Posted on 01/27/2007 2:36:11 PM PST by EternalVigilance
http://www.mydd.com/bb#3611
Interview with Romney and his wife from 2002, before the conversion.
In googling around the web, the last solidly pro-abortion statement that I could find from Romney came in 2002. The first solidly pro-life statement that I could find came in 2005. This article says that his conversion began in 2004.
As a pastor, I definitely believe in the reality of conversions.
On the other hand, I also believe that someone could misrepresent such a thing for political purposes.
In religious conversions, I’m compelled to give the benefit of the doubt to the convert. In conversions to certain ways of thinking or seeing the world, even the world of faith, a person should at least get a hearing.
This is not a salvation-experience type conversion, yet it does have some religious dimensions to it, but I’m inclined to view it as a conversion to a new viewpoint. Romney deserves a fair hearing, but it seems ok to me to be honestly skeptical. Honest skepticism would be open to evidence that the conversion was real.
I have plenty of reasons to believe that Mitt Romney’s “road to Des Moines” conversion is a lie.
Here’s a couple:
1) He still says that it’s okay to kill embryos if they are “unwanted.”
2) He says that states should be able to allow abortion. Even in his latest incarnation, he doesn’t understand that Massachusetts babies have the same unalienable right to life that Utah babies possess.
But, even if you’re naive enough to buy his campaign rhetoric, you have to know that the scripture says “lay hands suddenly on no man.” New converts are not qualified to lead the flock.
Have Mitt Romney come back and talk to us when he’s paid some sort of personal political cost for being pro-life, or when he’s fought for life as long as he’s fought for abortion on demand. In other words, in about thirty-five years...
When did Mitt Romney push through and sign his socialized medicine plan, which is providing taxpayer-funded abortions today?
2006.
Actions speak louder than words.
Freddie:
1994: Endorsed by NRL
2007: Endorsed by NRL
Slick Willard:
2002: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the national abortion industry.
2007: “Money Can’t Buy Me Love”
As a pastor, I don’t expect a new convert to be able to verbalize Christian doctrine right out of the gate. It’s one thing to learn new info. It’s another to nurture it, ponder it, and make it yours.
There’s also the problem of the old way of living and thinking. Those are still the patterns that you are most trained in.
It is wise NOT to put an inexperienced, recent convert in charge of the church. They will say and do some of the dumbest stuff.
But, that doesn’t mean the conversion wasn’t real.
Above all, what I’d like to do is talk to the man myself. But, that will never happen, so I’ll never know. Anything else I’d see would be filtered through a political machine.
Those are all good points. I’m thinking more of changes of direction on policy matters, rather than conversions to Christianity, although there are some similarities.
You'll never know if a conversion is real until you can examine fruit - and the Lord Himself told us that our obligation is to do that.
And, again, there is no fruit to be found with Mitt Romney concerning life- only words.
And, again, there is bad fruit still apparent, ie the fact that he still refuses to acknowledge the God-given right to life of the innocent child in the womb - or even in the petri dish.
So what you are saying here...is you are fine with a guy who will say whatever it takes to get elected.
That's great........
molon labe
As Ann Coulter said. “I don’t care if someone flip-flops as long as they flop my way.”
Weasel is as weasel does.
PLEASE tell me you didn’t just say that Romney “fought gay marriage”.
And Mr. Romney's "timing" has been suspect.....
From his NRA membership to his, while Mass. Gov. 11th hour Sanctuary City "law"....etc..etc..
I repeat, his timing is suspect......
BWDIK!?!?!?
“We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.” —Ronald Reagan
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”
— Ronald Reagan, March 1, 1975
“Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group
of ideological purists trying to capture a majority.
Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert
its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable
left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold
elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue
and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any
ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found
among the enemies of freedom on the left or right — those who would
sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of
political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.”
http://reagan2020.us/speeches/The_New_Republican_Party.asp
If he thought abortion was murder he would be against using “unwanted” embryos to experiment on.
Yeah. But if they’re lying, the point is moot.
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.