Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Newt Gingrich and his Classical Christianity
more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Classical Christianity: Adultery is Fine if Done for Love of Country
Not to be outdone in the race to be as extreme as possible (and probably to kiss up to the man who criticized his patriotic lusts), Newt Gingrich told Bryan Fischer that he would put a stop to the “homosexual agenda” (whatever that is) by being “pro-classical Christianity” which is apparently (at least according to Gingrich) a set of values shared by most Americans (I doubt it).
Part of the dialogue here plays to the Christians as a persecuted minority meme I mentioned yesterday in relation to Mike Huckabee. If Huckabee can call on those poor persecuted spiritual warriors, so can Newt, by Newt! It’s almost as if there is a race to see who can fuel the persecution complex faster.
Newt is also upset that civil rights get between a Christian’s god-given right to persecute “the other” and the intended victim. How dare your civil rights trump my right to belittle and marginalize you!
It’s easy to imagine that if you held up a copy of the Constitution in a debate with these people, you would found yourself beat to death with Bibles in response.
You see, those Catholic adoption agencies discriminate against the LGBT community. In Washington D.C. the archdiocese refused to comply with the District of Columbia’s legalization of same-sex marriage. The obvious result of equality is that same-sex couples can also adopt. Not so fast! Says the Archdiocese of Washington!
So far, no homosexual agenda has revealed itself in all this salacious griping. Civil Rights, however, have intervened. Is there such a thing as a Constitutional Agenda? Because that’s what it is, Newt and Bryan: the individual human rights promised and guaranteed by the United States Constitution. And that’s what really has your undies in a bunch: how dare the Constitution trump your misinterpreted (and irrelevant) Bible!
Well, the Archdiocese claims it has the “religious freedom” to put down anyone they want to put down but gay rights advocates point out that if you receive public funding, you absolutely don’t have those religious rights. Do what you want with your own money, but these are tax dollars.
Newt also whined about President Obama’s decision with regards to DOMA:
“If there is a rule of law, it means that if the congress passes a bill and the president signs it, the president has the obligation to support and sustain the laws of the United States.”
Of course, Newt is simply doing what Palin and McCain did in 2008: ignoring the facts in favor of spin: Obama is upholding the law. But it is entirely within his purview to decide it should not be defended on Constitutional grounds if it is, in fact, unconstitutional (as the DOJ itself has concluded).
There is a little issue of public officials being obligated to uphold not the Bible, but the Constitution. Newt seems to have forgotten this pesky detail.
Another problem for Newt is his definition of “classical Christianity.” I grew up a mainstream Lutheran (LCA – now the ELCA). I didn’t begin to believe even a fraction of the crap these Christofascists want to push on us. My extended family remains Christian, what I would call mainstream Christian, and they don’t agree with Newt and Bryan either. So what, if anything, can be meant by a term such as “classical” Christianity?
One thing classical Christians apparently believe in is selling life insurance. Yes, Newt Gingrich’s outfit, Renewing American Leadership, sells life insurance. This doesn’t exactly square with end of the world apocalyptic “classical” Christianity (because if there is one thing the first Christians believed in, whether Jewish or Gentile, was that the End Times were right around the corner) but looks like Newt is willing to cover his bases. If Jesus doesn’t come back tomorrow, Newt can pack a few more bucks into his bank account so he can afford to wine and dine the next future Mrs. Gingrich (you never know when patriotism will cause his zipper to burst open and embroil him in another expensive relationship).
In the ancient world, there were many kinds of Christianity. There are probably at least as many today. Even defining “Christian” is problematic, let alone arriving at a definition for a “classical” Christian. Let’s face it: if there is such a thing as a prototype Christian they would be apocalyptic Jews, and those folks didn’t much like people like Newt, the serial adulterer. And in the Bible Newt likes to quote, the penalty for adultery is death.
Related Posts :
It is absurd that we would be drawn so often back to the “War on Christianity” meme that seems to form t ...
What do you need right before you go to bed? A spooky Ron Paul campaign video taking down Newt Gingrich? ...
The world’s been on pins and needles waiting to hear if the latest in a long line of Republican savior-w ...
In what is another case of cause and effect biting the GOP in the backside, the Republican field for 2012 ...
Ok, this has got to be a joke. I thought the Tea Party was all about getting new blo ...
19 Responses to Newt Gingrich and his Classical Christianity
Public Service Advertisements
Sally
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 7:49 am
I am stunned daily by the hypocrisy of the GOP adulterers and their use of the Bible to beat their followers into submission. Have they never read the Bible? They obviously are not familiar with the Constitution, the document by which our laws are written (and passed by TWO Houses and then signed the President, Mr. Cantor.) They just lie and lie and lie some more. I’m not sure if it’s a race to the extreme, or a race to be the absolutely most imbecile person on the planet. If so, that race is tightening up. The race to the White House, however, is now a cakewalk for the left.
Dragonpuff
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 7:58 am
Sometimes I pinch myself because I think the world has gone mad.
Newt was a grifter way before Palin (who has made it an art form). That he’s a professional
candidate, has situational morals and actually has the gall to speak about a classical interpretation of the bible . . . . and not fear exploding into a ball of fire is hysterical.
Jtl
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 9:43 am
Historically, the philanderers that at one time weilded tremendous power but have fallen from grace and attention go into to hibernation and reemerge as a bible thumping ‘christian’ railing at the very social issues that they participated in or ignored when powerful!
A ‘convert’ is much more pompous and pious than some who has lived the life and settled into a REAL christian existence!
He, newt, is no more ‘christian’ than he is repentant or honest! He is a past his prime less, than attractive ‘elmer gantry’ without the oratory expertise! To be ignored by all but the dwindling 30% on the right! He is classic in the sense that he exemplifies a has been!
