Posted on 01/08/2008 5:56:29 AM PST by Invisigoth
Secular America looks at the rise of Mike Huckabee and fears the growing influence of evangelical Christians in the political process.
This evangelical Christian columnist fears it too, for exactly the opposite reason.
Huckabee’s win in the Iowa caucuses, and his sudden viability as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, owes to one thing and one thing only. Large numbers of evangelical voters are looking for someone to represent their values, and Huckabee is the only candidate who seems to do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
What we have been doing IS NOT WORKING.
Even RR and Helms could not get a RTL amendment passed.
Nor has a marriage amendment.
BUT, in the meantime government becomes more enormous, our bureaucracies are stacked with more and more liberals, who STAY decade upon decade.
And more and more Americans are turning to government for every need, want, grievance, whether real or perceived. Our public schools remain cess pools of propaganda, K-12.
IMO, more work should concentrate in the state and local level to educate grass roots. Electing state and local governments to our liking is easier and will be our political strength to force the hands of the Fed. Our obsession now with “calling DC” is not working.
Our President in 08 must be a CIC, this is reality, and he must be ruthless and cunning, in dealing with the UnAmerican Democrat Party, the MSM, and with Federal Bureaucracies of the State Dept, the CIA, and domestic depts.
No new tone, no speaking of bipartisanship or uniting or working together.
Only the tone and attitude of defeat of our enemies, here and abroad.
We don’t have a 6-3 conservative court. Talk to a liberal and he’ll strongly argue that he’s fighting against a majority of five.
See my post #40
Does that seem like a winning strategy to you?
Winning to evangelicals would be the same for you - to have a voice in government. If they loose their voice in the party, it doesn't matter who wins, they loose.
You may be the first evangelical freeper to admit (that I’ve read, I should say) that socialism is not the worst thing that can happen to a nation. You almost sound like you want it here in the US.
Write me down then: Jibaholic is the first freeper you've known who thinks that atheism is worse than socialism.
1. Communism never established itself in Christian, particularly Protestant, nations. Particularly those with a strong Protestant working class, such as the methodists in England.
2. Communism was brought down by Christians, namely the Catholics in Poland and elsewhere. Interestingly, they were members of labor unions, which are hardly the vanguard of free markets.
3. If the problem with the Soviet Union were simply it's economic policies then the Soviet Union should have been able to rebound when it changed them. For the most part, the Soviet Union has been unable to rebound despite some years with good economic growth. Alcholism, broken families, and low birth rates reign.
What has not changed since the end of the Soviet Union? The people are still atheists.
>I guess it depends on what you consider to be intolerant. If tolerance means you ignore key differences between religious faiths and accept them all as equally valid paths to enlightenment, then I (along with most evangelicals) would be considered intolerant.
Nope. It’s the inability to accept people into the mainstream political life because you disagree with their religious beliefs.
It’s the Mormon who won’t vote for a Catholic. The Baptist who won’t vote for a JW. A Jew who won’t vote for a Muslim.
>If it is intolerant to recognize that Jesus claimed to be the only Son of God and furthermore claimed that the only way to the Father was through Him, then count me (along with Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, and the other apostles) amoung the intolerant.
Gee. You sound Mormon, because that’s exactly what it teaches. Welcome to the fold!
That is not correct.
Remember the "woman of the city" that the Pharisees brought to Jesus for judgment? Her sin required that she be stoned, yet Christ said "He among you that has not sinned, let him cast the first stone". He then forgave her and told her to "go and sin no more".
Name a candidate that the evangelicals did not get, that they wanted?
Who?
And in what year?
>Remember the “woman of the city” that the Pharisees brought to Jesus for judgment? Her sin required that she be stoned, yet Christ said “He among you that has not sinned, let him cast the first stone”. He then forgave her and told her to “go and sin no more”.
He rejected the manner. He did not go out and urge the state to get rid of the laws (and punishment) prohibiting adultery.
Do you believe that it is not Christian to impose a punishment for the violation of the law?
****************
I'm for FRed Thompson because I believe he would be the best man for president, not because I want a "voice" in the party. If Evangelicals are willing to vote for the wrong man simply because he shares their faith, they are dooming this country's future.
That short bald-headed guy from FRC.
I’ve never gotten the candidate I wanted, until Huck (I would prefer Huck to have Romney’s economics, but that is negotiable). The party elite filters candidates so as not to be excessively Christian. By the time you get to Presidential contenders you only get a little tokenism.
Make that all the older, mainstream denominations. With these groups, Huckabee's economic liberalism and family values might sell very well to the people in the pews. These people like government "do-goodism" but are appalled at the behaviors they see in society. Mike Huckabee plays right to that.
I'm not sure who evangelicals wanted in 1996, but it sure wasn't Bob Dole. The field was so weak that year, and nobody ever rose up to pick up the mantle of conservatism so we looked around and turned the GOP nomination into some kind of Lifetime Achievement Award for Dole. Had we selected a true conservative and contrast to clinton rather than just a "clinton Lite", we wouldn't have had to endure those last 4 years of clinton and hillary wouldn't even be on the radar today.
‘Social conservative’ is a misnomer. Many are not conservative at all - they just oppose values held by many liberals.
Many ‘social conservatives’ don’t fear the Nanny State - they just want to be the ones hiring the Nanny.
If worshiping God is the most important part of your life, you want small government. Only by allowing others the right to live in ways we don’t approve can we assure ourselves of the right to live and worship in opposition to their beliefs.
But many evangelicals either don’t understand that, or don’t care - but a government powerful enough to run other peoples’ lives is powerful enough to run yours as well. And all it takes is one election to change the course...
That is very true, but by the same token, If the Pubbies had not tried to shove Giuliani down the Christian's throat, they would not have the bit in their teeth right now.
It is PARAMOUNT that each of the factions respect the others, and only vote for a candidate that is palatable to ALL, including the Christians.
United we stand, Divided we fall.
I am a news-polictical-GOP-Republican-activist-value voter junkie, and I have NEVER heard of this huge development, ever.
Please give me more info.
And please do not think that I nor anyone else want to “saw of the leg” of the Republican stool.
Quite the opposite.
I appears, with all due respect, that this victimhood routine is imaginary, and being used for votes, frankly. I see it here more and more, how the GOP is abusing VV, there is a conspiracy by the “suits-countryclub-rich-ceo-establishment”?
Where is your evidence?
Values voters have complete and total control over the litmus test for our candidates, and have for decades.
Do you deny that?
We all know that, if they did, the final decision would end at the Supreme Court.
*****************
Giuliani is a bad candidate, no doubt about it, but Huckabee is also a bad candidate.
Neither should be running as a Republican.
How do they filter candidates exactly?
And what candidate did the value voters not get, that they wanted? What primary? Who?
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.