James Dobson Speaks about Third Party Option

Don’t miss Dr. James Dobson’s Opinion piece in today’s New York Times: “The Values Test.” He writes about the decision that was reached by a subgroup within the Council for National Policy. He writes:

“If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. . .

“I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.

“The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.”

I am hoping that it won’t come to this. Pundits in the media are declaring that Religious Conservatives are splintering. I don’t think this is the case at all. If the Republicans nominate Rudy Giuliani for President, everyone will see that Religious Conservatives will be fairly unified in removing their support from the Republican nominee.

The group that is most at risk of splintering in the near future is not Religious Conservatives; it’s the coalition of voters that elected a Republican for President for two straight terms. If the Republicans choose Giuliani, that coalition will be history.

(HT: Sam Hodges)

32 Responses to James Dobson Speaks about Third Party Option

  1. Scott October 4, 2007 at 9:14 am #

    If the Republicans nominate Rudy Giuliani for President, everyone will see that Religious Conservatives will be fairly unified in removing their support from the Republican nominee.

    This is indeed my prediction as well. A return to Biblically derived morals is a necessity. Sadly, that has not been the hallmark for this administration. There is actually little separation between these eight years and the eight years of his predecessor.

    Any possible third-party front runners?

  2. Josh R October 4, 2007 at 9:19 am #

    If the Christian Conservatives would speak up and endorse and finance Huckabee, I would bet he would surge to the point that there wouldn’t be a need for a third party option.

    The only reason he isn’t being taken seriously is because of his bank balance.

  3. jigawatt October 4, 2007 at 9:34 am #

    Even if the religious conservatives do remove their support from the Republican nominee, I don’t see this as a problem. In fact, it might be the best thing in the long run. It is high time that conservative Christians decouple from the Republican Party.

  4. Russ October 4, 2007 at 10:47 am #

    Stop the insanity!

    I am a firm believer in the sanctity of life, and believe that abortion is the taking of human life and should therefore be illegal.

    But, to make this THE issue in whether you would support a particular candidate or party in a presidential election or not seems illogical and impractical. Is this really about changing the collective heart of our nation in regards to this issue, or grinding political axes?

    It will not bother me too much if the Dobsonites pull their votes from the Republican party as I am unlikely to vote Republican in this election anyway, and a move such as this could well help ‘my guy’ get elected. And, at any rate, I agree with jigawatt… ANY decoupling of ‘conservative Christians’ from any political party is probably a good thing in the long run.

  5. Yvette October 4, 2007 at 11:42 am #

    Russ…God bless you. Thanks for the clear and bold statement on one issue voting.

    Isn’t it curious that when abortion was practiced in the ancient world as well as the abandonment of infants, Scripture has much more to say about our treatment of the born? Don’t get me wrong, I am extremely pro-life, but definitely not a single issue voter.

    Social justice should not be relegated to the “liberals.” It seems that Scripture has a wee bit to say about our treatment of aliens, widows, and orphans.

    Also of note is that there are studies that show abortion rates were lower under the Clinton administration than the current one. See the entry by ethicist Dr. Glen Harold Stassen:

    http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013

    On a personal note, I must say that I appreciate the intelligent dialog that seems to occur on this blog, especially when there are differing opinions. I have been on other Christian blogs where opposing views were treated with venom. This is refreshing.

  6. mike October 4, 2007 at 12:23 pm #

    In general I am not a “one issue voter” in that, when faced with multiple candidates my philosophy is not “I don’t care as long as they aren’t abortionists.” However, the only way that I could, in good conscience, vote for an abortionist would be if there was NO other choice.

    If I have the option of voting for a man who percieves the death of unborn children as acceptable yet in every other issue was conservative vs. a man who hates abortion yet has many liberal points, or maybe little political experience. I WILL VOTE FOR THE MAN WHO PRESERVES HUMAN LIFE.

