Kathleen LundquistDEFENSE OR ATTACK
Like most major American newspapers, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, despite its occasional interesting lapses into good sense, is a reliably liberal institution. And like most liberal institutions, it was stunned by last Tuesday. Its editorial, no doubt written through clenched teeth, urges President Bush to govern as though John Kerry had won.
But the Post-Dispatch was aware of the impact of the evangelical Christian vote:
Mr. Bush won more votes than any president in history. Republicans increased their majorities in the House and Senate, all with the help of passionate voters worried about what they perceive as threats to the moral fabric of the nation. Karl Rove - the "architect" of the staggering Republican victory - focused on getting to the polls millions of conservative Christians who didn't vote in 2000.
And at the end of its editorial, the Post-Dispatch asks a very profound question:
An unanswered question is whether the powerful wave of voters who sent Mr. Bush back to the White House to protect morality are fighting a rear-guard, faith-based action against the worst excesses of modern society, or are in the vanguard of a new wave of voters alienated by secularism, pop culture and the ethical thickets at the cutting edge of scientific discovery.
That is one of the most interesting questions to emerge from this election and it's a question I don't even remotely know the answer to. One hope that it is the second possibility. It would be wonderful if large numbers of Americans saw secularism and pop culture as the wastelands that they are. I guess we shall see in the coming months and years.
Submitted by James P
at 11/5/2004 1:20:32 AM| Actually, over the past 5 years or so, I have noticed that secularism and pop culture have lost a little bit of their steam. Not a lot, but some. It could be the new trend. |
Submitted by Hunt-Banning Unitarian for Peace
at 11/5/2004 2:53:04 AM| I agree - they have lost steam. These are serious times.
My hope is that the next wave of opposition to the Religious Right isn't from the tidal drag of secularism and pop culture. I hope that it's principled, philosophically and spiritually grounded opposition, from those who don't understand the Way of Christ in the same way that Pat Robertson, Billy Graham et al do. Let's say YES to a thoroughgoing Gandhian resistance to creeping theocracy. Let's open our minds, our hearts and our wallets and together we can transform this thing. |
Submitted by Russ+
at 11/5/2004 3:40:45 AM| I had this same question as I saw so many of us Republicans basking in triumphant expressions of our victory. Is this the victory a powerful yet dieing statement of an aging body of voters who will soon be replaced by younger generations more comfortable with secularism? Was this vote a mandate for Republican ideals of less gov't. and lower taxes or purely a reaction to cultural decline? Will this moral response have legs with voters in the future as they mature? Will it have staying power in the short run if the problems our nation faces are not dealt with effectively? I hope this election was not a one trick pony that the Republicans have hooked themselves to in the shortrun and is instead a longer term "trend" in the electorate as Chris suggested. Time will tell. |
Submitted by LaVallette
at 11/5/2004 5:33:05 AM| "St. Louis Post-Dispatch....... editorial, no doubt written through clenched teeth, urges President Bush to govern as though John Kerry had won."
I have posted this self evident truth before. Wherever the Lefties and Liberals are anywhere in the world: "If we win, you have to accept that we have a mandate to impliment our policies and you have to like it or lump it. If you win, no matter how well publicised your policies are prior to the election, you must seek to achieve "mutual respect and bipartisan reconciliation" by implimenting our policies." If we win, we win and we are entitled to do what we like.If you win, you have an obligation to govern as if we have won in order not to divide the nation." |
Submitted by Ken
at 11/5/2004 7:57:11 AM| Well, there has been a creeping theocracy evident in this country through the past 40 years. The "theos" in question, however, is not the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but the Great God Self.
I would like to believe a new, decent majority is building in this country, but I suspect this election was about the excesses of Self's cult. We will certainly see polls in the coming months about how most Americans still favor abortion and are willing to tolerate "gays". Those polls will gloss over the fact that abortion now includes sucking out the brains of almost-born, viable infants and crushing their skulls. Those polls will ignore that difference between tolerating your gay neighbor (whose yard routinely wins the garden club awards) and accepting his relationship as a marraige (which will win significant tax-financed benefits). No, I suspect it's the excesses and nuances of secularism which influenced this election. |
Submitted by Jim the Fireman
at 11/5/2004 7:57:20 AM| I have to take exception to what Russ+ said.
