What are two of the most popular phrases you will see on the website or television commercial of any conversative candidate? Time’s up! The answer is “limited government” and “family values.” These two pieces of political red meat are necessary ingredients for any respectable Tea Party or speech at the next Republican National Convention. However, can these two ideas actually exist in the same platform?
Proponents of “family values” support actions that would increase the size of government, such as defining marriage, censoring explicit material, developing abstinence-only education, and being the watchdog for “morality and decency” (now there’s a vague term for you). So-called Value Voters want the government to serve as an instrument for promoting a more “Christian” nation. They only want the government to be limited when that approach fits their lifestyle (aka — taxes or “making law from the bench”). However, if the elected officials in power happen to agree with their theology, then let’s start writing some bills!!
Yes, we certainly need some government. Having all of us on the same currency and making sure a highway doesn’t abruptly end at the Tennessee/Kentucky border is pretty handy. I’m also a fan of laws that frown on murder or any kind of injury to another person (be it physical or financial). However, I find it a bit hypocritical when the same people scream, “Keep the government away from my money!” or the famous Reagan quote that ”government is the problem,” and then use the next breath to encourage legislation that discriminates or imposes a particular ideology.
Family Values + Limited Government = Serious Inconsistencies
racist — 1. someone who holds a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race, 2. someone who practices racial prejudice or discrimination
Rush Limbaugh is once again being pegged as a racist and this time the claim is denying him an attempt to become part-owner of the St. Louis Rams. The problem is that much of the outrage leveled against Rush Limbaugh is based on publicized quotes that have been proven to be erroneous. Seriously, is there no real journalism anymore? You know, where reporters check facts and other wacky stuff like that. If you are going to claim someone is devisive and a bigot and that is your reason for keeping him an arm’s distance from the NFL, at least be accurate in your supporting evidence.
Even now that the quotes receiving the most attention have been shown to have no grounding in reality, I have heard some athletes and pundits say something to the effect of, “Well, it’s just easy to believe those are his words because it sounds like something he would say!” There’s a shaky defense taken right from the Dan Rather playbook!
Limbaugh often makes statements with the intentional purpose of getting people riled up. No doubt about it. I’m pretty sure he enjoys it. And, no one will ever accuse him of being politically correct. But, please give me an example of a racist (see definition above) statement that he has made … that you know he has made. Or, is the reality that “racist” has become the most powerful label to throw on someone because such an accusation, whether substantiated or not, causes the one who stands accused to cower and apologize? The cries for forgiveness must commence in earnest as soon as you see Al Sharpton heading your way.
Many pundits said that the election of President Obama would open up a new dialogue on race in our country. Apparently not. Instead, the automatic response concerning anyone who opposes the President’s policies? Must be a racist! To be sure, there are some people in this country who dislike our president solely because of his skin color. These are the neanderthals who pause for a moment when making their beds in the morning and call out to their spouses in the next room, “Hey, hon, you know what? These here sheets would make a neat man dress and hat! Should I cinch it with a belt or just leave it all flowy-like?” The truth is, though, that … OK, get ready … most people who are opposed to the policy efforts of President Obama have reached this opinion with no consideration of his skin color.
I think that racism is a repugnant characteristic. I have zero tolerance for determining your relationships with, and behavior towards, people of other races based on skin color or ethnic background. Such closed-mindedness actually makes my stomach turn. That may sound a bit dramatic, but it’s true.
On the other hand, I think it is also disgraceful to tag a person as “racist” without serious consideration and merit. It seems that such throwing down the “racist” gauntlet is now too often just a cheap move that is meant to back political opponents into a defensive corner. It does nothing but help to marginalize the real prejudice that still exists in this country. Take a cue from the famous children’s story — when you become the pundit/NFL commissioner/political opponent/member of Congress who always cries “racism,” people will stop listening (hopefully).
Quick opening thought — I wonder if the guy who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine earned the prize because he wants to find a cure to AIDS. It’s all about intentions!
Those who are defending the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama are saying that it is meant to serve as an encouragement for what he wants to do. It’s to build him up … let him know we are all rooting for him. So, it’s pretty much like giving every kid a participation trophy at the end of the soccer season. We are boosting the President’s self-esteem. Just a little pat on the back. You can do it, champ!
The Nobel committee claimed that the award was given because President Obama wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons. That’s cute. Perhaps he should put on a sash and enter the Mr. Illinois paegant.
This question is for you, President Obama, and will be asked by celebrity judge Vanna White. “If you win the title of Mr. Illinois, how will you use your crown to make the world a better place?”
“I will make all the bad guys throw their weapons into the ocean and then paint pretty rainbows in the sky. After that, we will all hold hands and sing. I will bring world peace, and look good in a swimsuit while doing it.”
We are not going to see a world without nuclear weapons. You are never going to get everyone to play along. We can only hope to create an environment in which it is difficult for evil dictators to get such weapons and in which no one feels compelled to use them.
The Nobel Peace Prize became meaningless after it was awarded to known terrorist Yassar Arafat. But, are you really telling me that no one on this entire planet has made actual accomplishments in peace efforts this past year? No one bringing children of different cultures together through education? No one feeding the hungry in third-world nations so that the chance they turn to violence is lessened? No one capturing the stories of war-torn nations through a camera or a notebook to expose the horror to the world?
Nope. Guess not. We only have a man who was nominated after being in office for less than two weeks based on some nice campaign promises.
If President Obama achieves a greater level of peace and understanding among the nations during his tenure as president, then by all means give him strong consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize. But now? It’s nothing more than a political endorsement.
For those of you who assert that the United States is a “Christian nation,” what is your basis for doing so? As far as I can tell, that whole Establishment Clause thing of the First Amendment pretty much prevents us from partnering our country with any specific religion. Many of the men who wrote our Constitution believed in God and prayed regularly, sure. But, that does not mean their intention was to set up a system of government that promoted Christianity. A couple of guys who were pretty familiar with our “becoming a new nation” efforts shared some words on the matter:
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion …” – from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams
“Religions are all alike–founded upon fables and mythologies” — Thomas Jefferson
Hmmm … doesn’t sound like a couple of guys who were all jazzed to create a Christian nation.
So, why then are we a Christian nation? Is it because a majority of our population considers itself to be Christian? In that case, are we also a “white nation” or a “female nation”? Maybe we want to go for “overweight nation”?
I am a Christian. I love God and I have a strong faith. However, I am uncomfortable with the assertion that we are a Christian nation. Christ is greater than such geography or political seals of approval.
