Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DakotaRed
I have no argument against religious people, until they carry that belief into politics and demand an elected office be an extension of their church.

I think you would probably find many atheists (not to mention religious folks) who disagree with you on this point. I'm not one of them (not an atheist), but know several, and "atheist" doesn't translate to "anything goes". Many adopt the Golden Rule as their motto, and what Mark Sanford did was as far from that as possible. There's nothing honorable about treating your kids that way, regardless of everything else.

As a previous Mark Sanford supporter, I will say that he showed shockingly bad judgment and a willingness to take unnecessary risks with the trust bestowed on him by the people of South Carolina that makes him unfit for office.

And no, to others reading this, conservatism isn’t necessarily confined to your church.

Of course it isn't. But Conservatism places a high value on doing what is right. Religious and non-religious people alike can agree that what Mark Sanford did was wrong.

196 posted on 06/24/2009 11:44:41 PM PDT by mountainbunny (Mitt Romney: Collect the whole set!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]


To: mountainbunny

Even I agree that what Sanford did was wrong, that isn’t the point.

None of us can live up to the principals within scripture, Alinsky and the left knows that. But, we advertise ourselvesas we can by throwing out any candidate who may err, regardless of how well they may have reprsented us or performed in their office.

I neither condone nor approve of what Sanford did, but isn’t it best left between he and his wife and then the voters in South Carolina?

In the meantime, like I keep saying, Dems circle the wagons and retain their candidates who represent their view well and we end up where we are, under Democrat rule, completely.

At a recent Excutive board meeting of three county party’s I attended, I was embarrased that a lady got up and stated she was reluctant to nominate or front candidates from her district because they were Mormon, as she was.

She mentioned the reaction from Evangelicals towards Mitt Romney (who I don’t support, but not because he is Mormon).

This attitude is what I mean, that candidates must fit into someone’s perceived church, or do not apply.

Be it because of religion or some transgression, we eleminate our own best people because they don’t live up to standards the left says we must adhere to because we claim “family values.”

And, what do we do but accomodate them by throwing out our own people?

He resigned from the National Office he held and should he and his wife reconcile, it is no one else’s business.

Should he not resign from the governor’s office, bet your bottom dollar Democrats and Evangelical Republicans will line up against him, regardless of how well he preformed in office.

Don’t be surprised to see the Democrat win and sell the state down the drain afterwards.

What is so hard for evangelicals about “Judge not lest ye be judged?”


197 posted on 06/25/2009 12:24:07 AM PDT by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson