Cal Thomas gets it right....

[MacQuarrie]

I've been waiting years for a major Christian pundit to say this. It's about damn time.

http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2419

Amazing. Somebody read the instructions.

[AllisterH]

403 error?

[Cam63]

He didn't read the instructions ?

[MacQuarrie]

I just tried the link from another browser and it worked fine for me.

[JKCarrier]

I can't argue with the gist of it -- i.e., quit wasting time trying to legislate culture. But it's a little strange that he encourages evangelicals to do charitable works, not because it's the right thing to do, but because it will increase their power and influence. Yikes.

Plus that author photo totally makes him look like Dr. Evil. :wink:

[BnL]

Yeah, that's great. If you advocate trying to control what kind of art people can produce and enjoy, dictate what kinds of romantic/marital relationships are allowed, and generally force America to live by a narrow, "Christian" doctrine.

[section 8]

*Applause*

[JeffreyWKramer]

Personally, I think Cal Thomas is a douche, and have thought this for years. This time, though, he is getting some things right.

Toss out all the scripture references and what he's essentially saying is "You have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk" and "You can better influence people through good example than by trying to force your ways upon them." Those are valid principles, and I don't know if following them will really give Christians the influence they hope for over society in general but their following those principles almost certainly would have two positive effects. First off, they'd be a lot less annoying to everyone else than is the current Christian Right, and second, focusing on living the life they feel they should live, and letting others do the same, is bound to result in greater self-awareness and an examination of one's own beliefs that is almost certain to result in the Christians (or anyone else that follows that route) figuring out what they really, truly do believe.

[Spike-X]

"You can better influence people through good example than by trying to force your ways upon them."

So all those Christians who are against same-sex marriage should simply avoid marrying somebody of the same sex, and hope that others follow their example?

Works for me.

[MacQuarrie]

I can't argue with the gist of it -- i.e., quit wasting time trying to legislate culture. But it's a little strange that he encourages evangelicals to do charitable works, not because it's the right thing to do, but because it will increase their power and influence. Yikes.

Plus that author photo totally makes him look like Dr. Evil. :wink:

Sure, the same kind of power and influence Mother Teresa had; the power to influence people to be more compassionate and caring, to try to be better than they are.

[JKCarrier]

Sure, the same kind of power and influence Mother Teresa had; the power to influence people to be more compassionate and caring, to try to be better than they are.

More like the power to:

stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image

[Briareos]

I've been waiting years for a major Christian pundit to say this. It's about damn time.

http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2419

Amazing. Somebody read the instructions.

Sorry if there is one thing that social conservatives disklike it's being told we're the problem. Clinton found this out in 94 and if Obama tries using them as a mythical "villian" stoping us from all dancing around singing Kumbaya then he'll learn the same thing.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Sorry if there is one thing that social conservatives disklike it's being told we're the problem.

People often dislike being confronted by the truth, even when - as in this case - it's one of their own saying it.

[Gothos]

Personally, I think Cal Thomas is a douche, and have thought this for years. This time, though, he is getting some things right.

Toss out all the scripture references and what he's essentially saying is "You have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk" and "You can better influence people through good example than by trying to force your ways upon them." Those are valid principles, and I don't know if following them will really give Christians the influence they hope for over society in general but their following those principles almost certainly would have two positive effects. First off, they'd be a lot less annoying to everyone else than is the current Christian Right, and second, focusing on living the life they feel they should live, and letting others do the same, is bound to result in greater self-awareness and an examination of one's own beliefs that is almost certain to result in the Christians (or anyone else that follows that route) figuring out what they really, truly do believe.

He's essentially right in terms of praxis. He does commit a "sin of omission" in leaving out the matter of personal gain that comes along with being the Guys in Charge, and making it sounds as if the motives of the Religious Right were purely pietistic.

[Flamebird]

Sorry if there is one thing that social conservatives disklike it's being told we're the problem. Clinton found this out in 94 and if Obama tries using them as a mythical "villian" stoping us from all dancing around singing Kumbaya then he'll learn the same thing.

What the hell are you even going on about? This isn't about Clinton OR Obama.

It's about religious people trying to control everyone.

And yeah, while the intent seems honorable, I don't believe for a second that he(Thomas) is sincere.

[OzBat!]

I still can't see the link.

[Spike-X]

What the hell are you even going on about?

Oh, who knows?

Let's pull the string again and see what he says this time!

[Matt Doc Martin]

I've been waiting years for a major Christian pundit to say this. It's about damn time.

http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2419

Amazing. Somebody read the instructions.

