Leaving the Cult?

As we all discussed in the Labor Day Open Thread, Mike Lofgren over at Truth Out has written an article explaining why he left the increasingly lunatic GOP “cult” – but as I read it, the views Lofgren express indicate that even if he once upon a time had a GOP voter registration, his views are actually (and rather lock-step) in line with the leftwing extreme of American politics.  For example:

…Some liberal writers have opined that the different socio-economic perspectives separating the “business” wing of the GOP and the religious right make it an unstable coalition that could crack. I am not so sure. There is no fundamental disagreement on which direction the two factions want to take the country, merely how far in that direction they want to take it. The plutocrats would drag us back to the Gilded Age, the theocrats to the Salem witch trials. In any case, those consummate plutocrats, the Koch brothers, are pumping large sums of money into Michele Bachman’s presidential campaign, so one ought not make too much of a potential plutocrat-theocrat split…

The condemnation of liberals as weak-kneed combined with the accusation that the GOP wants to grind the poor and burn witches is classic leftist dogma…the sort of thing we’ve seen out of the left since Lenin asserted that only Bolsheviks have a right to be heard.  As I said, I can’t determine whether Lofgren is a former GOPer who switched – but his views as written are not those of someone dismayed at the direction of the GOP, but of someone who despises the entire GOP.  This is not like, say, Arlen Specter switching from Republican to Democrat and still holding 99% of the views he held as a Republican…this is a night and day difference.  Like Specter switching from the GOP to the Communist Party.  Lofgren isn’t so much leaving the GOP “cult” as proclaiming his adherence to the kook left cult.

And as a kook leftist, Lofgren gets it all wrong.  Even when he correctly identifies a problem (rapacious Big Corporation, eg) his proposed solution (more Big Government) fails to recognize that Big Corporation and Big Government are two sides of the same coin.  It staggers the mind to read Lofgren condemn GOPers as ignorant when he can’t even see that the whole system is corrupt – and only a break up of the system (Big Government and Big Corporation) will allow the people to recover their freedom and with it their prosperity.

The system we have today is the result of a century of giving people power over others.  We started out, as a nation, with a federal government which could barely interfere in the lives of Americans.  Over the last century we have continually increased the power of government and corporations until the initiative of the American people has been stifled.  Do you really think there was a popular demand to stop drilling for oil, mining for metal and growing food?  No – that took major, sustained action by government and corporations to accomplish.  Our ability to create wealth has been stifled because those in charge of government and the largest corporations prefer us to be dependent…bribed to peace with welfare and distracted by trivial  gadgets and disgusting popular culture.  It allows the Ruling Class to continue undisturbed.  We do need massive change…but it won’t and can’t come from the left…because all a leftist like Lofgren would do is strengthen the fetters on the people.

In the end, the people who will save this nation are those Lofgren most despises…those TEA Partiers and their notions of constitutional governance, and their adherence to what Lofgren clearly considers to be a worn-out Judeo-Christian morality.  It will be the bitter-clingers who will restore American greatness…while leftists of the Lofgren stripe ill be consigned, deservedly, to the ash heap of history.

About these ads

76 thoughts on “Leaving the Cult?

  1. Cluster

    If anyone ever desires to get a glimpse into the disturbed psyche of a liberal, simply read bozo’s posts. He definitely possesses that weird need of a liberal to feel important by setting up straw men and knocking them down. Come to think of it that is also Thomas’s MO.

    Yesterday on pMSNBC, Hoffa actually said that conservatives are “anti human”, after getting carried away by saying how “anti” conservatives are. It was hilarious, and action hero Ed Schultz agreed. Action hero Ed also said he was proud of Hoffa’s SOB comment, apparently forgetting his own distaste for “irresponsible tea party” rhetoric as he bemoaned not too long ago.

