Posted on 03/04/2006 1:42:06 AM PST by ncountylee
When the state Republican Party asked North Carolina churches last month to give them copies of their directories, the request rested on an assumption: Although God may not be a Republican, a majority of his most faithful adherents are. Or as the GOP memo put it, "people who regularly attend church usually vote Republican when they vote."
The memo reopened questions about whether one political party has an advantage in appealing to the faithful.
Which is one reason why several hundred people attended a forum Friday in Duke Chapel to discuss how they can recast the political debate so it is not so dominated by religious conservatives.
"It is a conversation we undertake with a new urgency," said Rep. David Price of Chapel Hill, who is co-chairman of a House Democratic caucus on religion. Price has a Yale divinity degree and is the son of a Baptist lay preacher.
"We see the religious banner being co-opted by people whose religion and politics, we think, falls short of the kind of public witness we ought to make," Price said Friday on WUNC's State of Things program.
One reason for the Democrats' urgency is that conservative evangelicals have become political shock troops for the Republican Party in the South. It is the same role that organized labor has played for northern Democrats, according to Mark Silk, an expert on religion and politics at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.
Silk said that because evangelical conservatives tend to be more committed voters, their importance is heightened in mid-term elections such as this year's, when there is traditionally a lower turnout.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
As long as the Dems remain the party of baby killers and sodomites their quest to "get religion" will be futile. Why don't they get that?
This is akin to the GOP visiting crack houses to take votes from Democrats. It's a pipe dream.
21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Demons for Jesus. Whoda thunk it? LOL
Good post, i laughed hard at that one. Well, Lucifer quoted the bible to Jesus didnt he? So why shouldnt the democrats try religion on the citizenry? As another poster said, democrats will explain to us why being gay, and murdering an unborn child is really what God wants us to do. We need to raise holy hell when a dem gets in a church pew and starts spewing his/her dogma, just as they do to others.
I believe this is because they don't grasp their constituency is fundamentally built out of voters who need excuses to justify what they approve, not people who "see things differently."
Religious people need no such excuses for what they approve, and therefore have no need for democrats/liberals to give them legitimacy.
If you doubt me, just ask Rick Santorum. The party has moved so much towards an interventionist, big gov't party that when Senator Santorum (who is a GOOD guy!) is challenged by an evangelical socialist, he has no party differences to fall back on -->> "You are pro-life? Well howdy doody, so am I! What else you got on your plate?"
Don't get me wrong. I love George Bush, voted for him twice and pray regularly for him. I hate the idea of a dem congress/senate. I am thankful for Alito and Roberts (VERY thankful).
I just think that "We pray, and we aren't as bad as them!" is a poor campaign slogan.
One party has no ideas and the other has ideas but doesn't legislate with them.
If I could have a conversation with Jesus, one-on-one, my first question would be: "what do you think of Republicans and democRats?"
Somehow I think His answer would be silence, and He would just roll His eyes and sigh.
And I would get His point.
As long as NARAL, NOW and the Gaystapo keep a lock on Democrap party dogma, any chances they have of making any headway with religious Americans has no chance of flying.
But it's sort of funny to watch them try.
Y-u and G-d are on the same page, huh?
Don't kid yourself.
If you don't think Jesus would have something to say about the difference between pubbies and rats, you don't know a thing worth knowing about Jesus.
We all know there is a big list of anti-God things they do, and want to do. Their brain would explode trying to fake religion.
When faced with just the smallest level of controversy the Republicans will cave and compromise and become RINO's.
If I may paraphrase: "but since you are neither hot or cold but lukewarm I will spit you out of my mouth."
I don't know a thing worth knowing about Jesus? Thanks for your critical insight. I guess you and God are on the same page.
"How can we fool themtoday?"
Rush Limbaugh
You seem to forget:
I'm not the one pontificating from fantasy conversations with Jesus. (where the only one speaking is you, I might add...)
I'm not the one spouting trite cliches about neither party having a lock on G-d.
I'm not the one making half-wit moral equivalences between advocates of infanticide and sodomy, and the tactical moves of those who are strategically beating those advocates.
I'm not the one calling the Republicans Laodecieans when their position is clearly closer to Pergamos.
All in all, your comments typify the mentality Amy Grant sang about years ago in her song "Fat Little Baby."
"Religious people need no such excuses for what they approve, and therefore have no need for democrats/liberals to give them legitimacy."
--- Unless you are an Episcopal and can somehow see a biblical justification for the Bish of Vt
There are enough people in churches to elect Democrats. Just think of all the Churches of Color who have political rallies every Sunday morning
I agree. Those who support abortion, the taking of egregious amounts of tax money for failed social programs (including publicly financed abortions), and support gay marriage, don't deserve to claim the mantle of religion.