I am no Christian, but I am very glad he said this. It is what Christians (and any faith that forces their belief on others) need to hear.

[Flamebird]

I still can't see the link.

Try this: http://www.calthomas.com/.

That's the homepage; the article is listed on the right of the page under "most popular".

[Nick Soapdish]

Cal Thomas gets it right....

I never thought I'd be hearing somebody say that one before. But I basically agree with him this time.

[OzBat!]

Nope, still getting the 403 (forbidden) error message, tried it in both firefox and IE. Somebody wanna quote it?

[Red Jack]

Sorry if there is one thing that social conservatives disklike it's being told we're the problem. Clinton found this out in 94 and if Obama tries using them as a mythical "villian" stoping us from all dancing around singing Kumbaya then he'll learn the same thing.

Yeah. Because you guys destroyed his bid for the presidency.
"social conservatives." what a joke.

here's something conservative:

Mind your own damned business. Worship who you want. Marry who you want. Leave those of us who live in the present alone and we will leave you alone.

Keep trying to clamp down and you'll get a backlash the likes of which has never been seen on this planet.

[Tommy]

Sorry if there is one thing that social conservatives disklike it's being told we're the problem.

Isn't it supposed to be liberals who care about hurt feelings?

[Paul McEnery]

Sorry if there is one thing that social conservatives disklike it's being told we're the problem. .

Tough. You are.

Also: I'm very tired of the phrase "social conservative", because it's a lie. Telling other people how to live their personal lives is reactionary at best, fascist at worst, and not in the least conservative.

[Matt Doc Martin]

Nope, still getting the 403 (forbidden) error message, tried it in both firefox and IE. Somebody wanna quote it?

RELIGIOUS RIGHT R.I.P.

By Cal Thomas

Tribune Media Services

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, he will do so in the 30th anniversary year of the founding of the so-called Religious Right. Born in 1979 and midwifed by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Religious Right was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those earlier movements — from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful) — had mixed results.

Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren’t anywhere near as successful as those that focused on changing hearts. The four religious revivals, from the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s to the Fourth Great Awakening in the late 1960s and early ’70s, which touched America and instantly transformed millions of Americans (and American culture as a result), are testimony to that.

Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?

I opt for trying something else.

Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?

Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?

The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?

If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative Evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to “love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans,” not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God’s love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?

Such a strategy could be more “transformational” than electing a new president, even the first president of color. But in order to succeed, such a strategy would not be led by charismatic figures, who would raise lots of money, be interviewed on Sunday talk shows, author books and make gobs of money.

Scripture teaches that God’s power (if that is what conservative Evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow’s mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of one’s self, the washing of feet and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice. How did conservative Evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior “kingdom”?

Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.

Here you go.

[thespianphryne]

What exactly are these so called conservatives conserving?

I'd like to conserve my right to privacy and my freedoms and rights.

[Tommy]

Also: I'm very tired of the phrase "social conservative", because it's a lie. Telling other people how to live their personal lives is reactionary at best, fascist at worst, and not in the least conservative.

Well buddy, them there platforms's about that there smaller government and fiscal responsibility just don't get those there seats filled. No sir! But ladies' baby making parts and makin' sure two dudes don't get no marriage, that's the issues that need conservin'.

[Paul McEnery]

Jim --

I know what you want to see in here, and I wish I saw it myself -- and God knows there's plenty of Evangelicals who pursue social justice, stewardship of the planet, and other good works for their own sake -- but what I actually see here is someone who lost a battle and wants to find another, more deceptive way to prosecute the war.

Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not.

Just a minute there, big guy. The secular left? What the hell is that supposed to be? Is it different from the Christian left? Or the Jewish left? Or Constitutional America that doesn't believe in the establishment of religion? And when has the left ever held power in America anyway?

And what exactly are the "standards" of the so-called secular left anyway? And even giving the man the benefit of the doubt on this, does the so-called secular left give a toss about persuading conservatives about, say, the benefits of sodomy? No, we just want their interfering fingers out of our lives, is all.

Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?

And how about that phrase "conservative Evangelicals". What's conservative about a Fundamentalist who thinks he's got the right to legislate morality? Nothing at all, that's what.

And why would a conservative Evangelical be rightly concerned about any of these things -- especially as "the indifference to the value of human life" is clearly code for reproductive rights, and the right to die, and nothing at all to do with increasing the quality of life all round, and especially nothing to do with not murdering a million Iraqis for the sake of some other illusory "rightful concerns".

