- List All

  • Web   The Point


+ Theology/Religion + Culture + Marriage & Family + Politics + Academia + Human Rights
Christianity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Link With Us - Web Directory

« Is There a Link? | Main | A word about comments »

December 19, 2007

The issue that unites us

At NRO's Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty writes:

What it is enormously frustrating to the true anti-Huck folks . . . is that the evangelicals will vote for, as Fred Thompson put it, a "pro-life liberal." These guys look at Huckabee and see conservatism on one area - social issues - and see not much elsewhere: populism on economics, a thin resume on foreign policy, some squishiness on crime, and an open-hearted view toward illegal immigrants that they conclude amounts to amnesty.

True enough. But what these "anti-Huck folks" need to realize -- and I'm not even saying this from a pro-Huck perspective -- is that the key term in that first sentence isn't liberal. It's pro-life. That one issue has made many of us, essentially, into single-issue voters. Roberto and I, for instance, couldn't be much farther apart politically, but this is the issue that unites us. And it unites a lot of other people as well -- more people, perhaps, than the politicians or the pundits are aware.

The simple fact is, while unborn children are being legally slaughtered in this country, many of us don't feel we have the luxury of making any other political issue a higher priority. Republicans forget that at their peril.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The issue that unites us:



Thankfully, RON PAUL is not only pro-life, but also a Constitutionalist. He understands that Government is instituted to protect LIFE, liberty, and property.


Gina wrote: "Roberto and I, for instance, couldn't be much farther apart politically,"

(begin thick sarcasm)
Wait a second - this **ISN'T** just a platform for right-wing Republican shills? There's no expectation of collective groupthink? Have your critics stumbled into the wrong blog?

Bloggers permitted to have differing opinions - the mind reels. You mean there are actually those who still hold to "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" VOLUNTARILY, and even graciously let others speak?

This is not how things work in a post-Christian society - you're supposed to shout others down in your outrage that ANYONE could believe such things. Clearly someone needs to report to a re-education camp.
(end thick sarcasm)

Sorry; off-topic, but I can't help recall some slings and arrows you-all have suffered in the recent past from ignorant reactionaries.

Back to the topic, it's interesting to wonder if this idea of voting based on a single issue, so incredibly well expounded by Roberto, effectively already creates the "third political party" that evangelicals so often threaten to build. No muss, no fuss - just vote across the aisle in a block now and then.

Jason Taylor

Besides the fact that I find it hard to imagine Rousseau really defending anything to the death(a cheap shot-we aren't all heros-but amuseing), that is not really true. Some beliefs we would defend to the death the rights of it's members to espouse. Others we wouldn't. I disaggree with FDR's belief that freedom from want and freedom from fear are among the most important beliefs. Yet I could picture myself being willing to defend his right to say that to the death. I would only give the most perfunctory defense of David Irving's right to say "the Holocaust never happend." And I am unlikly to give any defense at all of the rights of someone to say, "Jason Taylor's sister is unchaste"(actually I don't have a sister, but you get the point).
This of course is a reductio ad absurdum and is hardly what was meant. Though French Philosophers at that time said so many absurd things one might wonder.


(Apologies for leaving the Quod; yet more technology quirks.)

Not Rousseau, Jason, but Voltaire (although there is no clear citation). But you characterize him rightly.

And surely we can distinguish "freedom of speech" from "freedom from consequences". I am free, in that sense, to slander your sister; you are free to take me to court. My point, of course, was that many in America call for restrictions on freedom of speech with which they disagree. When those restrictions are put in place, revolution is the typical result.

Nonetheless, this wanders yet farther off-topic, so in a desperate attempt to wander back by degrees, I'll note that the American Revolution was decidedly pro-life, while clearly the French was not. (The guillotine was intended to be humane, but also proved quite... efficient.) So in a sense, what unites Gina and Roberto is what united us from the beginning of the Republic. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...", "that among these are life,...") It's like an attempt to stay true to our roots.


... and before anyone asks, the answer is yes; I'm trying to solve my "Posted by:" issue by developing a Quod-erratic equation.


Jason Taylor

It wasn't a denial of free speech Lee Quod I just felt like dissecting a cliche. It was mildly entertaining, and it did serve a purpose looking back, as cliches are useful as a rule of thumb but must needs be dissected from time to time.



"The simple fact is, while unborn children are being legally slaughtered in this country, many of us don't feel we have the luxury of making any other political issue a higher priority. Republicans forget that at their peril."

(and the holocaust - particularly against minority unborn kids - rolls on )

The comments to this entry are closed.