    It is a matter of character, if a man can either by virtue of apathy or outright endorsement can, in a clear conscience, allow children to die in droves for no other reason (primarily) than to fullfill the irresponsible, selfish desires of men and women who don’t want to accept the child that they’ve created, HOW CAN I TRUST HIM?
    If he punts morality at the most basic, common sense, area of human life, how can I trust him in other areas of human life that are harder to determine?

    Issues concerning aliens, (legal or illegal) widows, and orphans are vitaly important issues, homeless people who die on the streets are very important, but if a man won’t preserve the life of the unborn why would he want to preserve the life of the extreme poor? what about health care? what about the cost of war?

    Do you see my point? Abortion isn’t just an issue, it is a little window into a person’s worldview, and it that worldview is either inconsisant or skewed to humanism and selfishness, how would he make a good president?

  7. Bryan L October 4, 2007 at 12:37 pm #

    If there was a candidate that was pro-life and I thought they actually had a shot at ending abortion then I would definitely vote for them. But since it’s more than likely that no pro-life candidate will actually get abortion outlawed then it feels like a wasted vote because I voted for them because of that one issues that didn’t get passed and now I’m stuck with all of the other policies from that candidate that I don’t agree with that they do get passed.

    Blessings,
    Bryan L

  8. Denny Burk October 4, 2007 at 12:48 pm #

    Bryan,

    Ending abortion will only happen incrementally. No elected official will do it alone. But the Presidency and the Senate majority are key to ending abortion because the President chooses Supreme Court Justices, and the Senate confirms them.

    Until the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, abortion will be legal in this country. If you want to see abortion ended, then you have to support candidates for President who will appoint the right judges. The change by definition can only happen gradually since Supreme Court Justices serve for as long as they please. Vacancies are rare, but when they occur it’s important to have a President and a Senate who will put in good Justices.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  9. mlm October 4, 2007 at 1:37 pm #

    Denny,

    You mentioned that ending abortion will only happen incrementally. Perhaps it’d be more accurate to say, “Ending the LEGALITY of abortion will only happen incrementally.”

    I personally doubt abortion will ever be *illegal* in this country again (unless Islamists have their way and take over the world). But I have no doubt at all that abortion will NEVER end. It won’t.

    Therefore, as much as I am pro-life, it can’t be the only issue we look at. I said it already and I’ll say it again: Abortion will be a non-issue if we all get blown to bits.

  10. Carlito October 4, 2007 at 2:40 pm #

    I tend to agree with Mike on this.

    Bryan L – I understand your frustration, and sometimes it does seem like the outlawing of abortion is a pipe dream. However, we must remember that slavery, overt racism and the mistreatment of Jews were not battles that were won overnight. And of course the battle still rages in some places. MLK had a pipe dream (and it eventually came true in many ways!), and so can we. 🙂 The question is: does mlm have a dream? Man, I crack myself up.

    Overall, I think there must a shift in the collective thinking of the people. With the scientific evidence continuing to bolster support for life at conception (see GE’s 4D ultrasound), I think we’ll find that as technology advances, the more ammunition we’ll have to awaken people to this atrocity. And, like Denny said, in order for laws to be overturned, Supreme Court Justice appointments are vital. Also, I think there has been some progress in recent years (partial birth abortion ban to name one).

    mlm – I agree that abortion will never end, but neither will murder, rape, theft, etc. My statement here is elementary (don’t mean to be snide), but just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Obviously, the reason is because we live in a world horribly tainted by sin. However, if abortion is outlawed or significantly restricted, lives WILL be saved.

    One last thing – I agree that we need to also seek justice with regards to the issues of the homeless, orphan, and widow.

    I think what makes abortion so awful is that these babies literally don’t have a voice. They have NO ONE to defend them. A widow can scream, an orphan can flee to a safe house, and a homeless person can take shelter at the local Salvation Army. But no one hears the unborn baby.

    I’m not saying we completely ignore the other social causes, I’m just saying that I feel that unborn babies are the most glaring example of the needy and oppressed of our generation.

