One of the people who is frequently discussed for the 2012 Republican primaries is Haley Barbour of Mississippi. While Governor Barbour may sometimes talk like a conservative, like President Obama there is a disconnect between his rhetoric and his conduct.

Haley Barbour vetoed a 2009 Mississippi Bill which had been ratified by both Chambers of the Mississippi legislature. This bill would have severely curtailed the ability of governments in Mississippi to seize private property under the guise of eminent domain. But worse than this, Governor Barbour indicated in his veto statement that the reason for his veto is that he wanted to retain the ability to seize private property in Mississippi to give it to a foreign corporation.

Is this the attitude that we want in the White House? It is time for the GOP to say “NO” to all the bluebloods who possess no true principles.

This is a link to an article at Reason Magazine that discusses this veto. http://www.reason.com/news/show/133410.html

A Theocon is not a Conservative Theologian. A Theocon is a person who espouses secular political issues based on an agenda of trying to mandate obedience to a religious viewpoint. A Theocon can be part of any religion. Two examples: If a member of a Muslim religion believes that keeping a Mouse as a pet violates Sharia law, he might try to get a law passed which prohibits any one, regardless of religion from keeping a Mouse as a pet. If a protestant thinks that operating a business on Sunday violates the Bible’s teachings, he might try to get a law passed prohibiting all business owners from opening for business on Sunday.

This letter is only to those who are members of religions which teach that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.

This blog is not intended as a venue for religious discussions. Therefore, it will be rare that articles will appear on this blog which quote from the Bible and which use the Bible in order to substantiate positions.

However, this article is an exception to this rule. In fact, this article will focus almost entirely on religious arguments which are based on the Bible.

The apostle Paul says in the second epistle to Corinth:

“For though we walk in the flesh we do not walk according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but powerful in God for pulling down strongholds …“

Secular political mandates are not those things which Paul calls “the weapons of our warfare.” “The weapons of our warfare” are the words of persuasion which are found in the Gospel message. The Gospel message addresses itself to the heart of the hearer for the purpose of attempting to change his viewpoint and persuade him to yield his will to the reign of Jesus.

Secular mandates do not convince anyone of anything. Instead they have the effect of creating the same kind of outward appearance for which Jesus rebuked the religious leaders among whom he lived. Your attempts to impose restrictions upon those who do not share your beliefs creates an outward appearance and may even result in hypocrisy among those unconvinced who are attempting to ‘fit in” with the artificial culture which you are attempting to create.

Did any of the apostles or the faithful of the first century attempt to campaign for city laws imposing the Lord’s teachings upon the unconverted pagans?

Just as those of us who believe in Jesus are opposed to any laws which attempt to prohibit us from obeying Him (not that we would yield to such persecution) it is also improper for us to try to force others to disobey their religious convictions as long as those religious convictions do not involve the harming of another human being, the theft or destruction of another’s property, the defrauding of another, the enslavement or restriction of another human’s freedom or rights of citizenship, the depriving of another human of an appeal to objective justice or violence against our nation.

Just as the first century Christians who lived outside of Palestine were living among neighbors who were polytheistic, so we also live in a nation which has a variety of religions and life philosophies. Trying to create laws which are based on doctrines which were intended only for the converted is both a perversion of the Gospel message and a stumbling block to those who might otherwise hearken to the word.

It is also counterproductive to attempt to create laws which promote symbolism over substance. The mandating of Ten Commandment memorials does not cause Judges to rule based upon the Ten Commandments nor does it cause citizens to adhere to them. Creating an issue over something which is merely symbolic and which does not further the cause of Christ is not fighting the good fight of faith. It also destroys the credibility of any attempts to create secular coalitions for the furtherance of conservative laws and the eliminating of socialistic, totalitarian and post-modernistic laws.

A historical example of symbolism over substance was the insertion of the term “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance. (Personally, my own Allegiance to the USA is subsidiary to my allegiance to God.) Adding those two words, changed nothing concerning the USA except to make the pledge an irritant to those who are unconvinced.