This is a nasty bit of rhetoric; Evangelicals who happen to be conservative is a very different thing than Fundy nutjobs who can't stay out of other people's business.

The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?
So, still primarily concerned with imposing his own insane value system on others, then, but now wanting to be more sneaky about it.

If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative Evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to “love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans,” not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God’s love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?
One wouldn't want to suggest doing that because it's the right thing to do, would one? And frankly, if they're thinking of me as an enemy, the Fundies can stuff their love up their virgin backsides. That's like being loved by a needy and abusive creep, and who needs that?

Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.
So, this isn't so much a call for ethical revival in the Evangelical movement as sounding the retreat and going underground, while still working to convert the whole world -- including other Evangelicals -- to their point of view.

But now with extra-added dishonesty.

[Solaris]

The guy was a bit wordy (I sympathize, it's my problem too) but the gist I got from it was "Guys, quit trying to 'help' the country by throwing money at big evangelical speakers and causes, and by thinking you need to make your religious beliefs laws that apply to everyone. You'll get a lot farther by copying Jesus: Minister to people on an individual basis. Help feed and clothe the poor. Help heal the sick. Love your neighbor. Worry about the beam in your own eye, rather than picking at the mote in someone else's. Live your life with a personal compassion, and care, and courage, like Jesus did. Leave the rest of it in God's hands."

And that's a big chunk of the problem: these people trust so little in the God they say they serve, they are constantly yanking things out of his hands, with the excuse "I'm doing God's work." (It must really aggravate God sometimes.) And in the process... they ignore their *own* work---the work on themselves, which is the only legitimate work God gave them to do.

It reminds me of some rabid theatre fan who gets a bit part in a local production... who then, based on their "vast knowledge of the theatre," does their level best to take the director's place: ordering people around, changing the set, "fixing" the costumes, etc.

And in all this is a *severe* lack of humility.

On a different site, the topic of humility came up, in relation to one member's hitting that step in his 12-step program... here's the response I posted there:

Humility means (to me) accepting in your gut that you are surrounded by specialness: other people are special; the world is special; life is special---and, that while one should understand, acknowledge, and love one's own uniqueness... one should *not* do it at the cost of ignoring the special uniqueness of everyone, and everything, else.

It's not a "tearing down of pedestals", instead it's putting *everything* and *everyone* on their own, unique pedestal---which is the same height as your own: no taller, no shorter. I use the pedestal metaphor not in it's usual sense (seeing someone in an unrealistic light), but rather to emphasize that there is value in everyone and everything... and we all not only raise one another up, but also raise ourselves up, as we value equally the special uniqueness of all.

It's only when we refuse to acknowledge that we, like everyone, can err, and/or when we feel the need to raise our own pedestal higher than others, that we fall from humility... because humility involves loving *all* of who and what we are, even our own capacity for fallibility. If we were perfect, how could we relate to others who are not? The experience of being imperfect, of dealing with our failures, of wrestling with habits we wish to change, of picking one's self up after failure to go at it harder and to apply what we learned from the failure, of learning to learn and grow and love---all that teaches us compassion for others, and helps us to relate to them and to better understand their own version of "I've failed in this."

Mistakes, errors, failure: all of them hold within them the gift of learning how to change what we do, the choices we make. No one likes making mistakes... but when we make them, we gain the most from the experience if we seek out what we can learn from it, and adapt that learning into where we go from there.

The non-humble person never admits mistakes and failures, even to themselves---and thus, rejects all the learning they could be using to grow, to become a better person, to be better able to love themselves more freely and openly... and often, said person repeats the mistake, over and over.

We all have good days and bad days, but every day brings the opportunity to start anew, and to build upon what we've already learned and experienced... don't let becoming disheartened the day before prevent you from grabbing onto the opportunity of the *new* day... because the chance to begin afresh with every day, is a great gift.


One of the greatest weaknesses in the Religious Right is a lack of real humility. And it shows. Somehow their thinking has incorporated the idea of "tearing down other's houses and lives," accompanied by an enormous amount of self back-patting over how wonderfully godly and good they're being, and self-congratulation on "all the good we're doing."

And the cracks in their own foundation show all the clearer, every time they do this.

I hope they learn to be humble, to take care of their own houses and lives, and leave the rest in God's hands, where it rightfully belongs... because snatching it out of God's hands shows a lack of trust and faith in God that is sad, and even a little scary.