"Is this the victory a powerful yet dieing statement of an aging body of voters who will soon be replaced by younger generations more comfortable with secularism? Was this vote a mandate for Republican ideals of less gov't. and lower taxes or purely a reaction to cultural decline? Will this moral response have legs with voters in the future as they mature?" I can tell you Russ+ that the younger generation that I see is far more Christian than my generation is. I'm 50 years old and I see everyday kids who reject the crap spewed by my generation in the popular culture. I'd say that in the future you will see very strong legs on this moral response--even if the media refuse to report it. I'm also positive that Hollywood will continue to pump out morally debased crap that fewer and fewer folks will see or buy. Then they will proudly thump themselves on the chest and proclaim themselves "artists". |
Submitted by southanglican
at 11/5/2004 7:59:06 AM| In the context of the interesting question raised, the attached National Review article makes for timely reading...
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/29july02/dreher072902.asp |
Submitted by Russ+
at 11/5/2004 8:14:18 AM| Hunt,
You missed the point. These were not 59mm hard core fundamentalists that turned out at the polls. These were many many mainstream Christians (many catholics no less) that feel the dems have left them. Your words about a "principled, philosophically and spiritually grounded opposition, from those who don't understand the Way of Christ in the same way that Pat Robertson, Billy Graham et al do." ignore the point that there just are not that many of you out there. Why? Because you are dieing. Liberal Christianity is dieing because there is little difference between it the ugly culture it mirrors and it hasn't the backbone to speak out or seperate itself from that culture when that culture goes to far. Last point. Why are we called the religious right? Thirty years ago the beliefs of this so called Rel. Right were standard Christian belief. A few liberal protesants go off the deep end and suddenly we are way out in right field. Since when did center field in Christianity become right field? Pat Robertson, and Billy Graahm were not on the ballot. |
Submitted by HEB
at 11/5/2004 11:00:19 AM| Russ, I hope you are right that liberal christianity is dying - based on my kids who live in the east I would say yes. But there are so very many unchurched young people who seem to have no problem with homosexuals and lesbians being "married" "parents" and why can't homosexual/lesbians be priests/bishops? Even some churched young people seems to miss the point of scripture and tradition and worse don't seem to care. At the meeting with "Bishop" Smith at our former church building before GOC03 there was a very young woman (not from our parish) who in all seriousness asked why not? That they were "good people" and that was enough evidently for her. |
Submitted by SouthCoast
at 11/5/2004 11:06:10 AM| "St. Louis Post-Dispatch....... editorial, no doubt written through clenched teeth, urges President Bush to govern as though John Kerry had won."
Ah, the Left Adrift's simple, childlike faith in our system of government...as long as the government is run by them! |
Submitted by Randy Muller
at 11/5/2004 12:40:20 PM| The referenced article presents a false dichotomy, a common fallacy:
"An unanswered question is whether the powerful wave of voters who sent Mr. Bush back to the White House to protect morality are fighting a rear-guard, faith-based action against the worst excesses of modern society, or are in the vanguard of a new wave of voters alienated by secularism, pop culture and the ethical thickets at the cutting edge of scientific discovery." I think the correct answer is "neither". This 'traditional morality' vs. 'modern society' ebbs and flows all the time. In the long run, 'modern society' is going to become utterly meaningless, and how we Christians love God and love others will mean everything (to us). The older I get (I turned 50 today), the more divorced from society (modern or not) I feel. |
Submitted by Kathy C
at 11/5/2004 1:01:25 PM| I think the answer is "both." I agree with both motivations cited, and I'm having a little difficulty understanding why the differences of opinion. But maybe my thought processes are slowing down. |
Submitted by MJD_NV
at 11/5/2004 2:32:01 PM| I think the polls for us 30 & 40 somethings should encourage you, Russ+. The reason so many voted for Bush is, as Kathy C said, "both". Praying that it's not "too littl, too late" to stem the tide of our own youthful liberal excesses of yore, we want something better for the next generation than the 50+ & 60 + crowd has left for us. In addition, the bizzare, secular pop culture by which we find ourselves surrounded leaves us cold. There has to be a better way for the future that does not include this dead-end "progressive" way that has left us with broken homes and a broken society. |
Submitted by J. Scott
at 11/5/2004 5:05:51 PM| If we win, we win and we are entitled to do what we like. If you win, you have an obligation to govern as if we have won in order not to divide the nation."
Or the church. You nailed 'em, LaVallette. Liberal politicians and liberal clergy have the same attitude. |
Submitted by EJN
at 11/5/2004 6:04:02 PM| Russ you wrote: Last point. Why are we called the religious right? Thirty years ago the beliefs of this so called Rel. Right were standard Christian belief. A few liberal protesants go off the deep end and suddenly we are way out in right field. Since when did center field in Christianity become right field?
The "press" started this labeling thing some years back, easy for them to grab attention in a negative manner. But they forgot that those were their families, parents, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles they were talking and writing about and have since rejected the belief system in which they were raised. Sorry commentary really on our state of affairs!!! In the process they have become the "new" unchurched, ignorant and atheist's, and but yet they discount the religious as "uneducated, illiterate and stupid". Have you sat with someone lately that is unchurched, is not religous and tired to have a religious conversation with them? It is most interestingly SAD - they are so miss informed, they have never read the bible, they throw out small snipets or recall a story that they have heard and have the facts entirely wrong, do not know who is who, none of the commandments, no scripture or gospel. Yet, they argue until "pig's fly" about why "we" do not know this or that AND are miss informed, stupid, uneducated etc, etc. It is almost laughable - except that you have to feel sorry for them and try to explain the errors in their thinking (are they thinking - makes me wonder). I guess they under estimated our strength and resolve (in regard to the election). I am happy to be counted with those that still believe and will stand up for what is true and the right thing to do. I have watched with interest the media and "intellectuals" from our leading higher institutions (Harvard Yale etc) recap the events of the last week - some of the most intesting commentary was on the voting demographics. The liberal votes were in the major cities of the east and west, mostly populated by the movie industry, arts and artists, homosexual strongholds (San Fran, New York, Philly, LA etc) and the Jewish vote (backlash to Bush's christianity or because he is not pro-Isreal?). The strength was still in the bread basket (the heartland of America)where people still believe in God, country, traditional family values! Another most interesting fact - the state of Oregon (very liberal overall) voted to reject same sex marriages and blessings (where they held them earlier in the year) - there are cracks in the wall! HEB - And yes, I also think that liberal christianity is dying! It has no place, no foundation. A house built on sand will not stand the test of time - is it already grumbling. Just look what is happening within the Episcopal Church and with the hundreds (thousands) of people that are leaving and forming new churches. And some peoples idea of what is good enough does not meet all of our high standard marks! I guess we all have different standards on many different levels but that standard can never be lowered. It takes a lot more than being identified as a "good person" to be saved. |
Submitted by Hunt-Banning Unitarian for Peace
at 11/5/2004 7:17:17 PM| Russ+, I disagree with you that liberal Christianity is no different from the surrounding culture, but you're right that they're aren't many of us. When did that ever matter? It's amazing what one person can do, and as for two or three gathered together. |
Submitted by WES
at 11/6/2004 7:17:25 AM| As a long time resident in the St. Louis area (previously St. Petersburg, FL), you should be aware of why most of us refer to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as the *St. Louis Post-Discrace* and the St. Petersburg Times as the *St Petersburg Crimes*
Then there's the Washington Compost, etc...... EJN is 'right' (both meanings) about the foundation of sand upon which the liberals have built their houses.(shacks) |
Submitted by Russ+
at 11/6/2004 7:46:59 AM| hunt,
Two points. You (liberal Christianity) gather in only half the name of Jesus (metaphorically speaking). Lib Crist. rightly observes the social Gospel, mostly via the mantra of inclusiveness, but has not the backbone to do the hard work of the Gospel of personal Holiness (the other half of the Gospel message). |
Submitted by Hunt-Banning Unitarian for Peace
at 11/7/2004 11:41:48 AM| 'No backbone to do the hard work of the Gospel of personal Holiness'? How do you know? Come and visit sometime!
|