Personal Liberty Digest™ will be upgraded this weekend to reflect a dynamic new look and mobile-friendly viewing to enhance your experience! Plus, we'll be providing even more of the compelling content you've come to expect, delivered in a whole new way!

  Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Libertarian-Leaning Newcomers And ‘Bible-Thumpers’ Fearing ‘Secular Tyranny’ In GOP Tug Of War

April 8, 2013 by  

Libertarian-Leaning Newcomers And ‘Bible-Thumpers’ Fearing ‘Secular Tyranny’ In GOP Tug Of War
PHOTOS.COM

There has been a great deal of talk in recent months of a new Republican Party that would embrace more libertarian policy positions in its greater platform in return for the ability to gain legislative control over American fiscal policy. With the prospect of GOP politicians and pundits embracing certain “live and let live” attitudes toward some social policy issues, consternation is growing among members of a party that embraced the religious right’s morality-based legislative agenda decades ago.

Last week, former House Speaker and failed GOP Presidential contender Newt Gingrich warned The National Review Online that a wave of “secular tyranny” was on its way to the United States.

“The great danger is that you’re going to see a real drive to outlaw and limit Christianity,” he told National Review. “It’s okay to be Christian as long as you’re not really Christian. It’s a very serious problem.

“You can’t actually have an adoption service that’s run by Catholics unless they’re willing to be not Catholic,” Gingrich continued, referencing Catholic adoption organizations shuttered for refusing gay couples adoptions.

“That should bother people,” he said. “You’re now beginning to see a secular tyranny begin to set in that is very dangerous, and we need to have a national debate about it.”

Gingrich’s alarmist warning came on the heels of conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly’s criticism that Americans opposed to gay marriage have done little more than “thump the Bible” in trying to make a case against homosexual nuptials.

O’Reilly went on to suggest that conservatives could make a stronger Constitutional argument with regard to the topic:

Anti-gay marriage forces, “forces” not individuals “forces”, have not seized upon one central persuasive argument like the human DNA component. And so those who oppose gay marriage are scattered all over the place and many of them are using the bible as their basis to reject homosexuals nuptials. That’s a loser all day every day in our secular court system which I believe is largely hostile to religious expression.

Now, there is a strong argument against gay marriage; that it expands marriage opportunity to just one group, gay people. That excludes all others who may want to marry under different circumstances. Also traditional marriage has been a societal stabilizer and in many states it’s favored by the majority of the folks.

So if you grant homosexuals civil union status, whereby they get the legal rights of marriage, then the states should decide the nuptials issues for themselves. Bottom line the federal government has no Constitutional authority to impose gay marriage on the nation. Now, that is a strong argument.

The gay marriage debate is highlighting the emergence of a broader rift in the GOP, as the distance grows between conservatives with more Constitution-based legislative stances and those who fear “secular tyranny” that a more libertarian GOP could presumably enable.

And some Republicans remain hell-bent on resisting any ideological fluctuation that would take the GOP in a more libertarian direction in response to perception that young voters, minorities and women are turned off by GOP social stances and rhetoric. Among those decrying any move away from GOP social conservatism are two failed GOP Presidential contenders: former Senator Rick Santorum and former Arkansas Governor-turned-pundit Mike Huckabee.

“Look, the Republican Party isn’t going to change,” Santorum said in an interview. “If we do change, we’ll be the Whig Party.”

He continued, “We’re not the Libertarian Party, we’re the Republican Party.”

The former Pennsylvania Senator, however, doesn’t have a record that sits well with many conservatives whose biggest worries are economic in nature. His legislative record is rife with strong union support (which he cleverly said was due to States’ rights issues when he flip-flopped on the national stage) and a penchant for earmarks.

Huckabee, for his part, believes just the opposite of the idea that GOP social conservatism turned off voters who otherwise would embrace the Party for sane fiscal policy in the past two Presidential elections.

“The last two presidential elections, we had more moderate candidates, so if anything a lot of conservatives went to the polls reluctantly or just didn’t go at all,” said Huckabee. “If all of the evangelicals had showed up, it may have made a difference.”

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Libertarian-Leaning Newcomers And ‘Bible-Thumpers’ Fearing ‘Secular Tyranny’ In GOP Tug Of War”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • R.F.

    The actual problem that the GOP faces is that in recent years they have put forward many candidates – even for the highest office – who are basically clowns. Even at their most recent convention most of the speakers were dopes like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. Several very serious Republican governors were not even invited to the convention let alone to speak. Bobby Jimbal calls his own GOP the “stupid party” and he’s correct. As long as the likes of Michelle Bachman who thinks that the Founding Fathers ended slavery are the “bright lights” of the party the rest of Americans are going to consider the GOP as a bunch of dumbbells.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Well said. And don’t forget another comment by my favorite Repug clown and secret weapon for the Democrats—-Michelle Bachmann.