Jesus never ran for government; he never took a job that would put him in charge of anyone but himself. He spoke to and worked with people's daily lives, and cared about their concerns. He helped everyone he met, and loved them all. He never went into their home and said "You must do *this* to be godly"---instead, he told stories and lived as an example, to make people *think* about their own lives... he never stepped in and tried to change those lives *for* them.

These folks could stand to learn a whole lot... if they'd ever just stop running away from their responsibility to *themselves* by focusing on everyone else's life.

[Paul McEnery]

What exactly are these so called conservatives conserving?

I'd like to conserve my right to privacy and my freedoms and rights.

I'd like to conserve some plums in dry sherry, maybe with some raisins and oranges, too.

[Solaris]

I can't help putting this in as well... it was a bumper-sticker I found on MySpace, done up in a political button format:

Hey Sarah Palin:

Jesus was a Community Organizer.

Pontius Pilate was a Governor.




I'm sure it was made in response to her desparaging comments re: hers and Obama's past experience... and I loved it for it's simplicity. :biggrin:

[DavidAllred]

Just a minute there, big guy. The secular left? What the hell is that supposed to be?

It's just what it says, secular -- or pertaining to the worldly, or temporal; not overly religious.

Is it different from the Christian left?

I think so yes. But then I guess it depends on how far to the left you want to go.

Or Constitutional America that doesn't believe in the establishment of religion?

I'm certain this isn't what he meant at all. Even moderate and right-leaning Christians agree. It's the far right whack-o's that see it different.

That's like being loved by a needy and abusive creep, and who needs that?

That my friend, is the quote of the day. Can I use it in my next sermon. :smile:

[Paul McEnery]

It's just what it says, secular -- or pertaining to the worldly, or temporal; not overly religious.

Yeah, but since, the last time I looked, the Constitution guarantees secular government in the States, that casts a rather different light on the way that Thomas defines himself. That is: if he thinks of any of America's recent administrations as the "left", then he's screamingly to the right; and if he's taking issues with it being "secular", why then he's taking issue with the entire country.


I'm certain this isn't what he meant at all. Even moderate and right-leaning Christians agree. It's the far right whack-o's that see it different.

And I'm absolutely certain that's exactly what he means, and that this retreat from trying to legislate morality is purely tactical; and as Prop 8 demonstrates, there's plenty of far right Fundy whack jobs out there. Roughly 25% of the country, by my reckoning.


That my friend, is the quote of the day. Can I use it in my next sermon. :smile:
I live to be plagiarized. :biggrin:

[MacQuarrie]

And I'm absolutely certain that's exactly what he means, and that this retreat from trying to legislate morality is purely tactical; and as Prop 8 demonstrates, there's plenty of far right Fundy whack jobs out there. Roughly 25% of the country, by my reckoning.
You may be right. But what happens if a whole big swath of folks take him at his word and do as he suggests? Then when Religious Right 2.0 comes along, they say, "no thanks, busy doing some real work here"? The guy who thinks he's clever may have just come up with a plan that works so well it renders him irrelevant.

[Spike-X]

And once again, somebody can't help trotting out the tired old "preserving opposite-sex marriage" line.

And once again, I feel compelled to respond that that kind of marriage is in no danger whatsoever.

[mailedbypostman1]

I'm pretty sure most people won't read into the subtext like Paul does here. Most will see only the surface, and take it as his word.

[OzBat!]

To my way of thinking, the subtext was essential. The audience for this piece isn't Paul McInery, it was all those who've been taken in by the Religious Right for all these years. This is the terminology these people have been inundated with for years. If you're going to talk to them in a way they'll understand, you have to use their language.

And if they actually listen, hopefully in a few more years they'll understand everybody else's language.

[DavidAllred]

To my way of thinking, the subtext was essential. The audience for this piece isn't Paul McInery, it was all those who've been taken in by the Religious Right for all these years. This is the terminology these people have been inundated with for years. If you're going to talk to them in a way they'll understand, you have to use their language.

And if they actually listen, hopefully in a few more years they'll understand everybody else's language.

I agree. You cannot dismantle the master's house, until you've learned how to effectively wield his tools.

[Paul McEnery]

To my way of thinking, the subtext was essential. The audience for this piece isn't Paul McInery, it was all those who've been taken in by the Religious Right for all these years. This is the terminology these people have been inundated with for years. If you're going to talk to them in a way they'll understand, you have to use their language.

And if they actually listen, hopefully in a few more years they'll understand everybody else's language.

Here's the problem: Thomas IS the Religious Right.

If you look at his other columns, they're completely about advancing the agenda of the Religious Right, and chock full of absolute dishonesty.

