A Faith-Based Battle for Voters (Effort to suppress Conservative vote continues)

I hope Kuo's book promotes serious discussions in religious study groups around the country about whether the evangelicals' alliance with political conservatism has actually made the world, well, more Godly from their own point of view. What are evangelicals actually getting out of this partnership? Are they mostly being used by a coalition that, when the deals are cut, cares far more about protecting the interests of its wealthy and corporate supporters than its church-going foot soldiers?

There are only two viable political parties. In only one of those two, do we have any voice at all. Republican leaders aren't dictators - they are representatives of the various voices who elect them. That's all we can ask for - a voice -- a place at the table.

Politics is the art of the possible. We win some - we lose some, but we never give up promoting our goal and being good citizens by voting to keep the only viable party in power in which we have a voice. That's all we can do.

But your all or nothing comments expose you as being dangerously close to being the flip side of the leftist extremist coin -- no different than the moral busybody RATS who attempt to impose their secular humanist religious beliefs on the rest of us if able to obtain enough political power.

The Founders placed the Constitution in the way of all totalitarian mentalities - including those who are professing Christians. [Click my screen name and scroll 1/2 way down the page if you're interested in details]

...that's all we can do.

No, we can do more. We can stand for what we believe and damn the consequences. At the end of the game, that's really all that matters. I'm looking for candidates that don't speak out both sides of their mouth, those that are willing to take giant risks for the good of this country and our moral fiber. We need politicians who can say "damn the consequences" as well. Those that have broken their promises have had their chance. I'm not buying the lesser of two evils anymore. If I see a man or woman who will profess Christ and His ways and has a record of living and voting it as well, ok. If they have taken their hits and are still standing, ok. This is a battle of enormous proportions in more ways than one. Whatever party I find this person in, he will get my vote. BTW, flip your coin somewhere else.

I flip the coin in your direction because you definately fit the description of an unrealistic religious extremist.

C.S. Lewis addresses theocracy (the most potent form of Religious involvement in government) in an essay entitled, "A Reply to Professor Haldane" (Lewis, C.S. "A Reply to Professor Haldane." On Sotries. ed. Walter Hooper. Harcort & Brace Co. Orlando, Florida. 1996.):

If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations. And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme--whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence--the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication (75-76).

I was listening to Scott Rasmussen on Hewitt this afternoon, and he said that repubs "... won't vote if they don't think they are a clear winner".

Of course, your statement and mine have just disproven his theory. I too vote no matter what. Because if everybody who thought the person was going to lose anyway .. voted anyway .. the guy/gal might win. Which is what we know and that's why we always vote.

As usual, we're smarter than they ever give us credit for.

Hugh also debunked one of the other statements Rasmussen made - claiming in this one particular race there was 39% dems and 39% repubs - and Hugh was incredulous - telling him the dems were OVER-sampled and the repubs were UNDER-sampled.

This is why people must not pay attention to the polls - they're skewing them just like they did in 2004 - and the dems are going to lose - AGAIN.

But .. Rasmussen's statement about "... won't vote if it looks like they won't win" started me thinking - THAT'S WHAT THE DEMS DO ALL THE TIME. This may be one of the reasons they try to keep the numbers up for the dems, hoping more of their "kooks" will actually vote. LOL!

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.