Posted on 03/19/2007 8:40:14 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
As they court the evangelicals who have become so crucial to their party, Republican presidential candidates are stepping into the middle of a family fight.
Christian conservative activists are more split than ever over whether to keep the movement's focus on abortion, marriage and sexual chastity -- or scrap that approach as too narrow.
The founders of the religious right, now in the twilight of their leadership, see even the suggestion of expanding the agenda as a dangerous distraction. In public, and sometimes in personal ways, they are trying to beat back the challenge.
"It's an ongoing debate within the house of evangelicals," said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative Washington think-tank. "It's about how evangelicals present themselves in the public arena."
In November, some Christian conservatives condemned pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren for inviting Sen. Barack Obama to speak at an AIDS summit at his church. Obama, campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, supports abortion rights.
Just this month, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and 24 other top Christian conservatives pressured the National Association of Evangelicals to silence its Washington director, the Rev. Rich Cizik. The reason: Cizik tried to convince evangelicals that global warming is real.
The board of the association not only stood by Cizik, it then moved on to endorse a critique of U.S. policy toward terror detainees called "An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture: Protecting Human Rights in an Age of Terror." Evangelicals, who mostly have a conservative world view to match their theology, rarely speak out against the policies of a Republican president -- especially one at war.
It's unclear who will win the evangelical power struggle, but Michael J. Gerson, a former speechwriter for President Bush, says candidates in the 2008 race must consider the divisions when crafting an appeal to evangelicals. According to national exit polling, white evangelicals or born-again Christians were about one-quarter of the electorate in 2004. Nearly 80 percent voted for Bush.
"I think there is a little bit of an element of revolt against the tone of some political engagement of the religious right in the past, which seemed quite harsh," says Gerson, who supports taking on a broader set of issues.
"I think conservative candidates for president are going to have to have a strong international agenda of compassion, whether it's AIDS or malaria or girls' education or other issues, in order to appeal to a significant portion of evangelical opinion."
The one leading presidential contender who appears to comprehend this, Gerson says, is Obama. The Democratic senator's appearance at Warren's AIDS conference demonstrates that.
Yet it would be wrong to dismiss the older generation and its tighter focus just yet.
Even though the Moral Majority is gone and the Christian Coalition is floundering, the Revs. Jerry Falwell, 73, and Pat Robertson, 76, who formed the groups, still have clout.
Falwell's Liberty University is thriving, educating thousands of conservative Christians. Robertson still has his TV ministry. And the American Center for Law & Justice, which Robertson founded to advocate for religious freedom, is popular in conservative circles.
Focus on the Family Founder James Dobson, 71, only recently started a political advocacy group, but has quickly become one of the most influential evangelicals in that area.
GOP candidates, many lacking strong evangelical backgrounds, have been flocking to the men.
Arizona Sen. John McCain gave last year's commencement address at Liberty University. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are scheduled to soon speak at Robertson's Regent University.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich just went on Dobson's radio program to confess and seek forgiveness for an extramarital affair as Gingrich pursued President Clinton's impeachment in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Gingrich is considering a presidential run and will be Liberty's commencement speaker in May.
"These figures are moving off the stage, but they're by no means inconsequential. They're symbols in their own right," said John Green, a senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. "They still have good reputations, particularly with evangelicals who are politically active. There are candidates who want to be seen with these people."
Still, none of the men can be kingmaker -- delivering the evangelical vote and the GOP nomination to a favored candidate. The organizational muscle of the movement -- once controlled by national groups linked to Falwell, Robertson and a few others -- now lies with local pastors, who were key to Bush's 2004 re-election win. A large number of Christian conservatives have become GOP insiders; white evangelicals form more than one-third of the party's base.
Divisions among evangelicals will matter less after a nominee emerges.
Recent history has shown that conservative Christians generally back the Republican in the general election. Many feel they have no alternative.
At least until then, presidential candidates have a complicated road ahead.
"It's an extraordinarily positive step and development for Christian conservatives," said Martin, a Rice University sociologist. "It's a sign not of weakness but of maturity."
This article said nothing about the defection of large numbers of evangelicals in the 2006 elections. Evangelicals are obviously thinking more independently and taking into account factors other than social conservatism.
