Dr. James Dobson: Fred Thompson 'Not a Christian'

NewsMax.Com ^ | Wednesday, March 28, 2007

[afnamvet]

BTTT

[muawiyah]

Didn't I say there were different kinds. Must be you never attended one of the more "exclusive" varieties.

This is why we need to have someone pin down exactly WHICH kind Thompson was baptised in.

[superdad]

Sad that so many FReepers have bought into this MSM propaganda and are willing to accept the remarks of Dan Gilgoff who has a leftist agenda to smear Right wingers and cause dissention among us. Chalk one up for the liberal press.

Well said. It is now over 24 hours since this report has come out. Despite the MSM dislike of Dobson and Thompson, no other media has taken the issue up, other than a few repeats quoting Gilgoff, a know leftist.

However, it does seem too many have fallen into the trap, attacking a known conservative based on this questionable allegation.

[muawiyah]

Irrelevant question BTW. Check "Treaty of Westphalia" ~ everybody signed on. It's OK to ask and question, but it's NOT OK to do anything about it like chop off heads.

We (Catholics and Protestants) have been at peace for a very long time now (as Catholics and Protestants).

The Fix Is In (so to speak).

[NYC Republican]

Exactly!

[Paige]

That is what Dobson is doing with Fred Thompson. Dobson doesn't know Thompson's heart.

[ScubieNuc]

...the Republican nominees will distance themselves from the grass roots evangelical conservative voters.

Gee that would be horrible ...

My point is that the Republican party is fracturing. Whether this is the plan of the liberals/Democrats or not, I see it as a sad thing. Apparently you would rather have the Republican party become more liberal in it's social issues, I don't.

The other sad thing is the ease at which the Republicans attack their own before all the information is out. Dobson is a good Christian man and deserves the benefit of the doubt, or at least a chance to explain.

If it's conservative Christians you want out of the Republican party, then good luck in winning the Presidency with a Repub that talks just like a lib (Rudy). Most evangelicals will either stay home or vote a third party. Most libs will vote Democrat, since they now have more control of congress.

Sincerely

[NavyCanDo]

Dobsons shoots off at the mouth again. Don't get me wrong, I like what Dobson has done with Focus On The Family, and I have even purchased some of his raising children books and audio tapes - but he has a history of making statements I don't agree with. The first notable one followed his interview with serial killer Ted Bundy prior to his execution, when Dobson came out and said Bundy is what he is because of looking at Playboy magazine when he was young.

[NavyCanDo]

What is sad, there are many people who just read a headline and take it at face value. My good neighbor a staunch Savage Nation type of Conservative - e-mailed me this story last night with his added comments, "Fred Thompson is not Christian, this spells big trouble for him". I don't think he read the entire story ignoring the comments of the Thompson spokesman who said it was not true, or Dobsons backing away a little from what he first implied.

[RJS1950]

Personal opinion of Adams and it has nothing to do with the articles of the constitution. Note again that the constitution makes no requirement for a candidate to be Christian or religious. Provisions were made to protect the freedom of religious belief and practice and those provisions also allow any citizen to believe in any religion or none at all. I would not want any candidate who would say you should be a Christian to serve any more than I would want a candidate who says that you have to support abortion on demand in order to run or serve.

[RJS1950]

Oh yeah, over there they require you to be muslim to run the government. That sounds like a religious requirement as in "should be a Christian".

You would have more in common with the mullas than I do. I took an oath and served to protect the constitution over 22 years and continue to support the constitution as it is written WITH NO RELIGIOUS LITMUS TEST.

Don't presume that I am an athiest or non-believer in God either.

[RJS1950]

Did I say that the rights expressed in the D of I are no longer? Strict construction addresses the constitution, its Bill of Rights and the amendments. The D of I addresses the grievances and concepts of liberty that were the reasons why the colonies wanted to split from the crown and was not a document of law. The writers of the Declaration had hopes that the king would accede to their requests, but he did not. After the war and after the Articles of Confederation the framers wrote the Constitution and wrote it to embody the concepts of the D of I into law.

[RJS1950]

Oh, my mistake. I thought that the discussion had to do with the U.S. Constitution and not a pre-revolutionary constitution. Maryland originally wrote into law that the official religion was Catholicism, do you think that document should influence our Constitution and political process today?

The Constitution supersedes those documents that came before and takes precedence over state constitutions.

A lot of "religious" people in this country had better understand that putting protection of the written constitution ahead of all else including personal religious priorities is essential.

If you don't protect and defend the Constitution that protects and defends your religious rights then our enemies including the democrat party will do everything they can to abrogate your religious rights.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

Yeah, I couldn't remember on Ronald Reagan -- sorry FReepers -- memory isn't what it used to be, but it isn't for lack of trying.

[SubGeniusX]

There you go again ...

letting "facts" and "reason" get in the way of "Dogma"...

what are you thinking ...

oh wait thats the problem ...

you are thinking...

[Constitutions Grandchild]

Oh, please, just tell me we're not going to start with the music now. I for one grew up main-line protestant and have always loved the pipe organ and Bach's hymns -- I'm particularly fond of Handel's "Messiah" and Gounod's (sp?) "Ave Maria" and have sung both, but that doesn't mean that someone who likes Gregorian Chant or a soul-ish rendition of "The Old Rugged Cross" or "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus" is off my A-List. It also doesn't mean Trappist Monks who live lives of silence are off the short list either. If it's just curiosity, then I hope you find out -- if it means that Fred is going to have to learn to sing or give it up, then I'm begging you, don't go there.

[RJS1950]

Thanks for the reaffirmation of sanity.

[Sloth]

The most conservative sort of C of C congregations select from the "elect", which means you have to be born into a family whose members belong. Then, at age 11 or 12 or thereabouts you might be selected for baptism. The less conservative congregations pretty much demand a non-Baptist background ~ maybe something like the independent Christian Church or even Disciples of Christ ~ so that you can be considered to be a Christian in the tradition of Stone or Campbell.

As someone who has attended conservative coC congregations all my life, I can say without qualification that you have been smoking some bad crack.

[ARA]

I have never seen him wear chinos before.

[ARA]

Can you name some C of C's that seemingly do what you say they do... I'll call the preachers directly and ask them.