Interesting topic over at INDC Journal. Bill's original post dealt with moderates in the GOP feeling a need to bolt if right-wingers (I be self-professed!) don't turn down the heat on a few of our talking points. He uses Roe v. Wade and gay marriage as his catalytic points, mentioning that if we keep harping about total bans on [choose your controversy], we just may drive moderates out of the party and into the arms of some other party.
As always, we on the right remind our esteemed moderate brethren that (for me anyway) it's not really about the party. The GOP may come or go with the tide for all I care. I've already documented my disdain for their inability to use whatever money they milk out of the party faithful every election cycle wisely. Certainly there are things that President Bush has implemented during his administration of which I am less than fond. I even feel that, though I don't believe Social Security was constitutionally appropriate when FDR ramrodded it through Congress, we shouldn't be trying now to "fix" it by monkeying with it the way Bush proposes. I guess that makes me atypical, but "typical" isn't what I strive for.
As a so-called "Christian conservative," it is my personal tenets which drive my political choices and not a need to see one party or the other "in power." Those tenets have far greater control over who I am and how I live than any government ever could. In fact, if the man (or woman) in the Oval Office is honorable and sticks to his/her constitutional limits, I could care less whether they be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or worse.
Do I have my own social agenda? Certainly. Will I fight against those issues that Bill wishes I'd leave alone? You bet. Am I doing it to spite Bill and his fellow mods?
No, sir. I am not.
I despise Roe v. Wade not so much because it made abortion legal, but because it made abortion the thing to do when a mistake is made. Society suddenly, seemingly overnight, turned abortion from a whispered, emotionally and physically torturous procedure to a nearly casual afterthought - as if destroying a young life is no big deal. That's what I wish had never happened. As a Christian, I've been taught that all life is sacred, and that we take life only in defense of our safety, or to fulfill the requirements of justice where warranted. Most abortions satisfy neither parameter.
Gay marriage is, by all spiritual measures, denied by the heavens. Of course, politics long ago removed itself from spiritual boundaries by creating a wall between the state and God that the founders - especially Thomas Jefferson - never intended to impose. Jefferson himself would never have supported legalization of gay marriage in this country. But, more to the point for those of us on the right, it flies in the face of everything we have learned through centuries of study of God's laws. The eternal ones, not the woefully inadequate human ones imposed by legislators. That's why we oppose gay marriage.
Does that mean that I abandon the party if it suddenly supports these things? Not necessarily. As it usually happens in any election, it boils down to choosing the lesser among evils. Sad, but generally true. You can legalize abortion, gay marriage, insider trading, or any number of things. I will, of course, vote against them every time they come to a vote. But should society prevail and impose these things on me, I can still choose not to participate. This is the beauty of life in this country. I can not only not participate, but I can teach my future generations not to support them, either. Making a thing legal does not make it compulsory by any means. (Should compulsory language be introduced, I would, of course, immediately spearhead a recall of the idiots that introduced it!) So far, the First Amendment protects me in my desire to speak out (and teach) against these and other issues.
So, Bill, you have little to fear, at least from this particular right-winger. I won't flail against your opinions. We can agree to disagree.
On some things, anyway.
Statue of Limitations (3)
3 hours ago