Republicans, Your Children are a Problem.

A couple of prominent Republicans recently became lost souls after talking to their adult children.

In both cases, the result stunned conservative Republicans.  One was Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio. He is the first Republican Senator to endorse gay marriage.  He learned one of his sons was planning a gay wedding.  It is easy to see Senator Portman should never have learned his son was gay or about the wedding.  Talking with the son caused him to fall Republican grace.

Another version of the same problem happened with a man named Charles Murray.  Murray is a political scientist and libertarian.   He works for a conservative think tank.

He was invited to address the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC),  the one that disinvited New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie because he suggested something practical.  Murray is popular at CPAC because he has had an intellectual insight at important times in the past.

Murray said he had written a speech for the conference but while driving in had an inspiration to say something different.  He told the group it is time to endorse gay marriage and forget about hammering constantly about abortion.

Besides good experiences with gay couples over the years, his eyes were opened by his four adult children.  None had voted Republican because being against gay marriage and abortion meant the Party is filled with religious nuts.

Adult children are leading Republicans astray.  Best children be seen and not heard.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/charles-murrays-gay-marriage-surprise.html

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Republicans, Your Children are a Problem.

  1. Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

    A little administrative matter. I’m requesting posters use a working email address. Thanks.

  2. Michael Ross says:

    Dick Chaney also has endorsed gay rights after his daughter announced she is a lesbian. I don’t know if he has come out for gay “marriage” or not.

    The political parties are just that, political. They endorse what is politically correct. Gay “marriage” is rapidly becoming PC. Those politicians that have a wet finger in the air all the time don’t believe in anything except staying in the good graces of the party and the voters. As the saying goes: 10% on the left and 10% on the right stand for principle. The rest stand for reelection. Although I think it is more like 1 or 2%.

  3. entech says:

    I don’t usually have anything to say about American politics, not a resident or tax payer etc.
    But I would like an indication of whether this could be true :roll:
    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/03/portman-inspires-other-republicans-to-stop-speaking-to-their-children.html

  4. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    Everyone’s path to self-acceptance is different and may possibly be difficult. I must wonder what the son of Rob Portman must have gone thru on his journey from accepting who he is to the point of telling his very public father who he really is. And then risking the loss of his father’s love, knowing what he was about to tell his father could end his father’s career.

    Michael, it’s been my observation that what people know to be right often shifts when the circumstances involve someone they love. I suppose that means they are of weak character or weak faith.

    Or maybe it means they have the makings of exemplary character and faith.

    • Michael Ross says:

      Morality is objective, absolute and doesn’t change with familial situations. My son is living with his fiance and his mother and I don’t approve but we love him and his wife-to-be and look forward to their marriage. I could throw up my hands and say living together is OK just because my son is doing so. If he announced he was gay I would love him just as much although I would never approve of his homosexuality.

      • entech says:

        Michael Ross 2:21 pm Morality is objective, absolute … I certainly hope you are not intending to mean that this comes from the Bible, that collection of books is full of immorality.

        Exodus 30 11-16 sounds more like Mafia style extortion than some kind of “Absolute Morality”. And earlier in Exodus where God hardens the heart of the Pharaoh, simply to satisfy his vanity, to his own greater glory.

        And the Lord said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.
        And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.

        Exodus 11 9-10

        So this prelude to Passover is moral? What kind of morality could say I would never approve of homosexuality but the wholesale slaughter of the first born males human and animal is fine?

        Believe whatever you like about the creation of the universe but under no circumstances can you claim an absolute morality from your creator.

        • Michael Ross says:

          “wholesale slaughter of the first born males”

          The wholesale slaughter of the UNBORN males and females, OK!

          • entech says:

            Both wrong, but the first was done by the Lord, the God of Justice and Mercy, coldly and deliberately so that his power and glory be known. What is just about setting up a situation that would justify killing so many people, mercy does not even come into the equation.

            Abortion is wrong under most circumstances, deliberate murder is wrong under all circumstances.
            Imperfect man commits the first, your perfect God commits the second.

            If ever a more glaring example of how the book was written by man for his own purposes could not be found, that this God of yours is unlikely to be real is pretty certainly indicated by this writing. That this is the action of the ever loving God that Christians worship, the just and merciful that loves all of mankind unconditionally, is simply not possible.

          • entech says:

            PS. The sin of man can never be used to excuse the sin of your God.

  5. Henry says:

    Jon: “He is the first Republican Senator to endorse gay marriage.”

