Christianity Under Siege: The Stones Cry Out (Democrats continue to slam the door on Christians)

Newsmax.com ^ | 1/3/02 | Diane Alden

[anniegetyourgun]

Thanks for posting. She's right.

[THEUPMAN]

bump

demonize conservative Christians as being like the Taliban,

[Christian B]

In the name of tolerance the Kumbaya Christian has no real beliefs but rather adheres to a kind of mushy, feel-good Christianity. Every foul deed is all right as long as the intentions were good.

Would it surprise you that Gore won the Catholic vote outright in 2000? Also, Bush got 10% points more than Dole did in 1996. There is a major problem with the Catholic leadership in America - one in which its members don't consistently support the Christian candidates.

[Credo]

Someone posted something to the effect this would have on the South. Most "flyover" country voters would take notice. Folks like Landrieu and Cleland should be very afraid of this strategy.

[gulfcoast6]

Christians have been attacked by the pros in times past and we are still here, loud and strong. Good always outdoes wrong, it might take time but it does.

[abandon]

There is a major problem with the Catholic leadership in America - one in which its members don't consistently support the Christian candidates.

You're not suggesting, are you, that we vote for whoever our religious leaders tell us to vote for?

[Christian B]

I would expect a sincere policital evaluation of the candidates by church leadership around election-time. I heard it from my minister in November 2000, that there was a sincere Christian candidate who walked with Jesus and was pro-life. There was also a candidate in a political party that demonized Christians as being controlled and intolerant. So, yes, I would expect church leaders to suggest candidates to their members.

[KQQL]

(Democrats continue to slam the door on Christians), But Christians keep voting for the RATS.

[azhenfud]

"Democrats, in the name of tolerance, plan to demonize conservative Christians as being like the Taliban, according to an article in Newsweek."

Tolerance is a good virtue, but virtue should never be sacrificed for the sake of tolerance.
Az

[Mr. Thorne]

Would it surprise you that Gore won the Catholic vote outright in 2000? Also, Bush got 10% points more than Dole did in 1996. There is a major problem with the Catholic leadership in America - one in which its members don't consistently support the Christian candidates.

Overall, no.

Break it down, and it gets deeper. Basically, if I remember correctly, the stats were something like 60/40 Bush/Gore for Practicing Catholics, and vice versa for Catholics who graced a church with their presence only a couple of times per year. The numbers were similar, as I recall, for practicing vs. non-practicing Protestants.

A sidebar issue would be the amazing "I'm personally opposed, but..." statement that seems to so many people to be their 'escape hatch'.

[Christian B]

You're right about the practicing vs non-practicing. For Catholics that went to church atleast once a week, Bush won by 10% points. 55/45 is hardly a convincing victory for Bush among practicing Catholics.

[Hacksaw]

The Democratic point of view will maintain it has nothing against Christianity as long as that Christianity has no strong doctrines or core beliefs. You may be a Christian as long as you are "their" kind of Christian – that is, the kind better known as Kumbaya Christians.

Hmmmm, this reminds me of a certain person here to the 'T'.

[Solomon Grundy]

Future headline: "Democrats under siege, Jesus slams door to Heaven on Democrats".

[GenXFreedomFighter]

There is a major problem with the Catholic leadership in America - one in which its members don't consistently support the Christian candidates.

It's true there are a lot of clueless Catholic clergy, particularly in the Northeast -- Robert Bork wrote a few years ago that the Catholic Church "looks like the Democratic Party in robes." And my dad tells me that at one time if you were a Catholic you were a Democrat. Perhaps the Church's focus on Christian charity that is at the root of the problem. The term "charity" has come to mean only the giving of alms to the poor, instead of Christ's commandment that all people love one another as they are all loved by God. That was the call to charity. I think a lot of the clergy and laity has accepted the mistaken notion that "charity" is supposed to be a government function. I'd imagine a large portion of Catholic Americans have accepted that idea, but not all. Certainly not this Catholic.

[B-A-Grizzley]

I think you have to factor in those who are members of the AFL/CIO/UAW/CWA and other unions who are led to vote Dumbocrat by the misinformation of the Union Leadership and confiscation of their union dues to feed the DNC.

Also, elderly Catholics who are mainly concerned about Social Security and think they are still voting for FDR when they walk in the booth.

[Christian B]

Perhaps the Church's focus on Christian charity that is at the root of the problem.

This is not true. If Catholics were concerned with Christian charity they would object to the idea of giving tax money to the federal government for welfare. Churches can accomplish the task of reducing poverty far better than the government

[GenXFreedomFighter]

That's the point I was trying to make. I think a lot of Americans (and not just Catholics) are confused about the meaning of Christian charity.

[abandon]

So, yes, I would expect church leaders to suggest candidates to their members.

That's all well and good, but what should the rank and file do with those suggestions? Should they just do what the church leaders suggest? Or should they engage in the same analysis as the church heirarchy and come up with their own choices?