Posted on 09/26/2007 5:49:53 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
Thompson's refusal to back a nationwide ban on gay marriage has irritated potential supporters.
Fred Thompson is failing to meet expectations that he would rally widespread support from Christian conservatives, and he almost certainly will not receive a joint endorsement from the loose coalition of "pro-family" organizations, according to leaders of the movement.
Many religious conservatives, faced with a Republican primary top tier that lacked a true kindred spirit, initially looked to Thompson as a savior. But the former Tennessee senator has disappointed or just not sufficiently impressed the faith community since his formal campaign launch earlier this month.
While Christian conservatives once seemed willing to readily give Thompson the benefit of the doubt earlier this summer, when questions were raised about his lobbying for a pro-abortion-rights group, they are not willing to turn the other cheek anymore.
Even some on the religious right who remain sympathetic to Thompson are unhappy about his refusal to back a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and were unpleasantly surprised by his confession that he doesn’t belong to or attend any church and won’t talk about his faith.
It was Thompson’s refusal to discuss his faith that is likely to deny him any unified backing from the organizations that comprise the Arlington Group, the umbrella coalition of almost every major social conservative group in the GOP constellation.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
And then all of us normal people can live loonie and creep free in our state. That was kinda the whole point of setting up the government the way the founders did.
Wow, I didn’t know I had to be a fascist to be a Christian also.
I guess when I prayed the sinners’ prayer I forgot to include the part about not trusting in the Power of GOD’s Holy Spirit to change people’s hearts and putting my faith in government instead.
I guess that passage in the bible is buried in the geneologies in 1Chron. somewhere otherwise I would have known I was supposed to put my faith in Christ AND Congress!
Oh wait, I found it Proverbs 32:2 right after Proverbs 32:1 - GOD helps those who help themselves!
DUH!
I still don’t agree with you, but that was a very well-thought out and written post.
you are embarrasing yourself with you ingnorance of the law.
go to law school and then talk.
Thompson refuses to genuflect, too?
Well, there goes the Catholic vote! < rolls eyes >
“Once again, so many so-called “conservatives” who love big government so long as it furthers their agenda but are quick to whine when it doesn’t.”
Absolutely.
Thanks!
uh ... yes.
(wow, the scintilating reparte)
Wrong! And you’ll find that out when a series of “landmark” Supreme Court decisions are rendered stripping the states of the authority to define marriage. This will be followed by additional rulings empowering the IRS to punish churches that don’t sanction same-sex “marriage”, ordering the social security fund to expand to include homosexual couples, ordering states to use only textbooks that depict homosexual couples as normal, tossing private organizations out of public parks and public schools unless they endorse same-sex pairings. And so forth.
You guys are being rolled by the nanny staters again. “Tolerant” societies end up like Sweden and Canada: Gun grabbing nests of high taxes, federal power, and socialized medicine.
My stars, the presumptions you make! The main one calling yourself a "Biblicist." It looks to me like an example of ugly pride. What does making public declarations of faith (faith being in this nation a PERSONAL thing, unlike in the Middle East) have to do with high personal standards? Tell me -- how is requiring that a person treats his fellows honorably NOT having "high personal standards"??
What Christians in your mold do is TURN PEOPLE OFF. You are not helping Jesus, you are only massaging your own ego and telling yourself and others that you're doing it in His name.
So-called "biblicists" disgust me because of their smarmy presumptions of superiority. About the only thing worse are people who reject the basic Judeo-Christian Ethic, which is the whole reason for Western Civilization. Not "declarations of personal relationships with God," but the ethic, striving to follow the ethic.
Self-righteous people like you do more harm than good in the political spectrum. Jesus hung around sinners and tax collectors and won many hearts and saved all of us, as His example does to this day. YOU, however, would deign to judge loudly and harshly any politician who doesn't do what YOU would have him do. You hurt the cause of both conservative politics and Christianity; you don't fool me, though you surely fool yourself.
And, yes, Mitt said he would support an amendment once Roe v Wade is overturned. Differences and similarities explained here.
I strongly disagree. The authors and ratifiers of the Constitution's bill of rights intended it to protect the unalienable human rights of the American people. The 9th of those amendments was written to cover the universally recognized rights of man which were not specifically protected by the first 8 amendments. Since the first unalienable right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is the right to LIFE, it is inconceivable that the authors would not have intended the 9th to protect that right.
Federalism was and still is a great concept and an excellent system for governing a large and diverse nation. But the men who established it by way of the Constitution would never have dreamed that it would someday be improperly used as an excuse to justify allowing the legalized murder of more than 1 million unborn human beings every year in the God-fearing nation they had struggled to create.
