Newt Gingrich warns U.S. at risk of atheism and radical Islam

Newt Gingrich

/ Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Likely Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has regularly been warning that Democrats are trying to impose a "secular-socialist" agenda on the country, in part because of a "relentless anti-religious bias."

He has also warned of the risk of radical Islam, as in a film called "America at Risk" that is grounded in the notion that "we are at war with radical Islamists - and it is a war we are losing."

But the former House speaker seemed to conflate the two arguments over the weekend, suggesting that his grandchildren could eventually find themselves "in a secular atheist country" that is potentially dominated by "radical Islamists."

Here's the full quote, via Politico: "I have two grandchildren -- Maggie is 11, Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler told Hotsheet that Gingrich did not mean to suggest America could become both Islamist and atheist, but simply left the word "or" out of his comments.

Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism two years ago, made the comments at Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, a megachurch led by evangelical Rev. John Hagee. You might recall that then-presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain rejected Hagee's endorsement in 2008, after learning that Hagee had suggested that Adolf Hitler was a "hunter" who was exercising God's will by incentivizing Jews to return to Israel. (Hagee said his comments were taken out of context and that he has "always condemned the horrors of the Holocaust in the strongest of terms.")

In his remarks, Politico reports, Gingrich complained that courts have grown "steadily more secular and steadily more anti-religious." He said "everyday folks" in churches and synagogues will have to show the bravery that "elites" in the media and academia will not to return the nation to its founding Christian values.

Gingrich, who has been aggressively courting social conservatives, said Sunday it wasn't hypocritical of him to lead impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Gingrich, who was involved in an extramarital affair at the time, said the impeachment push was "not about personal behavior."

The former speaker, who has been married three times, has expressed regret about his past personal behavior, which he suggested was driven in part by his passion for the country.

[RollotheNorman]

Holy Cow! No scratch that, that would be Hindu, the Newtster's trolley has gone off the tracks again. I await the FL clown show with eager anticipation. Anybody want to bet 10K there is no bounce after it?

[mawmawangela]

You only have to look at the comments here to see how Christians are being vilified now in the U.S. and Islam is such a peaceful and good religion, as Christians killed thousands back in the Dark Ages. Yes, it happened. Get over it because Christians haven't committed mass murder in hundreds of years and look on that era with great shame. Sure, every group - religious or not - has its nutcases, but to compare a medieval event to ongoing suicide bombing is ludicrous. Wake up and see the Islamification of Europe and realize that as the last bastion of freedom, America will be a small target for the millions of radical Islamists who will ultimately organize as they gain representation in those countries. I'm no conservative extremist, but I've seen this coming for a while now. Get real people. We don't have a theocracy, nor will we ever under Christian leadership. Christians believe in free will, and if you aren't a Christian, we just pray for you. Under Islam, you either convert or die. Churches burned, mass execution - look at Egypt! If this country doesn't pay attention, I'm guessing the atheists will be facing Mecca, while the Christians will fight and die. In either case, if you don't fear extreme Islam, you are just ignorant.

[mercury613]

If Gingrich ever bothered to consult a dictionary, he'd realize that -- by definition -- a "secular atheist" country could not possibly be dominated by "radical Islamists", or vice versa. Then again, when have religious conservatives ever been concerned with facts and truth?

[catfishsew]

I find it despicable and dishonest that he is trying to equate secularism and atheism with Islamic extremism. I would also say it is ignorant, but I think he knows exactly what he is doing, preying on the fears most Americans have about Islam and directing it toward secularists and atheists. It would be impossible to have "a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists" as secularism and Islam are mutually exclusive. Anyone wishing to continue practicing Christianity and to fight Islam should be FOR a secular America, for if people like Gingrich get their way and America gives up its freedom of religion, or freedom from religion, who can guarantee that it will not one day be decided that the state religion is Islam?