    He caved to his demo wife and as others pointed out, the perceived popularity and acceptance of homosexuality.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Henry 2:42 “…the perceived populartiy and acceptance of homosexuality.”

      Interesting twist of words. There was a report on television tonight that 80% of people under 30 years old approve of gay marriage. Would you say the 80% “perceive” themselves to be in favor of gay marriage. Or, might it be actually a popular idea.

      And you wrote, “He caved to his demo wife.” That’s just wrong. He based his decision on the Bible. He found an overarching theme of love and forgiveness. I would think since he based his decisin on the Bible you would support him.

      • Henry says:

        Careful about statistics. Everbody was practically gay according to Kinsey. Later, it was found he cooked the numbers besides doing some extremely twisted research..

      • Henry says:

        Jon: “That’s just wrong. He based his decision on the Bible.”

        That should make you criticize his decision. Now you are relying on the supposed veracity of the Bible in regards to accepting sin.

        • Henry says:

          Being you are relying on scripture, here is one verse that comes to mind:

          1 John 1:9
          If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

          • entech says:

            And another, on family matters:

            Mathew 10:37
            He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

          • Henry says:

            A great verse. Thank you, entech. Our love towards our Lord is manifested partly through our vocations. One of our vocations is caring for our family. If we prioritize our love towards our Lord, our family will thus benefit. Hopefully you can take off your black-and-white goggles to see this. From past experience, this doesn’t seem likely to happen.

          • entech says:

            Interesting you have picked up on black and white again. One of the evils laid at the feet of The Atheist is relativism, can’t have everything relative and cut and dried, black and white, right or wrong. No black and white coming from you is yet another projection, in your case it is in scripture or in error can’t get much more black and white than that, gotta be in writing, gotta be in black and white.

            Making something imaginary a priority over something real, your lord over your family is a strange way to go.

          • Henry says:

            I am afraid I was right. Better to have been wrong. The method of loving my Lord Jesus Christ more works quite well for my family.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry– Back to my suggestion you might have been engaging in parody, I suspected that for this reason. In your post you used the terms, “Unitarian Church” and “unrepented sin” (hope I’m correct in my recollection) in the same sentence. That’s a contradiction in terms and I found it funny–I don’t think Unitarians use the word sin and thus would have no idea how to repent.

          • Henry says:

            entech: “The Atheist is relativism”

            Moral relativism is based on what the individual feels is right and is contrary to scripture.

            The concept of vocation in fulfilling your supplied verse is based on other scripture.

            Even one with black-and-white goggles should be able to see this.

          • entech says:

            Everyone tells me about context how does my 4:50 look in light of the previous verses

            Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
            For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
            And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

            Mathew 10 34:36

            This section makes a good case for Yeshua being an apocalyptic prophet rather than the saviour with the long term plan that was written about by Paul (once he realised the apocalypse was looking more dubious), why else all this talk of leaving families to follow, selling everything and giving to the poor, if not because the Kingdom of God is at Hand, immediately if not sooner?

            Fascinating that so many do not think the saviour is yet to come, and so many (more) are waiting to come a second time to complete his (failed) mission.

          • Henry says:

            entech: “to complete his (failed) mission.”

            By that statement, you not only know Christ’s mission (apparently better than He does), but you are judging it. Good luck at that.

          • Henry says:

            entech: “how does my 4:50 look”

            That correlates as well. Some will reject Christ in the family. This is painful. Does it mean one abandons the faith given to them? I would say no. Some say yes.

          • entech says:

            Henry 12:32 contrary to scripture you really should give more consideration to the idea that scripture is not inerrant, that every single word is inspired and accurately placed in its correct position, it simply does not wash on close inspection. With eyes wide open instead of blinkered by a preconceived notion that it is true, a true binary vision if it is in it is in if not it is not, you may see it alittle differently. But do be careful, you could find yourself like Ehrman a small chink leading to a yawning chasm.

            PS. I ask again which Jesus – Yeshua the Jew or Christos the Pauline invention. Always remember that you can’t have both and I think that you can’t have either.

          • Henry says:

            entech: “With eyes wide open instead of blinkered by a preconceived notion that it is true”

            That would be a good suggestion for yourself, to discount what you consider as truths as they do not correlate to scripture.

          • entech says:

            Whatever you say Henry. My bedtime and I can’t be bothered playing your silly game anymore tonight.

