To: GarySpFc
Wow, how dishonest of you. No one complained about her being a 'strong evangelical'.
It had nothing to do with her religion. It had everything to do with her complete lack of qualifications and unknown, possibly liberal ideology.
2,302 posted on
10/27/2005 10:57:01 AM PDT by
flashbunny
(What is more important: Loyalty to principles, or loyalty to personalities?)
To: flashbunny
Her Christianity was mocked on this forum.
2,308 posted on
10/27/2005 10:58:01 AM PDT by
ohioWfan
(Take comfort, Friend George, God is with thee!)
To: flashbunny
Wow, how dishonest of you. No one complained about her being a 'strong evangelical'. The name "Church Lady" rings a bell
2,309 posted on
10/27/2005 10:58:02 AM PDT by
Mo1
To: flashbunny
It had nothing to do with her religion. It had everything to do with her complete lack of qualifications and unknown, possibly liberal ideology.
That is not how the hard working Evangelicals are going to see it. There has not been an Evangelical nominated to SCOTUS since 1930, and we do represent a large percentage of the population. Currently we have 4 Catholics on the court, and that does not go unnoticed. Finally, those who are committed Evangelicals and familiar with the churches of Christ/Christian Churches are going to laugh in your face at the mention of her being pro-choice or liberal.
2,350 posted on
10/27/2005 11:05:12 AM PDT by
GarySpFc
(Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson