Conservative Christians and the Available Choices

Two political stories:

First, two takes on Mitt Romney's Mormonism. The Religion News Service (to which the magazine subscribes) reports that fundamentalist leader Bob Jones III has endorsed the Mormon Mitt Romney. "As a Christian I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism. But I'm not voting for a preacher. I'm voting for a president. It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs."

Ethicsdaily.com reports that Southern Baptist leader Richard Land has called Mormonism "the fourth Abrahamic faith." It is "another faith" in the same sense as Islam, he says.

I think the fairest and most charitable way to define Mormonism would be to call it the fourth Abrahamic religion--Judaism being the first, Christianity being the second, Islam being the third, and Mormonism being the fourth. And Joseph Smith would play the same character in Mormonism that Muhammad plays in Islam.

It is not, he continues, a cult. A cult

does not comply with the essential teachings of the Christian faith but claims to be within the Christian faith or to be the true expression of the Christian faith, as opposed to being another religion like Judaism.

I wasn't going to comment in this post, but I can't help but say that I thought being the true expression of Christianity was precisely what Mormonism claims, and the reason Mormons get narked at those of us who reject their claim to be Christians at all. What Dr. Land is describing is a heresy, not a cult, and I don't think Mormonism is even that close to Christianity, even though its founder ransacked the Bible when he wrote his own scriptures. Another religion, okay, but not a heresy.

Second, here is a useful analysis of the state of the "religious right": Jeff Sharlet's New York Times Declares Religious Right Dead. Again. from his website the revealer, in which he analyzes a long essay in today's NYTimes Magazine (link in his article). He argues that

That there's a crack-up in political evangelicalism's old guard is indisputable, but the movement, the evangelical vision, is stronger now than it ever was in the 20th century.

. . .To suggest that evangelicals are reviving that Democratic tradition -- mildly populist economics combined with social conservatism and a fundamental belief in American power -- doesn't so much herald a moderation as an expansion of cultural influence. And culture, as evangelical activists understand in a way that the NYT does not, is politics.

You will have to get past a lot of snide and sneering writing, but  he offers a good argument against the popular "At long last, that disgusting thing is dead" story.  I suspect some people who tell it wish it were true so convince themselves it is, but I wonder how many tell it in the hope that they can make it come true. Sharlet sees more clearly.

Comments

[labrialumn]

A polytheistic religion which worships the local System Lord is hardly 'Abrahamic'.

Zoroastrianism, maybe, but not LDS.

[Bisaal]

Shouldnt Jehovah's Witness be put in the list of Abhramic religions too?

[Peter Gardner]

JWs don't have anything much that isn't either in Arianism or in some other minor heresy. I can only speak for myself, but I consider them to be Christian heretics.

I've thought at various times that Mormonism:Protestantism::Islam:Orthodoxy.

[Jeff Sharlet]

Thanks for the notice, David, and glad you found some value in my analysis. But -- apart from a few jabs at "Every Man's Battle" -- there's nothing snide or sneering here. There is genuine opposition to the cultural ambitions of conservative evangelicalism, but it's not based on the stereotype of Christian conservatives as stupid or hateful. I'd think you'd welcome some genuine opposition, as opposed to what papers like the NYT do -- frame their opposition as "objective."

[Christopher Hathaway]

It seems to me the real problem with Mormons is the secrecy and ambivalence towards the truth that is built into th religion. When lying is blessed at the highest levels because it's "for a good cause" or because we aren't ready to understand the truth yet, them I have to wonder whether I can trust getting the truth out of an adherant of that religion. Campaign promises will mean even less than they mean for Christians who make them.

[Joseph D. Walch]

Christopher; it isn't secrecy or ambivalence towards truth. We simply prefer to not cast our pearls before swine. And I am simply incredulous at the claims you insinuate as to the integrity of the Church's leadership (which is made up of, by-in-large, lay ministers except at the very top). Now the Mormons are not ones to criticize other religions, but a word of caution: perhaps you should first make sure your Catholic and Protestant houses are in order before criticizing the Mormons; who as the fifth largest religious body in the U.S. have had relatively few scandals or moral crises notwithstanding your claims of widespread corruption at the top of the Church's hierarchy. Having said that, I have tremendous respect for many of my Catholic and Protestant friends and hope my words aren’t interpreted otherwise.

I would expect such total disregard for the faith of millions of people to come from somebody who is amoral or atheist. I already know they have totally disregarded moral truth, but such venomous attacks on one's personal faith coming from those who profess Christian Charity always seems to sting much more because of it's duplicity.

So, for the record; Mormon's only seek the approval of one Man--Christ, and even though we don't recognize the truthfulness of attacks against our personal faith in a personal Savior, we sure would hope the rest of the Christian world would get past excluding people from salvation in the next world and start working together on the important social/temporal problems that affect us all in this world.

[Bill R]

“But -- apart from a few jabs at "Every Man's Battle" -- there's nothing snide or sneering here.” - Jeff Sharlet

Umm, Jeff, just at random from your article:

“What Warren offered was The Little Engine That Could, with Jesus in place of the choo choo train. Poor people, all aboard!”

And that’s hardly all. But no matter—you’ve made some good points. Far from being comatose, the evangelical movement in the U.S. is simply moving on to a different, more significant, level. I do expect that evangelicalism, broadly speaking, to be the majority American outlook within a generation. But that will be very broadly speaking. What the NY Times and others think of as a “breakup” is simply a manifestation of growing pains: evangelicalism is expanding very fast and one sees various “evangelicalisms,” not just one variety, arising throughout the country. And it’s a very urban movement, again contra the Times. Here in rather densely populated urban/suburban southwest Los Angeles County where I live, new evangelical churches have sprouted like mushrooms over the last 30 years or so. Often they aren’t highly visible from suburban streets, but check out what’s happening in many light industrial or office parks: on weekends they become the “homes” of a great number of start-up churches. My own large evangelical church has planted several of these in the area over the last decade.

I just returned from my Stanford college reunion: the largest ever, with 9000 alums in attendance. A review of the reunion book and meetings with old friends tell me that aging boomers are moving in large numbers toward serious Christianity—generally evangelical, because it seems authentic in a way that one’s parents’ faith often was not. At least evangelicals take the Bible and God seriously, and not as a mere adjunct to being middle-class Americans. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox also benefit from this, albeit in a more limited fashion. It’s not PC, of course, so much of this occurs beneath the radar.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Thanks for the advice Joe, but "don't cast your pearls before swine" does not mean keep secrets about what you believe but rather don't keep trying to defend yourself before scoffres. Christiand have always been willing to talk about what we believe and what we do in worship. We just don't expect anyone to understand why if the don't have faith.