    Wow, the more I think about this, the more I’m reminded of God’s mercy in withholding His wrath from this world. The fact that sun rises each morning is amazing grace. Come quickly, Lord Jesus.. Come quickly….

  11. An October 4, 2007 at 3:46 pm #

    mlm,

    as a Christian abortion would be one of your primary issues to look at.

    if such a basic presupposition of Christianity can be so easily waived, the entire house will soon be tumbled.

    voting for a pro-choice candidate is equivalent to voting for Hitler. ignore Hitler’s pro-choice position for the Jews but fully accept his strong stance on defense.

    btw, vote according to a Christian worldview.

  12. paul October 4, 2007 at 4:29 pm #

    What’s funny is that the USA, you know, the last developed Christian nation on earth, has the highest abortion rates of any first world nation. Along with one of the highest divorce rates as well.

    Part of this, as I’ve said before, is education. The problem is, people don’t want to be educated. Parents say that they’ll do the education themselves, and then that education amounts to “don’t have sex until you’re married.” And even though that model has by and large not worked, no one wants to fix it, because parents still want to be the ones to not teach their kids about sex.

    Once again, I’ll bring up Sweden’s model. Sweden, where 2nd and 3rd term abortions had better be life threatening if they’re going to happen legally. Their abortion rate (we’re talking percentages, not raw numbers) are far smaller than ours, and yet the only reaction one gets around here is “what, you want us to follow Sweden’s model? They’re yurpeens! We’re murcans round here! We don’t need no yurpeens telling us how to do our business!”

    Follow Sweden’s model, and vote for someone with a conscience instead of an armband.

  13. Stu Wright October 4, 2007 at 7:18 pm #

    Until he came out w/his statement that he could never vote for a candidate who was not “prolife” I had always thought that Jim Dobson had more “common sense” than 99 44/100% of the people I was familar with. HE CHANGED MY MIND WITH HIS STAND ON VOTING.

  14. Ted October 4, 2007 at 10:06 pm #

    If Dobson creates a viable third party candidate in response to Rudy the Republican nominee, it will guarantee victory for Democrat Hillary, in the same way Bill won– with about 43% of the vote.

    Dobson’s ploy will– to be frank– backfire and kill more babies.

    Here’s how: Hillary will most certainly nominate to the Supreme Court those who will uphold abortion. Do any of you doubt that?

    Rudy, though he personally favors abortion, says he will appoint strict constitutionalists to the court. That judicial philosophy is more likely to produce a pro-life candidate.

    Dobson should also think about this– just because a Republican or conservative is President, that doesn’t guarantee you get a pro-life judge. Look at Geo Bush I with Souter and Kennedy and also Gerald Ford with John Paul Stevens.

  15. paul October 4, 2007 at 10:12 pm #

    I love when people bring up Kennedy. He’s not a LIBERAL, he’s the ultimate swing vote. And he’s always swung pro-choice. But here you are complaining about him.

    Please get the facts straight. It makes the conversations better.

    And Giuliani, much like Dubya, is going to nominate judges whose philosophy is close to his own. So, expect Giuliani to either nominate judges who are civil libertarians or at the very least are key proponents of past precedent.

  16. paul October 4, 2007 at 10:13 pm #

    whoops. meant to say pro-life. Check the voting histories, and you’ll see that he might be liberal in some areas, but he is most certainly a pro-life judge.

  17. Faimon October 5, 2007 at 1:28 am #

    The sooner James Dobson is no longer a power player in American politics the better.

  18. Barry October 5, 2007 at 9:14 am #

    Russ (#4)
    I do not believe that making abortion the issue for Christian voters is either “illogical” nor “impractical.” 43,000,000 children have been brutally murdered (and that number continues to grow) since abortion was legalized. That’s a third of my generation that’s gone in this country. One could well argue on an economic level that it is both illogical and impractical to eliminate such a large number from the work force. Think of the entrepreneurs and businessmen, doctors and teachers etc. who never had a chance at life. Their elimination is illogical and impractical. Regardless of this point, when is fighting for life illogical and impractical?

