What caught my eye was what Mr. Robinson thinks about certain issues of the day. While comparitively speaking of the good and bad of Rudy Giuliani, Robinson says,
But at least Giuliani, when pressed, admits harboring fairly cosmopolitan and enlightened views on domestic issues such as abortion, immigration, and gun control...So, dismembering and sucking out the brain of an unborn child is "enlightened"? Allowing people to enter our country in violation of our immigration laws, thereby increasing crime and government spending, and lowering wages is "enlightened"? Stopping people from being able to defend themselves and leaving them to the mercy (or lack thereof) of criminal predators is "enlightened"? What a presumptive and elitist term for Robinson to use.
That wasn't Robinson's only tongue-cluck-inducing tidbit from his column. Referring to a statement from Mitt Romney, Robinson states,
Way to cherry-pick your founding fathers, Mr. Robinson. First of all, Romney didn't say "organized religion", he said "religion", and on that note, I wholeheartedly agree with Governor Romney. Here is what another founding father, George Washington (you might have heard of him) had to say about religion and freedom:
And down at Monticello, Thomas Jefferson - who famously distrusted organized religion - must have been whirring like a turbine at Romney's declaration that "freedom requires religion"...
And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.But wait! You might say, Washington only speaks of religion and its relationship to morality, not freedom. Good point, but do you really think that an immoral nation is a free nation?
Luckily, we have the wise words of yet another founding father to clear up any confusion on this issue. John Adams had this to say about morality and its relationship to freedom:
We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.Adams knew that if people didn't have the power to govern themselves, then an oppressive government would have to control them instead. Naturally, the more control the government has over you, the less freedom you have. Hence, you cannot have freedom without morality, and from where does morality spring? Religion. So when Mitt Romney says that freedom requires religion, he is most certainly correct.
There is one more point Robinson makes, on which I must take him to task. While addressing Huckabee's religiosity, Robinson pulls out one of the most tired and inane arguments in the left's rusted arsenal of tired and inane arguments. See if you recognize this oldie/goodie:
...as governor of Arkansas, Huckabee didn't behave like the theocrat he makes himself out to be. His absolute reverence for human life didn't stop him from enforcing the death penalty, for example....Like I always ask a lefty who compares abortion to the death penalty, am I assuming correctly that you are comparing an innocent child to a ruthless murderer? This comparison is a textbook example of the left's proclivity for moral equivalence. It's the same reason that for the left, "War is not the answer." It doesn't matter if you are killing the bad guys - for the left, it is bad that you are killing someone, no matter who it is. Except, unborn babies don't count, since the left sees them as a blob of tissue or something along those lines.
Again, I write this post not to stick up for any of the Republican presidential candidates; I freely admit that I don't want Huckabee, Giuliani, or Romney as president. I do write this post to address the same tired canards that the left brings up again and again, hoping that the bigger is the lie, the more people will hopefully believe it.
Good Day to You, Sir