by the left. There is no comprehensive second view built on the Bible, the Constitution, capitalism and American nationalism.
We are being told by one party, loudly and repeatedly, "Go this way" and when you look to the other party you see some of them saying, "well, not quite that way" and others with just blank looks.
The left has a developed, comprehensive view of life. At the center of their view of life is themselves, in control, and setting the parameters of the discussion, distributing wealth, and pushing their agenda forward. On the right, the real right, the right of the Bible, the Constitution, capitalism and American nationalism, is silence.
One thing which was brought to reality for me starkly a couple of weeks ago was that God has no place in our national political discussion. A couple weeks ago I wrote an article titled, The America I am counting on The essence of that article was that the remedy for our present situation is Christian living, in a Christian community. It described how there are still small communities in America who have been able to shelter themselves from the materialism and atheism which has blanketed America. And it attempted to relate the idea that our present situation is not hopeless if we turn to God.
It was a pretty well written article, as well as anything else I have ever written. I submitted it to the libertarian blog Nolan Chart. I had previously submitted nine articles to that blog, and each was published. But, when I offered T"he America I am counting on..." it was rejected. The stated reason for the rejection, you are mixing God into politics.
I tried to negotiate with the editor about the need to publish the article because of the concept that God needed to be brought into the discussion. He would not publish it. I than offered it t the American Thinker blog, a conservative blog. Rejection, the same reason.
Do you agree with that? Do you agree that the idea of considering God, a Christian God in the discussion of governing America is something which should be censored? Careful, how you answer this. It may be the most important question of your life. If you say yes, you are turned from God. You don't really believe in Him. If you did, you could not say yes to shutting Him out.
Now you might say, well our nation is open to all religions. You might reflexively say, "separation of church and state." But, I am not asking you about a church, I am asking you about God. God is not a church, God is God. Well, you might say, I am Jewish and I don't believe in Christ. I can only answer, if you can't accept a Christian oriented nation, you have your own to move to, we are losing ours!
I am not anti Jewish, and I don't call for some pledge, other than the one we already recite, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God."
Rush Limbaugh repeatedly asks, "Do we need a third Party?" I would suggest, that if the Republican Party cannot offer an alternative view of America based on the Bible, the Constitution, capitalism and nationalism, than we don't need a third party, we need a new second party.
Mark Vogl
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1
thumb so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2010-03-03 15:46:02
Time for some corrections.
First, we are not your editor, Mark, as I made abundantly clear to you during our email exchange. You agreed to be your own editor and to accept that responsibility from the moment you signed up for an account. See the Be A Columnist link at the top of this page for details.
Second, your article was not rejected for bringing God into it. Your article was rejected for being primarily about using our politics and news site to evangelize Christianity. Our rules very clearly state that articles must be primarily about politics and news, and they specify that articles cannot primarily be about religion. 95% of the article I rejected was about religion. So let's not pretend that I'm rejecting the use of the word God or reference to God in an article. You and I both know it's not true. Now your readers know it too. Other columnists make reference to their religious beliefs, but they all manage to do so without turning their articles into massive religious screeds. I'm sure you can do the same.
Third, this is not a libertarian blog. This is a site for all political camps. The fact that a lot of libertarians publish here does not make this a libertarian blog, because that implies an exclusivity which is not present.
Fourth, requiring all articles to meet certain requirements in order to appear on our site is not censorship. Censorship is where a government official of some kind prevents you from expressing your views anywhere within their jurisdiction. I challenge you to find another political website anywhere on the web that is as inclusive of all views as this website is. You are more than free to evangelize outside of this website all you want to. The world wide web is much larger than this website. All we ask is that you respect this site as the private property that it is, which means respecting our rules. If you don't like our rules, you are welcome to go elsewhere to publish your stuff.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