    Further, I would argue that it is incumbent on those who dismiss this issue as not being of central importance to remind themselves regularly of the horror and brutality of abortion via pictures and actual accounts of abortions. We downplay the horror of it when we don’t remind ourselves of the horror of it. This trumps immigration et al.

    Further, I wonder how many that don’t see this issue as being of central importance have children? I would wager that one might think differently after having seen the beauty and miracle of having children. Scripture says, “Children are a blessing from the Lord.” The implication of which is that we ought not rip them from the womb, and do all we can to protect the weakest among us.

    Further, with all of the talk here on the matter of social justice for the weak and oppressed, I am thankful that someone has finally stated that no one is more weak and oppressed than an unborn child. Kudos. This is a great point.

    And please, stop making the false dichotomy that one has to choose between national security and pro-life. Please. This is a smoke screen. Name a pro-life candidate that is or would be soft on homeland security. The solution is for the GOP to put forward someone who is strong on both (as well as for lower taxes, less federal regulation and less federal government to begin with).

    Barry

    Faimon, I pray God gives Dobson a long, long life with greater and greater influence in American politics. His is a welcomed moral voice.

  19. Bryan L October 5, 2007 at 9:41 am #

    Again I’m for abortion being outlawed. I wonder though what would be the plan for taking care of all the unborn babies after they are born? Say abortion is made illegal and now you have an extra 1,000,000 (or whatever) kids being born every year. Great now how do we want to help those people who had babies they didn’t want or didn’t think they could take care of? What is the pro-life candidate/party’s goals for after they get abortion outlawed? What do they have in place. Is getting it outlawed the end of their goal? Are they just going to wing it when it comes? That sounds like the plan to topple Saddam. Great we overthrew him now what do we do?

    What is the church doing now besides depending on politics to make a difference? What is the church doing to help teenage moms who have kids, or prostitutes or drug addicts or single poor women who are having kids? Many don’t even want to step foot in churches because of the condemnation and judgment they feel. So what are churches doing now? Are churches starting free day care during the day just so people can work and not have to spend all their money on day care? Are they offering to pay for hospital bills and insurance? What about clothes and school supplies? Tutoring? College funds? Counseling? Mentors? How are they helping these moms in the long run besides just the first month after they have their baby? Is the church making this a priority? It must be as equal (if not more) a priority as ending abortion or else the “pro-life” talk is hollow. As many point out it just becomes pro-birth talk.

    I also think it is odd that many people don’t want anyone (especially the government) telling them what to do with their money, and then they want the government telling people what to do with their bodies. Weird.

    Blessings,
    Bryan L

  20. Carlito October 5, 2007 at 11:38 am #

    Bryan L, my friend, two wrongs don’t make a right. Is the church already failing in the causes that you listed (day care, counseling, mentors, etc.)? I don’t know, but some people would probably say yes. You raise a good point in that the church should take responsibility for those in need of these things rather than just expecting the government to take care of it all. However, I would argue that many churches already provide avenues for this type of service and I genuinely believe there would be many Christians willing to take on the challenge.

    My church currently supports a local non-profit organization that provides pregnancy testing, post-abortion support, a wide range of counseling services (to both men and women involved), and more. – http://www.hoperc.org/

    In this vein, I trust that God would raise up a people who would heed the call at a grassroots level to address the issues you listed. Remember, with God, ALL things are possible.

    Another thing we have to remember is that many abortions taking place are simply for convenience. This being said, support *could* be provided for the baby in some way (extended family care, etc.). You make it sound as if every single situation is a hopelessly desparate one in which the mother would be unable to care for the baby. I think the correct word here (not always, but in many cases) would be UNWILLING to care for the baby. Abortion as birth control is so rampant, it’s ridiculous. Because it’s so easy and so prevalent, a large number of abortions are performed simply because people don’t want to deal with the task of raising a child. If abortion wasn’t available as an option, I believe many women/couples would choose to keep their babies and come to realize the beautiful gift they’ve been given – and that the sacrifice to keep it was/is well worth it.