    Seriously folks, liberals are children, and emotionally unstable children at that. They evidently believe that evil constitutional conservatives are the only thing standing in between them and some liberal workers paradise (Stalin are you listening?). And only a child could ignore history and harbor such delusions of grandeur. The lecture that Professor Obama will deliver tomorrow night will not be a jobs program, rather a campaign speech which will set up straw man proposals that he will use to divide Americans and incite more hate. If he was a serious President, he would put his plan on paper, for everyone to digest and contemplate and for the CBO to score, but that is not his intention at all, yet the children (ie: liberals), will rally around this shell of a man and hope to continue down the road of fiscal irresponsibility only because it makes them feel better and they really don’t know any better. Conservatives are to blame for this mess only because we should never expect children to govern responsibly.

    1. Bodie

      “Seriously folks, liberals are children, and emotionally unstable children at that. ”

      Says the emotionally unstable child who thinks that Hoffa telling people to vote is a call to violence and that the tea party is the only thing standing between America and (wholly imagined) socialism. Get a grip, drama queen.

      But that aside, it is worth noting that days after the Lofgren article was first posted (and deleted because it was too frightening for the B4V crowd), the best response Mark can come up with is still rote recitation of the No True Scotsman fallacy and basic attacking of the source because he cannot form any counterargument to Lofgren’s article.

      1. Cluster

        Says the emotionally unstable child who thinks that Hoffa telling people to vote is a call to violence

        That isn’t even close to being the truth. I simply marveled at the hypocrisy from those on the left that called for a more civil tone. And there really is no counter argument needed to Lofgrens comments. They are simply his opinions, of which he is entitled to, and carry no more weight than any other opinions. But thanks Bodie, for demonstrating what I mean by a hyper emotional child.

      2. RetiredSpook

        Since I’m the one who asked Mark to give this article its own thread, I guess I’d better weigh in. I actually did attempt to read Lofgren’s looooooooooong screed, but about two thirds of the way through blood began shooting out of my eyes, and I couldn’t see to continue. But I felt he made a few valid points, and that’s why I asked for the thread. Upon attempting to read it again, I realized it was like reading all of Slccr/Jeffy/Monty/Bodie’s posts from the last year all run together. No wonder Bodie loved it.

        What I would find interesting would be to talk to some of Lofgren’s friends during his 28 years as a GOP staffer. Truth be told, I’ll bet he went through some life-changing epiphany that completely altered his world view. Either that or he was simply NEVER a Conservative. He draws so many stereotypes of Republicans and then attempts to show that they are representative of the GOP as a whole. That just isn’t the reaction of someone who has “seen the light”. That’s the reaction of someone who has an axe to grind.

        because he cannot form any counterargument to Lofgren’s article.

        Not sure exactly how one forms a counterargument to an opinion.

      3. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

        Bodie,

        Ok, so I’ll counter his article directly – we of the GOP do not want to protect billionaires or burn witches. And just where do we go from here? He asserts that we do; he has no evidence to support this…I can’t prove that we’re never going to do what we don’t do now…

      4. Majordomo Pain

        Mark, he was an insider on Capitol Hill. He makes no apologies for the failures of the Left or the Right. This Lofgren points out is the root of the problem. He has clearly touched a nerve here in pointing out what this new GOP relies on and what they hold dear.

      5. Cluster

        Major,

        He has only touched a nerve with the hyper sensitive left, ie: you and thomas and bodie. The rest of us simply chalk it up to another ill informed opinion and/or conclusion from the left which carries zero weight. Liberals are the only people that are all wound up about this.

      6. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

        Pain,

        I think you might be reading too much in to the deletion of the original link to this article in the Labor Day Open Thread….I don’t know which moderator deleted it and I don’t really know why they did…but for me there is nothing to be worried about here: whatever Lofgren might have been in the past, he’s a kook leftist, now and his criticisms of the GOP are absurd.

        It is, though, important that he does attempt by sly wording to make the reader think he was a Republican…without ever saying he was a member of the party, he leads you to believe that at some point he was, and had to get out because we Republicans became so crazy. Now, maybe he was a Republican…but his writing doesn’t indicate any adherence to Republican views; not even a residual bit of GOPness remains…he’s all leftist, now, and his critique had been penned 1,000 times by lefitst after leftist (shocking as it may be for you, this is not the first time we’ve been accused of coddling billionaires and hankering after burned witch).

