Posted on 11/11/2006 12:38:04 AM PST by JohnHuang2
I agree with you. I'm not buying this as a reason or at least as a major reason for the defeat on Tuesday. Although, on our local radio I have heard Evangelical environmental commercials. I wonder if they were produced by Haggard?
Every little bit hurts, but I think that the point of the article is that Haggard's attacks om parts of the GOP agenda is the reason while evangelical support of the GOP went down.
I believe that Ted Haggard's push to change the direction of the Evangelical Movement did have some effect. He turned some to a new set of beliefs that are more compatible with the Democrats. His failures as a leader might have effected some votes, but I sort of doubt it. Christians of many ilks recognize that the sin of one man is the sin of one man. If steps are taken, then the one bad apple will not spoil the basket.
I don't know how much of the Evangelical Movement he effected. But with margins as narrow as they were, even a small effect across the country could have been the difference.
In 1992, George Bush 41 turned off the Republicans by trying to get along with the Democrats. He lost to Clinton. In 1996, there were stories that got circulated about Dole that he was pro-abortion. I heard these stories here in Tennessee and know people that did not vote because they figured both men were bad. This included Catholics and Evangelicals.
What is the moral of my bit of thinking? The Republicans need to choose candidates that have a strong moral backbone and act like Republicans. Conservatives and Evangelicals are both looking for someone they feel they can trust.
Ditto.
Have you looked at the exit poll responses?
Reagan went out of his way to support the unborn. I need not mention his success. At the time I gasped that anyone would be so bold because I found everyone ducking the issue, including and especially Lutherans.
"hiring a homosexual prostitute and buying crystal methamphetamine"
That's what did him (and anyone he was associated with) in, not his talking about the weather.
Many of those evangelicals are part of the Pysbertarian church, which has a track record of being ultra liberal.
Hate to sound like a "me too", but I am right in the middle of the Bible Belt and a life long Evangelical.
Never heard of this pervert, and if I had it would not have changed my vote one iota!
Alright by me.
I doubt that these churches were really Evangelicals in the true sense of the word!!!
I never heard of Haggerd before, but I had heard the commercials for Evangelicals Against Climate Change.
Actually I thought it must be Soros and Moveon sowing confusion by picking a religious sounding name for another front group.
Now that I know the founder is a meth head, I can see where he got his strange theology. Hoo boy.
Exactly! My neighbor is a staff member at the local Presbyterian church and is very conservative.
Baptists - even the subset of Southern Baptists - cover a lot of theological ground.
Southern Baptists are not members of the NAE, although some smaller Baptist groups are. NAE members run from Pentacostal to Reformed to Wesleyan; the Salvation Army is even a member. It tends to include groups which want to be part of an ecumenical group but which don't want to associate with the liberal mainline denominations.
And in will come the anti-Christ, but only for a short period of time.
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.