I'd be impressed if he stood up and said: "You know, it's not our place to vote in Prop 8 or interfere with reproductive rights because people have a right to make their own decisions"; especially if he'd done that before the election. But he's not saying that at all, and for the months leading up to the election, he's been taking quite the other tack.

His meat and potatoes is stumping for the Religious Right's issues -- which happens to include stamping on other people's rights and desire for social justice. So yeah, having a sudden conversion on Nov 5 does not strike me as being all that likely.

[OzBat!]

I semi-sorta take your point, especially since I know nothing about Thomas beyond what's been said here. The weird thing however, is that although he apparently normally stumps for the Religious Right, he's come out with this after they've just had a big win with Prop8. If you could show me his promoting prop8 before hand, I'd agree with you 100%. However his actions here don't match up with that. He's working against them, in this instance.

[Red Jack]

I semi-sorta take your point, especially since I know nothing about Thomas beyond what's been said here. The weird thing however, is that although he apparently normally stumps for the Religious Right, he's come out with this after they've just had a big win with Prop8. If you could show me his promoting prop8 before hand, I'd agree with you 100%. However his actions here don't match up with that. He's working against them, in this instance.

Like all those of his ilk, what he really is is an opportunist. He sees the writing on the wall and wants to get out in front of the social tide that's in the process of turning.

That guy is a waste of skin. Just like Ralph Reed and the late unlamented Falwell (may he rot).

[Paul McEnery]

I semi-sorta take your point, especially since I know nothing about Thomas beyond what's been said here. The weird thing however, is that although he apparently normally stumps for the Religious Right, he's come out with this after they've just had a big win with Prop8. If you could show me his promoting prop8 before hand, I'd agree with you 100%. However his actions here don't match up with that. He's working against them, in this instance.

See, that looks like a distancing manoeuver to me. And perhaps not even one for his community, but in self-placement. As you will have perhaps noticed on this board, Prop 8 means a number of us have the Religious Right in our sights. Palin has made them look pretty bad within the Republican Party. And the mob of baying white folks at the McCain concession didn't help, either.

So on consideration, I figure Thomas is covering his own arse by writing this piece; and only secondly advising his base.

And of course I've got a fair amount of background in this community from my own youth, after working with a completely decent Baptist church with inner city youth, but also going to youth weekends where skeevy and underhanded evangelists (and really, is there any other kind if they're proselytizing teenagers en masse?) acted like nothing so much as Trotskyites with a mission to spread their tentacles into mainstream denominations as well as public life. Ick!

[Paul McEnery]

I'm pretty sure most people won't read into the subtext like Paul does here. Most will see only the surface, and take it as his word.

That would be why I take the time to bring the subtext to the surface, yes.

[Tobias March]

Exactly. That entire piece was not so much an endorsement of this 'bright new era', that Obama's election has ushered, more a tactical retreat.

It's interesting how many figures are piggy-backing on this election victory - which has very little to do with their politics. Gordon Brown is referencing it to try and emphasise his own role in relation to the US - he crapped out with Bush, maybe he has a shot with Obama. Mary Harney, former leader of the Irish 'centre right' party the Progressive Democrats chaired a meeting for their dissoluation as a pary (oh how I chortled). Somehow Obama came into her speech as well.

Mentioning the man provides instant political capital. It would be political suicide for anyone to condemn him from the pulpit - and anyhow Bush was a huge disappoint to the evangelical right. He promised plenty to them for their support but failed to deliver.

It's time to draw up new tactics. This is a call to arms, not an admission of defeat.

[darkhanamaru]

I've been waiting years for a major Christian pundit to say this. It's about damn time.

http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2419

Amazing. Somebody read the instructions.

Oh. The others are right. I think this is a tactical retreat. Trying to prevent himself from becoming irrelevant.

[Solaris]

Like all those of his ilk, what he really is is an opportunist. He sees the writing on the wall and wants to get out in front of the social tide that's in the process of turning.

That guy is a waste of skin. Just like Ralph Reed and the late unlamented Falwell (may he rot).


You know what I would've like to have seen? Falwell's face the minute he crossed over... and realized just what he'd done with his life.

Sad.

[Flamebird]

I semi-sorta take your point, especially since I know nothing about Thomas beyond what's been said here. The weird thing however, is that although he apparently normally stumps for the Religious Right, he's come out with this after they've just had a big win with Prop8. If you could show me his promoting prop8 before hand, I'd agree with you 100%. However his actions here don't match up with that. He's working against them, in this instance.