    Not only this, but there are many adoption lists that are quite lengthy. I wonder if there would be any way to make that a less costly process? Maybe churches could budget finances to couples who desire to adopt but can’t afford it? I’m just trying to point out that there are many options to address the “pro-birth” problems that would enter in should abortion be made illegal.

    Also, your last statement concerns me. This sounds like leftist liberal talk. First of all, it’s not *our* money, it’s God’s and we’re stewards of it. The same goes for *our* bodies. Our bodies are not our own – we’ve been bought with a great price. This statement uses words that shift the conversation away from the true victim of abortion. If this is indeed murder, there should be no talk of “freedom” or “choice”. Human beings (born or unborn) are guaranteed life by the Constitution. We’re commanded by Jesus to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s (taxes, gov’t leaders, etc); however, when innocent lives hang in the balance, we must seek justice, i.e. Micah 6:8.

    A good example is the life and testimony of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed because of his involvement in a revolt against Hitler during the height of the Holocaust.

    We would do well to learn some things from him.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Bryan L. Always good to go back and forth with you 🙂

  21. mike October 5, 2007 at 12:16 pm #

    bryan,

    I know of many churchs that are doing exactly what you described! Not to say that it is anywhere near the level that it needs to be, Yes it is true that the focus in most churches if far to centered on sending thier HS youth group to mexico, or puerto rico, but there are a great deal of churches that do take on the responsibility of caring for the destitute.

    Next, if abortions stopped RIGHT NOW, there are millions of Americans who CANNOT have children that would love to adopt.

    Not to mention slacking off of the issue of human lives for the simple fact that they would crowd us is completly lacking. Perhaps we should endorse China’s method of population control?

    And pro-lifers are not looking for the gov’t to control thier bodies! We’re not looking for a national dress code, nor a nationwide ban on tattoos, nor dietary limitations…. WE’RE ASKING FOR IT TO BE ILLEGAL TO KILL HUMAN BABIES!

  22. Barry October 5, 2007 at 12:35 pm #

    And while we’re piling on Bryan… 😉

    I am for the government’s protection of the body of that unborn baby. It is additional life, and that’s the point. One of the main reasons for government is the protection of its people. Is there a more dangerous place than the womb? Is Darfur or any Iraq hot spot more dangerous than a womb in America. A bit hyperbolic, but I hope one would see my point.

    Speaking of the government controlling our bodies, is anyone nervous about “Hillary Care 2.0”? Ha!

    Barry

  23. Bryan L October 5, 2007 at 12:46 pm #

    The point is Carlito that for all this talk about being pro life there really is no talk about what it means to be pro-life after the birth of a child. People just want to end abortions. They act like they care so much about these unborn babies. Apparently they do (enough to vote), but when it comes to caring for these babies that are born then where is the care? Yeah there is a few things here and there (as you pointed out) BUT IT’S NOT ENOUGH! No where near enough.
    Sure some people have abortions by convenience, but Christians are taking the convenient route themselves when all they’ll do is lift their finger to vote for their pro-life candidate and blog about their pro-life position, but won’t lift a finger to actually help those who have those babies. We are ready to tell people what they can’t do and pass laws forbidding them to do it but then when it comes to how those laws that take away those choices impact them later on then it’s none of our business or those people are suffering the consequences of their own choices!

    The church wants to get all huffy about all the children that have been murdered before being born and lead the cause against this unjust murder against those who can’t speak for themselves, but they could care less for them after they are born.

