Posted on 03/28/2007 2:36:11 PM PDT by SubGeniusX
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson has dealt a potentially devastating blow to Fred Thompson’s presidential aspirations, saying the former senator is not a Christian.
"Everyone knows he’s conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for,” Dobson – considered the most politically powerful evangelical figure in the U.S. – said in a phone call to Dan Gilgoff, senior editor at U.S. News & World Report.
"[But] I don’t think he’s a Christian. At least that’s my impression.”
Thompson’s spokesman Mark Corallo took issue with the statement.
"Thompson is indeed a Christian,” he said. "He was baptized into the Church of Christ.”
Focus on Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger sought to clarify Dobson’s statement, telling Gilgoff that while Dobson didn’t believe Thompson belonged to a non-Christian faith, he "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian – someone who openly talks about his faith.
"We use that word – Christian – to refer to people who are evangelical Christians. Dobson wasn’t expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy.”
Thompson has said he is leaving the door open for a presidential run. A Gallup-USA Today poll released on Tuesday has the Tennessee Republican running third behind Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain among Republicans and Republican-leaning voters.
Although Dobson has not endorsed any Republican presidential candidate, he told Gilgoff that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was the "brightest guy out there” and "the most articulate politicians on the scene today.”
Gilgoff is the author of the new book "The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America Are Winning the Culture War.”
In the 2004 race, Dobson gave the first public presidential endorsement of his career, supporting George Bush. Bush got almost 6 million new white evangelical votes in 2004 that he didn’t get in 2000.
[i]What, in 25 words or less, defines "evangelical" in the mind of Dobson and others that claim that distinction?[/i]
Can't speak for Dobson but my understanding is that an "evangelical" is one who claims to have placed personal faith in Christ, which results in an eternal relationship with God. see John 1:12
This has nothing to do with denomination, in my own mind.
(maybe someone can tell me how to tag italics?)
The assertion was made that Christian belief was not a requirement for office holders. Clearly this was not the case during during the founding era and long after.
Things are different now. Conditions are worse. Lying sons of Belial can get elected and completely break they're sworn word. The printed word means nothing. It means what their judges say it means. Christians (what the Bible defines as a Christian) have a long tradition with covenants and constitutions and strive to honor the written word, and not misconstrue it.
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.
You must understand that we Christians don't worship the "creature" but the "Creator." The Constitution when properly construed does not require Christians to have to make such a decision. We are not compelled to defend erroneous Supreme Court decisions, however popular they might be.
What "personal religious priorities" should we downplay? (1) [innocent] life? (2) liberty? (3) property? and all the gifts that God has bestowed upon us to properly steward and protect these?
Democrat or RHINO or Compassionate Conservative, each can do tremendous damage to the Constitution.
Lastly, we do what we can and leave the rest to God. We are not compelled to choose the lesser of two evils. We will have satisfied what is right by choosing Godly people for public office. If your choices, however, are elected, it is YOU who will have to answer to God for their policies.
Thanks subG, just what I needed.
N.
I don't support Dobson. Iam neutral on Dobson. I don't know the man and don't follow him. I was simply saying GWB is the leader of our party. He deserves the majority of blame for losing the last election not some radio head. GWB turned off the conservative base across the land primarily on illegal immigration...completely walked from his responsibility and leadership position. He still does this except for the token raid catch and release program.
I don't think anybody enjoys Democrats running congress except Democrats.
Anyways, I like your tagline about Reagan.
The constitution when ratified did require the states to put their state constitutions in line with the Federal constitution. That is beside the point and you said it: The "religious test" prohibition, when properly understood, did not impose a certain denomination affiliation requirement for potential office holders.
This is the point my previous threads addressed; there can be no religious litmus test for public office so a candidate's religious beliefs or affilliation are irrelevant.
Nothing in the constitution compells anyone to defend bad supreme court decisions and in fact as a citizen you should be compelled to set those decision right if you can sway the majority of Americans in that direction. Again, if you do not put protection of the document that protects our freedoms including religion first then you risk losing those freedoms from those who would bend, change or ignore the constitution to meet their political goals.
Apparantly you think there's only one denomination that uses the name.
Your congregations simply weren't as conservative as they can get.
Or more likely, you're either lying or speaking from ignorance.
LOL, right. If you can't name specific congregations, you're just blowing smoke.
Check almost any CofC congregation in the state of Indiana to find out their own requirements for membership, and what their history of outreach is.
Ought to be an interesting trip for you.
And beware of churches who formerly had a very New England Puritan structure (and belief) and have now renamed themselves CofC.
The CofC with which you are familiar in the Souf' is barely representative of a third of the CofC congregations in this country.
Your narrowmindedness and provincialism is not evidence of ignorance on the part of others, or of lies.
More of your ignorance (and regional bigotry) on display. My older brother has preached for a total of about 20 years at 3 congregations in different parts of Indiana, and I am familiar with a few others there as well. Somehow this vast majority of churches of Christ that you describe has remained secret. Are they located underground?
Seems to me that you are probably a "Restorationist", right?
That means all the other kinds of "Church of Christ" aren't really kosher (if you know what I mean).
*Sigh* So you are ignorant of how Google works, too. "Church of christ" and "Timbuktu" yields over 1,200 hits -- does that mean there are that many coCs there?
Look, if you can't name even ONE congregation like you described earlier, you're just being dishonest.
Would seem to me you do not understand the implications that are obvious in any google.com search that gives you 720,000 hits (on a literal value ~ between " and ".
Typical of the most conservative, and exclusionary, of the Church of Christ congregations is the argument that failure to address every jot and tittle of your every quirk is evasiveness equivalent to a lie.
So, some questions for you ~ do you use musical instruments during worship service?
No.
By the way, did you notice how, unlike you, I am able to answer simple questions? Who is being evasive here.
Feel free to continue asking.
Evasiveness is in the eye of the beholder. You have NOT, so far, answered any questions at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.