Gingrich: Confront "Radical Secularism"

Former House Speaker Gives Commencement At Liberty University

(AP)  Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told Liberty University's graduating class Saturday to honor the spirit of school founder Jerry Falwell by confronting "the growing culture of radical secularism" with Christian ideals.

Gingrich, who is considering a 2008 presidential run, quoted Bible passages to a mournful crowd of about 17,000 packed into the university's football stadium four days after Falwell's death.

Despite the somber tone of the day, graduates who covered the football field chanted "Jerry! Jerry!" in tribute to Falwell.

"A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded," Gingrich said. "We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights.

"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can only proceed on secular terms," he said.

Liberty's commencement has become a forum for conservative politicians. Last year's address came from Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who made amends with Falwell after attacking him by name during McCain's failed 2000 White House bid.

Gingrich said he won't decide until October whether to run for president.

It was the first commencement without Falwell, the Baptist preacher who established the church-based university in 1971, before he founded the Moral Majority that helped elect Ronald Reagan president in 1980.

On Tuesday morning, the 73-year-old Falwell was discovered without a pulse in his office at Liberty and pronounced dead at a hospital about an hour later. His physician said Falwell had a heart condition and presumably died of a heart rhythm abnormality.

His funeral was set for Tuesday.

His son, Jerry Falwell Jr., addressed Liberty's students Saturday as the school's new chancellor.

"No one can replace dad, but ...," he said before he choked with emotion. Applause rippled across the crowd as he struggled to regain his composure. "But there's a team here ready to carry on and we're going to give it everything we have as he did for so long."

Falwell intended Liberty to be his most enduring legacy. He envisioned it as a "Protestant Notre Dame," projecting fundamentalist Christianity for generations. It was to be a training ground for conservative politicians, lawyers and judges — warriors in what Falwell perceived as a cultural war against liberals, gay rights, legalized abortion and forces he saw as a threat to Christianity.

Gingrich said after his speech that Falwell's death would not slow the Christian right's efforts.

"Anybody on the left who hopes that when people like Reverend Falwell disappear that the opportunity to convert all of America has gone with them fundamentally misunderstands why institutions like this were created," Gingrich said.

[randalds]

Sorry, but you are basically saying that unless you have religion, you have no morals? You know, people can do what is right to others without doing it for god, or to avoid going to hell. In fact, did you know that atheist couples have lowest rates of divorce than fundamental christians? And that atheists make up only 2% of the prison population? Have you ever heard of a crusade by atheists? Or of atheists torturing people and burning them at the stake to make them renounce their religion?
I am quite proud of my "radical secularism" and totally stand with ozilot on this.
Posted by sy2502 at 12:42 PM : May 21, 2007

As an atheist I stand by them both. The idea that if you don't have religion in your life that you're not able to be moral is an arrogant statement of religious fundamentalists. Morals, values, a sense of right and wrong, being a good person and doing good works are all human values that were adopted by religion, not the other way around.

[sy2502]

What I decided is for the preservation of our society as we know it we should uphold our history of judeo-christian values to ASSURE us that the constitution and bill of rights will stay intact forever. Once you deviate and take away the original intent you have no control on what may happen in the future.
Posted by lestb35 at 06:07 PM : May 21, 2007

The fact something was held as value in the past doesn't make it good, and doesn't mean it should be kept around forever. The drafters of the Constitution believed in slavery, and were against women's vote: should we continue that way? Societies evolve, and their laws should evolve accordingly. Acknowledging the judeo-christian roots doesn't mean putting them on a pedestal, away from legitimate criticism and well-needed updates.

[kansas1946]

Radical secularism? Good God. Will these people please get off the bumper sticker rhetoric and try some intellegent discourse. Radical secularism in their mind is a parent not wanting their children indoctrinated in public school into a particular religion, or not wanting preachers to decide what is best for women. Or standing up against those who would be intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their narrow world view. I would vote for radical secularism every time over radical religion. You can go look at what is left of the world trade towers to see what that gets you.