    Yeah lobby for your pro-life laws but dang it do something now to help people out. This is what Greg Boyd is always talking about. Stop depending on the government and politics to make a difference and start focusing your energies on the church making a difference. You don’t like the government taking your money for social welfare programs then stop leaving the caring of the needy to them! You don’t like the government putting their hands into everything then put them out of business! Instead of all these Christians pooling their resources and using their voice to fight against abortion politically start focusing all of our resources in uniting the church in providing other ways and showing people that if they have their baby there is someone here to help them for the next 18 years to raise that child that they didn’t want or couldn’t care for. Start now! Don’t wait for the future when we finally get our way!

    “However, I would argue that many churches already provide avenues for this type of service and I genuinely believe there would be many Christians willing to take on the challenge.”

    See this is the attitude of all of us “I’m sure someone else would be willing to do it.” Apparently not or else we wouldn’t need to bring it up. This tells me that we really don’t care about people or these babies that actually get born.

    “My church currently supports a local non-profit organization that provides pregnancy testing, post-abortion support, a wide range of counseling services (to both men and women involved), and more. -”

    And again we always want to give our money to someone else to do it. The churches don’t actually want to take the responsibility on themselves. They want to leave it to the experts.

    “In this vein, I trust that God would raise up a people who would heed the call at a grassroots level to address the issues you listed. Remember, with God, ALL things are possible.”

    Where are they? We are the church. We are the one’s God would raise up. In the end we’re all hypocrites (mostly. I’m speaking for myself). We say we care but we don’t. We care about our comfort and feeling righteous and holy and good. We think that voting for a pro life candidate makes a difference and we threaten to take our precious vote elsewhere if they don’t listen to us, but this is about the extent of our actual involvement. The other side is willing to have more of their money taken for social welfare programs and in the end that’s the extent of their actual involvement as well. Sure we can always point to that person we know or that group we know that goes above and beyond, but that’s it and that’s not enough. The more I talk about this and try to sound like I care the more I realize I don’t since I’m not willing to do the hard work to make an actual difference (and it’s worse when I make the excuse that it’s not my calling). If you’re going to be a one issue voter then show through your life that that one issue matters enough to you to significantly impact what you do and how you spend your time and resources. If you’re going to say you care for the poor and those in need then show through your life that the poor and needy matter enough to change how you live.

    I’m bowing out now as the longer I talk about this stuff and act like I care the more I realize I really don’t and am just being a hypocrite. I pray the Lord would change my heart…

    Thanks for the conversation.

    Blessings,
    Bryan L

  24. Brandon October 5, 2007 at 1:53 pm #

    Paul (#15,16),

    Justice Kennedy has not always “swung Pro-life”. In fact, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the most recent serious challenge to Roe, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Kennedy joined a plurality opinion with O’Connor and Souter that upheld Roe. Had Kennedy (or either of fellow Republican appointees O’Connor and Souter) decided against Roe, he would have been joined by Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, and White.

  25. Faimon October 5, 2007 at 2:16 pm #

    Sweet Clean Barry,

    You wrote on your own blog on July 14 of this year:

    “Any action taken (especially by the states, which is where the decision belongs) to reduce such a horrific procedure should be applauded, and I do applaud Governor Blanco and her signing this piece of legislation into law.”

    So then why must we support politicians who are deteremined to enforce this through the federal system? Would you support a candidate who was personally pro-choice but felt strongly that the issue should be left up to state governments?

    And yes, for any of you who are concerned, I am committedly pro-life.

    And yes, for any of you who might be concerned, I know Barry, and the address of this post is nothing more than a term of genuine, platonic affection.

  26. Carlito October 5, 2007 at 3:38 pm #

    Bryan L –

    I definitely understand where you’re coming from. And I agree that we all need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves where we can serve people and what we can do to further the Kingdom and show the love of Christ to a hurting world. There should always be that tension, because I know for myself that it’s easy to get lazy and just point fingers at the politicians. That is extremely convicting, no doubt about it.