If most people knew what mormonism really thought about God it wouldn't have nearly bthe respect it does, and your leadership knows this, which is why it hides the truth. I call this deception and lying. You call it what you will. It's the same thing.

[Stuart Koehl]

The question Christian conservatives need to ask themselves: "Do I want 50% of somethiing, or 100% of nothing?"

[DGP]

>>The question Christian conservatives need to ask themselves: "Do I want 50% of somethiing, or 100% of nothing?"

I'm sympathetic, but that's not completely fair. With the "100% of nothing" also comes the fantasy that we will have taught a lesson to the foot-dragging-but-not-entirely-godless party, so that in two or four more years it'll be ever stronger in its commitment to truth and goodness. (As if most people remember political lessons for more than a few weeks.)

[Bot]

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion This article helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity's comprehension of baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

· Baptism: .

Early Christian churches, practiced baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family. The local congregation had a lay ministry. An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified. http://www.imj.org.il/eng/exhibitions/2000/christianity/ancientchurch/structure/index.html
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continues baptism and a lay ministry as taught by Jesus’ Apostles. Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and prohibiting non-Christians from witnessing them.

· The Trinity: .

A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?

The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one."

Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. .

Scholars agree that Early Christians believed in an embodied God; it was neo-Platonist influences that later turned Him into a disembodied Spirit. Divinization, narrowing the space between God and humans, was also part of Early Christian belief. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Eastern Orthodox) wrote, regarding theosis, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God. " . The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views the Trinity as three separate divine beings , in accord with the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts.

· The Deity of Jesus Christ

Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS), Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists (28 percent of Episcopalians) agreed that Jesus was “without sin”, 70 percent of Mormons believe Jesus was sinless. http://www.adherents.com/misc/BarnaPoll.html

· The Cross and Christ’s Atonement: .

The Cross became popular as a Christian symbol in the Fifth Century A.D. . Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) believe the proper Christian symbol is Christ’s resurrection , not his crucifixion on the Cross. Many Mormon chapels feature paintings of the resurrected Christ or His Second Coming. Furthermore, members of the church believe the major part of Christ’s atonement occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane as Christ took upon him the sins of all mankind.

· Definition of “Christian”: .

But Mormons don’t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. They believe Christ’s atonement applies to all mankind. The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”: All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. They all worship the one and only true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and address Him in prayer as prescribed in The Lord’s Prayer.

It’s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be authentic Christians. . Early Christians had certain rituals which defined a Christian http://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/207/2070037.htm , which members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continue today. . If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology, they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.

· The Need for a Restoration of the Christian Church:

The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, just prior to leaving the church he established, said this:

"There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking.” (Picturesque America, p. 502.)

Martin Luther had similar thoughts: "Nor can a Christian believer be forced beyond sacred Scriptures,...unless some new and proved revelation should be added; for we are forbidden by divine law to believe except what is proved either through the divine Scriptures or through Manifest revelation."

He also wrote: "I have sought nothing beyond reforming the Church in conformity with the Holy Scriptures. The spiritual powers have been not only corrupted by sin, but absolutely destroyed; so that there is now nothing in them but a depraved reason and a will that is the enemy and opponent of God. I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among
those who should have preserved it."

The Lutheran, Baptist and Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) churches recognize an apostasy from early Christianity. The Lutheran and Baptist churches have attempted reform, but Mormonism (and Roger Williams, and perhaps Martin Luther) require inspired restoration, so as to re-establish an unbroken line of authority and apostolic succession.

* * *
· Christ-Like Lives:

The 2005 National Study of Youth and Religion published by UNC-Chapel Hill found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):


1. Attend Religious Services weekly
2. Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life – extremely important
3. Believes in life after death
4. Does not believe in psychics or fortune-tellers 5. Has taught religious education classes
6. Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline
7. Sabbath Observance
8. Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith
9. Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily
10. Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen (very supportive)
11. Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality

LDS Evangelical
1. 71% 55%
2. 52 28
3. 76 62
4. 100 95
5. 42 28
6. 68 22

7. 67 40
8. 72 56
9. 50 19

10. 65 26

11. 84 35

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion <<<

Well, if we follow your lead, then the gnostics were Christians, too. But we don't buy into that, or the tortured logic by which a neo-gnostic sect like the LDS tries to appropriate the name of Christian. Since, in effect, Mormons claim that orthodox Christianity has perverted the teachings of Jesus Christ for the better part of 2000 years and that the Book of Mormon supersedes Christian Scripture, you can hardly be surprised when we determine, on objective criteria, that, though you invoke the name of Christ, you are hardly Christians.

But let's go through your claims, one at a time:

>>>Early Christian churches, practiced baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family.<<<

Spurious, not supported by any contemporary ante- or post-Nicene commentaries or homilies. Quite the reverse: the early Church not only practiced infant baptism, but also infant communion.

>>>The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin.<<<

Um, I know Mormons have only a sketchy appreciation for both history and truth, but you would think any fairly competent person would know or be able to discover, that the Nicene Creed--and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is what you really mean--were originally written in GREEK and only later translated into LATIN. Sheesh! All credibility is now shot.

>>>Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity.<<<

Most biblical historians disagree with Ehrman, who has sold out his birthright for a mess of book sale pottage. To invoke Ehrman is just one step removed from invoking Groucho Marx.

>>>Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS), Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists (28 percent of Episcopalians) agreed that Jesus was “without sin”, 70 percent of Mormons believe Jesus was sinless. http://www.adherents.com/misc/BarnaPoll.html<<<

Big fat hairy deal. Your Christology is still defective, marred by the stain of adoptionism.

>>> Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) believe the proper Christian symbol is Christ’s resurrection , not his crucifixion on the Cross. <<<

Can't have one without the other. Moreover, you seem totally unfamiliar with the Eastern Christian concept of Christos Nikon--Christ the Victor, whose cross is a throne of victory, and whose resurrection represents his triumph over death and our release from bondage to sin and death. But you cannot have the resurrection without the cross, and without the cross, no resurrection would be needed or effective. Again, your soteriology, like your christology, is highly defective.

>>>But Mormons don’t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. They believe Christ’s atonement applies to all mankind.<<<

That's because they are Christians, whereas you, well, whatever it is, it ain't Christian. Christianity is based on truth, Mormonism on a tissue of lies. Which is why this apologia is essentially based on lies and half-truths. As for Christ's atonement being for all mankind, well, we affirm that every time we celebrate the Eucharist as Christ's body broken and blood poured forth "for the life of the world".

