Posted on 09/30/2007 5:50:41 PM PDT by Dubya
I would’nt bet on that.Piss off the religous right and lose the election.
When they resort to trying to demoralize Christians, God laughs.
I was wondering when they’d pull out the “Power of Religious Right is Over” File. Same story different election cycle.
guys who post this drivel are butt ugly and monkey stupid.
anybody with anything this side of a tin ear knows the glory days of atheism are over. (no unitarian could ever be elected president. there have been five elected over the last two centuries all before wwII)
anyone who attends anything besides a mainline protestant church—which are liberal and dying or dead — knows that church attendance is on a dramatic upward trend in the evangelical churches.
the power of evangelical christians is growing.
the writer of this article is butt ugly and monkey stupid.
anybody with anything this side of a tin ear knows the glory days of atheism are over. (no unitarian could ever be elected president. there have been five elected over the last two centuries all before wwII)
anyone who attends anything besides a mainline protestant church—which are liberal and dying or dead — knows that church attendance is on a dramatic upward trend in the evangelical churches.
the power of evangelical christians is growing.
Perhaps. I find it interesting that even evangelicals can't agree on the subject, even here at FR. Posts alternate between declarations of extreme influence and laments about the party throwing evangelicals a bone every election cycle only to sweep them back under the rug.
So, who's correct in this? The evangelicals who feel empowered and in control of the party, or those evangelicals who feel ignored and shut out by the party?
Whenever the religious get mixed up in politics, religion always comes out the loser.
I believe the central fulcrum of this republican primary is the future of the party and social conservatives.
-Thompson represents staying the course, and it remaining a central plank. The fear among party operatives is that the republican party will win big in the south and lose everywhere else. Becoming a minority party, like happened in congress.
-Guiliani represents the full scale abandoning of social conservatives. I honestly don’t think the party had ‘evolved’(devolved?), to that point yet. But Guiliani is such a strong candidate that it brings the issue to an early head.
-Romney represents the middle ground. I believe he wants to appear hardline social conservative to the southern conservatives, but a moderate social conservative and non-big scary bible thumper to the north, midwest and west. It forces him into Kerry esque sounding positions.. And I say this as a Romney supporter, he is one of the most accomplished men to ever run for our presidency.
The party is at a crossroads that there is no easy answer to. Its easy to say just run hardcore principles, but it doesn’t do much good if you end up permanently locked outside looking in.
To be fair, the Unitarians elected in the past were far closer to their Puritan/Congregationalist Deist pasts than they are to the current non-Christian Unitarians. They include the two Adams', Fillmore and Taft, and arguably Jefferson.
To be fair, the Unitarians elected in the past were far closer to their Puritan/Congregationalist Deist pasts than they are to the current non-Christian Unitarians. They include the two Adams’, Fillmore and Taft, and arguably Jefferson.
///////////////\
This is correct. The same can be said of today’s mainline protestant denominations: presbyterians, episcopalians, methodists, church of christ etc. Two hundred years ago they were far closer to their Puritan/Congregationalist/Reformed/Evangelical/Calvinist past than they are today.
A Deist is a different animal entirely than a reformation protestant.
Without a doubt. Politics is all about force. It always has been about force and it always will be about force. Religion always loses when confronted thusly.
Where is the phrase “secular left”?
Somehow, it’s always missing from any news stories.
So, who’s correct in this? The evangelicals who feel empowered and in control of the party, or those evangelicals who feel ignored and shut out by the party?
//////////////
both. short term the evangelicals are in retreat. long term they are getting stronger.
one minimal goal was fulfilled in the bush admin. that was to get strict constructionist judges on the bench. this bodes well for reversing roe v wade.
there are countervailing forces. if the elites — and that includes bush— succeed in swamping the country with foreigners so that today’s population is irrelevant to the future governance of the USA—then the evangelicals can be defeated for the 40-60 years. the USA becomes a one party democratic country. and the creepy deconstruction of the USA will continue.
there are complete bimbos in the bush administration. the law of the sea treaty which is making its way through congress...will give the UN taxing authority over resources in international waters. right now those revenues don’t amount to much. but when the technology advances sufficiently—that revenue will be very significant indeed.
anyone with half a brain knows that the UN will take all its money and use it to undermine the power legitimacy and sovereignty of the USA.
that is quite simply...the way it works.
Politics is also about compromise. Religious folks don’t deal well with compromise when it’s tied to their belief system.
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.