That is who he's talking about, right?
As long as the democrats continue to be virulently anti-American, this kind of thing will not sway many voters.
Y-u and G-d are on the same page, huh?
Don't kid yourself.
Got a mirror?
In case you missed that one, I have two quick points:
1) In Joshua 5, when Joshua met the theophany/angel and asked if God was for "us or our enemies," it would be very instructive to look at the answer. The NIV has "neither" but the original is even more emphatic. It simply says "NO!" God is "for" neither. The question is not "are YOU with us" but rather "are WE with YOU." Joshua's response was, of course, to argue that the filthy inhabitants of Jericho practiced blasphemy, idolatry, sodomy, and murder, and so God was really mistakened......, no, wait, that is the response of today's religious right. I am sorry. History was never my strong point. Yeah. Joshua FELL ON HIS FACE AND REPENTED, which, if today's eveangelical church did, would get the attention of the sodomites and baby slaughterers way quicker than our condemnations.
2) Habakkuk was confronted with the vision of the godless Babylonians coming to destroy God's Own People (sorry, can't help but work the GOP in there!). His response was to argue with God and say essentially "You can't do that! They are worse than WE are!!!!
12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.
13 Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?
He then goes on to describe how utterly godless the babylonians are. He is saying that since God is RIGHTEOUS, then he cannot destroy the "righteous" by the "less righteous." God's response is very instructive, and goes to the core of the message of the bible itself. He says:
Put this on the billboards and the flashing marquee, buddy. Don't miss it. (hint: it is crucial) The message is "THERE AIN'T NO RELATIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS IN MY WORLD!" (the actual biblical text is "the righteous shall live by his faith" which is, of course, the core of Paul's proclamation in the NT that there are only the UNrighteous and those who are RIGHTEOUS BY FAITH ALONE. Habakkuk would have been a perfect modern religious conservative, as he had completely abandoned the gospel for a relative social righteousness, and the bag of goodies (stability, economic prosperity, personal peace) that a religious legalist believes is "promised" to a "nation of righeousness." The evangelical church is way more concerned with protecting the bennies of a Christian heritage than in focusing on the areas that make us different in the first place.
The secular world smells this, and that is why they mock Christian in politics. Some would, of course, mock anyway, as this is the nature of profligate wickedness. However, you are dreaming if you think we don't give them plenty of ammunition.
By the way, I worked for the Republican Party for SEVERAL election cycles, beginning with Ronald Reagan. I helped found the Jackson MS Metro Right to Life chapter, led protests at abortion clinics, have been interviewed on several local TV stations as a spokesman for rtl, and have never voted democrat in my life, so don't answer back and call me a "liberal." It ain't so.
Devil tries to disguise himself as Priest. Barbed tail sticks out of pants leg, disguise exposed... film at 11.
LLS
I think the same thing every time I see a transvestite wearing a leather harness over a nun's habit during Gay Pride Week...
Sorry, but wasn't Jesus aware of the difference between Pharisees and Sadducees. And wasn't there a difference between what it was that those "parties" preached and his message? And when you look up pharisaic in the dictionary, doesn't a picture of Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi appear in the mind's eye?
Yup, sure do, but I won't need it to answer your post.
It simply says "NO!" God is "for" neither.
Your fundamental misunderstanding leads to your myopic eisigesis of the passage, but let's just cut to the chase: which army went down in defeat in the subsequent battle?
Joshua FELL ON HIS FACE AND REPENTED, which, if today's eveangelical church did, would get the attention of the sodomites and baby slaughterers way quicker than our condemnations.
Then how come the ones that are so despised and persecuted are the "judgemental" Christians?
Men love darkness, for their deeds are evil.
The message is "THERE AIN'T NO RELATIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS IN MY WORLD!" (the actual biblical text is "the righteous shall live by his faith"
Gee, with exegesis like that "Arbeit Macht Frei" almost sounds reasonable!
The secular world smells this, and that is why they mock Christian in politics. Some would, of course, mock anyway, as this is the nature of profligate wickedness. However, you are dreaming if you think we don't give them plenty of ammunition.
And so the prudent course of action is concede that point to them?
Whose side are you on, anyway?
...so don't answer back and call me a "liberal."
FRiend, you flatter yourself. Answering your post just wasn't that difficult.
Pres. Bush has refused to send our tax money to the UN to use for abortions. Has any Dem president ever done that? NO! Let the Dems pretend to be Christian, but ask them why they kill our babies.
By the way, Hitlery was the first I believe to make an announcement after the 2004 exit polls showed that voters cared about religion. Her statement was cleverly worded to make it look as though THEY had always been good Christians, but just hadn't talked about it enough. Yeah, SURE, Hitlery.