>>>Early Christians had certain rituals which defined a Christian http://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/207/2070037.htm , which members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continue today.<<<

The hell you say (and I mean that literally). Where do you guys make this up? How can you be considered credible to outsiders? Or do you just preach to the choir and drink your own bathwater. Considering the ignorance displayed herein, one can only conclude that Mormons pray upon non-Christians and Christians alike who have only the shakiest familiarity with true Christianty. For that, shame upon us, but that cannot be used to validate your own faulty conception of Christ.

>>>The Need for a Restoration of the Christian Church:<<<

The Church, being the manifestation of the Kingdom of God in this world, of necessity is an icon and not the fullness, which requires constant self-examination and reformation . But radical discontinuity by its nature violates the concept of Tradition. There is no unbroken thread of belief from the Upper Room to Joseph Smith, which is why Smith had to invent the fantasy of a new revelation divinely dictated to him by or through the Angel Moroni. Funny how other Christians throughout history did not need to have angels come down and dictate a new revelation to them.

>>>The Lutheran, Baptist and Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) churches recognize an apostasy from early Christianity. <<<

I would agree. All of you have departed from the Tradition of the early Church. But only one of you are apostates. Guess who?

>>>The 2005 National Study of Youth and Religion published by UNC-Chapel Hill found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):<<<

But Orthodox Jews are even more likely to exhibit these characteristics than Mormons, so I guess they are the authentic Christians after all.

All-in-all, I think you need to hire a professional apologist to make a silk's purse out of this swine's ear.

[Stuart Koehl]

By the way, I should clarify that those "certain rituals" of the early Church that Mormon's claim to follow are really nothing more than the ancient Rites of Initiation--Baptism, Chrismation and Eucharist--that are universally celebrated by the Apostolic Churches and by many of the Protestant communities as well. The difference is the perversion of the meaning of these by the Mormons, and their attempts to expropriate for themselves the true sacramental nature of the Church.

The method of argumentation used, its foundations in mendacity, the willingness to distort and pervert the sacred texts--all of these demonstrate that those who call Joseph Smith the American Mohammed were far closer to the mark than they realized.

Or perhaps they did.

[Seth R.]

I'll admit to being a little mystified myself as to what modern Protestantism actually is. You still see a hint of there being a "church" in there somewhere, especially in the more traditional sectors. But the real evangelical growth areas seem to be more of a self-help movement than a real organized religion. Kind of like Buddhism, but with Jesus and the Bible instead of the Bodhisattva and obscure Chinese texts.

It seems like the real growth areas for Evangelicals are in the mega-church movement with its motivational speakers, best-selling self-help books, pop music, and emotion-laden air of a Bon Jovi concert (but without the drugs, I guess).

Does that even qualify as an organized religion? It seems we've come a long way since the days of Luther and Calvin.

Even if organized Christianity is dying off (and I'm not sure it is), I'd agree that the NYT's epitaph for the Christian Right is premature to say the least.

I'm still debating whether or not I'm interested in getting sucked into another "do Mormons smell bad?" discussion. How masochistic do I feel today? Hmmm...

[Peter Gardner]

"How masochistic do I feel today?"

My first reading got "how monotheistic do I feel today?" which was almost a sequitur.

[Steve Nicoloso]

The question Christian conservatives need to ask themselves: "Do I want 50% of somethiing, or 100% of nothing?

My question is: What 50% is that? That math worked in 2000 and 2004. But convince me that you can slide anything more than a slim jim between Hillary and Giuliani. On "social" issues, they're two peas in a pod. Moreover, on foreign policy they're more alike than different: highly interventionist, internationalist, "free" traders.

Even if there's no "lesson" to be taught to the Not-Quite-as-Evil party, I don't see how voting for either of these liberals gives traditionalist conservatives anything less than 100% of nothing.

In fact, if Hillary is elected, you can set your watch by a 2010 GOP retake of congress--which will give us divided government and gridlock: the best of all possible American governments.

[GL]

Were I assured of getting 50% of what really mattered, it would be one thing. Instead, I feel I might get 66% on my tertiary issues, 33% on my secondary issues, and a bone thrown my way on primary issues. On the other hand, if the "not-so-evil" party loses and attributes its lose to folks like me not voting for its nominee, it might choose a nominee more to my liking the next time, when, after a mere 4 years in the wilderness, I might get 75% on the primary issues. It is not nearly as simple a matter as either the "I will under no circumstances vote for him" or "You have not choice but to vote for him" contingents want to make it out to be.

[Judy Warner]

That would be good strategy, GL, if there were such a thing as a party that chose the nominee. Then it could remember in four years what the lesson was you taught it. But it is millions of assorted voters who choose the nominee, always in a complicated dynamic based on various motives and nominees that never fit into a tidy plan. And in four years we might have a system of hate-speech laws in effect that will preclude any of the discussions you wish to happen during the nominating process. That is, if the next president is George Soros's ally, Mrs. Destroy-Your-Enemies Clinton.

[Joe Long]

Stuart, you ask "50% of something, or 100% of nothing" as if it's rhetorical. But the time may come when it isn't, anymore; when we want no buy at all into the available "something". We have a broadly pro-life population, but may soon have no pro-life party (just as we have an overwhelmingly pro-border-enforcement, anti-illegal immigration population, but no party representing that view). It often seems that, if Communists were "socialists in a hurry", then many Republicans are mere "Democrats who straggle a bit".

I haven't decided that being politically homeless is superior to what the GOP offers - yet. But it's a real question nonetheless. Certainly it already affects my willingness to do anything for the party besides simply vote.

[Joe Long]

Judy, "Hillary!" would perhaps teach the whole population lessons, which recalcitrant voters couldn't teach the GOP; she might indeed be a catalyst for a fiercer grassroots conservatism than we've ever seen. I would expect policies from her which I would feel morally obligated to practice civil, or not-so-civil, disobedience against. I will try to view her "mobilizing" influence as the bright side of the disaster, if she gets power again. (Isn't it alreay a violation of the Constitution for her to be President for a third term?!!)

[GL]

Judy,

You have raised that argument before. The party's nominee is nominally selected primarily by primary voters and caucus participants. He (or she) is in fact primarily selected by campaign contributors who have a hankering for contributing to winners who, they hope, can return the favor once elected. That is, they are buying influence. In all cases, however, contributors, primary voters and caucus participants, knowing that the candidate you select cannot win in November is a factor that influences who you support. So, while there is no longer a smoked-filled room with a few king makers choosing the nominee, there are people who can be and should be influenced by an understanding that supporting a candidate who alienates a large part of your coalition is not a good horse to bet on.

