I Am A Conservative Christian, And The Religious Right Scares Me

Constitution Party National Website ^ | 12/15/2004 | Chuck Baldwin

[jonestown]

Baldwin wrote:

Of course, the sad truth is, neither George W. Bush nor the Republican Party in Washington, D.C. represents genuine conservative principles.
If they did, they would take their oaths to the Constitution seriously and then neither liberals nor conservatives would have anything to fear, for the U.S. Constitution protects the rights and freedoms of all men.

Can anyone refute the above?

[T.L.Sink]

Bob - thanks for the clarification. Did you see my remarks
relative to your dialogue with Sashah. I forgot to mention
that a criticism of Muslims is not "racist." There are
about a billion Muslims globally -- black, caucasion, Asian, and everything else. These sub-ethnic categories
even exist WITHIN single nations. Using the term "racist"
is like any ad hominem attack that employs a loaded
label to silence an opponent's rational argument. I wish
I had mentioned that to her myself. All best,

[BobL]

"I forgot to mention that a criticism of Muslims is not "racist."

Yep - outstanding post (again). Good point on the racism smear. I'm so used to it with the Muslim apologists that it sails right over my head. To me it's no different than being called a racist for opposing the KKK, since the KKK is primarily white (i.e., I'm anti-white because I oppose the Klan). If what one says is accurate and supportable, it's not racism, it's the truth.

The Jews in Germany, prior to WW2, were not the monsters that the Nazis called them - meaning the Nazis were racist. Muslims today have a LOT to answer for. The first thing being why the non-violent rank and file continue to defend that 'religion', considering what the leadership espouses. If I belonged to an organization because, say, they oppose affirmative action, but later they start using the "N" word and burning crosses - I'm outta there! immediately. I'm not going to make excuses for that behavior, no matter how much I may think that I've been wronged.

I'm still waiting for that mass-exodous from Islam. So far, no sign. Thus, I will continue to accurately critique them.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Can it be judged as a worthless article considering the size of your commentary regarding the subject?

Yes it can. The size of my commentary regarding the subject has no bearing on the worth or lack thereof of the article. If I wrote 1000 pages on this article would that make it even "more worthwhile" in your eyes?

[LPM1888]

Chuck Baldwin is pastor at a church near my home in Pensacola. He is very well known and respected in our area as a Conservative Christian.

[cougar_mccxxi]

"If I wrote 1000 pages on this article would that make it even "more worthwhile" in your eyes?" -Dr. Frank fan

Abosolutely it would, and continues to be obviously.

[watchdog_writer]

you can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

So you voted for Kerry?

[LPM1888]

you can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

So you voted for Kerry?

No, I held my nose and voted for Bush.

Here are some links that reference Dr. Chuck Baldwin and the Crossroads Baptist Church that you deny exists. His credentials as a Conservative are well established and your denial cannot make him disappear. As for me, I'm a Conservative from the Goldwater era. That was when being Conservative meant more than just being a party hack for the GOP.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin138.htm

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php

http://www.kidsnewsroom.org/election2004/Peroutka.html

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=180

[Dr. Frank fan]

Abosolutely it would, and continues to be obviously.

Let me know if/when you ever wish to advance an actual argument for something. Bye

[Digger]

I used to like Chuck in some of his articles just because he wasn't a follower of the republican party regardless. However, this article is just plain nuts. I must reinterate that this nation needs a 3rd or 4th viable party. This Republican party gets elected pols because there is no viable option & they both won't allow another to flourish. Stale old ideas, mismanagement at all levels are the result of no competition.

[Calif Conservative]

Your insightful reply was as follows:

>Ok, here we go :)

>Item 1, state, not federal issue.

>Item 2, state, not federal issue.

>Item 3, good luck Mr. President.

>Item 4, state, not federal issue.

>Item 5, Time will tell; maybe the Russians have some insight on this one.


Whoa, Nellie! I thought you were a man of the cloth, and able as such, to look at these as moral issues.

I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you, that with all of your moralizing, you worry about technical niceties as to whether it is a state or a federal issue.

I didn't ask you whether the issues were directly addressed by the Constitution. I asked you what your own position is on these matters.

Or are you, like the Pharisees of the time of Jesus, merely a hypocrite who hides behind legal technicalities to avoid the important issues of the day? Are you the type of preacher who twists and turns the law into a pretzel for the expedient of sending an innocent man to a crucifixion?

In another time and place, would your hero have been Caiphas or St. Peter?

Let's presume -- at least for a few more moments -- that you're much closer to Peter than Caiphas. I have my suspicions, but let's see if you actually reply this time.

So I'll ask again...

Do you believe that partial birth abortions should be legal or illegal in the state or nation in which you reside?