Remember the 'photo op' Bible that the bent one and the beast carried around?
***Remember the 'photo op' Bible that the bent one and the beast carried around?***
Remember? VIVIDLY. Clintoon walked out of church on Easter Sunday carrying that big bible, and immediately returned to the White House for another session with Mouthy Monica. And Hitlery KNEW about what was going on in the oval office because Stepanopolis told her. And Hitlery told him that Clintoon was merely discussing religion with Monica. So, a particulary vicious circle was drawn by the clintons.
I have wondered if the 'Hollywood prop' Bible had blank pages. As they, probably, never opened it...guess it doesn't matter.
***I have wondered if the 'Hollywood prop' Bible had blank pages. As they, probably, never opened it...guess it doesn't matter.***
I've always wondered if it had the Kama Sutra inside it.
Jim Wallis is correct in this respect: Christianity is about far more than gays and abortion, and indeed is about alleviating poverty and suffering. Christians who ignore that simply don't take Scripture seriously, and I therefore question their true commitment to their faith. The theological mistake that religious "progressives" make is claiming the GOVERNMENT, rather than the CHURCH, should be at the forefront of combatting injustice.
"That very church which the world likes best is sure to be that which God abhors."
(Charles Haddon Spurgeon, "How Saints May Help The Devil," July 24, 1859)
(scoff)
THAT is your response?
I bring up at least three substantive issues that demand an answer, and all you can manage is swooning over verbiage like a Southern debutante with the vapors?
Well John the Baptist didn't seem to have too much problem with the practice of "name-calling," so far be it from me to presume I'm better than he. And speaking of John, you know Christ had some things to say to those who embraced neither His way, nor John's. He said:
"But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like to children sitting in the markets, and calling to their fellows, And saying, We have piped to you, and ye have not danced; We have mourned to you, and ye have not lamented. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a demon. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified by her children."
Well you know, the only "children" getting "justified" by your "wisdom" is the idea you're somehow above the fray, and can see beyond, we lesser mortals.
FRiend, trust me on this; Jesus did not come to tell you you're just peachy the way you are.
The repentant one.
Then how come the ones that are so despised and persecuted are the "judgemental" Christians? Men love darkness, for their deeds are evil.
Yes, men do love darkness. However, much of what Christians today think is "persecution for righteousness sake" is persecution for self-righteousness. Until today's activist political evangelicals come across as something other than "be like us" and get rid of the idea that the PRIMARY problem is that "those people" need to repent, we will increasingly be the powerless, reactionary, scorned bunch we are transforming into.
Some would, of course, mock anyway, as this is the nature of profligate wickedness. However, you are dreaming if you think we don't give them plenty of ammunition.>>>>>
And so the prudent course of action is concede that point to them?
Of course!!!! You think they are so stupid they don't see it? You think that they think, in their heart of hearts that the Christian world is filled with sorrow at their own sin and then secondarily at the sin of the profligate? You think they really believe that we are motivated for a concern for the glory and majesty of God, and not with protecting our pile of toys? They see it, and underneath any hate they have for God (and there is a hate for God in the midst of it), there is a deep contempt for the hypocrisy of the evangelical church. After 30 years of deep involvment with the church, I can understand what they are saying, although I cannot hate it the way they do, for with all its (my) flaws, it is still the visible presence on earth of the One I love.
Whose side are you on, anyway?
That is the same question Joshua asked.
What kind of statement is that?
That's like me saying the only reason you like kids is because you're a pervert. Showing it's false requires the accused to prove a negative, and that's logically impossible.
It's also a tactic of the egotistical, who can't stand not to be "right," even if they can't "prove" it.
Until today's activist political evangelicals ... we will increasingly be the powerless, reactionary, scorned bunch we are transforming into.
Don't quit your day-job. Prognostication just isn't your forte'. The left has been singing your song since the seventies, and they've gotten nothing but more wrong as time went by.
Do you know what it would even look like if you were fooling yourself?
You do realize your opinion is worthless unless you know what proving you wrong looks like, don't you? If you don't know your own position well enough to recognize what would, in fact, prove you wrong, even if someone does prove it, you won't know it.
Coming to a place like FreeRepublic and tossing out notions you fancy, without doing the work of testing them, is nothing but playing "mirror, mirror, on the wall" with the rest of us playing the part of your magic mirror. And guess what, there's very few of us that wish to play supporting roles in "The You Show."
What kind of statement is that? >>>>>
A true one?
That's like me saying the only reason you like kids is because you're a pervert.
Actually, no, unless you are positing that self righteousness is - in fact - a virtue.