What in your opinion is that narrow focus?
"They need to grow up and realize that much of the country isn't as puritannical as they are."
And that free thinking is exactly why the country is in the shape it's in!
I disagree, puritanical is one thing, principled is another, either one does or one does not, and by sticking by those principles, one gains "c-r-e-d-i-b-i-l-i-t-y"
Something that Czirk (of Haggard's organization)and Warren do not have as of yet, they are merely dressing socialism as their "issues" or "go along to get along".
Nonsense, the R's fumbled badly in 2006, between Foley and the corruption scandals, prinicpled people will just stay home.
Maybe the rest of the country should be.
It seems to me you need to grow up, and learn what the Puritans really advocated. And to realize that the very foundations of the greatness of this country were based upon "puritannical" ideals. And the degredation of this country has been because of the loss of "puritannical" ideals
The Terri Schiavo debacle, for one thing. Making abortion the sole issue over whom to vote for. Saying you'd rather see a Democrat win rather than hold your nose because you're standing up for your "Convictions." Supporting the futility of the so-called Drug War. General snobbishness and holier-than-thou attitudes which turn people off in a democratic society.
No, this country was based on Enlightenment ideals. The Puritans were hardly paragons of democracy.
If I am reading WVR correctly...this:
There is a rift in the GOP right now, and I have made this point on FR - that modern-day conservatism, which is to say, conservatism over the last 8 or so years...has become "be pro-life and that's all you need" which results in, basically, pro-life socialists. This turns off the part of the Republican Party and the more libertarian part of the conservative movement that is more concerned about fiscal, economic, small-government, and, even defense issues.
Even most moderately conservative types don't OBJECT to social conservatism, but social conservatism ALONE isn't going to cut it for them, either. Many of them are in fact socially conservative too, but that's not enough for them. There are two main parts and without one, the other won't survive, either. They'll be fine with a social conservative as long as that person has fiscal, economic, and pro-American views also to their liking. The reverse is also true - that conservatives who focus on the social issues aren't hostile to the fiscal and small-government policies...as long as the social issues are acceptable.
Guys like Sam Brownback, and, I hate to admit, President Bush, have come to think that as long as they're pro life and anti gay marriage, that it's OK to be a big spending Socialist, and it's not - that's NOT conservatism.
Before someone thinks I'm a pot-smoking libertarian, I'm not - I'm pro-life, against gay marriage, and an overall social conservative, but I'm no Jerry Falwell, either. You can support basic traditional values without having to force it down the country's throat by Big Brother legislation...such as the online gambling ban...(yeah, I know it wasn't a BAN but it was a ban on the funding of the accounts...) which is one reason I think the GOP fell out of favor in 2006.
We can't reincarnate Ronald Reagan, but we can look at his basic approach to conservatism - have a background of basic, American-values social conservatism that's strong enough for evangelicals to accept but not Falwell-esque so as not to turn off the libertarian wing...a strong, patriotic pro-American stance, and a fiscal and economic platform that is low-tax and pro-business, but still shows respect for the "little guy" at the same time.
Are you saying you would like to see people give up their religion? It's amazing to me that we have to bend over backwards to be respectful of every little group - but when it comes to Christianity - we're expected to give it up & "go with the flow".
What we need are MORE people willing to stand up for their beliefs. I'm tired of being told that I need to change my religion - how offensive is that?
If I were a liberal I'd tell you to give up your religion. As a common sense conservative I would ask that you not make your religion the only acceptable criteria for being a conservative.
I'm an evangelical, and it's not that I don't want to focus on issues like global warming; it's just that I think global warming is a crock of ****. I think it's an important issue, but I'm on the side fighting *against* the collectivist ecotards. There's no logical reason that if evangelicals broaden our focus we'd end up on the lefty side of *any* issues, and I'm tired of that assumption. I'm an evangelical and I'm conservative up and down the line of issues, and I see no contradiction whatsoever in my worldview.
No thanks.