    And, just for the record, my church has 2 people who work full-time at Hope Resource Center, and we’ve had several volunteers commit time to counseling and mentoring on an ongoing basis. I’ve actually participated in group discussions with unwed pregnant women & their boyfriends, and it’s been very rewarding. I plan to get more involved in the counseling program for the guys whose girlfriends/wives are being cared for @ HRC. This is a great reminder to stay the course on that front..

    BTW, I’m not trying to “toot” my own horn, I’m just saying that hands-on grassroots efforts like this are more common than you might think.

    Thanks for the passion, Bryan L. Good words.

    In Christ,
    =C=

  27. Don October 5, 2007 at 4:00 pm #

    Denny was right. No one person can end the abortion deal. It will take good supreme court judges to do that. It will have to be won in the S. Court. That means picking the right people. If Dobson runs from Rudy and now Thompson he is only looking for defeat. The left will win and pick another ruth bader ginsberg {fromer head of the aclu}.. Hey Dobson wake up your a smart guy….. Act it.

  28. mike October 6, 2007 at 8:49 am #

    Bryan,

    I’m sorry, It seems I was misunderstanding your point when I rebuttled. I read your post and took from it a position of “if babies die were ruined, if we let them life we’re ruined, so lets focus on other things.”

    I actually agree with you entirly that our focus should not be limited to enforcing legislation, and our comitment to a change in society SHOULD be two fold (for this issue not all issues). We should as the institution of God on earth, as the ambassadors of Jesus Christ, focus on the care and love of people who don’t deserve it, just like Jesus did for us, but in this issue we also need to seek out legislation to end abortion. Why? Jesus didn’t try to convert the gov’t did he? No, no He didn’t but Paul explains that the gov’t is there to punish the wicked and praise the righteous, and that it is an institution established by God for the sake of us (humans) (the classic text, ROM13). If the Gov’t is not fulfilling it’s purpose, something needs to change.

    No I don’t believe a coup is a viable option but, if we can, with voices in the political realm make an impact on the world why would we not focus energies on that. Not to the extent that we’re vocal yet lethargic (like most athiest’s are about God), but we need to be Vocal and Active.
    There was a point in time where the Church was a huge mover of persons, it had tremendous influence, it seems now we’re content to bicker over minor doctrines, and as long as our clique agrees we’re content at that.

    To address your main point, that of hypocracy, I am deeply mooved for the simple fact that I don’t know of anything I’ve done other than to voice my opinion to help this cause on any level, and I would be shocked if anyone on this blog has by any other method than throwing money at it, which seems to be the typical American Christian responce to suffering, “I’ll fund someone else to do the hard work, and remember it occasionally in prayer.”

    That pretty much sums me up, minus the finances part.

    Thanks for the good shaking,
    Mike

  29. Paul October 7, 2007 at 8:09 am #

    From the Conservative Voice…

    –Evangelical Christians are already beginning the process of selecting the Republican presidential candidate whom they can anoint as their successor to George W. Bush. Somehow, evangelicals have this deluded idea that President Bush is one of them. How they came to this delusion both fascinates and escapes me. Bush is anything but one of them. However, most evangelicals believe he is, and today it seems that illusion is greater than reality, anyway. Bush proves that more than anyone I have ever known. But enough about Bush.

    The question burning in the minds of evangelicals today is: Which Republican candidate for president will we anoint? There are several possibilities, but apparently Congressman Ron Paul is not one of them.

    For example, Jerry Falwell’s widely distributed National Liberty Journal, in its March 2007 edition, had a major section entitled “Campaign 2008-Identifying the Republican Presidential Candidates.” A total of ten Republicans made the Journal’s list. The ten listed were Sen. Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Sen. John McCain, Gov. George Pataki, Gov. Mitt Romney, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.

    However, even though Rep. Ron Paul has also formed a presidential exploratory committee (something Gingrich has not even done yet), his name was conspicuously absent from Falwell’s list. Why is this? Why do evangelicals ignore Ron Paul?

