So do you really hold disdain for those who place the dictates and laws of God above secular ambitions? Millions of Christians are just supposed to throw up their arms and say, "God can wait, we have to defeat Hillary!"?
Let me ask you, when does this browbeating end of those who state they'll vote their conscience and stand by their principles? Tell me, what happens post-Hillary? Do you honestly believe a like-minded liberal won't replace her in 2012, 2016, 2020...? Are we just supposed to accept the status quo and fall in line every four years, abandon our deep-held beliefs, and vote for a non-conservative candidate solely on the premise to defeat the evil liberal?
You can call Christian conservatives 'foolish' and hold as much disdain for them as you wish, because they are in pretty good company when it comes to knowing what's not only truly important, but what this country is in dire need of.
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible
"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" --- George Washington
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them" --- Jedediah Morse
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. Weve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God --- James Madison
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever --- Thomas Jefferson
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers --- John Jay
"Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged --- Ronald Reagan
( I believe your argument for doing so isn't even consistent with your stated values: voting for hillary is the ultimate act against life.)
"voting for Hillary"? I won't bother to rebut this ludicrous insult.
My feelings for the CC or anyone on the right who would place a de facto vote for hillary...
No, it is you, and all who will vote for a liberal-republican, who will be placing a de facto vote for HRC. As I said before, prepare to reap what you sow.
NOTE: I am not arguing for Giuliani here. I am not arguing for a secularist. What I am arguing for is VOTING FOR HILLARY'S OPPONENT, WHOEVER THAT PERSON MAY BE. (It may be a conservative or moderate, it may be a Christian, it may be an Italian or a Jew. It may be pro-life or it may be pro-choice. I don't care which.)
You're not being up front here. You have stated that you do not believe a conservative, a true conservative, (and by definition that would be one who is pro-life), can beat HRC. You said it regarding the senate race in NY and you said regarding a potential race for the presidency. You've stated that a pro-life candidate would surely lose vs. HRC. Of course, though, you are wrong.
I'd be interested to know though, do you, personally, believe abortion to be the killing of a human life? And the question's relevant, as it's answer will explain your mindset, hence some reasoning to your thought process.
What I am trying to say is that it would be the height of irresponsibility to place a de facto vote for hillary clinton.
I agree. So be responsible and vote for the conservative in the GOP primaries that will go on to defeat HRC in the general election. See, it really isn't as difficult as you seem to strive to make this out to be.
As for 1776 or 1812, total annihilation wasn't a possibility, so I put those eras aside.
And how exactly are we now in danger of "total annihilation? My examples of 1776 and 1812 are very germane, (I notice you passed over the Soviet threat in the 1980s. Perhaps the GOP should have elected Phil Crane or Howard Baker instead of that pesky, Bible believing, pro-life Reagan). The British, if they'd had been victorious, would have shot or hung a good percentage of Americans, especially males. Those left alive would have suffered a fate much akin to the Irish in the 17 c. under Cromwell.
In the cold war, MAD and a nuclear bipolar world maintained rational actors and limited threat.Today's post-9/11 world, OTOH, is asymmetric, not rationally based and the threat is unlimited.
I apologize, but I don't the faintest clue what this means. (In other words, you're talking over my head.)
Post-clinton, post-Watson and Crick, anyone can put together an A-bomb or a dirty bomb or a biological WMD. And with global travel, anyone can place it anywhere. And the islamofascist terrorists want to do all of it.
1. This doesn't translate into "total annihilation"
2. Vote for the conservative candidate in the GOP primary and you won't have to worry if I'm wrong in number 1.
So, I don't agree with your premise that the era of terrorism has an analog in history.
OK.
I hope you can excuse my bluntness and somewhat aggitated state. I don't take too kindly to myself, and millions of others, being labled "foolish" because we've the audacity to think God's way just might be correct.
It seems we agree on the destination, but at odds on what roadmap to use in getting there.
|