"Make sure that no one traps you and deprives you of your freedom by some secondhand, empty, rational philosophy based on the principles of this world instead of on Christ." Colossians 2:6-8
"Just this month, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and 24 other top Christian conservatives pressured the National Association of Evangelicals to silence its Washington director, the Rev. Rich Cizik. The reason: Cizik tried to convince evangelicals that global warming is real.
And they were right for doing so.
"This people honors me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me. The worship they offer me is worthless; the doctrines they teach are only human regulations." (Matt.15:8-9).
Applies to Cizik types. Stick to preaching the gospel, stay out of politics and the junk science. Worship the creator not the creation. "You must not love this passing world or anything that is in the world. The love of the Father cannot be in any man who loves the world...because the world, with all it craves for, is coming to an end..." (1 Jn.2:15-17).
That End is precisely what Christ came to warn us about,the day of Judgment when the world is going to be utterly and completely destroyed. Nothing can prevent that destruction.
The Lord created an escape and is holding the devastation back (just like He held back the two walls of water of the Red Sea for Moses and the Israelites when they fled Egypt) until everyone who wants to be rescued is rescued.
He can rescue us from the Wrath, but He cannot prevent this deadly vengeance from occurring. There is a time set for that occasion and it is a moveable time, predicated on our own behavior. But it is inevitable.
The earth is doomed by wickedness. The prophets have all borne witness to this:
"On the day of the anger of God, in the fire of his jealousy, all the earth will be consumed. For he means to destroy, yes, to make an end of all the inhabitants of the earth." (Zeph.1:18).
Because as promised Christ will return. The rule of Christ on earth has only one meaning. That meaning is God's intent to remove us from this wicked world. Jesus did not come to set up a future utopia on this planet. The perfect reign of Christ is in heaven (Rev.20:4), not on earth.
"After I have gone and prepared you a place, I shall return to take you with me..." (Jn.14:3).
We can clearly see the end times happening now with the political and social acceptance of rebellious and immoral behavior. We can see the impact of this vividly in the appeasement of the churches as their various leaderships acquiesce to the changing morality of the people. Their argument is that if they do not compromise the Gospel by making these concessions, they will not stay relevant.
With an eye on public opinion then, they are redefining sin, turning wickedness into a new kind of morality and claiming that their actions are the will of God. But scripture declares that such actions are fatal.
"There is a way that some think right, but it leads in the end to death." (Prov.16:25). And "The priests teach whatever they please and my people love it! But when the end comes, then what will you do?" (Jer.5:31).
"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness...For this, as stubble is prey for the flames and as straw vanishes in the fire, so their root will rot, their blossom be carried off like dust, for rejecting the Law of God Almighty, and despising the word of the Holy One of Israel." (Is.5:20-24).
"...to those who have been corrupted and lack faith, nothing can be pure -- the corruption is both in their minds and in their consciences. They claim to have knowledge of God but the things they do are nothing but a denial of him; they are outrageously rebellious and quite incapable of doing good." (Tit.1:15-16).
"I know quite well that when I have gone, fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them. So be on your guard..." (Acts 20:29-30).
"Remember the maxim: 'Keep to what is written." (1 Cor.4:6).
Besides this country wasn't to be a democracy. It was a democratic republic.
All this discussion of "Christian" and not one Word of "Christ".
OK new tagline...
And I'll continue to support the "so called ' drug war. It saves countless lives. That doesn't matter to YOU though, does it. Lets just open the flood gates wide open and let our children have even more acess to drugs that detroy their lives, kill them. Lets send that singnal that- it's really ok, go ahead, get stoned- it's fun.
I'll also continue to stand up and demand the moral principles this nation was founded on be maintained, and in cases restored. It is exactly the crumbling of this foundation that is taking this nation to ruin. To bad you just can't see that.
If it continues, one day soon you will see the error of your thinking. The trouble is, it will be too late by then. You will get to enjoy the wonders of the Marxist dictatorship that replaces our freedom first however, and watch the suffering and death before total ruin settles in. There are plenty of fallen empires of history on which you can make reasonable predictions of the misery and death that goes along with crumbling empires.
We will not change our ways for our God will not change His ways. Politics is not even a close second to God who comes first to us...and this comes from someone who has been very passionate about politics for decades.
The GOP continuing to move away from "us" and our values does so at its own peril.
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.