      Her comment to the folks in New Hampshire that she was “proud to be in the state where the shot heard round the world was fired”. Bravo, Michelle!

      • WTS/JAY

        Here are some comments by my favourite Demonrat whores of the plutocracy and oligarchy, RBT: “We have to pass this bill to find out what’s in it.” -Pelosi

        “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right
        of all Americans to feel safe.” -Dianne Fatstein

        “Just this past week, we passed out of the out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee — which is my committee — a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.” -Barack Obama
        Referring to committee he is not on, Sderot, Israel, July 23, 2008.

        “Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s. It will be a strong friend of Israel’s under a McCain…administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel’s under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change. -Barack Obama Amman, Jordan, July 22, 2008.

        “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.” -Barack Obama
        Does Obama see dead people?

        Yup, “head-and-shoulders” above the rest, RBT?…cream of the crop? You need to raise your standards, RBT!

        • vicki

          “We have to pass this bill to find out what’s in it.” -Pelosi”

          That is not what she said. What she did say is FAR more arrogant and elitist.

          “We have to pass the bill so that YOU can find out what is in it.”

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

        • Right Brain Thinker

          Nice try, JAY, but none of those display the mindlessness of Bachmann’s “shot” comment. Or many others she made, for that matter She earned more “Liar, Liar Pants on Fire” awards than any other Repugnant candidate for PRESIDENT (and to think she actually led the pack for a VERY short time)

    • John

      The Republican party is rigged just like the Democrat party is rigged. Wake up! I know the brain washing from the public screwl system is in full effect here, but for the love of god, don’t show your prejudice if you are to be taken seriously. Do you believe Barrack Obama is a qualified candidate? What about Dianne Feinstein, or Barbara Boxer, or Nancy Pelosi? Pull your head out of your ass before you shoot your mouth off. They all suck. We are being manipulated by global interests who have stripped most of our wealth already and are now working on picking up the last few crumbs, while at the same time stripping Americans of their God given Constitutional rights to enslave us all.

      • momo

        You hit the nail on the head.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          Brilliant insights, as usual, momo, agreeing with John to the point of saying that he has “hit the nail on the head”.

          Do you understand that it’s the voters that decide who is “qualified”, not ignorant fools babbling on a website? Do you know how many times Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstein have been reelected and how much seniority they have? Do you not accept that O’Bama has been elected TWICE?

          You have to be an idiot to think that all these HIGHLY qualified folks and often reelected folks are not heads and shoulders above the LOSING clowns of the Republican Party.

      • R.F.

        Obama is an incredible President. His values are correct and his policies are progressive and forward thinking. He saved the country – and thus the world – from a total economic meltdown. He has brought in many positive reforms that are benefiting millions upon millions. And he could do so much more were it not for the dopes in the GOP that simply oppose ANYTHING at all. Hilary or Biden will be the next President.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    We are making a fine start for the week with this conversation that appears to have been patterned after those found in Alice in Wonderland.

    Newt Gingrich? Isn’t he busy trying to get us to establish a moon colony? Santorum? Does he now have time on his hands since his campaign to be the new pope failed?

    “Outlawing Christianity” and “DNA” and “excluding all others who wish to marry under DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES”? The Duchess, the Red Queen, and the Mad Hatter wouold all feel right at home here. Shame on you, Sam.

  • noname

    the republicans need to stop trying to legislate morality. OR they should say we are to become a CHRISTIAN COUNTRY with tolerance for other religions as long as they are TRULY peaceful. Then they need to stop legislating morals. They need to say things like: smoking cigarets is morally wrong, BUT, we will not outlaw it. For gays to marry is morally wrong, but they like every one else is a sinner, and we will not criminalize their particular sin. Republicans should say, doing drugs is morally wrong, but we believe that the individual needs to make such decisions. We will not take away FREE CHOICE, if you chose to do things we consider morally wrong, we will tolerate you, as you see the wrong in your ways. God gave us free choice so we could chose good or evil with our FREE CHOICE Republicans have no business removing that which God has made, the ability to chose good or evil. You can not legislate morality!!!. Wake up Republicans! This is why you are losing, you are changing what God has made, free choice, and God himself will oppose your efforts. Get to the right side of all this. And the good will form a line behind you.

  • Steve E

    The Republican party will eventually go by way of the Whigs. They will never win another Presidential election in my life time. There is a division between Libertarian principles which are right and true, and the fruitless principles of trying to please everyone to get votes.