      7. Majordomo Pain

        Cluster We feel that this article points out the danger of extremes on both sides. If Democrats has more backbone and the GOP would return to the center America would be the winner. A hard move Left or Right in the current times will end in disaster.

      8. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.]

        You mean Noonan that his vocal disagreement with the shift right by the GOP means that to you he could never have been a real Republican.

      9. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

        Frederick,

        No, what I’m saying is that no matter what he might have been previously, he is a kook leftist now…his critique is absurd as are all leftist complaints about the GOP (do keep in mind that there are plenty of complaints to be made against the GOP…but leftist complaints against the GOP are akin to the sort of complaints lodged against the Catholic Church…we are accused of believing things we don’t believe). Lofgren is not a conservative or a centrist dissenting with tactics and policy, he’s a leftist who condemns the entire GOP/conservative entity.

      10. Bodie

        “Not sure exactly how one forms a counterargument to an opinion.”

        Try pointing out where he’s wrong. That’s what none of you seem to be able to do, as you’re content to merely attack the messenger and declare him “not conservative” as though that answers the statements made in the article. This is what happens when you close yourself off from the outside world and trap yourself in a feedback loop of talking points.

    2. neocon1

      stand up joe..
      “.BARBARIANS are at the GATES are WE are the ONLY ONES HOLDING THEM BACK”

      hey joe; does that include indian 7-11 owners and that clean articulate black man?.

  2. Majordomo Pain

    First, cluster’s two posts make Mr. Lofgren’s point in spades.

    Second, here is a quote from the piece that is far more telling than the blurb Mark chose:

    “It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant.”

    Mark questions Lofgren’s GOP bona fides when the man worked for the GOP for three decade. But of course Mark does because anyone who is not “hard right” on social and religious issues [most of which have no bearing on the current major economic crisis America faces, but are just the death throes of a long ago lost culture war] cannot be a part of his ideology. And there that word is yet again. The GOP of the past back when conservatives mostly lined the bigoted Democratic Party in the South and Midwest were moderates [think of Nelson Rockefeller in New York and his brother in Arkansas, Ed Burke in Massachusetts, Mark Hatfield in Oregon or Charles Percy in Illinois now look for men like that in the current GOP. Good luck!] now they are hard shifted to the right yet they advocate the same divisiveness based on the lie that if conservatives are forced to live in a Secular Democracy eventually White Christian America will be “overrun” by a wave of GLBTQ/black/brown/Liberal/Socialist/Communist/Sharia law/Feminist ideals that cannot be tolerated by “true believers in conservatism.”

    At some point, conservatives and liberals alike in America will be forced to ask themselves, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

    [q c p n!]

    1. Green Mountain Boy

      Why cant we all get along? Because idiots like you keep on taking money that does not belong to you to perpatrate the system of taking money that does not belong to you so you…well i am sure a sock like you even gets it.

      But then again, maybe not.

      1. thomasg0102

        it’s called taxation and consent of the governed.

        you make it seem as if you never voted for a politican in office? If you have, then you consent to the policies that are passed by those people on your behalf.

        If you haven’t voted…then shut your trap, you have nothing to complain about.

    2. Cluster

      If only the democrats still had people like Evan Bayh amongst their ranks.

      Major,

      You really need to understand that the vast majority of tea partiers and conservatives are FISCALLY focused, not socially focused, but that fact doesn’t play well with the liberal narrative. You can whine all you want about how draconian social conservatives are, but they play a minor role in this current movement. So go ahead and fight the windmills if you’d like, while we focus on what really matters.

      1. thomasg0102

        Really? Tea party is fiscally conservative and mostly doesn’t care about social issues?

        Hmm..that’s not the rhetoric you hear from Bachmann, Perry and Santorum.

        Interesting. you must live in your univese, and not the real world.