Sure thing: Pasted, since you fortunately can't access his site.

THE END OF ‘WE THE PEOPLE’

By Cal Thomas

Tribune Media Services

Anyone desiring a preview of what the federal judiciary would look like under a Barack Obama administration need look no further than a narrow ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court allowing same-sex “marriage.”

By a 4-3 margin, the high court deprived Connecticut citizens of the right to limit marriage and, thus, societal approval, to the legal and covenantal relationship between a man and a woman.

The ruling cannot be appealed, in keeping with the dictatorial mind-set of the majority.

The court majority bought the legal pabulum served up by attorneys for the plaintiffs that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is akin to once prevalent laws prohibiting interracial marriage, as well as laws that discriminated against women for certain jobs and relegated blacks to “separate but equal” schools and other public venues.

Writing for the majority, Justice Richard N. Palmer revealed his acceptance of the liberal doctrine of a “living Constitution” constantly in need of updating in keeping with the times: “…our understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection.” Using such a standard, if the “understanding” of the endowed rights of blacks were to devolve to a pre-civil rights-era acceptance of black inferiority, would Justice Palmer argue that blacks would then have to give up their rights in order to serve “contemporary appreciation”? And what else would Justice Palmer and his three colleagues allow to be determined by contemporary whim?

Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, accused the majority of behaving like “robed masters” and “philosopher kings.” He added, “This is about our right to govern ourselves. It is bigger than gay marriage.” He is correct, of course, but such notions are beginning to fade as more of us either don’t care, or are willing to trade a ruling class — in this case the courts — for individual freedom and the right to shape societal norms and mores from the bottom up, not the top down.

Connecticut becomes the third state — Massachusetts and California are the others — to sanction same-sex marriage. California has a measure on its November ballot, Proposition 8, to reverse a state Supreme Court ruling and preserve marriage between men and women.

An indication that the objectives of the gay rights movement go far beyond what any two individuals wish to do with each other can be seen in what California has tried to impose on heterosexuals wishing to marry. According to Focus on the Family’s Citizen Link Web page (www.citizenlink.org/content/A000008385.cfm), some county clerks exchanged the words “bride” and “groom” on marriage licenses for “Party A” and “Party B.” One clerk rejected the application of Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding because they wrote in the traditional designations for themselves. It took a lawsuit by the Coddings, decided in their favor on Oct. 3, for the state to back down on its “Party A” and “Party B” requirement. Couples will now be allowed the “option” to designate themselves however they wish.

Under an Obama administration, it is not far-fetched to see the day when liberal federal judges decide that religious organizations must lose their tax exemptions should they refuse to employ homosexuals or others they regard as engaging in deviant behavior.

Court challenges against those who believe homosexual behavior is sinful seem to be occurring with greater frequency. According to Citizenlink, The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey, which is affiliated with the United Methodist Church, “lost part of its property tax exemption for refusing to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its property.” The state is also investigating the organization after it was charged with violating New Jersey’s nondiscrimination statutes. New Jersey has a religious exemption law that is supposed to protect churches and religious organizations, but it hasn’t in this instance, which raises questions about their effectiveness. The aim of the gay rights lobby is to destroy all remnants of biblical values and societal norms.

Gay rights advocates will take their agenda to federal courts as soon as sufficient numbers of liberal judges are there to give them what they want. Watch them vote in overwhelming numbers for Barack Obama. He is their future. This election is, among other things, about the future of the majority and whether we want this country to be shaped by the courts, or by “we the people.”

[Infra-Man]

Oh, who knows?

Let's pull the string again and see what he says this time!

*pulls string*

The horse goes "Voting for Obama is death to Israel."

*pulls string*

The dog goes "We are not in a recession."

*pulls string*

The cow goes "Mooooo."

*pulls string*

[JeffreyWKramer]

You may be right. But what happens if a whole big swath of folks take him at his word and do as he suggests? Then when Religious Right 2.0 comes along, they say, "no thanks, busy doing some real work here"? The guy who thinks he's clever may have just come up with a plan that works so well it renders him irrelevant.

Given that Thomas is a guy that has previously framed abortion and the Terri Schiavo case in terms of genocide, I agree with Paul that, though his words are somewhat measured, he's really probably urging more of a stealth campaign. That being the case, I think it would be ironic as hell - and no doubt infuriating to Cal - if you turned out right about that.

In any case, I'd think most here - Bri a likely exception -would agree with athiest me that more Habitat for Humanity and less Focus on the Family would probably be a good thing both for America in general and for American Christianity.