Gingrich picks up where Falwell left off

Yesterday at Liberty University's commencement ceremony, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich praised the school's founder Jerry Falwell for his crusade against the "secular" interests:

“A growing culture of radical secularismdeclares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it wasfounded,” Gingrich said. “We are told that our public schools can nolonger invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess theGod-given quality of human rights.

“Inhostility to American history, the radical secularists insist thatreligious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can onlyproceed on secular terms,” he said.

If not wanting organized religion to have more influence on American society makes you a radical secular, then 73% of the country opposes Newt's idea about the way things ought to be.  According to a Gallup Poll taken in January, only 27% want to see "organized religion have more influence in this nation," while 32% think religion should have less influence, and 39% want to keep it the way it is. 

Translation: people are pretty much okay with the way things are, and don't agree with the ideology being preached by people like Gingrich.  The only moral storm on the horizon is the one invented by people like him.

Comments

[Robt]

I find it disheartening that Liberty U. and Falwell have always fought against others. Instead of focusing on themselves and making themselves better and trying to be more of an example to others.

But it has to be, as Bush has put it, "For us or against us". So it is about hating others and not finding ones way and living it as the theaching of Christ suggest.

To be better servants of God they must demonize others to lift their moralality. It then, is not their deeds and way of life that make them good people. It now relies on the old schoolyard ploy of "putting others down to make one appear elevated". Can't their actions and deeds speak for them in the moral elevation of their personal egoes?

[granny]

In addition to what Todd says ~ the fact is, this statement:
"the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded,”

is absolutely, entirely, and unequivocally UNTRUE !

This nation was founded on an entirely secular belief system; not clerical, not specifically -or even by implication -religious, not bound to any belief beyond freedom to worship as one sees fit (not freedom to impose your beliefs on any other); and at the first gathering of the new congress there was a debate - the FIRST debate, among those gathered, as to whether or not they would allow a blessing to be spoken at the convocation. And it was a mildly heated discussion, at that. It was thought at the time that a more all embracing approach could be taken, and the blessing was given. But it was NOT a founding principal. It was an effort to include all.

And as to the comment by Robert: "Can't their actions and deeds speak for them in the moral elevation of their personal egoes?"

Their actions DO speak for them, and their egos. What you hear is it. The only moral elevation the ego entertains is that of "others" - the self's ego is perfect - that is what ego is.

[jimeuf]

Just to paraphrase the Bushies:
"I think it's sad that the Former Speaker's reckless, un-American personal criticism is out there, I think it's unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments and the rest of his nonsense."

[granny]

EXCELLENT, jimeuf! Great catch.

[makesenseofit]

How in the world do guys like Newt gain power? and even more intriguing is how are these same guys listened to by anyone ??
The media has taken these people and made them into the talk of the town ..
only wishful thinking !!
Sorry, lets try to make sense of it !!!

[The Mexican]

While I'm Agnostic Deist myself, I'm all for religion, especially in studying the historicity and the cultural influence in regards to relativity. However, these type of people forget that this nation isn't divined under Judeo-Christian architecture, but that this country is the promulgation of the Age of Enlightenment (and Age of Reason). The people religiously persecuted that came here were under contempt by theocratic monarchy. Why go back to this silly notion of divine rule? It's what these people escaped from, and because of the pragmatic nature inherent therein Age of Enlightenment, it kept Church and State separated so neither could violate each other's functions; and whilst proceeding with such faculty, it allowed minority religions to flourish, if the populace didn't want to be sponsored by a State Church. Now, because of the corrupted use of extremist fanaticism, some groups did horrible things to other groups; and it's to be expected if one group believes so inerrantly in its faith that it considers itself to be superior, then the weaker elements get subjugated or silenced or worse. I mean, even though there was the article of free expression, there used to be laws in place against freethinking/freethought, which, usually, consisted of (what was consider back then to be) "blasphemy" of religion or religious texts--particularly Christianity; just read about Commonwealth vs. Kneeland and Anthony Comstock going against D.M. Bennett: hell, read D.M. Bennett's magnum opus entitled An Open Letter to Jesus Christ. Most Founders' and Framers' were Unitary or Deist; perhaps, the closest thing to being an atheist or secular (for that time period, mind you).

[Steven McCarty]

Newt claims to be this knowledgable history professor yet he continually gets it wrong. Or maybe he remembers fom history how one can shape history by repeating dishonesties until they are given credance. His real motivations I suspect lay in the subjucation of any type of free thinking so as to better control the masses. As religion as always done. Right/left, sectarian/secular, GOP/DEM, good/evil, black/white, or take/give all methods of divide and conquer. I could always count on Falwel to say some asinine thing once every month, like clock work. Now Newt will take his place, he is a dinosour, irrelevant in the extreme. His way of governing is over. The people have awakened. Someone needs to close the lid of history he has been swept into.

[The Conservative Deflator]

Newt Gingrich is one of the lowest forms of life to ever inhabit the national stage. Ignore this self-promoting turd and maybe he will go away.

[Don Ingold]

As a resident of the 6th congressional district of Georgia, which Newt used to represent, I don't understand why anyone still listens to this lying, unethical, hypocritical adulterer!

[C.Epstein]

What's the difference between: religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate---?

Does not "debate" imply a difference? Which may or may not be divisive?
Is there no divisiveness between religeous groups?

Perhaps Gingrich should prey (i.e. tell)god he wants 20 more years like Falwell did? As I see it god said NO!

[Freedem]

Exactly what part of secular interests would King Newt protect us from. If I drive a car it is a secular interest, Religion has no part of how or what I drive.

If I buy Groceries it is a secular activity, Religion plays no part there either. There is Kosher stuff there, and aromatherapy candles, and I suppose a few other things that a person bent on Religion could involve, but the religious significance is not involved if I buy them, and I in no way advance or retard Atheism by my purchases.

These crazy Dominionists want to frame everything not under and involving them as Anti-Christian and active Devil support, what they need is a quiet room and some good antipsychotic meds.