In a nutshell what evangelism should be about, not politics. In what is supposed to be a secular type of country, where no one religion controls the government, we have the some in the religious right believing they can control politics.
Those pesky Christians should just keep quiet. You’d like that, I think. It’s not going to happen.
“In a nutshell what evangelism should be about, not politics. In what is supposed to be a secular type of country, where no one religion controls the government, we have the some in the religious right believing they can control politics”
And we have some on the anti-religious left believing they can abolish Christians to the dust bins of history.
What does being an evangelist have to do with religion controlling government? On the contrary, the First Amendment guarantees outright religious freedom. No citizen of the U.S. should be stifled from giving his/her religious views. Religious control would occur if the Congress, e.g., passed a bill requiring citizens to acknowledge a particular church/religion.
Original state Constitutions required office holders swear an allegiance to Jesus Christ or Christianity.
That being stated, I disagree with Dobson. Fred Thompson is the only conservative with a chance to win the GOP nomination.
***what evangelism should be about, not politics.***
Washington D.C. is what salesmen would call a “rocking chair district” for the devil.
(Which means no competition, easy pickings.)
We as Evangelicals shouldn’t give in to that, we should vote, blog, sent $, etc.
But, we need to remember the truly dark forces that control that area, and carefully chose between consumate EVIL (HRC), and lesser evils (just about anything the pubs have).
Dobson got this one wrong.
I might agree that Dobson’s words were ill-advised, but evangelicals have a right to their opinions too. I am one, and I do not check my faith at the door when it’s time to talk politics.
“In a nutshell what evangelism should be about, not politics. In what is supposed to be a secular type of country, where no one religion controls the government, we have the some in the religious right believing they can control politics.”
Dr. Dobson, unlike Billy Graham, has never been about “evangelism” per se. He is about issues that affect families....a POTUS and the things he does affects family.
America, in its founding, never said it was a “secular type” of government - in the sense that Judeo/Christain morality and values would not be enshrined in law - only in the later half of the 20th Century did this start to change. It was implicitly understood that the U.S. was a “Christian” nation. What was made clear by the 1st Ammendment was that there would be NO COMPULSARY taxes on persons to fund a “state” church like the Church of England. All Christian denominations (and other faiths) could freely practice their beliefs without persecution from a “state church” - which was what Jefferson was taking about when he said “Wall of Separation.” The first ammendment was to protect Christians from the government intervention, not to limit Christians from influencing elections. One doesn’t give up the basic rights of citizenship (voting and expressing opinions) when he/she becomes a Christian or something else.
As far as the “religious right” believing they can control politics. Well, they have, can, and will continue to do so. This group is the current foundation of the base of the Republican Party.
Now, is Dr. Dobson correct in his statement. Personally, I don’t know. Why did he make such a statement...again I don’t know. I would venture it is for one or all of the below:
(1) He thinks Thompson is all show or doesn’t like his cavalier disregard of the Christian Right. Thompson is likeable, but he is not openly “Christian” in his ways.
(2) He has someone he thinks is better choice for the nomination - remember he seemed to really like Gingrich earlier this year. Or maybe he would rather see Hunter or Shelby as nominee.
(3) He senses a desparation to win at all costs in the RNC rank and file, and it concerns him. He may not actually dislike Thompson, just doesn’t want people to see him as some “white knight.”
(4) He knows something about Thompson that concerns him.
Whatever, I have observed Dr. Dobson a long time, and I’m not going to castigate him because he doesn’t jump on a popular band wagon. As I stand right now, I will vote for Thompson in the primary, but I am open to hearing what Dr. Dobson thinks before casting that vote.
Without the religious right, it is hard to fathom how Reagan was elected.