Topic: Election 2010
Rove's comments on Limbaugh troublesome for Religous Right
Denying America is a Christian nation raises troubles for GOP despite Democrat's poor showing.by Mark Vogl
(libertarian)
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Rove's comment explains GOP secularism and its possible demise.
Speaking at length about his new book on Limbaugh's talk show, former President George Bush II's top adviser Karl Rove made a single statement which explains how the Republican Party left me, and tens of millions of other Americans. During their discussion Karl Rove said he questioned President Obama, than Senator Obama personally when Obama in one of his books credited Karl Rove with saying that America was a Christian nation.
On Limbaugh's show, Rove denied he ever said that, and denied that America was a Christian nation!
Rove said that if we called America a Christian nation, Jews, Sikhs, Moslems, atheists, et. al. would be offended.
So historical reality is jettisoned by Karl Rove. But not just him, many other senior people in the Republican Party are uncomfortable with Christ in politics... And it is the reason I am no longer a Republican.
From an historical perspective, I encourage you to add to your reading list The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States. This one thousand page work written by Benjamin Morris, in 1864 does an unbelievable job of documenting the Christian roots of our nation and our Constitution.
The great majority of Americans have been and still are Christians. To deny this reality is part of the reason for the trouble we face. Whether it's casinos across the nation, or state lotteries financing education, or X rated channels on television and the open discussion of Gay Marriage, our nation is corrupted because of our turn away from God. Rove's denial is important because it was a communication from one segment of Republicans to the Gays that we still love ya! Well, not this conservative and former Republican.
It is Rove's denial of our Christian foundation which is fundamental to the Republican Party's disingenuous treatment of the social challenges facing America. It allows for the "big tent" they often talk about. Well for their sake there best be twenty million gays ready to vote for the GOP, because the Religious Right may have to choose to sit out 2010 to prove that no matter how bad the Democrats areand they are awful, I won't be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.
This election, 2010, might be the second half of the lesson to teach the Republicans that either they need to fully and completely embrace the Religious Right, or they need to join the Democratic Party. Should the Religious Right show some real discipline and sit out 2010, the GOP as we know it could finally disintegrate and America could be given a real second party founded in large part by the Christian history, heritage and faith of our Founding Fathers. and America's Christian family
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 20
thumbs 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.
I too am a former Republican who "won't be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils." My thoughts on the subject can be found at kingdomofgodflag.info under the heading A Christian Nation?
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -- "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and the Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary" (commonly called the "Treaty of Tripoli"), negotiated under George Washington, signed by President John Adams after the Senate voted unanimously for ratification.
You beat me to it Dan. No doubt that many of our founders were christians, but they understood the difference between a personal religious conviction and a state endorsed one.
Posted By: Greg Hamilton
Date: 2010-03-10 11:48:30
You are so misguided and a poor constitutional historian. Yes, we are a Christian Nation from a historical, cultural, and demographic standpoint (77% of Americans profess to be Christian at some level or another). But we are not a Christian Nation legally or constitutionally. If we were, then all other people of faith would be, legally and constitutionally, second class citizens and we would be a nation of religious "tolerance" merely, and not one with the fundamental guarantee of religious "freedom." This was what distinguished Thomas Jefferson from Patrick Henry when Jefferson and Madison argued in behalf of the religious freedom clause in Virginia's Constitution in 1776, and also in their debates over Jefferson's and Madison's proposed Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom that stood in opposition to Patrick's bill to further fund all of Virginia's churches with the rationale that Virginia was a Christian Commonwealth. Jefferson and Madison won that argument decisively, and those like you in Patrick's day lost. Study up and may you continue to lose so that our nation's Constitutional Founders intentions (as distinguished from the Puritan Founders who not the true principles of religious freedom for all) are preserved for our children's and grandchildren's sake.
Gregory W. Hamilton, President, Northwest Religious Liberty Association
Wow Mark. While I left the party for a number of reasons, the religious right was one of the big ones.
One example of what I consider to be religious policy is the gay marrage issue. Religious folks tend to be against it and I can understand that. But, to not allow equal access to a government service to citizens is wrong. I wish the Repubs would see that the real issue is whether or not the government should be involved in marraige at all. As you probably guessed by now, I don't believe they should.
Wow, there are so many things wrong with the perspective of this article, I don't know where to begin. America's founders were Christians and so were most early Americans. Certainly in that sense, America has been a "Christian nation." But as a former member of the "religious right" myself--I know that religious conservatives regard America to be "Christian" in a much more pervasive way. For them, Christianity is to have a favored place in the nation and in the government above all other religions or philosophies. Having now become a libertarian (notice the small L) I realize that our founders never intended any religion to be enshrined with any degree of governmental favor over any other. Government is not be be hostile to religion but it is to be neutral---and secular---in its actions. Religion's proper place is in the hearts and minds of We the People. It helps to shape our moral character. The founders believed that a moral people was a free people.