Do you believe homosexual marriage should be legal or illegal in the state or nation in which you reside? Is marriage something that occurs between a man and a woman only? What do you, as a leader of one of Our Lord's flock -- which surely you must be if you are who you claim to be -- believe in this case?

Do you favor or oppose judicial nominees who interpret the existing Constitution rather than legislate to correct perceived defects in the Constitution?

Do you favor or oppose expansion of stem-cell research when that research involves termination of fetuses? (I'm trying to use politically correct language here, since I suspect that approach will increase your comfort level)

And regarding your position on the president's decision to topple Saddam Hussein, I didn't ask the Russians. I asked you. What do YOU think of it?

So, reverend, don't be a Pharisee. Avoid hypocrisy, if you can. Be a real man of the cloth and speak your mind.

-George

[T.L.Sink]

I agree with everything you said in your post. Did you get
a chance to check out my mail to Sashah (1/3, #119)? I'd
be curious to know your reaction. David Horowitz in his
book, "Unholy Alliance", discusses the link between the
Left and the Islamofascists - very interesting. You said
(ironically) that you were still waiting for the "mass-
exodus" from Islam. Actually, countries like France (and
other European countries) are experiencing a massive influx
of Muslims to such an extent that given their declining birthrates they soon will be minorities. Let's see how
the sanctimonious Euros deal with their new status -- the
fun is already beginning in Holland!

[BobL]

... I'd be curious to know your reaction...

Since you ask...as I see it the Left views this country as follows:

1) We are invincible and we are the bad guys. No enemy will every destroy us, because we have no enemies. Rather, countries like the Soviet Union are only responding to our aggressiveness. Thus, no need for a military. Same with the Muslims, they really don't hate us - rather they are again responding to our aggressiveness. If we didn't antagonize them, they would leave us alone - but we continue to antagonize.

2) We are too powerful. We need to be brought down a few notches. Since we don't have any enemies intent on destroying us, then why are we so strong (both economically and militarily)? Since the Muslims are willing to do the dirty work required to bring us down a few notches, you get the alliance (Liberal/Muslim).

If you don't feel that your way of life is threatened by the Muslims (or anyone else, for that matter), then you can basically choose whoever is available to help accomplish your goals. Since the Soviet Union is gone, the Muslims are the next best thing.

That's my take.

[cougar_mccxxi]

Now now, you are just being silly.

Here is the actual text of the message you sent me...

Your complaints are vague and some are straight out of Far Left conspiracy theories.

So let's see if you'll be more specific:


What do you think of President Bush's push to make partial birth abortions illegal? Should they be legal?

What do you think of President Bush's concerns about homosexual marriage? Is marriage between a man and a woman only?

What do you think of the president's judicial nominees? (He is re-submitting the 20 the Democrats obstructed)

What do you think about the president's position on stem-cell research?

What do you think about the president's decision to topple Saddam Hussein?

-George



Nowhere in your post to me did you ask my opinion of the topics. You asked what I thought about the Presidents stands, decisions and positions regarding the topics, hence my response as to whom the decisions regarding those issues truly should be made by. Yet you claim I am hiding like a hypocrite...very strange.

You are becoming sloppy presenting your ideas by not paying attention to the context of even your own posts. Also, the personal attacks against me are not necessary; they reveal your true lack of character.

Since you seem to conratradict yourself even in your second post I find no reason to waste my time giving you my personal opinions on the issues. I have already responded once in a manner that should have been plain as day and thats the best I can do for you.

I wish you good luck.

[Calif Conservative]

Well, Rev., by you ducking the questions, yet again, at least you cleared up one thing: It's no longer necessary to take you seriously.

The real question is whether it was ever necessary for anyone to take you seriously about anything. ;)

-George

[T.L.Sink]

Right again - that is definitely the Left's approach:
"What did we do wrong?" " It's our fault for being the
world's superpower." "We have to learn how to make them
like us and stop being the bully." Etc., We saw the
same attitude during the Cold War - but thank God there
were people like Reagan who knew evil and tyranny and
saw its terrible consequences -- when it was right in
front of all our eyes!

[BobL]

I think we're lock-step on this. Now we just have another 299,999,998 people to convince.

[cougar_mccxxi]

Nice try, but the west coast wit is falling prey to common sense. You tried to change the subject and score some sort of perverted intellectual victory; sorry, missed again.

Your turn :)

[cougar_mccxxi]

You asked me a question, I gave you reply. No argument, just the facts.

[Dr. Frank fan]

No argument

You said it.

just the facts.

What "facts" are those exactly. That this article is worthwhile because I wrote a retort to it? Well, that's right I suppose: it's worthwhile for dumping on, as amusement. Good point. (If I printed it out I could use it as toilet paper; it could be worthwhile that way too.)