Words for Democrats to live by?

I had a reader send me a quote today:
"Our problem is not too much morality in politics, but too much politics
without morality.

"Recently, someone sent me a radio sermon delivered by tge Reverend Joel Nederhood of "The Back to God Hour" broadcast from Chicago. The sermon was about the faith of our presidents. Dr. Nederhood contended that American have adopted the dangerous custom of separating religion from their evaluation of national leaders.

"I believe this is wrong for a nation whose founders were so deeply motivated by religious conviction."
Which prominent Republican said this? Well, actually, none of them. It was a quote from George McGovern in a presidential campaign speech that he gave on October 11, 1972.

That's not at all to suggest that Democrats are godless or anything like that. It's just that it's the kind of phraseology you'd expect to come from my side of the political aisle.

And it begs the question for the followers and honorers of McGovern. If they considered him right back then, where do they stand now when it comes to people calling to get religion out of politics.

Just a noon-time thought.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Great Thought! Good job! Keep 'em coming!
This ought to make Sibby blow a gasket: a fellow Mitchellite who is a liberal, a Democrat, and a devout Methodist. And last I heard, Methodists were still Christians.

PP, did it make you blow a gasket too?
Anonymous said…
The landscape was different back then. There were fewer other schools of thought, fewer "other" religions in our communities. There was also less backlash from the religious conservatives. There was not this network of facist types like the Family Policy Council back then. The worst you had was some nosy old baptist lady down the street that everyone hated and some sleezy TV preachers. In 1972 someone could make such a comment and it would be seen as more benign and inclusive.
Anonymous said…
I agree with 3:01 that times have changed. There weren't so many radical libs back then who wanted everybody to be able to butcher an unborn baby.

Nor were there so many mush brained people who wanted all children to be given contrceptives, without their parent knowledge or consent, and then of course an abortion when the cons didn't work.

Last I heard, Christians still don't support murder and are concerned about their children.
chad said…
Believers and the faithful are hardly all of one political party.

The difference would be whether or not they want to use the iron hand of government to impose one set of beliefs.

I'd rather focus on spreading the Good News instead of forcing it on the unwilling.
Anonymous said…
anonymous 3:20...

It never ceases to amaze me how every single thread and topic on every single blog is somehow distilled down to the abortion issue...and you wonder why the voters of SD are fatigued over the issue????
nonnie said…
Back then things were different in that there were no attacks on the Christian religion like exist today.

Back then no one protested a Nativity scene on the courthouse grounds, singing Christmas carols or having Christmas parties in public schools, a cross in a veterans' cemetery, the Ten Commandments hung in gov't buildings, saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience, or even reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools.

Back then Dems and Reps both would have been appalled that this is what has happened.

What some refer to as far right wing or fascist is merely a backlash against the attacks on Christianity.
Anonymous said…
PP: Maybe it is you and your fellow Republicrats who should heed McGovern's message - though I think his interpretation of morals is a little loose. Your support of anti chastity legislation and your willingness to compromise on pro-life issues is sad. The Dempster and Knudson Republicrats are taking over our party and they are pushing the morality that we have fought for out the window. Your smug and hypocritical embrace of the McGovern quote is sad, sick and infuriating. Despite our electoral advantages, the Republican party is choosing pragmatism at the expense of human life.

What a sad day in South Dakota when George McGovern's words ring most true for my beloved party.
milt said…
just another example of the well documented drift to the left of the democrat party. It might be mildly entertaining to ask if he would stand by these statements today. In his day he was a flaming left wing anti-war liberal socialist. Would he be a "moderate" by todays liberal relativism? Indeed, statements made by John Kennedy may well give Sibby and PP pause for thought, while causing todd epp to blow his gaskets.
Anonymous said…
George McGovern represents what was right with the old Democrat party in South Dakota.

The Democrat Party of today has little moral compass and certainly uses God when it is convenient.

Helping the poor and the abused is a long held tradition of many Democrats but after recent events in Pierre it is obviously not so today.
Anonymous said…
3:43 pm - voters are not fatigued over the pro-birth issue. You merely parrot a sound byte and attribute it to all of South Dakota.

South Dakota voters want to hear truth to become confident in voting. The pro-death community provided everything but the truth.

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.