[lestb35]

continued: Which is not necessarily a comment on ***, or morality or anything. It's simply an observation. We don't know what the future will bring. I suppose we can rely on ethicists to examine everything that comes up but let's face most ethical issues are anaswered based on ones religious foundations. With if that was forbidden. No eithical questions answered ont eh basis of religion only science. That could be a problem.

[lestb35]

Posted by sy2502 at 12:42 PM : May 21, 2007


But that's not my point and tried to convey it as such. My point is not coming from a religios standpoint but taking his statement as a call to fight "radical secularism", then examining what that meant. What I decided is for the preservation of our society as we know it we should uphold our history of judeo-christian values to ASSURE us that the constitution and bill of rights will stay intact forever. Once you deviate and take away the original intent you have no control on what may happen in the future.

[mudrose-2009]

Or another example of radical secularism would possibly be when partial birth abortion is legitamized or harvesting of organs or cloning or selective elimination. It's like where do you draw the line if there is no moral foundation because science isn't going to answer those questions. We grew up in a country with a solid foundation basically built on Christianity. Without that moral compass how do we know in 100 years what the foundation might be if we don't preserve that portion of our history.
Posted by lestb35

That's the point. They don't want to preserve that portion of history. The objective is to give fairies special rights, denigrate the institution of marriage, give kids access to condums, oversex them, give them ecstasy make sure they are well addicted and f/u, and then government can take over and administer all sorts of social programs to keep the masses in place. They want total social re-engineering and so-called equity only for the select. Social welfare is what they are looking for and by taking morality out of the equation and secularizing society, they can proceed with partial birth abortions and cloning with impunity. You have to kill the conscience first. Once that's gone that you can control the masses.

[sy2502]

It's like where do you draw the line if there is no moral foundation because science isn't going to answer those questions.
Posted by lestb35 at 12:14 AM : May 21, 2007

Sorry, but you are basically saying that unless you have religion, you have no morals? You know, people can do what is right to others without doing it for god, or to avoid going to hell. In fact, did you know that atheist couples have lowest rates of divorce than fundamental christians? And that atheists make up only 2% of the prison population? Have you ever heard of a crusade by atheists? Or of atheists torturing people and burning them at the stake to make them renounce their religion?
I am quite proud of my "radical secularism" and totally stand with ozilot on this.

[gunownerdan]

Fundamentalist religious nuts **** me off.
POWER TO THE INFIDELS!

[briannorwood]

Now here's a fat pig giving a pandering speech at the dead pig's sham university!

Newt, pleeeeeeeese SHUT UP!

[shingles1]

"Radical secularists"? Give me a break.
I'd be more concerned about fake Family Values Christians, like this Republican lawmaker who was just arrested in SD:

A former South Dakota lawmaker is accused of molesting his own foster children and legislative pages.

Ted Klaudt, 49, a Republican rancher from Walker, faces a long list of charges: eight counts of rape, two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of witness tampering, sexual contact with a person under 16, and stalking.

Court documents mention five possible victims. Three were foster children between the ages of 15 and 19 who lived with Klaudt's family. One is a cousin of one of those girls, and the fifth is a friend of Klaudt's daughter.

In the most disturbing accusation, the girls say Klaudt had them convinced they could earn up to $20,000 by donating their eggs to a fertility clinic. And even though he has no medical training, the girls say Klaudt did all the supposed "exams" and "procedures" himself.

---

[bobnjersey]

[Or another example of radical secularism would possibly be when partial birth abortion is legitamized or harvesting of organs or cloning or selective elimination. It's like where do you draw the line if there is no moral foundation because science isn't going to answer those questions.]
[Posted by lestb35 at 12:14 AM : May 21, 2007]

ten minutes ago you didn't know what it meant ... now you got it all figured out?

the choice of those two words is by no means an accident ... they're both meant to immediately bring up 'whatever' it means in the minds of 'the followers' ... my guess is that it was 'dial tested' by frank luntz before newt's speech.

what you're doing right here is exactly what that phrase was meant to do ... just make it up in your head what it means to you ... using all that you've already swallowed of the right's insidious views of the world!