As to Joe's post of Oct 30, 2007 9:38:46 AM: Ditto.

[Joseph D. Walch]

Stuart and Christopher:

Just like all forms of bigotry, I cannot convince you of your error any more than I can convince a white supremacist of his error in racism. You are not experts of my religion. I have served in leadership positions myself, and I have studied this religion for the better part of 25 years. Your baseless claims that I have perpetuated lies to my congregations have support in neither reason nor evidence. Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that I know much more about the tenants, history and customs of my religion than do you. Perhaps you should take a long look in the mirror and see who is really perpetuating lies and libel.

Almost 2000 years ago a wise Jew gave this advice:

Take heed of yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves; he was slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nought. After this rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him; he also perished, and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. (Acts 5:34)

I commend that advice to you in the conduct of your lives, and hope that someday we can get past your bigotry of our religion to do substantive work towards helping our neighbors live better lives, regardless of their religion; through humanitarian service and political action.

[Judy Warner]

Joe, I'm sure you're right that she would spark fierce opposition. Her husband's first two years led to the Republican takeover of Congress, and I agree with Steve that that could well happen again. Call me paranoid, but I think she has a lot more up her sleeve than unpleasant policies. I think she is after a permanent lock on the presidency and Congress for Democrats, using the votes of illegal aliens and whatever other methods she and the Soros folks can come up with. And ultimately she is at one with Soros in seeking to change us from a constitutional republic into a part of an international system of government with all the secular leftist values of European elites institutionalized here. I realize I sound like the nut cases I make fun of, but I think she's extremely dangerous and that's what I foresee.

[Seth R.]

Just as an aside. It would really help if the comments were numbered on this blog. The lack of numbers really makes it obnoxious trying to navigate long discussions.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>We have a broadly pro-life population<<<

A population whose views on the subject look remarkably like Rudolph Giuliani's--abortion is bad, there should be limits on it, children should need parental consent, late term abortion is definitely murder, abortion policy should be made in the legislature not the courts, and abortion should not be prohibited outright.

In other words, it's broadly "pro-choice" while also being broadly "anti-abortion". I fail to undestand precisely what you think the Federal government can or ought to do with regard to abortion, a subject which until Roe was rightly consigned to the states. And back to the states it will go if Roe is repealed (something that Giuliani's choice of justices is much more likely to do than any who are picked by Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama).

Once that happens, be prepared to get involved in fifty-one distinct battles, and do not be surprised if the U.S. ends up with a moasic of abortion policies, more permissive in some states, more prohibitive in others. Which is probably as it ought to be, given the nature of our federal republic, and the fact that we as Christians have failed to convince the overwhelming majority of people (for that is what the system requires, an overwhelming majority) to impose a national consensus.

So, learn to thing strategically instead of tactically. Understand that compromise is the nature of the U.S. governmental system. Learn to prioritize and pick your fights intelligently. Learn not to shoot off your pecker to spite your enemies--they just laugh at you.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that I know much more about the tenants, history and customs of my religion than do you. Perhaps you should take a long look in the mirror and see who is really perpetuating lies and libel.<<<

The guy who says that the Nicene Creed was written in Latin, that the early Fathers changed Scripture to suppress Morministic views, that orthodox Christianity has been apostate for 2000 years, and that we should listen to lunatic ravings of a lecherous con man who found the truth on some disappearing golden tablets translated with the help of an angel, some pebbles and a top hat.

[Judy Warner]

Seth,
Refer to comments by date and time.

GL,
You might have something there, but I don't see it in practice. I don't think the Republican Party learned anything from the defeat of George H.W. Bush in 1992 when they nominated Bob Dole in 1996. An unimaginative socially fairly liberal old guy with few discernible principles loses, so the Republicans nominate another of the same? And after the defeat of Gerald Ford in 1976, the party already had Ronald Reagan coming along as a leader who had almost defeated Ford for the nomination.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I don't think the Republican Party learned anything from the defeat of George H.W. Bush in 1992 when they nominated Bob Dole in 1996. An unimaginative socially fairly liberal old guy with few discernible principles loses, so the Republicans nominate another of the same?<<<

Well, it was his turn. Fair is fair.

[Joseph D. Walch]

Stuart Koehl | Oct 30, 2007 10:04:06 AM:

I was not the one who posted that comment, please get your facts straight; and again I am not here to convince you of your bigotry, simply to defend my religion against baseless claims

[Rob G]

..".but I think she's extremely dangerous and that's what I foresee."

Agreed. She's much more of a leftist ideologue than her husband is. Plus she's got Soros' backing, which in itself is scary.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I was not the one who posted that comment, please get your facts straight; and again I am not here to convince you of your bigotry, simply to defend my religion against baseless claims<<<

Hard for you to do, when your religion is in fact founded on baseless claims easily debunked. On the other hand, orthodox Christianity has been challenged by the best minds over two millennia, and nobody has managed to disprove it yet.

[Seth R.]

Oh, give us two millenia Stuart, and I'm sure we will have successfully defended it by then.

[Michael]

>>>The Lutheran, Baptist and Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) churches recognize an apostasy from early Christianity. The Lutheran and Baptist churches have attempted reform, but Mormonism (and Roger Williams, and perhaps Martin Luther) require inspired restoration, so as to re-establish an unbroken line of authority and apostolic succession.<<<

"Apostasy" is a very strong word for what Lutherans believe. We in no way hold that the "apostolic" churches have somehow abandoned the One True Faith. We believe that they have flawed teachings (which isn't heresy, but something else--Stuart, what is the correct term for something that is putatively "wrong" but salvifically insignificant?), but these teachings do not prevent one from recognizing and affirming the substance of the Nicene Creed, nor the Apostles' Creed, nor the Athanasian Creed, which are the three codified and affirmed statements of faith by the Lutheran Church (cf. The Book of Concord).

I'm generally quite sympathetic to Mormons who get a bad rap; Seth has been an intermittent poster for some time now, and has always been courteous, honest and open about the fact that he was a stranger in this land--perhaps Christian, says he, but definitively not Christian by "our" standards, which is something he accepts. Yet, for a site that discusses social issues, we have similar values and similar (though not the same) foundations for those values. You, however...never put Martin Luther, whose teachings came from the Scripture and the Fathers, on the same level as a man who had new "revelation," a new book, a new Jesus and truths that are directly contradictory to the Tradition of the church.

I shall attempt to be a bit more courteous than Stuart in the following:

>>The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion <<<

If the shoe fits, wear it. You believe vaguely that there was some dude named Jesus, who was/is the Messiah, but you have to admit (because it's a widely available fact that can be cross-referenced) that the teachings of Mormonism regarding Him are different than the teachings of "mainstream" Christianity, and was radically different from the Christianity of the 19th century when it was founded. "If they preach a Jesus we have not preached..."