Infidel753
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 8:14 am
“Classical Christianity” means the same thing it has meant for two thousand years: “God hates fags.” I’m being charitable and assuming that Gingrich doesn’t want to revive other features of true classical Christianity, such as burning witches.
Notice how, these days, whenever Christians talk about “religious freedom”, they mean their freedom to exclude and discriminate?
And based on Gingrich’s recent pronouncements, presumably classical Christianity includes opposing a Muslim-dominated atheist society — assuming anyone can ever figure out what the hell that even means or who he thinks would want it.
majii
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 10:01 am
Newt is doing what he told his 2nd wife when she asked him how he deals with the inconsistency between his behavior and what he says, Infidel753. He told her that that it doesn’t matter what he says, people just want to hear him say it. We could have done without his Muslim-dominated atheist society non-sense.
Reynardine
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 8:37 am
I guess he’s opposing the Homosexual Agenda by spreading his heterosexuality around everywhere he can every chance he gets (Don’t picture… don’t picture… ra-a-a-lph! Too late!)
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 8:58 am
Aaaargh! Reynardine! Now I can’t eat my breakfast for awhile till my stomach has had a chance to settle.
Diane
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 8:58 am
The republicans basic doctrine is supposed to be less government.
They lie, They want more government control over people’s basic lives.
They are the ‘thought’ police. And the regular police force, who in most places can’t keep up with crime, will now have to enforce morality laws.
Unless of course, they will add a whole other level of police force and prisons, etc. Could this be the secret jobs expansion the republicans are planning? Privatize these prisons and keep their “friends” wealthy.
Jtl
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 9:49 am
Look to Arizona, they have already privitized prisons…that is what gov brewer was paying for [50 million] when she defunded the transplant program!
If these are the republican JOBS it is utter BS!
Ahem
Apr. 3rd, 2011 at 12:48 am
They want less gov’t so they can do whatever they want in the corporate world. Less watchmen equals more opportunities to take advantage of the middle class.
dizipoo
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 9:00 am
Mrs P makes up words, Newt redefines existing ones. Classical is often defined as the conservative traditional or authoritative form of something. Classical frequently references ancient Rome or Greece.
I gather Newt is hoping to reestablish a ‘pro’ authoritative form of religion taking us back to those good old ancient days when emperors were emperors; days when their rule was absolute; days when rulers were free to exercise and implement their own versions of ’2nd Amendment’ type whims and remedies. With complete impunity no less. You know — Lions 1 Citizens 0. Happy days for lions and emperors.
I believe that’s his vision for America. Thru those droopy lids pass dreams of having the power of an emperor with a theocratic sceptre in his mitt. No mere presidency in a Democracy would suffice. Power in this man’s hands would forebode a return of the Dark Ages. For just as Rome fell, so would any hint of individual freedom in this land.
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 11:40 am
I hope no one mentions that hanging with the good Bryan Fisher isnt going to get one elected.
Fisher does not represent normal people and neither does Newt.
C.L.
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 12:51 pm
“you never know when patriotism will cause his zipper to burst open and embroil him in another expensive relationship).”
Bwhahahaha. Play “The Star-Spangled Banner” for the old coot’s moot root.
Todd
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 2:11 pm
DOMA should be defended because it is a duly enacted law. Then I suppose the GOP should also be on board with defending the health care reform legislation because that was duly enacted as well, right? Clean Air Act duly enacted? Clean Water Act? Endangered Species Act? All duly enacted. Shouldn’t they want these duly enacted laws protected as well rather then trying to undermine them all? I guess what he means is that the President should defend laws duly enacted by a Congress with a Republican majority but not those enacted by a Democratic majority.
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 2:30 pm
In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
majii
Apr. 3rd, 2011 at 5:49 am
George H.W. Bush Administration Chose Not To Defend “Must-Carry” Measures. According to the Los Angeles Times:
In an unusual move, the U.S. Justice Department has decided not to defend the government against lawsuits seeking to strike down a provision of the recently passed cable re-regulation law that allows local broadcast stations to demand that their programs be carried on cable systems.
In a two-page letter sent to Vice President Dan Quayle on Wednesday, Assistant Atty. Gen. Stuart M. Gerson said similar “must-carry” measures have been struck down twice by the courts. In addition, he wrote that President Bush, who opposed the cable measure, is the “ultimate client” of the Justice Department and thus an “ethical conflict of interest would be created were the department now to defend these actions of the statute.” [Los Angeles Times, 11/6/92]
The refusal of a president to defend an unconstitutional law is not NEW. Jefferson was the first president to do so.
As a matter of history, Thomas Jefferson was the first President who felt compelled to cease enforcement of a statute he regarded as unconstitutional. Believing that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional, Jefferson ordered his prosecutors to cease all existing Sedition Act prosecutions. Jefferson felt constitutionally obliged to arrest the execution of unconstitutional laws. He also concluded that his Faithful Execution duty did not extend to unconstitutional laws because the latter were null and void. He was confident in his conclusions, believing there was “no weak part in any of these positions or inferences.” [Georgetown Law Journal, 6/08]
mediamatters.org/research...
DannyEastVillage
Apr. 1st, 2011 at 10:18 pm
By “classical Christianity” he means NO MORMONS.
Reynardine
Apr. 2nd, 2011 at 11:48 am
Through a Guardian article, I linked to Wikipedia article on blasphemy. Great Britain’s blasphemy laws were repealed only in 2002. Under them, people have been executed for denying the Nicean Creed, and as recently as 1922, a critically ill man was worked to death for stating that Jesus was mortal and flawed. This was exactly what the Framers intended to prevent, and this is what the Dominionists are trying to impose on us.