Unless you are of the political persuasion that every citizen of the USA who does not believe in Jesus must be deported to a different country, you will not be able to create a “christian nation” through the imposition of carnal secular laws - therefore, for the sake of the effectiveness of those things which can be accomplished through secular laws and for the sake of avoiding the creation of resentment in the hearts of those who might otherwise be converted to the Gospel, please quit trying to fight a spiritual warfare through the carnal government.

If you are a Republican - would you prefer to mandate that all atheist must vote against Republicans? Would that make you happier? Some of the statements made by Theocons in the Republican party make me think that they would prefer that no one who is an unbeliever ever vote in support of a candidate who is a member of the Republican party.

If you are a Republican would you refuse to vote for Abraham Lincoln? Later in life, Lincoln did believe in an Almighty Being, however there is some question as to whether he believed that Jesus of Nazareth was Deity.

If you are a Republican, would you support a movement to refuse the nomination of a State or the National Party to someone who did not believe in Jesus?

I say all of this as one who believes that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The lack of party unity was clearly seen in the original field of candidates during the Caucus and Primary season of 2008. Republican voters tended to select candidates based on the “least objectionable” criteria instead of due to an admiration for a candidate’s complete position. When all we have to choose from is Romney, Huckabee and McCain we are doomed from the start.

In recent years, the “least objectionable” criteria has led to frequent defeats or near defeats. Although, George W. Bush won the 2000 general election it was almost a defeat.

In order for the Republican Party to find a Candidate around which the party voters will rally, we need to decide what we as a party consider consider the core principles of this party.

The last time that this party rallied behind a candidate who was not an incumbent during the General Election (with the same enthusiasm as that which occurred when Sarah Palin was introduced as the VP nominee during the 2008 convention) was after the 1980 convention. Since then, we have been relatively lukewarm concerning our non-incumbent presidential nominees. And occasionally luke-warm about our sitting presidents such as Gerald Ford and GHW Bush.

I would like to suggest Six fundamental planks upon which this party should begin to fashion a new vision. We need to find Candidates who will embrace all of these planks.

1. The Sovereignty of the Nation and the Citizenship of the Individual. Residency and Citizenship are two separate concepts and those who devalue citizenship by equating it with residency or personal responsibility are also devaluing sovereignty. Any time a party disenfranchises any citizens, it diminishes its support of Sovereignty. The “moral majority” wing of our party tends to disenfranchise citizens not based upon the issues but rather based upon religious affiliation or lack thereof.

2. Justice which shows no preference or partiality and which does not favor an individual due to group identity. We reject the concept of Distributive Justice as being based on Covetousness, Envy and Jealousy. Justice, as provided by the government, is retributive and is only to be wielded against those found guilty of breaking law or defrauding another.

3. Federalism which defends the rights of the Citizens against any state’s effort to deprive the individual of impartial justice, rights of national citizenship or liberty.

4. Liberty of the individual except where the individual tries to defraud or otherwise deprive others of their rights to Justice, Citizenship and Liberty.

5. That constitutionality should be determined by Original Textualism (aka Originalism.) The constitution contains two legal mechanisms for alter the wording of the constitution. If the people or the nation desire to change what it says, then such a change should occur through one of the ways thus provided. Any Judge who attempts to change the constitution as it has been amended simply by judicial fiat should be considered guilty of judicial tyranny. Also, that the judiciary does not have the right to declare that any article or amendment is moot. Every article and every amendment has the force of law until it is changed by an amendment or a constitutional convention. This includes the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Failure to recognize the enforceability of these amendments is impeachable.

6. The Federal Government’s operation needs to be fiscally balanced and the continued employment of its employees needs to be accountable to the electorate or to their current elected officials. Any system which tends to exempt federal employees from being replaced either by the election process or by a congressional or presidential appointment process needs to be amended.

Additionally, the party must emphasize the difference between the freedom of the individual and the independence of the nation. Too often, the word “freedom” has been used to emphasize national Sovereignty and not the Liberty of the individual.