Not that I expect you to respond to my request for further clarification, since you have not done so to date and I have submitted more than one at this point, I still feel compelled to reply to this article with comments and yet another request for additional enlightenment from you.
My comments are, as follows, if you take Mr. Rove's comment about this nation not being a Christian nation at face value, he is absolutely correct, as others have pointed out. Our nation is made up of every possible brand of religion, including Judao-Christianity and, even though Christians may outnumber other religious affiliations, we are in fact "made up of" many, many religious institutions and beliefs. Therefore, it would actually be a false statement that America is a "Christian nation" in that sense. And, not that I am necessarily a fan of Karl Rove (and am not in any way a fan of Limbaugh's), he may not have made the statement in the first place and may have been trying to actually clear up a false statement attributed to him by another person, of whom I am also not a fan, Obama, who with all due respect is not always truthful.
That's out of the way. Now on to my next rant. Why is it that the Republican party must be associated ONLY with the Religious Right, a group that, quite frankly, does scare a lot of Americans (including other Christians)? Do you believe that it is only the so-called Religious Right that has a corner market on moral values and standards? From the gist of your article, this is, in fact your belief.
My next point/question is, if you have abandoned the Republican party and, in doing so refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, do you plan not to vote at all? If this is your plan, do you not believe that this inaction will result in the "lesser of two evils" winning the election again? If so, why not?
And finally, if you truly believe that a third (or second, as stated in your article) party will evolve from said abandonment of the Religious Right from the GOP, what party would this be? The Tea Party? If this is the case, could you please explain to me what a Tea Party "party" would represent and their plan for governing the nation? I have no clear understanding of where this new party stands, except that they seem to love Sarah Palin, which causes even more alarm.
Greg, you said: "Yes, we are a Christian Nation from a historical, cultural, and demographic standpoint (77% of Americans profess to be Christian at some level or another). But we are not a Christian Nation legally or constitutionally."
I agree with this statement, even though I believe you were saying it as a criticism of the author. In fact, I think this might be what the author was trying to convey, that while not a theocracy ,which follows as a nation the laws of a specific religion, this country was based on the morals and values of the Judeo-Christian faith. There is a great difference. Basing the tenants of a countries moral standpoint on a religious organization, and gathering information in order to make the best document possible with those morals in mind (i.e. The US Constitution) would give way to the idea that we are a Christian Nation without the obstacle of declaring that Christianity is the nations formal religion. Do you see the difference?
By claiming that America is not, fundamentally, a Christian Nation denies one of the basic foundations upon which this nation lays. Many of the concepts that went into the Constitution comes from natural Law, which is a Judeo-Christian concept, and the understanding that there is a supreme being, a creator, that is all powerful, above man. Since the majority of the people founding the nation believed that being was the God of the Old and New Testament, it's not a stretch to say that they were thinking of the Christian God when they wrote the document.
It's obvious that the founders were not thinking of Allah or an Eastern religious God when they were mentioning a Creator. So I don't see what the problem is with the authors article, and I do think Rove was being somewhat disingenuous when he said we're not a Christian nation in order to appease the moderates.
Evangelical Christianity is not the only form of Christianity, and not even the most popular when the Constitution was written. We tend to react strongly to the word "Christian" as though we can stereotype a character on that word alone. And we can't. Being afraid of our Christian heritage is silly. It's there, it's obvious, and the best thing to do is learn from the past and not try to reinvent it
Amy, I think there is plenty wrong with this article--especially from a libertarian perspective. I have no argument about America being a "Christian" nation from the standpoint that Christian principles are embodied in the founding documents--and a majority of American's claim that religion. No problem there. America is a "Christian" nation but not a "religious right" nation. Even a cursory reading of this article makes it clear that the writer wants to do what the religious right often tries to do--which is take away the liberty of others to live as they see fit. The RR says gambling is a sin, so they seek to take away people's right to gamble. The RR says homosexuality is a sin, so they seek to marginalize gays and take rights away from them. And so on. This writer claims to be a libertarian, but he apparently only loves his own freedom. The freedom of others to own their own lives and live as they see fit is not important to him.
Just a thought. While many Christians claim that our country was founded as a Christian nation or on Christian principles, I don't see anywhere in any of the historical documents where Jesus Christ is mentioned. If we are a nation under God, then we may be a nation based on godly principles but without Christ, where is the Christian?
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.
