Thursday, December 29, 2016

Gaslighting.

When you raise the hostility of the Left and the Democrat Party and Obama to religion and people of faith, the response is "you're crazy" and "that isn't true."

This article by an Evangelical former Obama administration staffer - who is actually defending the Democrat party by using the "seamless garment" argument that Catholic leftists use - pretty much ends that gaslighting.

For example, Hillary's candid defense of the goodness of third trimester abortions gets mentioned for the unprecedented rupture with conventional morality that it is:

//How would you characterize Democrats’ willingness to engage with the moral question of abortion, and why is it that way?

Wear: There were a lot of things that were surprising about Hillary’s answer [to a question about abortion] in the third debate. She didn’t advance moral reservations she had in the past about abortion. She also made the exact kind of positive moral argument for abortion that women’s groups—who have been calling on people to tell their abortion stories—had been demanding.

The Democratic Party used to welcome people who didn’t support abortion into the party. We are now so far from that, it’s insane. This debate, for both sides, is not just about the abortion rate; it’s not just about the legality of it. It’s a symbolic debate. It’s symbolic on the pro-choice side about the autonomy of women and their freedom to do what they want with their bodies. On the pro-life side, they care not just about the regulations around abortion, but whether there’s a cultural affirmation of life.

Even the symbolic olive branches have become less acceptable.//

Undoubtedly because they were looking forward to four years of sending their enemies to re-education camps.

And there is this:

//Green: If you were talking to a secular Democrat who is skeptical about the need to do outreach to conservative evangelicals or make a compromise on language surrounding social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc., what would you say?

Wear: It’s sad that this is a throwaway response, but it’s the duty of statesmanship. It’s the duty of living in a pluralistic society to make a case to all folks.

The second would be that America is still a profoundly religious nation. There are reports that high-level Democratic leadership was not interested in reaching out to white Catholics. And they sure didn’t have a lot of interest in white evangelicals. That’s a huge portion of the electorate to throw out. So if the civic motivation doesn’t get you, let me make the practical argument: It doesn’t help you win elections if you’re openly disdainful toward the driving force in many Americans’ lives.

The Democratic Party is effectively broken up into three even thirds right now: religiously unaffiliated people, white Christians who are cultural Christians, and then people of color who are religious.//

If you thought they despised you, that's because they did.



1 comment:

Anonymous said...

We all know the civil War was about states rights, not slavery.

And we all know we shouldn't have waited to invade Iraq until there were mushroom clouds over the Potomac.

And we all know Democrats aren't real christians and actually despise those who are.

The world is really quite simple if you just go with the tribal flow.

 
Who links to me?