    Ron Paul received his Bachelor’s degree from Gettysburg College. He received his MD from Duke University. He began his OB/GYN career in 1968. He was also an Air Force Captain and a member of the Air National Guard.

    Ron Paul has served as a conservative congressman from Texas for over 16 years. He currently has a 100% rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably the most relevant and accurate reflection of a congressman’s true conservative record out there.

    Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul’s commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric. For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the “Sanctity of Life Act of 2005.”

    Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the evangelicals’ pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul’s pro-life bill.)

    In addition, Ron Paul has been the most outspoken defender of constitutional government in the entire congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and big government.

    Currently, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

    Speaking of the CFR, two of the U.S. senators listed as presidential candidates in Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Journal, Chuck Hagel and John McCain, are current members of the CFR.

    For his entire political career, Ron Paul has served foursquare upon the principles of constitutional (limited) government, less taxation, right to life, and personal liberty. Ron Paul is a conservative’s conservative, a principled constitutionalist of the finest order. How is it, then, that Jerry Falwell and other evangelicals ignore him?

    The answer to the above question is not easy to determine. Maybe today’s evangelicals are more concerned about being accepted by the GOP establishment than they are supporting principled, conservative candidates. After all, Paul’s willingness to openly oppose his own party has caused him to be blacklisted by party loyalists and apologists. Therefore, it might be that our illustrious evangelical leaders are unwilling to be identified with Paul lest they share the same ostracism.

    Another reason might be that today’s evangelicals are extremely shallow in their discernment. They seem to love Republican candidates who wear religion on their sleeve. Whether the candidate walks the walk does not seem to matter near as much as whether he talks the talk.

    Hence, evangelicals are already warming up to John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and even to Rudy Giuliani. Falwell’s National Liberty Journal (NLJ) calls Gingrich “a true American statesman.” McCain is called “pro-life.” Already, McCain has spoken for Dr. Falwell at his Liberty University. (Don’t be surprised if Falwell becomes one of McCain’s strongest proponents.) The NLJ quotes Evangelicals for Mitt as saying, “Gov. Romney . . . shares our values.” Of Giuliani, NLJ states, “On issues such as national security, battling terrorism and combating crime, Mr. Giuliani is very popular with conservatives.”

    However, the truth is, neither Gingrich, Giuliani, Romney, nor McCain deserves the support of principled conservatives. Each of these men has numerous examples of failure and compromise of essential conservative values.

    Another trap evangelicals seem to fall into is the puerile desire to “pick a winner.” Wanting to be sure that they are seen dancing with the last man on the floor, evangelicals are trying to figure out who that man will be so as to be ready to receive their invitation to the dance. And since they don’t expect to see Ron Paul issuing dance invitations, they have already written him off.

    However, rather than letting themselves be used as dupes by the GOP machine, if America’s evangelicals would determine to stand on principle by supporting only those candidates who most courageously champion our principles (regardless of their popularity, or lack thereof, with the Republican hierarchy), they might actually be able to bring real change to American politics.

    As it is, evangelicals continue to call George W. Bush “one of us,” they continue to drink Kool Aid from the faucet of Republican propaganda, and they continue to ignore Ron Paul.

    (c) Chuck Baldwin

  30. Lucas Knisely October 7, 2007 at 10:05 am #

    *copy*

    *paste*

    Thanks Chuck for that article disguised as a comment.

  31. Lucas Knisely October 7, 2007 at 10:06 am #

    err… I should say… thanks Paul. >:(

  32. paul October 7, 2007 at 12:18 pm #

    well, it is a comment. I think it’s nothing short of hilarious when all the republicans get into their knitting circles and fret over the lack of decent candidates when you’ve got one sitting right in front of you. If the social conservatives bolt because Rudy gets the nod when you could have supported Ron Paul in the first place, I will howl like I have rarely howled before. End of story.

Leave a Reply to Paul Cancel reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes