Most often conservatives, especially evangelical, are portrayed as followers ("easy to command" anyone?). However, there is wide variety among those that claim the label of "evangelical." Case in point, Christian conservative philosopher and professor John Mark Reynolds bluntly describes Rush's recent pronouncements at CPAC as a "bad speech."
He lays out several points as to why he considered the speech a failure. Here's his last two:
3. Philosophically it relied on the dubious notion (to
conservatives) that “the people” are good . . . as opposed to the
“checks and balances view” of people and government that trusted
neither people or the state with total power.
What happened to fear of “mob rule” on the right?
4. It did not take into account our present situation. Did 2008/2009
happen for Rush? Surely, some business out there deserves condemnation
for looting and pillaging the economy? Does Rush get the change that is
occurring at all?
Reagan would adjust his anecdotes to frightening times, but Rush
acts as if the return of prosperity is right around the corner. In
tough times, he came across as a plutocrat when plutocrats are busy
pillaging the national treasury. Any conservative should have been able
to lambaste the present Washington-Wall Street axis, but Rush missed
this easy connection to a broader audience.
I’m not sure who listens to Rush, but i guess somebody does. I never have. Why listen to Rush when you can listen to Gingrich, O’Reilly, and an occasional stab from Don Wildmon ;)
The reason so much current Christian moralizing is intellectually incoherent is that it is trying to avoid attacking the sexual behaviour of one key group: straight white men. It will criticise gays; it will criticise unmarried mothers, but not unmarried fathers, unless they’re black. It criticises young women for having casual sex, but not young men. It doesn’t say much about easy divorce (despite Jesus’ condemnation of this) because white men want to keep their rights to that. (In contrast, the Evangelical Anglican teaching I was getting in the 1980s was restrictive, but it weighed heavily on men as well).
It’s always a temptation for a religion to condemn only sins that its core audience don’t often commit or can’t commit. But it has become substantial more blatant with the religious right, partly because one of the other main tradional parts of Christian morality (condemnations of injustice, avarice and neglect of the poor) has become such an embarassment to them.
magistra, while I’m not sure what that has to do with the topic of this post, you raise some important issues.
It is a temptation for the faithful to focus on the sins of those which are not like them, but I think you make two rather large, incorrect generalizations.
1. Christianity is not merely an American or Western issue, so I’m sure Christians in Africa, Asia, etc. speak of sin as well. It is in those regions where denominations like the Anglicans are much more conservative. It is in the Western nations where they are much more likely to not speak of homosexuality and other types of sex outside of marriage as sinful.
2. Unfortunately, some Christians do tend to focus on the sins of others (reminds me of a speech someone once gave about a speck and a plank in the eye), but that does nothing to change what the Bible actually says about the issues. The Bible is clear that any sex outside of man/woman marriage is sinful. I’ve yet to hear any one of any significance of the “religious right” say any different.
I do take issue with pastors who rail against homosexuality, when it is unlikely that any one in their congregation is struggling with it. Pastors and leaders should be confronting their own sins and the sins of their people.
As an aside, I take issue with your classification of certain topics as “main traditional parts of Christian morality.” I can find you numerous classic Christian texts from the New Testament to the present day where Christians spoke against sexual sins.
It may be true that Christians have done a poor job of ministering to the poor, but there is not an either/or. All of that is part of Christian morality and should therefore be addressed by Christian leaders.
>> MAGISTRA: The reason so much current Christian moralizing is intellectually incoherent is that it is trying to avoid attacking the sexual behaviour of one key group: straight white men.
Actually, you must not be part of a Christian church, otherwise, you would know that this is entirely incorrect. If you rely, however, on the MSM, of course you might think this way.
First, of course, you give no evidence of the incoherence, I think it is just your own jumbled thinking and pejorative troll instinct.
Since you provide no stats, I'll assume you are just giving us your opinion, maybe even your own heuristic findings, though I doubt you are objective in your reporting.
Second, Christians seem to focus on these 'minority' behaviors have little to do with pandering to the majority, but seem so for two reasons that you fail to mention:
(1) because certain minority groups embody the bad values and behaviors that are at the root of some our most pressing social problems, and
(2) because liberals and the godless culture go about aggressively promoting these specific values and defending these minority groups, so their idiocy must be countered
We absolutely DO focus on fathers – ever heard of Promise Keepers? Ever heard a BLACK preacher preach against black fatherlessness and crime? I have. Who are they pandering to, the white overlords?
The focus is often applied to blacks in public discussion because the African American community has a disproportionate amount of absentee fathers, out of wedlock births, and abortions (now at 50%, Margaret Sanger would be so pleased). Is it only blacks that have a father problem? No.
Just because YOUR pseudo compassion involves pandering to the victim mentality of the black community, failing to address their ideological needs, don't blame us for having the courage to call out the problem.
Do we avoid telling whites to do the right thing? No, we tell them every sunday in church, and we tell our children. However, YOU and your valueless sex education poison the children, including the poor black ones, and fatten the garbage cans at PP with black fetuses. Keep your moralizing to yourself, you are part of the problem.
Christians DO focus on discouraging all men, including white ones, from promiscuity – that's part of abstinence education and just regular xian moralizing.
We also focus on homosexuality, not because we are ignoring the sin in our own back yard, but because people are agressively trying to poison our children and our culture with the acceptance of sins beyond the pale of adultery and promuscuity. Homosexuality is an illness.
But since you are incoherent, I'll make it very plain for you so you don't have to be confuse.
1. God created one man and one woman to form a family unit and have children within marriage.
If that's all you can understand, you can stop there. We oppose all other types of sexual unions because they are unhealthy, sub optimal, and against nature.
We focus on all exceptions to this rule, even in our own house.
While some may be hypocritical on these points, what you perceive as hypocrisy is really our focusing on the primary needs of the day, which happen to be, among other things, pushing back the ideologies that are literally demoralizing our culture and our children.