  • jeffreyk3

    For the last twenty years of my adult life, I’ve reluctantly had to favor the Republicans over the much more statist Democrats. But to be honest with you, I am sick and tired of the religious right and the social conservatives. As an Objectivist, I am not a libertarian. Nonetheless, I hope the religious right and the social conservatives get their asses handed to them by the libertarians within the Republican party.

    • TheSilverRanger

      The religious right and social conservatives are nothing more than a bunch of parasites who want to dominate people in the worst way possible. Let me ask you a question, Don Kiss. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? NO! Says the man in Washington; it belongs to the poor. NO! Says the man in the church or the Vatican; it belongs to God. NO! Says the man in Moscow; it belongs to everyone.

      • vicki

        You left out the part where the man in Moscow conveniently keeps it for himself too.

        • TheSilverRanger

          So do the members of the church. What’s your point?

          • vicki

            The members of the Church give of the sweat of their brow by their INDIVIDUAL consent.

            The other 2 cases take the money at gunpoint.

          • TheSilverRanger

            Well, then what would you call what the churches did during the First Reich and the Spanish inquisition? While they may rely on individual consent, as you put it, the churchgoers, and even some members of the clergy mock you, judge you, and guilt you into giving the church a “donation.” They behave exactly the same as the parasites in the other 2 cases. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the members of the church are PARASITES. And the parasite makes nothing for itself; it’s only tools are taxes and tithes, or “donations” meant to trick you into offering what it has not earned. In the United States of America, we’re supposed to keep what is ours.

            What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds. A parasite asks “Where is my share?” A man creates. A parasite says, “What will the neighbors think?” A man invents. A parasite says, “Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God…”

          • vicki

            Taxes are taken at gunpoint
            Tithes are given freely

            In all of your church cases the Church used persuasion.

            In all of your government cases the government used force of arms.

            Note the Spanish Inquisition was a GOVERNMENT run program.

            (I also rechecked the first reich and found it too was a GOVERNMENT.
            http://www.conservapedia.com/Holy_Roman_Empire

          • TheSilverRanger

            As they say in Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, OBJECTION!

            The First Holy Roman Empire (controlled by the Vatican) or First Reich existed
            from 962 to 1806. The First Reich’s empire was centered on the Kingdom of
            Germany, and included neighbouring territories, which at its peak included the
            Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Burgundy. For much of the First Reich, the
            Empire consisted of hundreds of smaller sub-units, principalities, duchies,
            counties, Free Imperial Cities and other domains. Otto I was crowned King of
            Germany in 962 as the first Holy Roman Emperor (German: Römisch-Deutscher
            Kaiser) of the First Reich. Otto was installed by the Vatican to lead the First
            Reich. The last leader of the First Reich was Francis II, who abdicated and
            dissolved the Vatican control over the empire in 1806 during the Napoleonic
            Wars.

            The Vatican regained some control of the Empire with the Second
            Reich, from 1871 to 1919. Germany was chosen again to lead the rebuilding of
            their empire. From 1914 to 1918 Germany tried to rebuilt the Holy Roman Empire
            for the Vatican (WWI) but the empire was again dissolved in 1919 with the
            signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919.

            The Vatican did not
            give up its aspiration of a Holy Roman Empire centered on Germany. Even after
            being defeated and humiliated the Vatican again chose Germany to rebuild its
            Third Reich (Third Holy Roman Empire). From 1933 to 1945 (WWII) Adolf Hitler
            succeeded in building the largest ever Holy Roman Empire for the Vatican. It had
            taken and controlled all of mainland Europe for the Vatican. On June 6, 1944
            (D-Day) the United States, Canada and Britain landed on the beaches of France
            and began liberating Europe from Vatican control. On May 7, 1945 Germany
            surrendered unconditionally to the Western Allies and on May 8, 1945 to the
            Soviet Union, formally dissolving the Vatican’s Third Reich.
            The Vatican
            Crusades Iron Cross is once again emblazoned on German Tanks. What do you say to that?

            http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1060940675

            So as you can see, unable to provide for itself, the need of the parasite grows until war is made to justify it.

          • vicki

            All leading back to GOVERNMENT by force not religion.

          • TheSilverRanger

            They were doing it, IN THE NAME OF GOD. Sounds like religion to me. So don’t even give me that. I am a Puerto Rican man. Which means, that a long time ago, my people used to worship the earth, the moon, the stars, the sun, air, water, and fire. And then YOU showed up, with a Bible, with a message, FROM GOD THROUGH THE POPE AND THE VATICAN, in order to “kill all savages who did not believe in your same Bible, God and message.” What do you say to that?

          • vicki

            And Jesus explicitly warned us that many would come in HIS name. The problem remains GOVERNMENT misuse of force.

