Peggy’s find deserves to hit the front page at Post Scripts, “Hopefully, this is the GOP and America’s future”
“Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them the tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers.” – Marco Rubio
Empowering individuals to be the best they can be, to become productive participants as citizens, and to realize their personal hopes and dreams is a fundamental underpinning of conservatism. Republicans reforms and legislation of the past certainly reflected how Conservative republicans think both in terms of the untapped capability in all people but also in the incredible opportunity that freedom offers every person in this nation. I’m glad to see a Republican articulate this basic truth; we need to see it happen more often and in small intimate settings all across the land.
Are people of faith no longer welcome in the public square?
http://www.edstetzer.com/2013/01/evangelicals-and-44-of-america.html
I think it is fairly disingenuous to ask “Are people of faith welcome in the public square?” when it is practically a prerequisite to be a member of a religious group (specifically, Christianity) in order to become president, and only 10% of Congress members claim to be religiously unaffiliated.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/number-of-religiously-unaffiliated-congress-members-on-the-rise/
A better question would be, are certain faith-based views welcome in the public square? And to that, I would answer that some are not. For example, some people of faith believe their religious text tells them that women should be subservient to men, and should not have as many legal rights. This view prevailed in America for a very long time, and was central to many significant political debates, such as whether women should have the right to vote, or whether contraception should be legal for unmarried women.
Thankfully, today when this view is expressed in the political sphere, it is correctly identified as bigoted. That may be tough for the person expressing that view…but it would be worse if this view was still accepted as mainstream, as it would cause a lot of unjust discrimination against women.
I believe the same is true in the gay marriage debate. I understand it is difficult for many religious people opposed to homosexuality that their view is bigoted, when they genuinely believe that their view is based on the word of God. But it is more difficult for the millions of gay people who face legal discrimination. In the past, those who sought to uphold gender and racial discrimination appealed to scripture in making their arguments, as did those who strived for equality. Today, most people of faith realize that this discrimination was wrong, and claim that those parts of the Bible which were read as defending discrimination were incorrectly interpreted. I think the same will happen (and, in many cases, is already happening) in the case of anti-gay discrimination.
I also don’t like the way that article seems to imply a division between “people of faith” and people who support gay marriage. While this division is highlighted in the media, and often exploited by people on both sides, there is considerably more overlap among the two groups than many think. Many churches, synogogues and other religious groups have embraced their gay members and no longer preach that homosexuality is a sin. Pagan religious groups have performed gay marriages for a very long time. Others believe that while homosexuality may be a sin, gay marriage should still be legal, as it is not their place to impose their religious views on the rest of society.
This Rabbi gives a very interesting speech on how he his religious beliefs led him to support legalizing gay marriage:
http://familyscholars.org/2013/01/07/rabbi-shmuel-herzfelds-sermon-on-same-sex-marriage-an-appreciation/
I don’t know if I agree with the decision to cancel Giglio’s speech from the inauguration. I think his remarks were wrong, but at the time they were spoken they were much more mainstream than they are today. And to be honest, I have heard pastors say far worse things about gay people. It seems he has done good work on other issues. Rick Warren has said similar things, and he spoke at Obama’s first inauguration. I think the president could have made clear that he did not agree with all of Giglio’s views without canceling his appearance.
Peggy there is a definite hatred/bias against religious people. It hasn’t helped that the government has gotten involved in issues of marriage and contraception. Perhaps if government took a step back those issues would once again become personal matters and personal choice.
Long before gay marriage or contraception became points of contention the left was doing whatever it could to get religious values and symbols out of the public square. They have become more militant but I don’t think they have succeeded in pushing people of faith into the closet. Isn’t it ironic that that is exactly what many of them would like to do.
Obama is doing his thing! Politics and buying votes is the only thing this community organizer knows how to do.
Conservatives need to play offense.
The pendulum has definitely swung on religious values and people of faith over the past decades. Individuals in the “closet” in the past have “come out” and been replaced with those of different beliefs. What was once considered unacceptable behavior is now considered the norm and anyone who voices their opposition to the “new” norm is verbally attack and subject to public scorn.
Tina, I find this whole transition amazing that those who wanted to be accepted for their choice of life-styles are now the ones attacking individuals for believing differently. Those who were in the closet and who are now free are forcing individuals into the closet afraid to live their lives as they believe.
Have you seen the “Jane Roe” video? If not here it is. Change, while in most cases is better, is not when based on a lie/s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MUUvcvjEg&feature=player_embedded
Ah, yes. Mr. Rubio … who opposes those very Pell Grants that have put him where he is today.
Go figure.
Tina: “It hasn’t helped that the government has gotten involved in issues of marriage and contraception. Perhaps if government took a step back those issues would once again become personal matters and personal choice.”
There are 1,138 federal benefits that come from civil marriage under U.S. law. Good luck convincing your fellow Americans to give all of those benefits up. “Get the government out of marriage” is not a practical option, nor is it something most of its proponents actually desire; it’s code for “the government should not recognize gay marriage, but should totally continue to give all current benefits to straight married couples.”
As for the other issue, you can’t seriously be ignorant of the long history of political conservatives’ attempts to keep even *information* about birth control illegal. Google the Comstock laws. Did you know that when Margaret Sanger set up the first birth control clinic in the U.S., it was immediately shut down by the police, and Sanger spent 30 days in jail? And until 1972, many states prohibited unmarried people from obtaining birth control. Even today, there are conservatives who believe some forms of birth control such as the “Plan B” pill should be outlawed, falsely claiming that they induce abortion (to be fair, science was never their strong suit).
It is incredibly disingenuous of you to imply that only liberals have advocated government interference on these issues.
I have to ask–is everyone at Post Scripts OK? I haven’t seen an update in almost a week, and even the comments I submitted several days ago have not been posted. That is unusual for this site, especially in such a news-heavy week. Jack, Tina, I hope you are both doing well and that everything is OK.