If the elected US government does not protect the sanctity of innocent human life, which is the most basic of all human rights, then the people who elected that government with full knowledge of it's policy regarding sanctity of life issues are equally as culpable in the deaths of the legally murdered innocents as the German people who elected and supported Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s were for the horrors of Auschwitz and Buchenwald. I will never knowingly have any part in electing any member of such a government no matter how bad or even worse the alternative may be, and voting for an unapologetic supporter of legalized abortion such as Rudy would be doing exactly that.
If people were to take you as an example of how Christianity operates, they’d see someone putting absurd words in their mouths and turn away. Fortunately, in my own terms of Christianity (a very personal thing with which I will NOT bore FReepers but would be happy to share with you in private FReepmail) I know that you are NOT representative of anyone but yourself. But understand — when you ask public figures to discuss how their private faith and demand that they exhibit that faith in particular ways, you allow your ego to do much harm to causes that your heart wants to help.
Romney's position on embryonic stem-cell research.
_______________________________
There's also this on Ann Romney:
In a 2/14/07 appearance on ABC "Good Morning America", Ann Romney talks about her personal struggle with multiple sclerosis and offers her perspective on embryonic stem cell research with a powerful, inspiring message opposing medical experimentation that could conceivably relieve her own suffering. Read a thought-provoking commentary by Alliance Defense Fund attorney David French on Ann Romney's strength of character in opposing embryonic stem cell research as seen in the ABC "Good Morning America" segment.
Ann Romney on Stem Cell Research
_________________________________
Re: # 410... was that post intended for me?
This is what makes me most angry...these so-called conservatives with their one or two issues that would rather have nothing than half a loaf. We’ve seen it so many times before. Just because a given candidate is not “pure enough” or doesn’t regurgitate their talking points exactly as they want to hear it, they take their ball and go home. They vote for the fringe candidate with no chance to send a message and get the hard left liberal that is their worst nightmare.
Liberals can look past a failure to satisfy their orthadoxy to avoid the right wing nightmare. Why can’t conservatives do it?
Thank you for the information and for the civility.
I can’t disagree with you. The problem is, though, that we’ve allowed this to go too far. Government power grabs are usually done with the best of announced intentions. The modern era of judicial imperialism began with Brown vs. Board of Education, a morally correct but constitutionally questionable decision. It has become the basis of all subsequent judicial activism. Announce that you want to remove lawless judges or remove a matter from court jurisdiction, and you’ll be met with a smirking allegation that you want to reverse Brown.
The court claimed a moral high ground in Brown, and the liberal media and academic community quickly built a fortress around the judiciary, espousing them as our moral superiors and elevating them to the level of secular deities. When a ridiculous Supreme Court decision is rendered, such as the VMI decision, people gripe about for a few weeks and then fall into line and agree that it’s better for these things to be decided by judges, that way they don’t divide us politically during elections (as if elections are supposed to be non-divisive). People today are simply numbed and dumbed on the role of the judiciary. I had a student worker “explain” to me that it was the responsibility of the Supreme Court to “enact a gay marriage law” if the homophobic people wouldn’t do it.
As judicial activism has expanded, it has created political constituencies for itself. Racial minorities, immigrants, feminists, sexual libertines, secularists, homosexuals....they all rely on the judiciary to “pass laws that otherwise wouldn’t get passed”.
As I said, I can’t disagree with you. But how do we gain control of the court when so many people, and so many politicians, have a vested interest in federal judicial supremacy? When each federal judicial power grab is instantly enshrined by the media and by law schools as “settled” law that is sacrosanct for all eternity? Perhaps the only solution is mass resistance by the states to federal imperialism. That was tried after Brown, and look what happened. The court’s power was enhanced. What would happen if, say, 27 states refused to sanction same-sex “marriage” if ordered to do so by the Supreme Court?
Look at how the people of Massachusetts have been smacked down by their courts and politicians on the same sex “marriage” issue. You can argue that it’s the people’s own fault for electing those clowns in the first place, but people are so dependent on government now, they’ll go right on electing abusive politicians as long as the goodies keep flowing.
It’s a vicious cycle that libertarians don’t understand. The more socially liberal a society becomes, the more dependent it becomes. The more dependent it becomes, the more socialistic it becomes. And the more socialisic it becomes, the less likely the people are to revolt and throw the bums out, because they now depend on those bums for their health care, their rent subsidies, their food stamps.....
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.