John Wrote:

Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

PS - And "Mr. Worldly Wiseman" Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous "joke" about himself and God.

Danian Michael replies:

John,

I want to first say that I really appreciate the fact that you have read and responded to my article. I took a look at your website to learn a little more about you, specifically what you meant by recovering Republican. Do you still consider yourself a republican? And if not, what have you recovered to? It appears to be the case that you call yourself a Christian first and foremost. If that is the case, you have a brother in Christ here at Political Agenda.

With that said, I must point out that there exist many variations of the Christian worldview: There are Christian Arminians and Christian Calvinists (I am a Calvinist myself. I appreciated your piece on Luther). There are Baptist Christians, there are Lutheran Cristians and there are Reformed Christians. And... there are liberal Christians and Conservative Christians. Is it not possible for a Christian to hold to sola-scriptura while at the same time hold to a belief that the federal government should in general hold to low taxes? Or that the Federal government should be limited in its size? You infer antagonism where none exist; there is no antagonism between being a Christian and a conservative, unless you believe conservatism presupposes a belief in a naturalistic world. You might be saying, if a worldview does not positively state a belief in the Christian God, then that worldview is Atheistic or Anti Christian and as such is no good. If that is what you are saying, then I would agree with you in principle. But of course when we Christians are talking about civil life and the "good works" contained therein, we are not talking about the rich biblical notion of good works, the kind that pleases God and that cannot come from unregenerate people. What did you mean by secular conservatism? Are you implying that there is a spiritual conservatism? Or, are you saying that all conservatism is secular and thus seek to ignore and/or minimize the Christian God? In the final analysis you have stated your displeasure with conservatives (I get that) but you have not explained why that is the case or what any of this has to do with the subject of my Article. Your argument seems to go something like this: Conservatism is destructive, Danian Michael (me) is a conservative; Danian Michael's article is destructive. But you need to independently proved that all conservative ideas are destructive otherwise all you have is a tautology, in the tradition of the evolutionist doctrine of survival of the fittest.

What did you think about the substance of the Article?