Now that Wal-Mart has caved in to the threats of a boycott over its decision to use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" Evangelicals can turn their attention to the Separatists (too loaded a term), er, "Pilgrims" at this Thanksgiving time. Ah, yes, those perky Christians who came to America to set up Focus on the Family, ally themselves with the Catholic Church and secure the place of Christmas in the hearts of their countrymen! Wait a second...

It's always difficult to know exactly how one person or group might act in another age, but if you’ll indulge me (pun intended) let me draw from the Plymouth colony’s own William Bradford’s writings and the ideals of the other Separatists in light of the hour in which we live.

This is obviously just a blog entry, but I trust that the references to the beliefs of the Separatists are accurate without bibliography (such documentation is readily available).

The Catholic Church has long taught infallibly (unfortunately not a pun) that it wields the sword as a spiritual power and that its sword is superior to the temporal sword of the state. This is so abundantly obvious in catholic theology that Pius IX (the great hater of the United States) declared it a grave error to even consider that Catholicism shouldn’t be the state religion “to the exclusion of all other forms of worship”. This concept was anathema (pun again intended) to the Separatists. William Bradford abhorred the papal system and its leftovers as seen in the Church of England (i.e. RC Lite).

I cannot do justice to Bradford’s antipathy towards the sacramentalist churches here. Suffice it to say that he would be mortified that Focus on the Family would be promoting “the real story of the Pilgrims” (FOTF Weekend Magazine) while aligning themselves with the “gross darkness” (Bradford’s words) of that which he believed “Satan hath raised” (ibid) to oppose “liberty” (ibid) and "true Christians" (ibid) and “the light of the gospel” (ibid).

Mr. Bradford would also be horrified at the “Christmas wars” and boycotts being waged in the name of Christianity by groups like the American Family Association. The Separatists had a simple view of the “holy day”; it was simply not scriptural. Now this isn’t a paper on the doctrines of Christmas, but I believe it is fairly safe to say that the Pilgrims would be boycotting the boycotters over the Wal-Mart “Christmas” flap. One of the reasons they separated from the Church of England was because the Church overtly celebrated Christmas! For more thoughts on this issue see my previous entry on the Wal-Mart “controversy”.

I am not arguing that the Pilgrims were 100% correct in everything they said or did (I’m sure they’d have problems with elements of my theology), but at least let us do them the honor of recognizing what they believed.

It irks me when Liberals try to claim the legacy of Jefferson as their own. In a more comical and tragic way, I find it irksome when organizations like Focus on the Family try and do the same with the legacy of Plymouth Colony.

Let’s give thanks for the things they gave thanks for… including liberty of conscience, freedom from "unprofitable canons and decrees" and freedom from a state-imposed religion.

John Adams understood the danger posed by “canon law” and in the spirit of the Pilgrims warned us against such a system in no uncertain terms. Referring to the system of “canon law” as one of “the greatest systems of tyranny” in the Christian age, he remarked “all the epithets I have here given to the Romish policy are just”.

They were just, Mr. Adams, but just like the ideals of the Pilgrims, they have long been forgotten. The system that claims no contradictions and a “continuity of faith” has been able to obscure its doctrines and history among its own “by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance” (Adams' words) and among its enemies by “secret and subtle means” (Adams' words).

We ignore the warnings of these men at our own peril.

In the back of my mind I hold the memory of a cover article from a prominent conservative magazine. I believe it was written by John McLaughlin... Anyway the article was titled "My Bulldog George" and was an attempt to convince Reaganites that despite all appearances to the contrary (and despite history, common sense and his own words) George H. W. Bush was really a fighting conservative like the Gipper. Unfortunately, articles like that worked then and they work today.

I came of age politically during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In 1984 while a freshman at N.C. State I volunteered for Jesse Helms' senate campaign. In my world, a conservative was obviously a conservative; no convincing necessary. We all knew in our hearts that George H. W. Bush simply was not a principled conservative. If he espoused a conservative position it was not born from a core belief system, but rather from an expedient political one. In 1988 I supported Jack Kemp in the primary; the man I believed to be the true conservative in the race. Many on the right were weary of Bush... we were right ... but there were too many who bought the lie.

Since those days it has become obvious to me that anyone that requires a "Why he's really a conservative" defense is simply not a conservative (in the Ronald Reagan sense). Even a voting record can be deceiving. Some men will vote enough times with the party to stay in good graces, but released from that system, they scurry to the center or just refuse to act on their own rhetoric. Some men just seem to like popularity (you can see it in their eyes) and their conservative convictions are ankle deep (see: most of the GOP appointed Supreme Court justices since the 50s).

It's not that these men are wild-eyed leftists, it's just that they can't be trusted. They are not principled conservatives. Bush I, Bob Dole, Bush II... that has been the line-up the party of Ronald Reagan has sent to the plate to defend his legacy... blech!

When W introduced his "compassionate conservatism" nonsense, anybody with an inkling of what "conservatism" is about should have been appalled. Government should be JUST not "compassionate". The government doesn't have a job; it earns no money. All the income it gets it TAKES from individuals. It can't possibly be "compassionate". That is Conservatism 101.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

-James Madison 

With one of his first priorities being the creation of a huge, new entitlement program, W lost any pretense to being a conservative. Since then the Bush sycophants have spent years trying to convince us that he is a true conservative. As noted on this blog, he immediately adopted the Kerry Plan for World Peace after winning the 2004 election... primarily because the PC "don't harm a mosque, Thomas Jefferson may be hiding in there!" war strategy hasn't worked.

I have been active on different conservative online forums these past several years, and invariably somebody has to keep trying to convince us that W is a true conservative. Well, if the center is Dennis Kucinich, then yes, W is a raging conservative. But if Ronald Reagan is the measuring stick, then W is slightly to the right of Bill Clinton.

The usually sane American Spectator (spectator.org) ran a series of blog entries this Fall trying to convince readers that Arlen Specter is really a conservative. Arlen Specter! Yeah, and Yoko Ono is really a musical genius.

There was some good to come out of Tuesday's election results. Chaffee is gone. Santorum is gone. We all knew that Chaffee was a wolf in sheep's clothing (actually he was more like a wolf in wolf's clothing with a sheep's nametag), but many of us also have not forgiven Rick Santorum and W for abandoning a true conservative like Pat Toomey in the Pennsylvania GOP primary in '04 to back a man like Arlen Specter. Party above principle I guess. Hopefully there is a lesson there that will be learned.

"I don't consider myself a conservative ideologue..." - Rick Santorum

So the next time you read an article about how a massive new entitlement is really consitent with conservative values or something along that line... realize that somebody is trying to sell you a bill of goods. The Democratic Party should be a splintered shell by now, but unfortunately "real conservatives" have given it life by letting liberal Democrats pretend they're conservatives. And we have no one to blame except ourselves because we let our own liberals pretend they were conservatives too.  

Coming Soon: Why John McCain is really a conservative. 

Update: The article I referenced is "My Pit Bull, George" and was penned by Robert K. Dornan for the November 6, 1987 edition of National Review. The synopsis eerily states "George Bush has been maliciously tagged a wimp, a preppie, a loser and a moderate. The truth is he is thoughtful, articulate, conservative - and a winner. It's time movement conservatives rallied to Bush's side."
 
Unfortunately, we rallied. The malicious tags proved rather prophetic.