    3. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

      Pain,

      Part of the reason I question Lofgren’s GOP bona fides is because I don’t see where he actually says he was a GOPer…Congressional staffer, sure; worked for the GOP side, ok…but unless I’m mistaken, I don’t see in the article “I was a Republican”.

      1. Majordomo Pain

        Mark this is simply semantics. What you mean is that “no where in the article do I see that Lofgren shares the same worldview as I.” This is Lofgren’s point. The man is a moderate and he is waxing both nostalgic for the moderate center of the party and casting an ominous picture of where the new party could take the nation. We, Ourselves, would prefer any centrist solutions to America’s current problems as long a individual self determination remained constant.

        Lofgren is a Republican he just is not a far right Republican. There are many GOPers who did not wish to see their nation suffer just so they could shout “No!” at a president who does not look like them, think like them or operate politically like them. Sadly, their voices have been drowned out or they like Lofgren have been forced out.

      2. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

        Pain,

        Semantics? No – he doesn’t say he was a Republican anywhere in the article. He also doesn’t indicate any support for any aspect of Republican policy…except for quoting Ike to the effect that liberalism must be preserved. He doesn’t have to agree with me on everything, but if he was a Republican he should agree with me on something.

      3. Majordomo Pain

        So you are saying that none of this:

        “While Democrats temporized, or even dismissed the fears of the white working class as racist or nativist, Republicans went to work. To be sure, the business wing of the Republican Party consists of the most energetic outsourcers, wage cutters and hirers of sub-minimum wage immigrant labor to be found anywhere on the globe. But the faux-populist wing of the party, knowing the mental compartmentalization that occurs in most low-information voters, played on the fears of that same white working class to focus their anger on scapegoats that do no damage to corporations’ bottom lines: instead of raising the minimum wage, let’s build a wall on the Southern border (then hire a defense contractor to incompetently manage it). Instead of predatory bankers, it’s evil Muslims. Or evil gays. Or evil abortionists.”

        Expresses your views or those of many of your commenters?

        That understood are you saying that to be a moderate as Lofgren clearly is disallows him from being a Republican?

      4. RetiredSpook

        The man is a moderate and he is waxing both nostalgic for the moderate center of the party

        You mean that faction of the party that lost Congress for 4 decades, from 1953 to 1994? Yeah, I miss them too — like a bad case of the flu.

      5. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

        Pain,

        What he is essentially saying in that passage is that corporate interests, which control the GOP, used the racist/nativist feelings of the GOP base to keep us hopped up over side issues while corporate interests imported sweated Mexican labor and outsourced our wealth. The only problem with this theory is the fact that we of the GOP base are neither racist nor nativists…GOP opinion on border security/immigration issues runs from open borders to building a wall (I’m a bit of an odd duck – build the wall, but amnesty most of those already here). GOP opinion on trade runs from absolute free trade (which does facilitate outsourcing jobs) to protectionism (once again, I’m a bit of an odd duck…I don’t want free trade if that means we trade with slave-labor States like China)…but lost in that is the fact that liberal/leftist taxation and regulation is what ultimately makes it profitable to outsource our jobs….it is a hassle and an expense to move a production facility overseas, after all..you don’t just do it on a whim…and in a rational economy the massive productivity of American workers completely counters most of the low-wage benefits of foreign workers…but when you tack on all the taxes and regulations and put that next to a foreign tyranny where we have free trade and all it takes is a couple bribes and you can do what you want…presto, all our factories are in China. But it was leftism that did it…

  3. thomasg0102

    Interesting. The guy worked for the GOP for 28 years. Is respected in the party…and found the party so dysfunctional, and so cult like, that he had to resign.

    not change posts and keep earning…no, retire, leave, resign.

    The GOP of today is nothing like the GOP of Eisenhower, Nixon, or even Reagan. It’s a cult with an ever smaller demographic following.

    Cluster’s idiotic rant is perfect proof of that cult mentality. I look forward to the battle for this nation’s evolution while the GOP wants to devolve us back into the pre-civil war age.