          • Henry says:

            Jon 12:53: “In your post you used the terms, “Unitarian Church”….I found it funny–I don’t think Unitarians use the word sin and thus would have no idea how to repent.”

            Jon, you are really laughing at yourself and don’t really know it. I haven’t mentioned the Unitarians for some time, if at all. I did mention the UCC (United Church of Christ). They still recognize sin, at least some forms:

            http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/statement-of-faith.html

            Not promoting, just correcting your error.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 1:38 “..just correcting your error.”

            I stand corrected. In speed reading posts (we are approaching 25,000 posts), I saw so many U’s my mind heard Unitarian.

            Thank you for linking the statement of faith for UUC. I read it carefully because we attend a UCC church a few times a year when grandchildren are in the programs. I don’t recall the word, “sin”, ever mentioned at that church. As you point out, it is in the statement of faith, twice. The statement of faith has never been read in any service I’ve attended. I attended a few weeks ago and started counting the times the word, “love”, was mentioned from the pulpit. I lost track. Maybe sin will become popular there again some day, but these days there is a different focus.

  6. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    Michael 2:21. I’m glad you look forward to welcoming your new daughter to your family rather than condemning her to eternal damnation because of her fornication with your son.

    I stand by my previous statement.

    If there were blogs condemning premarital sex or cohabitation, I suspect you would be silent. No one really cares about that anymore.

    Also, I’m glad your son is secure enough in the love of you and his mother to know that love for him will not change. You raised him right. Well done.

    • Michael Ross says:

      ” No one really cares about that anymore.”

      It was the sexual revolution that led to the homosexual revolution.

      The same standard is for all time. Sexual union is for the full commitment of heterosexual holy matrimony. One man to one woman until death do us part. Any civilization that rejects this standard will collapse.

      • Formerly Fargo Bob says:

        Oh, that dreary end-of-life-as-we-know-it scenario christians are so in love with. And morality is eternal, unchanging, prepackaged and wrapped with a bow by our magnificent creator. I think what gets me most about your world view is that it makes human beings absolutely superfluous.

        • Wolfy32 says:

          Not end of life… Life, humans, and animals alike will go on.. And Athiests, I firmly believe, that they will have their world. One where the mention of God is lost. And existentialism will take over. And you’re right, there will be nothing wrong with us.. You’ll eventually be rid of those of us, that believe in a God and believe in a greater existence than this mortal toil.

          Who knows, maybe our greater existence is just to form a group of volunteer food supply for a supreme race, or a set of new hosts for a race of symbiotic creatures, or we’re batteries or who knows. All the ideas have been overplayed and over used. Maybe the promise of a heaven for ourselves separate from the disbelievers is nothing more… Maybe we’re part of a cosmic war beyond what we can possibly understand. And somehow us puny humans got in the center of it..

          To be honest, I don’t care if others disbelieve, that’s fine. I’m not recruiting followers, taking any tithes, nor am I paying any to anyone.. So, My belief is between God and I. It’s a very intimate, personal, thing. I find it amusing that non-believers seek to tear down our belief. As though somehow our belief is toxic to them.. What am I doing to any of you (at a personal level) that makes it worth anyone’s time to disuade me from my belief? I find it amusing that there’s a need to tear each other down. The bible speaks very little of Gays. It’s speaks of adultery and fornication… Last I checked, fornication was defined as more or less self destructive sexual acts. Doing things that would hurt a person’s self esteem and degrading to oneself over time.

          I think that heteros have that down pretty well. So, I don’t preconceive that pertains to heteros or just gays. The bible has little to say about Gay, hetero, or marriage.

          I find it interesting that one thing that’s strongly promoted, is that at a personal level, it’s tauted that it’s better to believe in nothing than to believe in something.

          However, I have to wonder, if the Athiests got everything they wanted, the entire world Showering homosexuals with everything and heteros shunned in the closet, and freedom to have any abortions they wanted (not sure why abortion would be an issue if the world was rejecting of heteros and accepting of gays.. But whatever, let’s say, abortion was no longer an issue and all prolifers were jailed, or pushed aside to not be heard from again… Would the athiests be satisfied?

          Would the christian be satisfied if the whole entire world were christian? (well, depends on which christian, the catholic church, and many protestant churches? No.. They’d want more… )

          Remove the politics though and say, religious organizations died away, and Christianity existed as strictly a Shared personal, intimate belief. Deeply meaningful to the individual and no politics? What would make Athiests satisfied in life? And why should the world cater to their system? Is not a Christian’s, Hindu’s, or Budhist’s opinion on such matters just as valid as the athiests?

