Posted on 03/23/2012 4:28:30 PM PDT by red flanker
Just moments ago on the Sean Hannity radio show, GOP candidate and RINO Rick Santorum took it upon himself to convict George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case. He said, and I’m paraphrasing slightly:
It was a heinous crime and he did a despicable, unjustifiable thing and the Sanford police should have reacted to that immediately.
Again, I am paraphrasing a little as I did not have a recorder running to get his exact words, but that was essentially his statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativereview.com ...
Santorum is over.
The normalization of playing judge, jury, and executioner via remote control. Exactly the purpose behind that type of... programming.
Rick Santorum does just converse. It’s gotten him in trouble before and it will again. He shares his unvarnished opinion.
Say what you will about the Martin case, but it is odd that they let the shooter of a teenager walk out the door.
They had no real reason to believe him.
Question, red flanker: If for some reason, through some situation, Rick Santorum were to win the GOP nomination on the first or consecutive ballots, would you support him in the election against Obama?
She was a prostitute also.
A serial adulterer has a “lingering character problem” too.
This is the only text that mentions Mary Magdalene, pre-crucifixon and there's no adultery or prostitution here.
"After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out—and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.— Luke 8:1-3"
Some people blend Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene and the sinful woman of Luke 7:36-50, which causes a bit of confusion but suffice it to say that Mary Magdalene was NOT an adulteress or a prostitute or any sort of woman.
But of course you do not believe in repentance and forgiveness?
Do you believe in that for the child molester? Do you forgive to the point of letting the child molester run a day care center?!
So not only are you proven to be unforgiving, but an exaggerator coming up with a false analogy about Newt. Jim is for Newt, too.
Even the "conservatives" on John McLaughlin's show last night were doing it -- including McLaughlin himself. The guy from National Review was disgusting. I think the RiNO take is that the race-pimps have already won the information/misinformation battle, and they're thinking about cutting losses for the RiNO/GOP Romneynominee, and distancing the GOP, themselves, and Romney from Zimmermann. This is becoming a "bonfire of the vanities" (hat tip to Tom Wolfe).
Committing adultery twice is an exaggeration? Sin is sin, there’s no difference with God. Humans will say that child molestation is worse than adultery, to God there’s no difference. They’re both equally egregious. Both of them are death penalty offenses in Torah.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d would LOVE to see Obama debate Newt and for Newt to clean the floor with him in a debate, because Newt is an excellent student of history but that’s not the same as wanting him to be POTUS. I’m still not sure who I’ll vote for in the primary, quite frankly because none of the current contenders excite me for various reasons.
Newt doesn’t exact be because his character is very very flawed and character does matter. You can forgive someone but it doesn’t mean that the person should ever be a leader of men again.
Santorum doesn’t excite me because he is not financially conservative enough for me.
Romney doesn’t excite me because he is not socially conservative enough for me and his Romneycare bill derails any moral authority the GOP presidential candidate needs to work hard to repeal Obamacare.
This entire thread has been premised on the initial poster’s “paraphrase” of what he claims Santorum said. Does anyone intend to post the actual quote, in context? Until then, why has anyone commented on something that Santorum may or may not have said? The lemmings are very quick to jump over that cliff today.
Your parents had good taste.
I hope you’ll excuse me for commenting, but as an attorney I’ve actually worked with a sex offender, and had to research the matter to work the case. The fact is, most who technically classify as sex offenders have about the same tendency to relapse to criminal behavior as any other criminal behavior. I know that’s not what you’ve probably heard, but that’s the reality. In fact, many are Romeo-and-Juliet cases, where there was ordinary sexual attraction between two ordinary young people but the age of one party made it a sex crime by legal definition. One unfortunate fellow got on the registry because he got drunk and took a leak in his own backyard, but it so happened some neighborhood children saw him in the act.
However, when most people think of a “child molester,” they are thinking of one of those profoundly disturbed personalities who cannot rely on normal inhibitions to prevent their abuse of prepubescent children. Unlike the Romeo-and-Juliet situation, or the awkwardness of improvisational latrines, this is a personality defect that places them in a special high risk category, and in fact many jurisdictions are recognizing and separating these risk categories so they can be handled with greater economy and effectiveness.
How does all this relate to Newt and forgiveness? Simple. There are very few of those who live among us who are really warped enough to present an ongoing risk of child molestation. But Jesus said we were all in the risk category for adultery. Anyone who has done it in their heart (you know who you are) has done it as many times as Newt or more. The difference between those secret adulterers and Newt would be that Newt was honest enough to follow through and get the divorce.
Do you remember the parable Jesus told of the prodigal son? Remember the “good” son? He was as self-indulgent as the “bad” son, but he justified his self-indulgence by superficial compliance with the Father’s will. Yet he lacked love. And when the “bad” son, who at all times was honest about his desires, repented and came home to the Father, the Father received him with love. If the “good” son were truly “good,” he would have shared in that love and joy of a sinner coming home. But he could not. All he could think of was himself.
Now I can easily picture the “good” son lecturing the Father about how he should never again trust the “bad” son with any of the serious responsibilities of sonship. I can hear him saying things like “Dad, he’s proven he’s a bad seed, he’ll never be anything different, and you should never trust him again.” And from a strictly human, materialistic point of view, he might even be right. But see how the Father treats him, gives him a welcome home party, a sacrifice, a ring, all insignia of full redemption, full acceptance as a son, with all the privileges and responsibilities that entails.
Jesus didn’t come to save the righteous, but only sinners. And as CS Lewis says, nothing God does is a sham. Conversions, if God has anything to do with them, are real conversions. But if there is no conversion, no transition from brazen sinner to repentant son, then there is no Christianity at all. It is the very thing Jesus died to provide, the possibility of complete transformation, by an exchange of death for life, old for new, punishment for forgiveness. It is the very heart of the Gospel.
Therefore, if one looks only at the errors of the past as the sole determinant of the future of a human soul, one has denied the miracle of the new birth. Put another way, if there is no conversion, no true changing of one’s ways, then there is no Gospel, no good news at all, no basis for forgiveness, no hope in the resurrection, no looking forward to the Second Coming and the redemption of all things, because we all set our path irreversibly into the darkness on the day we committed our first sin. Like my crim law prof used to say, you buy the bit you buy the bridle. The rejection of the possibility of conversion has serious consequences, and those who choose to live in a universe with no true conversion must accept the logical consequences of that position.
For my part, it is an empirical matter. If Newt falters in some significant way, his claims of redemption can and should be held to a high standard of proof. But if Newt demonstrates by his life over a reasonable period of time that he has had a true change of heart in these things, and I think he has done this, who am I to challenge a work of God? Why would I not rather praise God and be joyful that He has brought yet another lost sheep home? Time will tell, but by his performance so far, I accept his claim of redemption, and would gladly trust him to fulfill the duties of the presidency with faithfulness to God, to the American people, and to the founding principles.
As if we needed another reason to say F___You Rick, and just stay home on election day.
Our “candidates” are beneath contempt.
>> “The police acted stupidly” <<
.
Yes, failing to contact Al Sharpton before looking at the evidence was a grave error.
MY COMMENT: AMEN BROTHER. True Christians should be the last people apposing Newt.
Cheers:>) EasyDoesIt
Eloquently stated! Thank you. And may I re-state the sentence that, for me, boils it all down:
“Therefore, if one looks only at the errors of the past as the sole determinant of the future of a human soul, one has denied the miracle of the new birth. “
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.