    1. Cluster

      And the democrats are nothing like the party that FDR or even JFK or LBJ led. The left has devolved into some hyper sensitive, politically correct cult that has a healthy disdain for constitutional government and capitalism, and constructs straw men at every opportunity to divide people and incite fear and hatred.

      The tea party acronym is “taxed enough already” and at the core of that is a belief that the government has grown beyond all reasonable proportions and wastes entirely too much money. The fact that you can’t wrap your mind around that, and instead want to pretend that it is socially based with a desire to institute a theocracy, is simply more evidence of your inner child finding the straw man that you can defeat. It’s hilarious, but more importantly is the reason why so many people have abandoned you.

      1. thomasg0102

        The tea party acronym is “taxed enough already” and at the core of that is a belief that the government has grown beyond all reasonable proportions and wastes entirely too much money.

        love the stupidity on display here. Where was the tea party during the Bush years? I don’t remember Beck having rallies on the national lawn to restore America. Does America only need restoring when there is a Democrat in office? Hmm..is it a coincidence that about 90% of the Tea party are either conservatives or GOP members? Why aren’t there any Tea party members who are Democrat in Congress?

        The fact that you can’t wrap your mind around that, and instead want to pretend that it is socially based with a desire to institute a theocracy,

        BINGO! that’s exactly what the current social conservatives like Bachmann and Perry and Santorum want. Your ilk is quite filthy and deserves nothing but scorn.

        It’s hilarious, but more importantly is the reason why so many people have abandoned you

        man, talk about ramblings of a delusional old white guy. The only difference between you and a normal person like me is that I am sane…you’re insane and under this constant fear of the government taking over your life.

        Idiot.

        ps. go ahead and throw around the racial insults since I just called you a white man.

      2. tiredoflibbs

        tommy-boy once again shows his ignorance about the TEA Party.

        There were those who protested Bush’s spending. Some of them right here on this blog doing so. It was not until the “stimulus” which paid for things like studies of drug users, the mating habits of insects, the migration of species and other such PORK that pushed future TEA Patiers over the edge and thus began the rallies.

        This has all been covered before. So either you are incapable of reading comprehension or you are just regurgitating dumbed down talking points from the liberal playbook.

        Typical.

    2. Majordomo Pain

      thomas you and cluster are both correct. The GOP has changed into something unrecognizable and the Democrats have no spine. Lofgren made these points clearly.

  4. mitch

    I’ve got an idea for ya Mark. Instead of pontificating to the like minded from the safety of this blog, why don’t you challenge Lofgren directly by posting on his? Step up to the plate and debate someone who challenges the very core of your idealogy. I’ll bet all of the B4V crowd would cheer you on. I’ll also bet your too much of a coward to actually do so.

    1. Cluster

      And what do you mean by “safety of this blog”? Are you implying that liberals are hostile to conservatives?

    2. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

      Mitch,

      I’ve linked to his article and unless he’s completely oblivious, he knows it…he is free to comment here or e mail me. I only have limited time to blog so I don’t often comment on other websites…

      UPDATE: I decided to go and comment…I did a thorough search and found no indication in the article that Lofgren claims membership, past or present, in the GOP…so, I wanted to put that comment on the article.

      1. Majordomo Pain

        We are sure the expanation of Mr Lofgren’s service will not suffice. Does it follow then that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has non members of the Democratic Party on her staff? Very likely but when you consider that Lofgren spent 16 working at the executive staff level on the House and Senate budget committees I doubt he was not a member of the GOP. People, when faced with aberrations Mark can change their minds. Mr. Lofgren loves America more than he loves political ideology.

      2. Cluster

        Major,

        Could you please clarify who “We” is. Do you speak for a group of people? And if so, do you consider group think to be healthy?

      3. dbschmidt

        I am a fiscally conservative Libertarian that would have no problem with working for the GOP inside or outside the beltway but that still does not make me a GOP’er.

    3. Majordomo Pain

      While We do not feel Mark is a coward what profit would come from a debate of the views of the Right? This conversation would simply do no more than expose the growing divisions between mainstream moderate conservatives and the far right.