>>>Early Christian churches, practiced baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family.<<<

Uh, I'm not so informed of the age issue, though the wording of Peter's exhortation "for you and your children" in the Greek references not just "progeny" in the distant sense, but toddlers and infants, e.g. children still under the specific care of their parents. The story of Jesus and the children ("let the children come to me") is poorly interpreted as well, because the Greek literally means something like "babes in arms."

But I do know that the sacrament of Baptism was performed by the apostolic head of a local church, and only by the family when necessary. The priesthood of the baptized submits to the priesthood of the appointed. Heck, the very term "priest" is a reference to a person that acts as an emissary between God and man, an interceder--not the common modern concept of one who merely proclaims the truth, which would actually be a "prophet." Catholics and Orthodox have priests; Lutherans have "pastors," who sometimes fulfill the role of a priest, but because of our ecclesiology are not actually priests in the strictest sense.

This was sort of the whole point of the reconstructed church at the Israel Museum you linked to: the baptismal font in the church marks the act as something of the Church, not merely of the family.

On the Trinity, I can only say: study the Trinity, because you clearly have no clue as to what it actually means. "Three in One" means exactly what it sounds like: there are three persons, and Jesus really can converse with (pray to) the Father because they are distinct persons. And yet there is only "one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all," as in, y'know, Jesus isn't a separate God.

Secondly, what do you think "the water and the blood" refer to in the original Greek of 1 John? The water of baptism, the adoption of a man by the Father and the blood Christ, the atonement for our sins. Yeah, these three still are one.

>>>Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS), Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists (28 percent of Episcopalians) agreed that Jesus was “without sin”, 70 percent of Mormons believe Jesus was sinless. http://www.adherents.com/misc/BarnaPoll.html<<<

Um, okay. So you believe Jesus was sinless. Good for you. Two thumbs way, way up. But was Jesus God, united in ousia with the Father, or was He some lesser angel-thing that volunteered to take on the world's sin for the sake of our own progressive deification and was therefore adopted by God as a son? Don't answer that question. Everyone here already knows.

>>> Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) believe the proper Christian symbol is Christ’s resurrection , not his crucifixion on the Cross. <<<

But the grave doesn't make a good necklace charm!

Seriously, the resurrection as the victory over death doesn't really take away our sins. The cross does. What's the point of having eternal life when you cannot enter into it because of your sin? As Stuart said, you can't have one without the other. Both are victorious moments, if not for Christ personally, then for God and mankind in general.

>>>Early Christians had certain rituals which defined a Christian.<<<

Yeah, Baptism, Chrismation, Confirmation and the Eucharist. Crazy rituals those, what with the Church abandoning them and all. What, it hasn't abandoned them!? How backwards.

>>>The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”<<<

Unfortunately, the dictionary definition isn't actually the definition. The word is actually Greek and means "belonging to Christ" in a personal, possessive sense. If the LDS church doesn't preach the same Christ (reference above), then it cannot belong to the same Christ, and it therefore cannot be Christian. Likewise the word "church," which comes from the Greek root kyriakos, which means "belonging to the Lord."

A few parting shots on Williams and Luther:

--Yeah, there's no one worthy to administer the Sacraments. It's because we're sinful. Thank God for forgiveness, which enables man to serve Him without bloodied hands when they hear the call. Our worthiness and God's willingness are two different issues.

--Scripture is the authoritative revelation because it is the Word of God, something akin to Jesus-in-print, because Christ was the Word made Flesh, the incarnate deity. But guess what? Scripture doesn't include the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants or The Pearl of Great Price. Nor does that mean the teachings of the early church Fathers are worthless; they are simply not authoritative...like Athanasius saying "so that we can become God." Not part of the, I believe the term is, "consensus fidelium," the unified teachings of the Faithful. Those teachings--those unified truths, codified for the most part in the three creeds mentioned above, are non-negotiable.

Bot,

Don't mistake Stuart's harsh rejection for "bigotry." It's just intolerance and impatience for stupidity. He's a Jew; bigotry hasn't worked well for his people. (WHAT!? That's not stereotyping bigotry!) Accordingly, he's rather nice: the nicest curmudgeonly jerk you'll ever meet, in fact. Fortunately for us, he's also a vat of information.

[labrialumn]

Stuart,
So, we should all be Whigs? And the South should still own slaves? Or is there more nuance in your analysis? I'm teasing, a little, but consider the implications.

LDS is a polytheistic religion based upon Freemasonry, which worships the local System Lord, and holds out the hope that you too, might become a System Lord yourself. Not unlike the Goa'uld and Ja'ffah on the old series Stargate SG1.

The early Church didn't come out of nothing. It came out of Second Temple Judaism, and kept the liturgy of both the synagoge and the Temple when they were kicked out of the synagogues. unawareness of that is an error made by the radical reformation.

The translation from the Greek of "moroni" is interesting. It is literally "moron"

A lot of groups are now calling themselves "evangelical" now that the term has become somewhat respectable, which are not evangelical at all.

Evangelicalism is simply orthodox Protestantism, emphasizing the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, the truth of the Apostle's Creed, and the necessity of personal conversion to Christ. The only difference from fundamentalism is one of style: we engage culture and produce culture, rather than shying away into a virtual ghetto.

These days you have existentialists and classical liberals - and the self-help gurus someone mentioned - calling themselves "evangelicals" and confusing the faithful.

Guliani is much more likely to allow elections in 2012, and less likely to use armed federal gendarmes to commit pogroms against Christian or perceived-to-be-Christian groups than She Who Must Not Be Named.

If it weren't for that, going third party (Constitution) would be a no-brainer if Guiliani is the nominee.

Joe, I agree: No Third Termites!!! to resurrect the old campaign slogan from 1944.

Go to caucus, and if your State party allows no caucus, demand one.

I'm not sure that Romney is the worst possible choice. He isn't my first, second or third, but he is running for president of the executive branch, not Pope.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, what is the correct term for something that is putatively "wrong" but salvifically insignificant?<<<

The Orthodox like the term "heterodoxy". Covers a multitude of sins great and small and even nonexistent.

[labrialumn]

Stuart, that is how I use the term 'heterodoxy', too, though I think I got it from reading the neo-orthodox theologian Donald Bloesch. (neo-orthodox not in the sense of Constantinople, but in the sense of the Swiss Karl Barth).