          Are these not problems that should be worked together as a group instead of tearing each other apart and putting each other down?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wolfy32 8:17 Thanks for you summary of the state of things. I think nonbelievers would agree with much of what you expressed.

            Your essay overlooks what nonbelievers are really after. They do not want to encounter beliefs in the tax payer supported sphere of our lives. So, when you say nonbelievers want no religion, that’s your opinion, but not the goal of nonbelievers.

            If they never encountered religion, as in every President ending every speech with, “God bless you, God bless America”, it would not occur to them to criticize religion, or, occur to me to write this blog. So, as you write, “should be worked together as a group instead of tearing each other apart and putting each other down..”, let’s work together to make government secular and let everyone follow their respective religions to their graves. Leaving religion out of government would make it run better and the never ending arguments over religion would be over.

          • Wolfy32 says:

            Jon 9:27 I found these words interesting: “Your essay overlooks what nonbelievers are really after.”

            Heh, I enjoy writing, and well, unfortunately I’m more of a short story / novelist than a quick blogger..

            However, I guess that’s where things get muddy.

            The fear of believers (true or false is irrelevant… How many fears that we have are rational fears?? Kinda mutually exclusive..)

            So, I agree that expression / references to God in government are somehow invading a person’s right to what? pursue their own beliefs maybe?

            So, the real issue, as perceived by me, is a point of irreconcilable differences. Perhaps the same issues the israeli’s have with the palestainians (sp?) .

            Many Christians in the US are inundated with this fear that if God is removed from the schools, from government, and from public life, that God’s judgement would be upon our land.

            After all, we all enjoy abundant food supplies, take water for granted.. How was the hot shower this morning? Pretty amazing right?
            Able to drive wherever we need to go, and to choose our day to day lives without a worry about survival.

            Many Christians fear (and truely believe) that if God is removed from our government, schools, etc, that society would be susceptible to even worse corruption and eventual collapse. And/or God’s blessings to allow us to have our abundant food and water supplies would be removed and our crops would fail, our rains and moisture would evaporate and disappear. Imagine the average american struggling to find food day to day or to find clean water on a day to day basis.

            Many of these things we all take for Granted, people attribute as blessings from God.

            God has proven to be a judgemental God. At the same time I feel its sad that people fear God would take away their livelihood on a whim or because God wasn’t mentioned in a fake way at the end of a speech. I don’t believe God’s judgement is being spared because of a fake “God Bless America” at the end of a speech…

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wolfy32 1:55 “Many of these things we all take for granted, people attribute as blessing from God.”

            I think you are right this is what many people believe. They believe this because this is what they have been told. Unfortunately, they have been told this by leaders from the beginning of time. For only a relatively brief period has it been from this particular “god”–other gods were the “providers” for most of human history.

            The reason they were told this was to weld into a seamless unit political leadership with religion. As long as people believed some invisible force gave their political leaders great mysterious powers, they were dependant on them and gave their loyalty to them.

            The goal of those of us in the Freethinking/atheist group is to explain to the public that this link between the god and the politician is phony balony. Fortunately, some religious communities, such as the one Wanna belongs to, also teach separation. In some cases, religious groups have suffered from this phony relationship.

      • Brad says:

        It’s incredibly sad. I guess the destruction of the middle class, the unequal distribution of wealth that’s so bad that the Walton family alone has more wealth than the bottom 40%, and the obscene way that money is poisoning our political system, I guess none of that will have anything to do with the destruction of civilization.

        No, it’s those gays that will bring us down.

  7. Dan says:

    Why are athiests so fixiated on gay people and gay issues?

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Dan 10:02 “Why are atheists so fixated on gay people and gay issues?”

      That is, of course, the same question we have of Christian people and the Republican Party. Why is it necessary to have laws that prevent gay couples from getting a simple marriage license? Why is it there are Christian groups trying to prevent gay couples from adopting children? Why is it an obsession to prevent school children from learning there are families with two daddies or two mommies?

      • Henry says:

        Jon: “Why is it an obsession to prevent school children from learning there are families with two daddies or two mommies?”

        Because they are our progeny and do not need corruption to be presented as normal and desirable.

        We don’t need gay education
        We don’t need no thought control
        No homosexuality in the class room
        Atheists leave those kids alone
        (yells) Hey, atheists! Leave those kids alone!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>