        • jeffreyk3

          If the church can convince individuals to give of their own free will, there is no violation of individual rights. (I still disagree with their moral premise: that it is the duty of the individual to sacrifice or to serve–whether other individuals or a deity.) However, the religious right or the social conservatives don’t merely attempt to persuade. Rather, they attempt to impose their will on others via force of government. That is the immorality of today’s religious right or social conservatives.

          • Michael Shreve

            SOME moral MUST be codified. Murder, theft etc are moral issues that affect others. ANY individual act that may INFRINGE the rights of others is suspect AND subject to legal restraint.

          • vicki

            Force vs persuasion is the common denominator. Murder and theft are done by force and thus what government was tasked with helping to protect individuals and society from.

            Remember the part about the consent of the governed in the Declaration of Independence?

          • vicki

            Thus you see that the problem is immoral GOVERNMENT. Christians are not the cause. Jews are not the cause. Misplaced religious belief may be the cause but it is the failure to honor the Constitution by government that is the problem.

            We fix the problem by voting for people who understand persuasion vs force.

    • Michael Shreve

      You should think of the ‘religious right” as the moral right. Still, there is NO constitutional provision for legislating INDIVIDUAL morals.

  • Nadzieja Batki

    Simple question. If the Republicans become not unlike the Democrats what need is there for the title Republican?

    • WTS/JAY

      What most of the simpletons on the left and right fail to realize, is that, there is no difference between the “two”…the Dems believe in “tax and spend”, the Repubs believe in “borrow and spend”…therein lies the difference between the two…if one could actually claim that to be a difference…? The reality is, both parties serve the plutocracy/oligarchy.

      That one pretends to be “Conservative” and the other “Liberal”, is nothing more then “firewood” that fuels hot and meaningless-debates, all for the purpose of keeping “simpletons” occupied.

      • vicki

        This video helps explain the proper political spectrum
        100% – limited – 0% government

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Well said, JAY, except that the Repugnants do perhaps four or five times the damage to the county that the Democrats do.

    • jeffreyk3

      I don’t think that the Republicans should become like the Democrats. Rather, they should become like those who advocate and defend individual rights and who go by reason as opposed to faith.

  • ONTIME

    The GOP RINO is going to become the past, the long term incumbency of this and the left has lead to elitism, corruption and a loss of representation for WTP, the nation is ready for reorganization and repair….

  • Justin M.

    I think it’s time for the GOP to start embracing freedom if they are going to claim it is what the party stands for. More freedom is going to mean that many things people don’t like will become legal, but that doesn’t mean we should stand in the way of more freedom. Especially in a time when personal freedom and choice is rapidly diminishing.

  • 010sonny

    Theodore Roosevelt exemplified a progressive republican party that refocused our nation in its responsibility to finical equality. His big stick was for the Robber Barons, Monopolies, Corrupt politicians etc. Not until the Moderate progressive republican President Eisenhower has the republican come once again to shine. Since 1970 republicans have advanced their conservative agendas on the shirt tails of Inequality to our laborers productivity distribution. Increasing recessions and their severity. Drifted to the extremes with their Tea Party’s and lost the favor of the populace. Lost of leadership capabilities followed. Hostage ransom , of the most base extreme of any hooligan. Presently it would serve them to seek more progressive leaderships, to build up their party. Perhaps then once again to be entitled to their original luster of the “Grand Party”

    • Michael Shreve

      Teddy Roosevelt was indeed a CLASSIC RINO. It COULD be said that he set in motion the process that has led us to THIS horrendous mess. There are many who believe they are WISER than the FRAMERS who suffered tyranny and knew much of government excess.

  • Wellarmed

    Those in the republican Party no more care for freedom than those in the Democratic party. Are gays and lesbians who wish to marry doing so before their God or their Government? As far as I am concerned our Government should only recognize the contract of civil unions regardless of your sexual orientation. Our Government is forbidden from recognizing a form of religion as being superior to another or providing aid in a way that favors one over another.

    The true issue before the court is not the definition issue that DOMA presents but of equal protection which is guaranteed in the fourteenth amendment and also stated in the Declaration of Independence. This is not a gay rights issue (as they have no specific rights any more than you or I ) but of equal protection under the law. The Brown vs Board of education case is what should be the basis for SCOTUS’s decision. There is no logical way that one can make the case that separate but equal is an acceptable outcome in this matter.

    The Republican party is a farce and I hold no illusion that their ideology or their power brokers who purchase the votes give a dam about this country or where we are headed as a nation. It is time for their actions to match their rhetoric, and stop attempting to force their morality upon me and everyone else in this nation, but until that day I see no need to give them as a group any level of credibility.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.