The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Richard Viguerie Weighs In

10.30.07 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 4)

The genius of the Constitution, and it is admittedly a politically frustrating fact, is that it is specifically designed to keep any one group from completely running the show. History shows very clearly that even FDR and LBJ had problems with members of their own party in the Congress, each man given only a brief window in time to get his way. Knowing this to be the case, the idea that control of the White House or the Senate or the House should be pitched overboard at a critical moment because the winner will not be a Reagan-clone or a 100% collection of Reagan clones seems to me a willful acceptance of the other side's agenda. Something I am not prepared to do. This is particularly so when the issue at hand is appointments to the Supreme Court and the federal bench. Willfully electing someone (Hillary) who is sworn to cement this case into law forever because we just don't like her opponent's stance on something else -- while the same opposition candidate is openly committing to appoint constitutionalists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas etc. -- seems to me to be, as I feel was amply demonstrated in 1986, a less than full commitment to overturning Roe.

If that is "pragmatism," it is in the service of conservative principle. This, as I recall, is something that even Mr. Viguerie agreed to in early 1980, supporting Illinois Congressman Phil Crane over then former Governor Reagan because Reagan was perceived by some as too old.

Thanks again to Mr. Viguerie for the debate. And while I haven't had a chance yet to read it, he doubtless makes his case in detail in his new book Conservatives Betrayed. I'll be picking it up.
-- Jeffrey Lord
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

SEIPLE THEOLOGY
Re: Mark Tooley's Abandonment Chic:

This guy Seiple is truly an incompetent theologian. Quoting a scripture, or at the very best mangling one, he repeats, "...love my neighbor, including those that don't look like me, vote like me or share my faith."

Now I've reread my Bible and didn't see any passage mentioning looking or voting anywhere, and I'm including footnotes, addendums, forward and epilogue. It does say that I am to love my neighbor as myself. However, that begs the question, "what if I hate myself?" Am I to hate my neighbor, too? So I checked into the original Hebrew Testament and, lo and behold! I found the exact passage about loving my neighbor and the very same question posed about self-hatred, too! And all the Jewish commentaries had exactly the same answer. Love means respect. Even those that hate themselves want respect, even if that respect is unrequited. As these commentaries and explanation predate Jesus by some thousand years, and Jesus being well aware of these explanations, I trust this to be the correct explanation.

Respect includes a component of morality. No one truly respects an immoral position or act, whether performed by the public at large or by oneself in private. Morality is a fixed virtue for all time and all people, even those who do not follow Judeo-Christian precepts. That is the essence of the Bible: an inviolate moral code for all time established in the face of pagan religious immorality and licentiousness. Therein lies the immorality of today's multiculturalism and political correctness. Not all cultures and religions are equal or moral. Morality is for all peoples to accept, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Manitou aside. It isn't easy and certainly many refuse its mantle. Life without standards means anything and everything is ultimately judged to be OK. Right is right and wrong is right, too. But, for some self-proclaimed Evangelical minister to invoke a moral equivalency stance is both immoral and contrary to basic Judeo-Christian theology. Loving thy neighbor without a moral component will lead to loving thy neighbor, his wife and kids. Literally.

To deny God's promised inheritance of the entire Holy Land to the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob negates biblical and Christian teachings. It is immoral. One could even claim such a stance to be utterly pagan and anti-God. It is certainly not Evangelical.
-- Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey

"Seiple described Muslims he meets as hostile to America because they assume all Americans are evangelical and therefore 'political, strident, unforgiving.' One Muslim friend told him: 'You Americans have the Bible in one hand and the sword in the other.'"

ROTFLOL. Pot, meet the kettle.
-- Andrew Macfadyen, M.D.
Omaha, Nebraska

Was curious if Rachel Corrie's family isn't on Chris Seiple's Christmas card list. What a pathetic bunch.
-- frost

SOLID GOLD
Re: Wlady Pleszczynski's Washington's Prince:

Mr. Novak can truly be named the Gold Standard for Washington journalism. To have access to that many power brokers is beyond comprehension. One can only imagine the sources he had throughout the years who were not mentioned in the book.

As for Ms. Plame, the short synopsis of that sorry episode is she was "outed" in 1998 by Mr. Ames. That is why she had not been "undercover" for the five year period prior to Mr. Armitage opening his mouth. Mr. Fitzgerald certainly did our nation no favors.
-- Owen H. Carneal, Jr.
Yorktown, Virginia

AN ODE TO ACCOMPLISHED MEN
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell's The Merry Sage of Broadcasting Excellence:

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Religion, Abortion, Books, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, NATO, Communism, Oil