So the church has surrendered the country officially to the Godless hedonist Left.
So be it.
None of them apparently willing to stand in the gap.
That leaves just the few who will become fodder for the MarxoFascist ‘purges’ about to begin, and CINOs will assist the new stormtroopers in the hopes they will be left alone.
“They aren’t part of an evil conspiracy.”
You’re completely naive, sir. I’ll refer you to the New Jersey lawmaker.
“We will take your children”
Oh, by all means, if the young folks don't like the message, then change the articles of faith to something more palatable. [/s]
Well, I’d been curious as to why the “religious right” had been so quiet lately, as America has been so visibly decaying into the degenerate, putrid sewer it has now become. The answer, according to this, seems to be they don’t wish to alienate the younger folks, whose culture is so deeply devoted to homosex, dope, socialism, porn, and the whole degraded cesspool of modern American culture.
Maybe he thinks that if we run away even faster the forces of Satan will get exhausted trying to keep up.I don't remember any big offensives against the moral rot or even major holding actions like the millions of Frenchmen who went into the streets to protest queers "marrying" one another.
In fact, other than the decades long mostly Catholic protesting against abortion I don't see how Christians could pullback any further than the current attitude of "go along to get along" takes them.
Only young people actively sinning would recoil at the church involvement in the culture wars.
I sense this guy is a Christian in Name Only.
Sad to hear the SBC is pulling back from the fight. A lot of SBC congregations are not (including the one I’m in). The ‘leadership’ of the SBC has always been more liberal than the congregations.
Mondale was obviously a Socialist, and it finally became clear also that the revolution begun by the Old New Left decades earlier in that Party had triumphed.
Mondale and his running mate immediately made their position on Christians being "involved in politics" very clear. They actually, and blatantly, argued that Christians were "violating the separation of Church and State," supporting the ridiculous notion that Jefferson's doctrine was instituted to protect the State from the Church, not the other way around.
It finally dawned on some that we were supporting the wrong Party, which left us in a quandary.
We couldn't support Republicans, could we? Like today, there wasn't much of a counter to Mondale and Ferraro's hostility coming from the Republicans, except among a few columnists, here and there. Democrats made it clear Christians were unwelcome, and no one in the Legacy Media challenged this odd position.
Finally, after a long hot summer, Ronald Reagan came to Dallas and spoke to the traditional Prayer Breakfast a day before the Republican Convention began there in late August. I just happened to catch his speech live on television that morning, over my first cup of coffee ahead of another long day of work only 80 miles away.
I decided to listen.
I was recently surprised to learn President Reagan's speech that morning nearly 30 years ago has since been ranked somewhere among the "100 Most Influential in American history."
Well along into the President's remarks he said, "Religion and politics are, of necessity, related."
The scales fell from my eyes, as he used to say. Clearly, I finally realized, I was in the wrong Party.
This is what Republicans believe?
It was almost a tentative statement Reagan offered, but it very effectively countered the strident and obviously anti-Christian position touted by the Democrat's top dogs.
That simple speech, after President Reagan was re-elected so decisively the following November, led to years of study of Conservatism, of Buckley, Burnham, and many, many other writers familiar to participants in the FreeRepublic forum.
In the context of the whole panoply of American history the idea that Christians should retire from American politics is totally counter to the nation's moral good, rejecting the good for the sake of the perfect. It's a certain pathway for the "triumph of evil persons."
Voting, and "voting" as a metaphor for all Christian participation in American politics, is no "privilege." It is a responsibility, ideally much like sitting on a jury. It requires tough decisions, resolving "reasonable doubt," and we must live and be responsible for the outcome. Those who can't handle this responsibility probably sit it out, leaving these choices up to those who make a responsible effort to keep as informed as possible at least for the purpose of making those tough decisions.
Barack Obama being elected to the presidency is a tribute to the present weakness of the Republican party, and the Republican Party's weakness is a direct result of Christian Americans turning away from their responsibilities as American Citizens, weakening their own franchise and the structure of the American "composite republic" that would not have existed without Christianity nor maintained without a sufficient Christian moral base, finally allowing greedy, weak-minded consultants and their guilds to foist their own interests over the interests of our neighbors.
"Then Amalek came and fought against Israel at Rephidim. So Moses said to Joshua, “Choose men for us and go out, fight against Amalek. Tomorrow I will station myself on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand.” Joshua did as Moses told him, and fought against Amalek; and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. So it came about when Moses held his hand up, that Israel prevailed, and when he let his hand down, Amalek prevailed. But Moses’ hands were heavy. Then they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it; and Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on one side and one on the other. Thus his hands were steady until the sun set. So Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword."
- Exodus 17:8-13 (NASB).
I disagree with Moore. It’s time to dial up the heat, especially on CINOs.
surrender should not be an option