[Joseph D. Walch]

I'd be interested to know who was the heterodox or orthodox in the years when Christ was born, was it the Sadducees, Pharisees, Scribes, the Maccabeans? Who was apostate, and who was not? How about when Moses was born? Who was Orthodox follower of God then, and what group was Apostate? With whom would each of us affiliate ourselves had we lived in those days?

Even with the hindsight of history, I suggest such questions are impossible to conclude for certain (i.e. baseless in their suppositions and not provable—as are all matters that deal with faith and belief). Would each of us have joined with Fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had we lived in their days, or would we have ridiculed their faith as a tawdry collection of parlor tricks, superstitions and common prejudice?

[Joseph D. Walch]

More to the point of the original intent of this post; the Protestant American has come to a crossroads socio-politically. Two forces (among many) play upon her interest in this next election: the hatred of Abortion, and the hatred of all things Mormon/Joseph Smith.

I hope that the zealots and bigots of all faiths study the issues with an open mind. I would hope that the hatred of Joseph Smith does not prevent progress in the areas of the morality of our Nation by allowing splintering of the Republican Party.

The LDS people aren’t going to sit this one out, and unfortunately for those of you who claim orthodoxy and despise LDS faith; we will have to work together side-by-side if we expect to ‘win’ against the secular amoral forces that are vying for the soul of the American people. I think there are some things we can agree with (e.g. Family Values, morality, pornography, etc.), and there is no way you will be able to be ‘clean’ in your political associations by not coming into contact with a Mormon occasionally (and it doesn’t help if instead of working productively with said Mormon you attack her intelligence and integrity).

More to the point, I hope we can stop these puerile games of ‘who is more holy’ and focus a little on what we should be doing to build up the Nation and the morality of our collective people.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I'd be interested to know who was the heterodox or orthodox in the years when Christ was born, was it the Sadducees, Pharisees, Scribes, the Maccabeans? Who was apostate, and who was not? How about when Moses was born? Who was Orthodox follower of God then, and what group was Apostate? With whom would each of us affiliate ourselves had we lived in those days?<<<

An interesting question, and one which vexed the Jews of the first century: Who were the people of God, and how could one identify them? There were many different answers from different quarters--Judaism was multivalent, with many more divisions than the traditional one of Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes. The Jesus movement fit into that continuum by identifying the People of God with those who professed their faith in Christ as the Messiah, crucified and risen. This put them at odds with other aspects of Judaism, and eventually the two became permanently estranged.

But Christianity differed from Judaism in one interesting way: once it became recognized as a distinct faith seprate from Judaism, it became quite homogeneous. A Christian rule of faith emerged before the end of the first century, and it pertained from one end of the Empire to the other. Christianity was challenged both from within and without, by the gnostics and other heresiarchs, as well as by the pagan philosophers. Against these challenges the core beliefs of Christianity emerged essentially unchanged. Mostly, these challenges forced Christianity to examine its basic premises and to develop more coherent and comprehensive definitions of its beliefs. Thus, there is considerable continuity between what an orthodox Christian would profess in the year 150, and what one would profess today.

>>>Even with the hindsight of history, I suggest such questions are impossible to conclude for certain (i.e. baseless in their suppositions and not provable—as are all matters that deal with faith and belief). Would each of us have joined with Fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had we lived in their days, or would we have ridiculed their faith as a tawdry collection of parlor tricks, superstitions and common prejudice? <<<

The question as posed is simply anachronistic, and pretty much meaningless in any case.

[Seth R.]

Joseph,

Not everyone here is a fundamentalist, born-again, countercultist who shows up every May and October on Temple Square to shout insults and wave underwear at Mormon passersby.

Just sayin...

[Seth R.]

Stuart, I'm not sure St. Peter would have agreed with that view. It seems to me that Peter pretty-much viewed the new Christian movement as simply "Judaism Round Two." It was Paul who strongly advocated to distance Christianity from its Hebrew roots and "go international." Paul won out in the end.

[Joe Long]

"I hope that the zealots and bigots of all faiths study the issues with an open mind."

Two quick comments, Joseph:
-Zealots and bigots, by definition, do NOT have open minds.

-Be careful, though: dismissing an opponent as a zealot or bigot is hardly symptomatic of an open mind in itself - and it's meant to make others dismiss those "zealots and bigots" rather than hear them out.

I agree with Chesterton: the reason to open the mind, like the reason to open the mouth, is in order to close it again on something solid. We mostly have strong convictions we've put time and effort into developing, or we wouldn't be here; expect vigorous commentary. No harm, no foul.

Me, I believe y'all are deeply wrong on a number of positively vital issues, but I'm leaning strongly towards Mr. Romney (at least part of the time) in the upcoming horse race, and a subculture that gave us Orson Scott Card AND Glenn Beck obviously has its own vein of wisdom.

[Bill R]

Wave underwear? Wow, this is WAY beyond James Altena posting in his skivvies...

[GL]

I find this reaction to Madam Rodham's likely Presidency to be hysterical, in the literal sense of that word, that is, an overwhelming and irrational fear. I don't like her political positions and it will be a cold day in the infernal regions before I vote for her, but there is absolutely no evidence that she poses a threat to our fundamental institutions. The Constitution will survive if she is elected. I expect no Constitutional crises. And when she loses re-election in 2012, she will ride off into the sunset, with an eight-figure book deal, a trunk full of seven-figure speaking fees under contract, and an egomaniacal Presidential Library planned for the banks of the Arkansas River, where the Presidents Clinton will, in time, be forced to spend eternity together, each having well earned that fate.

[Judy Warner]

Let's hope you're right, Greg.

[Joe Long]

GL, hope you're right - or better yet, that we never have to learn who was right.

But - you don't think she'd SHARE a Presidential library, OR put hers in a Southern state, surely? Apparently we have different expectations of her behavior in general. And the Consitution might well survive her, as it has survived previous incompetence or malice - but it would certainly be no fault of hers, if it did.

So let's keep this on the level of speculation if at all possible, and leave her in the Senate to plague those who deserve her.

[Ethan C.]

>>the banks of the Arkansas River, where the Presidents Clinton will, in time, be forced to spend eternity together, each having well earned that fate.<<

What exactly are you implying about Arkansas? Not that I necessarily disagree... :-)

[GL]

I am implying nothing about Arkansas, which is a beautiful state. I love the Ozarks. I am, of course, speaking of the "love" which the Clintons obviously share for one another. I could be wrong, but I would think she would build her library next to Bill's. It makes sense. But then I though Bush 43 would build his near his Pa's and I was wrong about that.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It seems to me that Peter pretty-much viewed the new Christian movement as simply "Judaism Round Two." It was Paul who strongly advocated to distance Christianity from its Hebrew roots and "go international." Paul won out in the end.<<<

Simplistic in the extreme, and in addition, a reflection of a discredited theory of Church history that postulated a false dichotomy between Peter and Paul, mainly by people who wanted to "prove" that Paul "invented" Christianity. For a palliative to ths view, see N.T. Wright's various works on Paul, as well as E.P Sanders' "Paul and Palestinian Judaism".

Moreover, there was more in common between Pauline and Petrine brands of Christianity than there is between either of them and Mormonism.

[Clifford Simon]

It seems to me that Peter pretty-much viewed the new Christian movement as simply "Judaism Round Two." It was Paul who strongly advocated to distance Christianity from its Hebrew roots and "go international." Paul won out in the end.

Seth, you're too much an ally for me to accuse you (except in jest ;-)) of only reading the Book of Mormon and not knowing the Scriptures. But have you read Acts 10?

[Seth R.]

Yes I have read it. I don't see how it changes things much. So Peter had a vision that the Gospel was supposed to be taken to the gentiles.

But, for all that, it seems that Peter was still of the opinion that said gentiles would have to convert to Judaism and be circumcised before they could be in the club. It was Paul who went the rounds with the Jerusalem faction and finally managed to get them to agree that the Christians in Damascus need not be circumcised (though it seems it was still enforced as a requirement among Christians in Jerusalem).

You don't get this from just reading Acts. You have to pick it out of scattered accounts in the Pauline epistles. Stuart may be correct, but if he is, it's for a lot more reasons than Acts chapter 10.

[Clifford Simon]

Peter's vision declared that God has made the Gentiles clean. The vision was confirmed by sending the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles who were present. Peter said immediately, "Why then should they not be taken and baptized, just as they are?" Later at the Jerusalem Council (cf. Acts 15), Peter immediately defended the uncircumcized Christians according to the same reasoning. It seems, in fact, that it took Peter to make the others give Paul and Barnabus a fair hearing. From bits of the epistles, especially Galatians, we learn that sometime later, Peter had a run-in with the Dogs. The Dogs? "Dawgs," perhaps? They were a Christian faction who wished to retain the Mosaic version of cleanliness, that circumcision, not faith in Jesus Christ, makes you clean. The Ancient Jews considered the uncircumcized races to be dogs, so Paul said, "No, YOU're the dogs!" Anyway, Peter seems to have temporarily been cowed into tolerating their position. Then Paul upbraided his fellow apostle, saying how Peter used to eat with Gentiles until those dogs started messing with him.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Peter was still of the opinion that said gentiles would have to convert to Judaism and be circumcised before they could be in the club.

Perhaps you should read a little more of the Bible, like Acts 15 where the Council of Jerusalem is described and where Peter is said to have stood up against those who wanted Gentiles to become circumscribed. The final outcome of the Council was that Gnetiles only had to follow the moral law and avoid strangled meat. Circumcision was NOT required.

It's all there in history. I know history's not mormonism's strong suit, but there you are.

[Christopher Hathaway]

The Constitution will survive if she is elected.

This really raises the question of what it would take to kill the Constitution. It seems to me that, after FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinto and now GW, the Constitution is pretty close to life support right now. Nationalizing a few key sectors of the economy, shredding what's left of the 2nd amendment and continuing the process of the 1st are all actions that would be well in her power if elected and which would be the coup de gras to any form of government resembling the one established in the Constitution.

We would be as "Constitutional" as Mormons are biblical. They say they respect it but we know it doesn't mean a thing if it gets in the way of what they really believe.

[GL]

Christopher,

I would agree that the Supreme Court, bending to the will of FDR, did a great deal of damage to the Constitution. I also believe Justice Douglas, and those who he could get to go along with him, did a great deal of damage. Nixon didn't really damage it that much, if you are referring to Watergate. There would have been a constitutional crisis had he been impeached and convicted and then refused to step down, but he resigned. If anything, that episode strengthened the Constitution. I don't recall any significant harm to the Constitution caused by Carter and Clinton, other than the judges and justices they appointed. And what LBJ did, as far as I recall, was merely take advantage of the holes created by FDR's minions on the Court. Bad policy and against the letter of the Constitution, but no new damage, just exploitation of existing damage.

[Judy Warner]

It's fashionable in some circles to say that George W. Bush has "shredded" the Constitution. I don't see where it is shredded, but these folks like the frisson they get by thinking themselves personally endangered by the government's putative brownshirts. Myself, I am far more worried by the left's determination to impose hate crime legislation on the citizens at large and the fairness doctrine on the media.

And you do realize, don't you, that you are talking about the Bill of Rights and not the entire Constitution? I don't think anyone is proposing to kill off a branch of the federal government, or propose tariffs between states.

[Steve Nicoloso]

As for the survival of the constitution, that's been being shredded ever since the first Republican to occupy this nation's highest office. It's been downhill from there. I fail to see how Clinton XLIV (or her cross-dressing, thrice-married GOP opponent) could possibly do worse than Wilson, FDR, LBJ, or (for that matter) Dubya.

BTW, where's Tuad?

[Christopher Hathaway]

Gl, my reference to Nixon was not to Watergate but to his expansion of LBJ's Great Society welfare state. This applies to Bush as well. I am talking more about the Constitution, with its limitations of the spheres of governmantal power, than I am about the Bill of Rights. The expansion of the sphere of governemnt we ahve seen in just the last five years is bad enough. The more government grows the less freedom we as Americans have. The Founding Fathers understood this. I fear there are less in government who understand this than there was 20 or 10n years ago. Bush has been a disaster in that regard (some "conservative"), but Hillary, or Obama or any other neo-socialist Democrat, would put the governmental octopus on steroids, and all "for the children".

[GL]

Christopher,

I agree that LBJ's, Nixons, and, yes, W's expansion of the Great Society was and is a violation of the original intent of the Founders and Framers, but all they did was follow in the shoes of FDR. He's the one, through his pressure on the Court, who did the real damage. W is, as a matter of verifiable fact, the most liberal President since LBJ in terms of expanding the scope of government in domestic, non-military programs. Why so many think he is a conservative is beyond me.

Steve,

I disagree that Lincoln shreaded the Constitution in any permanent sense. He did, of course, suspend several of its protections, e.g. the Writ of Habeas Corpus, but it was done during a national emergency. Unlike the Confederates, he was unwilling to let the Union die for an ideal. I will add, however, that one of my second-great-grandfathers, who fought for the Union and died not far from where I live, in his last letter home to his wife before his death, wrote of his opposition to the Emancipation Proclamation, saying, "It is unconstitutional, but then old Abe does hardly anything according to the Constitution." So I guess he would have agreed with you.