  5. Cluster

    I’d like to ask Bodie and Thomas what they would like to see from the President’s plan. Or speech actually, it’s not a plan. Plans are usually put on paper with specifics. But why digress.

  6. Green Mountain Boy

    Thomas, just for a few giggles here. Would you care to explain what kind of theocracy they want to establish? This should be very interesting.

    1. dennis

      Green Mountain Boy asks, ” Would you care to explain what kind of theocracy they want to establish? This should be very interesting.”

      It is interesting indeed. The following excerpt is from Gary North’s tribute to R. J. Rushdoony after his death in 2001. North has been a regular contributor to Lew Rockwell’s (Libertarian) website for years. He married Rushdoony’s daughter so his understanding of Rushdoony’s thinking is intimate.

      [Rousas J.] Rushdoony’s writings are the source of many of the core ideas of the New Christian Right, a voting bloc whose unforeseen arrival in American politics in 1980 caught the media by surprise. This bloc voted overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan. Two weeks after Reagan was inaugurated, Newsweek (Feb. 2, 1981) accurately but very briefly identified Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Foundation as the think tank of the Religious Right. But the mainstream media did not take the hint….

      The Institutes of Biblical Law (1973) was [Rushdoony's] magnum opus, a book of over 800 pages…. The Institutes revived a long-dead discipline among Protestants, casuistry: the application of biblical legal principles to real-world situations….

      In the Institutes — self-consciously named after John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536) — Rushdoony took the Ten Commandments as the ordering principle for the whole of biblical law, Old Testament and New. He analyzed each of the case laws in terms of the Decalogue. He considered which principles carried over into the New Testament era and how they should be applied to modern life. He concluded that civil government must be shrunk drastically to meet biblical standards, so that the free market and voluntary social action will flourish. He was an Austrian School proponent in most of his economic views, as his footnotes to Mises revealed throughout his career.

      The Institutes launched the Christian Reconstruction movement. It represented a major transition in his writing career from detailed negative critical analyses to a detailed positive alternative. It filled a crucial gap in his previous strategy: “You can’t beat something with nothing…”

      His ideal was a statist command structure with absolute obedience and predictable, measurable results.

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north33.html

      The following article fleshes out some of the gaps North leaves in answering your question: http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning

    2. Uncle Sam

      Dominionism, in the context of politics and religion, is the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States. It is also known as subjectionism.[1] The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

      1. Green Mountain Boy

        In this new theocracy will there be hangings of homosexuals? Witch burnings? Forced conversions by an inquistion? If so, to which denomination? Will civil courts be subjagated to ecclesiastical courts? Lets have some details here so I can make up my mind if I want to join in or not.

  7. Pingback: MIKE LOFGREN EXPLAINS IT ALL « Editorials from Hell's Leading Daily Newspaper

  8. dennis

    Mark, I don’t get it. You put up this post for comment, GMB asks a question and I answer it. I am civil, I do not name-call or use profanity and the link I excerpt from is Lew Rockwell’s website – highly respected among Libertarians, and I suspect among most Tea Party folks. My post is held up for hours “for moderation.”

    Moderation of what, for crying out loud? Don’t you think GMB is a big enough boy to handle it? Are you afraid his tender sensibilities might be shocked? Why do you feel your readers shouldn’t be exposed to this? Why are you censoring relevant information?

    Here is my theory. Rushdoony and North, whatever else one may think of them, are courageous enough to follow their convictions to their ultimate logical conclusion. Your own ideas about legislation of morality may or may not go that far. I can conceive of three possibilities: one, you’re not smart enough to see where they lead – I reject that as a serious possibility. Two, you’re not intellectually courageous enough to follow through to the logical conclusions of your position, or three, you’re not honest enough to admit this is where it ends up.

    We have the Inquisition as a historical model for this kind of thing and the Taliban as a more contemporary model. Rushdoony’s model would be a Protestant iteration, but otherwise not much different in spirit. You really ought to just go ahead and deal with it, because it’s out there and if Perry becomes the GOP nominee this stuff may really hit the fan. Then you’ll have to stake out some kind of response to it – why not now?