Ronald Reagan was known as “The Great Communicator.” Clarity of Communication requires consistency of word definition. If the party is going to succeed in communicating to the general populace the message of the party it is needful that we use words consistently. Therefore, let us make a clear distinction between the freedom of the individual and the independence of our country. Otherwise those socialists who support national sovereignty will misappropriate the word “freedom” to refer to an independent nation which enslaves its citizens to the state.

Other conservative voices tend to focus on contemporary issues, but I am striving to produce a platform which can last for decades. Many contemporary issues will be seen as irrelevant in a quarter century, but I think that there are fundamental principles which can guide the party for a much longer time.

As a party it is necessary that we find a candidate who will enthusiastically support Limited federal government, Defense of the independence of the USA, Justice for all and not just for those who can afford a team of hundreds of lawyers, and the Liberty of individuals to make their own decisions even when they are foolish. The candidate which we need will be a candidate who unapologetically and optimistically communicates this message to all the voters and not just to the party base.

In the 2008 caucus and primary elections, none of the three front-runners (Romney, Huckabee and McCain) supported all six of these planks throughout his political career.

J. C. Watts writes a semi-monthly article that is carried in a few newspapers but does not have the widespread circulation of those columnists featured by Townhall and FreeRepublic, which is a shame because his columns frequently sound alarms which are not as widely considered by other columnists.

In his most recent column, J. C. Watts chronicles the efforts of the last few years to get Congress and to get G.W.B. to deal with the GSE mismanagement which led to the current financial crisis.

Almost as long as I can remember, Theocons have used children and childhood as pawns in an attempt to use politics as a tool to fight against the advancing secularization of society.

I am a believer in Jesus of Nazareth. I believe that He is eternal Deity. I also believe in the inerrancy of the Bible as given by inspiration in the original languages. I believe in the concept of objective inspiration in which the writer was not permitted to insert his opinions or feelings but was only permitted to write the specific words given to him by God. Within my religious environment, I am very religously conservative, insisting on a “Thus says the Lord” for all that we say and do.

However, I do not believe that secular politics is a tool for fighting a spiritual battle.

Recently a theological conservative, from a religion which is vastly different from my own, came out with a campaign to eliminate cartoon mice because of the evil influence which they have upon children. He targeted Disney’s Mickey Mouse as being one of the worst offenders.

Now before you start laughing too hard at this, let me remind you that there are many Theocons in the USA that would like to pass laws eliminating violence from children’s cartoons. According to them, Road Runner and Wily Coyote are an evil influence upon children. And let us not forget the evil influence which Bart Simpson has upon children, either.

I am all in favor of parents controlling what small children watch on TV. I do think that many TV cartoons, including the two that I mentioned in the previous paragraph are bad for small children. But I do not think that making such cartoons illegal is the solution to child-rearing negligence.
Parents, you need to obey Deuteronomy 6:5-9, even though Christians are not under the Mosaic law. As my Grandfather used to say
<blockquote>”But bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and instill within them a desire serve Thee all the days of their lives.”</blockquote>
America needs to provide laws which empower its citizens to observe their individual religious convictions - but avoid passing laws which make it illegal to do something which violates a certain religions peculiar doctrines.

Some Theocons talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to politics. If as most religious Americans claim to believe - religion is the product of the transformation of the individual’s soul  or mind, then no institutional mandate can make a person religious.

Most Theocons, if in control of the Republican party would tend to make it difficult for anyone who was not either an Orthodox Jew or a Fundamentalist Protestant to be a Republican in spite of the fact that there are political and social conservatives in many other religions.

Many of the early national leaders of America were not theologically conservative. While many of them believed in a supernatural providence, there were many who did not believe in the soul salvation-centric doctrines of the Bible. Some of the early leaders did not take the memorial of Christ’s death in the churches which they attended because these did not believe in the Deity of Jesus. Some were not members of any church. For example, although Abraham Lincoln believed in an Almighty God, the surviving evidence points against a belief in Jesus as Savior.

I am opposed to the anarchistic approach to liberty which allows citizens to shirk basic responsibilities for consequences, and I plan to talk more about this in future postings, but the answer is not to use the power of the state to impose religious strictures on unbelievers.