Showing it's false requires the accused to prove a negative, and that's logically impossible.
Missed the connections to how you got there. You don't have to "prove a negative" to assert with cause that a good part of the reaction against evangelicals in politics has less to do with what we are advoccating than who we are.
It's also a tactic of the egotistical, who can't stand not to be "right," even if they can't "prove" it.
I am sure you are correct about my own egoism. I know for a fact that I am arrogant, proud, stubborn, and egotistical. I am somewhat of an expert in that area. Sometimes I wonder if that is why I can spot it so well in the church as a whole. Whatever the reason, it is there, it is prominent, and it is ugly as it can be. The really weird thing about it is that admitting it does two really great things:
1) it breaks the power of it in our own life, as we can actually confess it to God,
2) it defangs the godless, who may mock us for being sniveling pietists, but cannot question the authenticity of our position.
Until today's activist political evangelicals ... we will increasingly be the powerless, reactionary, scorned bunch we are transforming into.>>>> Don't quit your day-job. Prognostication just isn't your forte'. The left has been singing your song since the seventies, and they've gotten nothing but more wrong as time went by.
Yeah, if I could call em like that I would just pick the price 3 months from now on the Euro/Dollar and make a mint. However, the wishful "thinking"(?) of the left does not erase the fact that Christians have been losing influence over the areas that matter in our society for some years now. Only a blind man would argue that the influence of the gospel on our culture has increased.
Do you know what it would even look like if you were fooling yourself?
You do realize your opinion is worthless unless you know what proving you wrong looks like, don't you? If you don't know your own position well enough to recognize what would, in fact, prove you wrong, even if someone does prove it, you won't know it.
I actually would have a fairly comprehensive list of what I would look for if we were having a real expanding influence, rather than fighting a rear-guard retreat.
Coming to a place like FreeRepublic and tossing out notions you fancy, without doing the work of testing them, is nothing but playing "mirror, mirror, on the wall" with the rest of us playing the part of your magic mirror. And guess what, there's very few of us that wish to play supporting roles in "The You Show."
I don't quite get your point on that last pg. Or maybe I should say I think I get it, but I don't see the relevance, other than a gratuitous slap. Maybe you can help me see, as I don't want to infer stuff that is not there.....
And that's not what you said.
In fact, most of your answers are attempts to "spin" what you've previously said. You said "...much of what Christians today think is "persecution for righteousness sake" IS persecution for self-righteousness."
Simple declarative sentence, and simply a gratuitous assertion that can not be proved or disproved by any objective measure. In other words, it's simply a slur, a slander, an attempt at impugning the character it is directed against, it is accusing the brethren.
You seem to have trouble distinguishing your arrogance from your faith. Apparently anything you believe is of the same substance.
I am sure you are correct about my own egoism. ...The really weird thing about it is that admitting it does two really great things: 1) it breaks the power of it in our own life, as we can actually confess it to God, 2) it defangs the godless, who may mock us for being sniveling pietists, but cannot question the authenticity of our position.
)1 It does no such thing. The rich young ruler was told what he needed to do...he did not do it. Knowing you are a thief does not prevent you from stealing again. 2) Please explain the mechanism of how THAT works. I'm assuming you've left ALOT out of that particular train of thought.
However, the wishful "thinking"(?) of the left does not erase the fact that Christians have been losing influence over the areas that matter in our society for some years now. Only a blind man would argue that the influence of the gospel on our culture has increased.
Uhm, are you not keeping up with the news? Let's see. South Dakota passes a law to directly challenge Roe v. Wade. Supreme Court tosses the leftist proposition that it violates their free speech to tie federal dollars to the presence of military recruiters on campus. At issue, the military's rejection of homosexual equivalence with heterosexuals. Women are returning to the home in numbers that are causing feminists to rage. The influence of MSM is at the lowest point it's ever been, and continues to fall.
Either you and I have different definitions of "blind" or your objectivity is somewhere on par with "Baghdad Bob."
I actually would have a fairly comprehensive list of what I would look for if we were having a real expanding influence...
And again, you are trying to answer a question you were not asked. I asked you "Do you know what it would even look like if you were fooling yourself." An affirmative answer would consist of a list of objective indicators, not a diversion to another tangentially related issue.
Maybe you can help me see, as I don't want to infer stuff that is not there.....
Now THIS is an attitude that can be worked with.
In 1Thes 5:21 Paul tells us "test all things, hold fast that which is good." (G-d Himself, being the obvious exception) Note that this is a command to take an action. Also note he does not tell us to test only those things we are suspicious of. Indeed, the most important things to test are those matters we are inclined to take at face value, because they flatter our sensibiities.
I would like to commend a thread to you
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563376/posts
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.