Going on this weekend in Washington D.C. The fact that Newt Gingrich was an invited speaker, says volumes about how serious these ass clowns are about “values.”
But they’ve been making news this week for a number of other things. Among them, the guy who introduced Rick Perry at the gathering called Mormonism a cult (how I wish Mitt Romney has the balls to tell these people to shove it).
Also they had right wing talker Bryan Fischer. Here’s an example of the types of “values” he was promoting.
So, what happened to all the talk about small government here?
Bryan Fischer has also said that because Mormons have “a completely different definition of who Christ is” than most Christians, they aren’t protected by the First Amendment. (And neither are Muslims, natch.)
Of course we all know how much detail our Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) goes into about the nature of Christ, and serious students of American history will also recall the extent to which Christology and the doctrines of the Trinity were discussed in the Federalist Papers. Still, some people think that that sort of religious test just doesn’t belong in the constitutional system of a 21st century First World country.
What is the official Catholic Church’s stand on Mormonism? My understanding is that they don’t accept conversion w/o baptism, but does that mean the don’t accept that religion as being “Christian”?
I doubt it. Only in the really broad, “All religions are cults” kind of way. Several (that I’ve noticed) think Mormonism is nutty, even nuttier than mainstream Christianity, but that’s a far cry from cult. And, of course, several members are Mormons.
There are generally two continuums along which a person can be liberal or conservative: the fiscal continuum and the social continuum. People who like small government are conservatives along the fiscal continuum. And people at the values voters summit are conservatives along the social continuum.
Now, it so happens that people who vote Republican tend to be conservative long both continuums. But that doesn’t mean that one thing necessarily has anything to do with another.
So, this is a gathering of social conservatives, where they talk about social conservative issues. It just so happens that many of them are fiscal conservatives as well, but this isn’t a gathering of fiscal conservatives. Therefore, it’s rather dumbass for you to bring up small government in regards to this gathering.
I’m surprised that even you would come in to defend these fucking idiots, but I guess I shouldn’t be.
I’m sorry if I find it a little puzzling that many so-called “small government” conservatives see fit to associate with these stupid asses. The fact that they do, raises serious questions about their commitment to their supposed ideals.
You are an idiot of the highest caliber. I tried to educate you and failed, so I won’t waste any more time on it.
OK, I’ll waste a little more time. Would you walk into a planned parenthood convention and say “Hey now! What about raising taxes on the rich and universal healthcare and increasing regulation on banks? Why aren’t you talking about all that now? Instead it’s just all this stuff about birth control and abortion rights and what-not!”
“Hey! Stop poaching our territory, willya, clip-on-tie-boys? South America is OUR turf. Here, have some coffee. And put on some sunscreen dude!” Only half serious there, but the Establishment would have to be more aggravated by the proselytizing than by specific heretical teachings.
(GQ: Do Mormons baptize “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”?)
As I understand it, CJCLDS is divergent from (small-o)rthodox Christianity on enough key matters (including such as the nature of the triune godhead and the person of Christ) to the point that it could be considered enough to require starting from scratch and affirming your faith in the Right Teaching. Would not surprise me if the same rebaptism requirement applied to Jehovah Witnesses, who do not believe in the deity of Christ. Dunno though if they are officially classed out there with the Gnostics as a major heresy, but I have read conservative RCC writings describing LDS, JW and Branhamite Pentecostalism as “sects”. Not quite cults, but out on the fringes and Just Not Right.
You seem to be saying that a person can be a “small government conservative” and also be a “social conservative”. What liberals (and presumably libertarians) are pointing out is that it is inconsistent to say you’re in favor of “small government”, then turn right around and pine for the days of laws criminalizing the private sex lives of consenting adults, or suggest that your “small” government has the power to outlaw non-Christian religions. “Fiscal conservative/social conservatives” of that type are not true “small government conservatives”.
(A person could conceivably be a “small government conservative”/libertarian and still be a “social conservative” in one sense, if they said “I personally disapprove of [homosexual sex/drug use/the practice of false religions], and through my church and in my personal life I will witness to the [gays/drug users/non-Christians] to try and persuade them to change their sinful ways, but the government must properly stay out of those areas”.)
Not that I agree with these guys, but “small government” doesn’t mean “no government”. The government was much smaller in the 1920s (pre New Deal), and yet there was plenty of room to outlaw homosexual acts. There seems to be this meme on this board that if someone advocates “small government” they must advocate any position that makes the government smaller.
The real issue here is that this guy is claiming homosexuality and liberty are incompatible, when in fact it’s just the opposite. Liberty means freedom, and there is nothing about banning homosexual relationships that is compatible with advocating liberty.
By long-standing precedent government in America has no power to outlaw non-Christian religions. By more recent precedent government in America has no power to outlaw the private sexual acts of consenting adults. I think it does violence to the language to call someone who wants to increase the power of government (and in the case of this “the First Amendment only applies to Christians” bullshit, radically increase the power of government) an advocate of “small government”.
Well, if the 1st amendment only applied to Christians, that would make the government smaller, since it wouldn’t have to defend other religions.
But, like I said, as long as the person is advocating a net smaller government than we have now, I don’t see any hypocrisy in advocating a larger government in some spheres.
There is much to criticize about this guy, but hypocrisy over small government is not one them, as far as I can tell. But if you can show that he is actually advocating a net increase in the size of government, I’ll be happy to change my mind.
You’re right I wouldn’t go into a Planned Parenthood and start harping about taxes and bank regulation. Yeah, they do advocate the government staying out of personal decisions, but unlike many of the people at the “values” summit, they don’t generally inject themselves into arguments about the proper role of government in other sectors of society.
Lord knows I’m not very religious, but I have a very hard time considering the CJCLDS to be Christian. This is not a value judgment on the religion, but the creedal and other doctrinal differences are enough for me to say that they are not the same religion and thus CJCLDS is not Christian.
Christendom may have its disagreements and its splits, but to me if you can’t agree on something as fundamental as the Trinity you cannot be considered Christian.
All that said, I cannot stand the so-called “Values” Voters.
Only half serious there, but the Establishment would have to be more aggravated by the proselytizing than by specific heretical teachings.