Posted on 10/03/2007 12:35:32 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Back in May 2000, I learned firsthand that James Dobson is a tough man to please.
Dobson, the prominent Christian conservative who believes that his religious brethren have the God-given right to vet Republican presidential candidates, invited some political journalists to dine with him at his headquarters in Colorado Springs. As we silently forked our pasta salads, Dobson explained why he was so disappointed in frontrunner George W. Bush.
Bush, apparently, was not sufficiently conservative, because he had not yet categorically renounced the idea of choosing Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge as his running mate. Ridge was a defender of abortion rights, and this triggered Dobson's ire. Basically, he was threatening to bolt the GOP and take his followers (four million listeners, six million on his e-mail list) along with him.
That day, he told us: "A [party] that abandons the unborn child would send a significant number of people to look for another party to represent them. . . . It wouldn't take much. You cannot contradict, you cannot insult the base of your support. . . . I know the Christian community. I hear from 280,000 of them per month."
Bush, of course, did not choose Ridge, and Dobson stayed in the fold. But you get the idea. Dobson will vet only those GOP candidates whom he deems to be true believers. Political compromise is for the sinners.
Which brings us to the present moment, an unhappy one for Dobson - and for all his religious-right compatriots. They just can't seem to find an '08 Republican candidate who conforms to their ideals. And this is potentially significant, because Christian conservatives constitute roughly one-third of the GOP electorate; it's rough for a Republican to win a general election if that much of the base is dissatisfied.
Over the weekend, in Salt Lake City, the religious-right leaders conducted a private emergency meeting, in the hopes of sorting out the situation. Dobson reportedly flew in. The upshot: They're threatening to bolt the GOP and urge their followers to do the same if abortion-rights defender Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination next year. They signed onto a resolution stating that, "if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate, we will consider running a third-party candidate."
Democrats, of course, would be thrilled if Dobson and his friends followed through on their threat. But that prospect is a long way off. What's noteworthy right now is that religious-right leaders are dividing into two camps: the purists and the pragmatists.
The purists, in search of a savior, find fault with most of the current GOP crop. Many of them dislike former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, for instance, because he once did some lobbying for an abortion-rights group, because he seems insufficiently committed to supporting a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and because he seems insufficiently churchgoing. As Dobson railed in a recent e-mail to his followers, "He has no passion, no zeal. . . . And yet he is apparently the great hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
(Here's where it gets really complicated: Some of the purists do like Thompson and believe that Dobson is being unfair.)
Anyway, the purists don't like Giuliani either, for the aforementioned reason, and because he has a messy personal history. They don't like Arizona Sen. John McCain because he has warred with the religious-right leaders in the past. And they're wary of Mitt Romney, because of their suspicions of his Mormon faith, and because Romney now professes to be for their issues, after years of being against their issues.
But the religious-right leaders can't even agree among themselves on how to proceed. The pragmatists include Gary Bauer, who joined the weekend summit by phone and reportedly warned that he and his colleagues should refrain from infighting, lest the nation wind up with Hillary Clinton in the White House. On the other hand, Bauer also made some purist noises, by agreeing with his colleagues that if an abortion-rights defender wins the nomination, "it will blow up the GOP."
At this point, there's probably only one thing that Giuliani can do to tamp down this incipient revolt. He'll probably need to address the assembled religious-right leaders and conveniently arrange for his cell phone to ring midway through:
"Excuse me, let me get this. . . . 'Hello? Hiiiiiii . . . Well, I'd love to talk, but I'm kind of busy right now. . . . Can't wait to talk to you privately, just you and me. . . . Yes, I love our relationship, too. . . . Love you, bye.' . . . Sorry for the interruption, folks. That was God."
Then how come just three verses after the "Judge not" verse you cited, Jesus says 'Do not give what is Holy to dogs and cast not pearls before swine..." Sounds like some discretion being called for. Jesus does say Judge Not but he also calls on us to be fruit inspectors.
We don’t owe the Republicans our support. They have to earn it each election for each candidate. If they want Rudy Guiliani or John McCain to lead the country, then they obviously don’t want my vote.
Remember, this is the PRIMARY season. Rudy’s gone as far to the right as he’s gonna go. If he gets the nomination, he’s gonna be scurrying left as quick as he can.
What a crock this is not about the persons religious beliefs its about their stance on abortion. If you, by True Believer, mean someone who defends the unborn then yes. But the implication of the language is 'you must be an evangelical Christian' and most Christian voters don't feel that way.
I could vote for a person of any, or no faith so long as their poistions agreed with mine, no matter how they cam to them.
Good question but here is the insanely funny answer. 1992 had nothing to do with the 'religious right' it had everything to do with NAFTA and the republicans pissing on another pillar of the party. The GOP might as well face the fact they are basically just a coalition party and try to pick someone that all members can be somewhat happy with and, that aint Rudy and its probably not Mitt.
Ahhh taking a verse out of context, how nice..
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. "
Not two versus later its pretty clear that 7:1 was not a prohibition on all judgments but a clarification of the weight through which judgment should be passed and the cost to the individuals passing it.
If we ignore this and look at verse 7:1 alone we get the liberal conclusion of *everything is ok with God so long as its ok with me*
OK.
Non-Christians most often misapply Matthew 7:1, using it as a club to keep Christians from trying to stand up for their values.
Christian (men) perhaps most often misapply the verse about wives submitting, although frankly I don’t recall a single sermon or discussion in which the obligations of both husband and wife were not discussed together. Speaking as a Christian husband, I am well aware of my obligations in this regard.
The command to love one’s wife is not a directive to feeel a certain way, which would be illogical. It is a command to maintain a certain attitude towards her.
My comment about irrelevancy was that Dobson would not be violating Christ’s command here unless he exempts himself from being held to the same high standard he applies to Rudy. As far as I am aware, this is not the case.
It's neither pragmatic nor principled to support a candidate or a party that doesn't advance one's most important issues.
I think it’s a safe bet the one thing in the entire universe a Christian will never be allowed to forget by non-christians is Matthew 7:1.
EXCELLENT!!!!
“We had 8 years of President Bill Clinton because...”
some of us read a mans “lips” and he friggin’ lied to us.
“and its probably not Mitt.”
To be fair, it might have been Mitt a couple years ago....or it could be him in a few more years....just depends on the issue and the office he’s running for....just what is it that you need him to “believe” and he’ll “believe” it.
lol
Every voter 'vets' the candidates. What's new?
It's also a safe bet that they haven't read the context of the passage, nor have the read the remaining passages on judging (i.e. John 7:24 where we are told to judge rightly) so as to fully understand what Jesus was talking about.
out
standing
well
said
the only verse they ever memorize!
...except for “God helps those who helps themselves”.
Which, of course is not IN the Bible.
That quote actually originated from a jubuliant youthful Bill Clinton muttering that was overheard while visiting an Arkansas Serority party in the mid ‘60’s
push Duncan Hunter to the top of the heap
***That’s what I think he should do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.