[san850]

by JV1970 March 30, 2011 8:46 PM EDT
"We just want a president and congress and supreme court who begin their day with reading the Bible and in prayer to God for guidance and a government that bases it's laws on the Holy Bible, the living Word of God and that's all!"
=====================================
JV, in a Democracy, you cannot have a "government that bases it's laws on the Holy Bible, the living Word of God" without turning it into a theocracy. What part of that do you not understand?

What religion would you propose to have the government enforce? What makes you think your religion should take precedence over all others? What makes you think that all others should be forced to conform to your style of religion? And just how do you propose that the government persecute folks that choose not to conform?

[JV1970]

I didn't say a word about persecution! You are reading more into my statement than what's there. I also didn't say a word about forcing others to conform to "my" style of religion or that my religion should take precedence over all others or that the government should "enforce" a religion.

I simply said that we want a president and congress and supreme court who begin their day with reading the Bible and in prayer to God for guidance and a government that bases it's laws on the Holy Bible, the living Word of God. I said nothing about enforcing anything or forcing anyone to do anything or persecution. In fact I didn't mention the general citizen population at all. I was talking about the president, the congress, and the supreme court and I didn't say anything about forcing them to do it! Don't "put words in my mouth" or read more into my statement than what's there. I'm not for persecution of any kind!

[san850]

JV...like nailing jello to a tree ... you will never understand.

[johndevinejr]

I think Justice Hugo Black explained the First Amendment very well in this decision.

Everson v. Board of Education
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16."
--Justice Hugo Black

[san850]

Gingrich, being the so-called "historian" he claims to be, needs to educate himself on separation of church and state. These quotes sum up why this separation is so important:

"The Bill of Rights decoupled religion from the state, in part because so many religions were steeped in an absolutist frame of mind - each convinced that it alone had a monopoly on the truth and therefore eager for the state to impose this truth on others." Carl Sagan
===========
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side." Aristotle
============

[AnnieDanny]

Our founding fathers also made it clear that, while Government needs to be free of rule of the Church, the individual morality and character of the people involved with Government needs to be deeply committed to God on a personal level... or else everything will go to all to *ell. Which is pretty much what has happened, as each generation since the 1950's has abandoned and even rejected the Christian foundations this country was built on.

I understand his gripe against the athiests. They spout their blasphemies everywhere online, and seem to actively look for Christians they can taunt. There's no reasoning with them, they're locked into their dark doubts and seem to enjoying insulting God as often as possible.

I realize they've received similar treatment from many so-called Christians, but it's very unfortunate and it's not good PR for either group. There's a lot of animosity that's been building, and I think the athiests are considerably bolder than they used to be.

Do I think athiests are dangerous? Physically, no. But philosophically, yes. I don't think their philosophies are very constructive. They know how to gripe about everybody else but I don't think they've got a lot to offer. I call athiesm a religion of Doubters.

[boatdocster]

Hey Newt

America is worried about attacks from radical, right wing, Christian extremists!

You know, the ones that shoot innocent fellow Americans and blow up buildings because they don't agree with you.

[san850]

...and they are the most dangerous kind.

[diamruby]

"Religion" by any name has been the downfall of the world since the beginning of time. "Religion" has "murdered" more innocent people than any other cause. Look at the history of all "churches" no matter what club name they go under & you will see nothing but horrible torture, murders, violent rapes upon children, men, & women. Why would anyone want to believe in a myth called "God" when all of his followers behave like the described "Devil" himself???? Until people stop believing in the lies of these organizations & seek the truth through facts we are all in danger of the power & greed the leaders of these cults possess.

[tsigili]

The GOP candidates are using religious scare tactics, to appeal to the religious right.

It should be obvious that such a tactic is quite dangerous, for politics.

Religion must be kept totally out of politics.

[JV1970]

I have a much different opinion!

[san850]

Sure you do JV...because you want to live in a theocratic society where religion rules everything and everyone. Move to Iran.