[labrialumn]

GL,
The FBI files happened and VAAPCON happened, all without the enabling of the Infamous Act.

The Waco pogrom happened, as did Ruby Ridge and many other similar incidents.

Stuart, for that matter there is more in common between -Zoroastrianism- and Christianity than either of them have with Mormonism.

Christopher, Ron Paul and Alan Keyes are the only candidates running who believe in fealty to the Constitution, all the other candidates treat them like kooks for believing in it.

GL, whereas two of my great-grandfathers were abolitionists, one as a Methodist lay preacher moving his family to Kansas territory as a pro-life vote,and the other running off at 16 to join the Iowa volunteer cavalry. (and is as likely to have been posted to protect the surviving Cheyenne in Colorado Territory than to fight Cantrell's slaver terrorists in Missouri.

[Judy Warner]

>>>I am talking more about the Constitution, with its limitations of the spheres of governmantal power, than I am about the Bill of Rights. <<<

After reading the above comments, I realize that the left means the Bill of Rights when they complain the Constitution is being shredded, while the right means the actual Constitution, mainly the delineation and limitation of powers. The left is wrong and the right is right.

[Ethan C.]

>>Cantrell's slaver terrorists in Missouri.<<

Might you mean William Quantrill? Cantrell is only his name in the movies. We Missourians prize the correct spelling of our history. :-)

You're right, though, that he was a terrorist. And don't let anyone try to fool you into liking Jesse James, either.

[Beth]

Of course, it was Kansas that Quantrill was terrorizing, as my state history eloquently points out . . . :) (We won't say anything about John Brown, though . . .)

[labrialumn]

Ethan, no worries, Minnesotans put paid to Jesse James. :-)

The records seem to show elements of the Iowa Volunteer Cavalry being sent into Missouri to fight Quantrill (thank you on the spelling)and his outfit. FWIW.

[Beth]

Oh, yes, I'm sure you're right -- we Kansans just tend to focus on the Eldridge Hotel and the Lawrence massacre!

[Ethan C.]

Quantrill was also killed while raiding in Kentucky, so he wasn't exactly a respecter of borders.

I share no Kansan compunction about John Brown. He was also a terrorist. All in all, it was a pretty bad time to be a civilian in this neck of the woods, no matter which side you were on.

[Beth]

Oh, I despise the man. I can't stand it when folk hold him up as some sort of hero. He was an abusive, insane murderer. But, ya know, when the border wars start up, you *focus* on the ones from the "other" state . . . :) Wouldn't want to be too quick to point out that it goes both ways!

[Joe Long]

That border mess was its own war. The effects, however, were felt here in South Carolina, with the abolitionist David Hunter (an intimate of John Brown and participant in pre-war Midwestern ugliness) commanding black troops for the Union. (The gallant Robert Gould Shaw he was not. Let the matter rest there.)

Met a gentleman who tried to explain to me (at length) that his personal heroes were "Stonewall" Jackson and Jesse James, but had no good reply to the question of what the former would have thought of the latter.

The single best word to describe Abraham Lincoln was "shrewd"; his overriding goal, the preservation of the Union. He succeeded. Damage was indeed done to the Constitution, but nothing that wasn't inevitable - unfortunately. The Bill of Rights was certainly violated, but not permanently damaged thereby - except for the Tenth Amendment, which might as well not exist anymore, but probably was "too good to be true" all along, given the nature of humans and governments.

[Bobby Winters]

***>>the banks of the Arkansas River, where the Presidents Clinton will, in time, be forced to spend eternity together, each having well earned that fate.<<

What exactly are you implying about Arkansas? Not that I necessarily disagree... :-)
***

So you're saying the Clintons are going to heaven? What blog am I on...?

[GL]

After reading the above comments, I realize that the left means the Bill of Rights when they complain the Constitution is being shredded, while the right means the actual Constitution, mainly the delineation and limitation of powers. The left is wrong and the right is right.

Judy,

They are both part of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, as written, is a most sacred document. It has, of course, been "interpreted" in such a way that in some cases it now protects "rights" which the Framers would have never dreamed of respecting, much less protecting. What the left wants protected now are those specious rights which Douglas and his ilk found in "penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees" which the Framers really intended. What we true conservatives want protected are those actual rights guaranteed by the Bill Rights as written and any new rights being added only by the amendment process, not by justices who believe they know better than the Framers and the populace speaking through their elected representatives as well as the limitations on powers found in the original articles themselves.

One of my ancestors was a delegate to the first Constitutional Ratification Convention in North Carolina. Like a good the Anti-Federalist he was, he voted no on ratification. His group insisted on a Bill of Rights before voting for ratification. He was joined in his vote by his brother-in-law, also an Anti-Federalist. One of the amendments they wanted which was not included, much to my regret, was a provision limiting the terms on all elected officials at the national level, including all members of Congress. They fought the good fight, however, and I am grateful to men like them for the Bill of Rights which was ratified by the states after being voted out of the First Congress.

[Judy Warner]

>>>They are both part of the Constitution.<<<

Yes, understood. I just meant what people are referring to when they complain about shredding.

>>>What we true conservatives want protected are those actual rights guaranteed by the Bill Rights as written and any new rights being added only by the amendment process, <<<

But then I've always wondered about the other rights referred to in the Ninth Amendment.

[GL]

But then I've always wondered about the other rights referred to in the Ninth Amendment.

Oh yes, the liberals favorite amendment. When I attack the "right to privacy," my liberal colleagues on the faculty always raise the Ninth Amendment. We could have done without that one.

[Judy Warner]

But there it is; they included it. Actually, my husband is doing some work on it in connection with an amicus brief and if you like I'll put him in touch with you.

[Christopher Hathaway]

The Ninthe Amendment was meant to correct what opponents of the Bill of Rights saw as a problem; that enumerating rights might imply that the State possessed all other authority. Of course this didn't solve the problem, as it only moved it over to the authority of those interpreting what those unenumerated rights were.

The best solution has always been clearly defined limitations on governmental power.

[Judy Warner]

The Ninth Amendment was based on the idea of natural law, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. There was great opposition to the Bill of Rights at the time of its drafting, as it implied that the enumerated rights listed all the natural rights that existed. The Ninth Amendment was to make clear that the enumerated rights in the other Amendments were not exhaustive. What the Supreme Court has done just shows that you can't foresee what social mores will become, and a piece of paper, no matter how well planned, cannot substitute for a well-ordered society. The courts have found unusual rights in other amendments too, I believe, not just the Ninth.