    Dennis, I suspect the “moderation” problem was a function of WordPress and was triggered by one or the other of your links. Holding up a post for “moderation” is not something that either I or the other moderator ever does.//Moderator

    1. dbschmidt

      I would have to speculate that it was held “for moderation” because of the link. The same has happens to mine when I add a link to the post but I don’t get all upset over it.

      1. neocon1

        same heredb
        and some of mine disappear??? HUH??
        so after all it must be an Eeeeeeevil conservative PLOT !!!!
        what a bunch of leftist girlymen loons.

    2. neocon1

      A slow day at the fork today??
      the whole flying monkey show was called to flap in here for this thread.

    3. neocon1

      dennisstooge

      Why are you censoring relevant information?

      BECAUSE THEY *O-W-N* THE BLOG SO THEY CAN.

      maybe they are just sick of lefty loons overtaking the blog with absolute BS.
      tell ya what, go to KO’s or huffpo youre commie crap is more than welcome there.
      IMHO not that of mgt.

    4. Green Mountain Boy

      Dennis, Mark or the moderators had nothing to do with holding up your post. The version of wordpress they are using did it. Next time don’t post two links in the same post.

      By the way hows that allaince you lefties have with the muzzies going. Hope when the time comes I am still alive to watch how they deal with people like you. Talk about an inquisition, you haven’t seen nothing yet.

      1. neocon1

        GMB

        beheadings R us

        the leftist tools, sodomites, abortors, atheists will be murdered by their previous partner the Islamists, with the Jews.
        hope they can take the “heat”… :)

      2. Green Mountain Boy

        Aw Neo, I wanted to have a bit of fun but you had to go right to the end game.
        Double rats. :(

      3. Green Mountain Boy

        Now now Neo, don’t be so mean. Islam is making a difference in this world. One dead body at a time.

    5. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

      Dennis,

      GMB got it – any comment with two or more links will automatically be held; multiple links are a strong sign of spam….so, either do one at a time or be patient with the moderators.

      That aside…

      I’m Catholic, not Protestant – so the peculiar, Calvinist thoughts of a man from 1973 might not be as important to me as you believe. Not being a theologian, I won’t get in to a dispute between the Calvinist and Catholic points of view…as I am not trained in Calvinism, I cannot say whether the writings you refer are theological correct, or not. But I can say this – the central thing to remember about Catholic social teaching is subsidiarity…all our efforts are dependent upon this and if we lack it then all our efforts will be for naught. Subsidiarity is the requirement that decisions be made at the lowest level possible and that higher authority only intervene if the job cannot be done, at all, by the local authorities.

      For all the claims of the anti-Christians that the Church has been some monolithic force attempting to impose theocracy, the reality is that the Church has always been heavily decentralized and has always recognized local differences. In matters of core dogma, of course, the Church has spoken authoritatively and, in the past, has called upon the secular arm to preserve the faith. And that is something, in the end, even you should be grateful for…even the much-maligned Inquisition got its start because the Church was faced with a rapidly spreading heresy which, had it won the day, would have completely altered our civilization…it would have destroyed it. If you like this whole concept of individual liberties and, rule of law and decentralized authority, then thank Saint Dominic (who converted large numbers of the heretics back to the faith), Simon de Montfort (who led 1,600 Crusaders against an army of 30,000+ heretics, and vanquished them) and the Inquisition (which ferreted out what heresy was, defined it and allowed action to be taken against it). That the Inquisition later went bad is in the nature of things…human activities always tend to go wrong over time…but that doesn’t mean it always was what later propaganda made it out to be.