[urizen9]

This whole politico-religious baggage gets in the way of spiritual growth.
An over-bearing all purpose hypothesis stunts the individual psyche. It was invented for that purpose.
My way is individual. It doesn't matter where I start to find my own way. Nor is there a purpose or goal besides growth.
You'd be surprised how interesting that can be!

[neoconrcrazy]

"the growing culture of radical secularism" Newt, the guy who, while prosecuting Clinton - was having his extra-marital fling....


The division of church and State - the way our founding fathers wanted it -

and they way it shall remain - till Kingdom come!

[randalds]

Posted by lestb35 at 12:04 AM : May 21, 2007

I completely disagree. Radical secularism is just another way of saying you support the separation of church and state. No one who is a secularist (like me) supports anyone's rights over anyone else, but certainly do not condone water boarding or other forms of torture and no one who really is a christian should either. Who would Christ torture? The opponents of secularism offer not a compromise that would keep the separation of church and state intact, but rather demand complete control. The establishment of an officially christian nation. That's intolerable to any American who truly believe in the freedoms this nation was founded upon. That concept is Un-Ameirican.

[lestb35]

Or another example of radical secularism would possibly be when partial birth abortion is legitamized or harvesting of organs or cloning or selective elimination. It's like where do you draw the line if there is no moral foundation because science isn't going to answer those questions. We grew up in a country with a solid foundation basically built on Christianity. Without that moral compass how do we know in 100 years what the foundation might be if we don't preserve that portion of our history.

[lestb35]

Yea, well I'm not so sure that's what they're talkng about there. I think it's more like the insanity of when a child molester's rights trumps the victims, or when we can't waterboard a terrorist when to stop an attack for which could kill thousands. Stuff like that. Separation of church and state is in not going to be messed with but when any religious symbol has to be stripped out of our society it's like communist Soviet Union. That's radical secularism. I think.

[randalds]

Radical Secularism is the concept that church and state should be kept separate. you know, like the Founding Fathers thought and wrote into the Bill of Rights. People like Newt don't believe that. They believe that this should be a government controlled completely by Christians and only by Christians. They refer to people who still think the Founding Fathers had it right the first time and believe in the separation of church and state as being radical in an attempt to demonize them. to try to make it seem like they are trying something new, instead of the fact that we jut want to keep the Bill of Rights the way it is. That's the meaning of radical secularism, Charlie Brown.

[lestb35]

I've been trying to figure out what "radical secularism" means and then I thought today it must mean, a boundryless, cultureless, moraless, foundationless anarchy of some sort. In that case I too, support the fight against radical secularism.

[actornaught]

"Lars is a group of people" would explain the massive quantity of bizarro logic keyboard diarrhea under that name. It was unreadable pretty much as soon the name cropped up.

[erichsh]

tomtomcasters:
"OK Newt join the choir of all white guys running for the Republican Party. Not one woman, no black Americans, no Native Americans, no nothing American for that matter. Nothing but the same stench that has been going on since 1776."

So what country, in this whole world, do you think has a government that most matches your personal political beliefs? Cuba? (Michael Moore likes their heathcare system). I'm not suggesting you move there, I'm just curious about what your ideal vision of a government would look like.

A Communist supporter handed me a four-page newsletter at a Cinco de Mayo festival in San Francisco which I read cover to cover. THe gist of it was that America sux and capitalism sux, the rich are getting richer and the working class is getting hosed. The only solution was that citizens needed to rise up and take control of the government again. But then what? What comes next? No answer.

Anyone have answers as opposed to criticisms and attacks?