      The bottom line is that you can rely on it that no Catholic will ever advocate Church control over the State…the City of God and the City of Man each have their proper spheres…and while God is supreme, there is in the City of Man essential authority over the mode of government and the regulation of social, political and economic life. The primary political tasks of Catholics is to ensure that the faith may be freely practised, then to ensure as far as possible that no laws in the State enforce upon people actions or beliefs contrary to truth, finally to attempt to enshrine as much Catholic truth in to law as is compatible with a functioning, civil society which is never to be under Church control. No theocracy – no Pope telling you to get to Mass on Sunday. Heck, we won’t even insist that your honor our Blessed Mother, even though Scripture commands you to…

      1. dennis

        Thanks Mark – knowing that quirk of wordpress is helpful. I find your selective interpretation of church history fascinating. I do agree with much of your final paragraph above. But you begin it by saying “The bottom line is that you can rely on it that no Catholic will ever advocate Church control over the State.”

        History refutes that, as you more or less acknowledged already. From Boniface’s Unum Sanctum in the 14th century to this mid-20th century quote from La Civilità Cattolica, the Jesuit journal cited in TIME magazine: http://tinyurl.com/4yrsdq8 Of course since the Second Vatican Council it has had to temper such expressions, at least to the general public.

        All this meshes perfectly with Dominionist authoritarianism. As North says, “Let us be blunt about it. We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”

        Ultimately theological differences won’t much matter. Two powerful entities working toward the same goal will at some point find it more pragmatic to join forces than compete, and if/when this happens we will see a functional end to religious liberty. Then all the talk from the religious right about honoring the Constitution will be seen for what it is – manipulation and maneuvering: first for broad acceptance, then for absolute power. Catholicism generally gets its way – it will wait centuries if necessary for the opportunity it seeks, and the present political climate in the United States may be just that opportunity.

        I’m sure most conservative evangelicals don’t envision such an end game, but you can bet there are religious leaders with much invested in the political process who do. I’ve heard it repeatedly woven through commentary on American Family Radio while driving in my car. While the public is preoccupied with sports and entertainment, Dominionists are pursuing a lock on our political system and gaining it through the GOP. Lofgren’s recognition of this doesn’t make him a leftist kook or a “paranoid hate-driven lunatic,” as Amazona so poetically called him. He’s just a perceptive observer of current events.

      2. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

        Dennis,

        A 63 year old editorial does not actually speak for the Church.

        Naturally the Church seeks the defense of the Church foremost…we actually do believe that this Church, headquartered in Rome, is the Church founded by God while he lived on Earth as a man. Ultimately, all defense of liberty comes down to defending this liberty – that God’s Church be allowed to preach.

      3. dennis

        Mark – agreed, no editorial can speak for the RCC but nearly two millennia of history do a pretty decent job of telling its story. Historians outside the Vatican have preserved records too, and it’s useful to remember Catholicism has a spotty record when it comes to acknowledging objective reality.

        Some (including me) believe God’s church is the body of his people in all the places they can be found, scattered over the wide world. You realize of course the biblical record doesn’t identify any denomination or political entity as that body. The closest it comes is saying the people of God are those “who keep his commandments and remain faithful to Jesus” Revelation 14:12. That’s the group I want to be part of.

      1. Green Mountain Boy

        Beg pardon.
        “Was paßieren mit unseren falschen Deutscher?”= What happened to our fake german, in the language of my youth.

        and its Jawohl not ya vol :P Get with the program !!

    1. Count d'Haricots

      Ich weiss nicht. Sowieso, hat wer Interesse?

      Btw, where do I find the “ß” on the keyboard? I have to copy and paste everytime i want to use it.

      1. neocon

        who seems utterly confused at how a person who worked for the GOP cannot hold his same draconian [...]

        Soooooo everyone who “works” at the fork (Pfffttt) thinks they are dead,? demons ? gumdrop computers ? in hell ? love pornography?
        and are lunatic leftists? homosexuals ? and insane?

        WHAT Everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

  9. Mark

    Amazing. Lofgren wites a criticism, and you all attack Lofgren. Or call your oponents names. No discussion about the contents of his article. All this just confirms that Lofgren is right.

    1. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

      Mark,

      There’s not much to say about Lofgren’s actual arguments…they are just the usual, regurgitated, leftist talking points we’ve been dealing with for ages…

Comments are closed.