Nah man, it’s all serves a purpose.
Huckster is sinking his own boat with his religious zeal.
Thank God. LOL
The "doctrinal" matters should be confined to the religion of conservatism.
Talk about the issues facing this nation and how you are going to solve them. Quit trying to out-holy each other.
So is this ‘their’ latest on WWJD????
Speaking of Barack Osama, very convenient this should come up just as everything is coming out about his anti-white, bigoted, Farakahn loving church, and his muslim background. Don't fall for it, Republican candidates, attack him on it.
I don’t know what this means. Certainly people should avoid bigoted remarks. Not only are they nasty, but they are counterproductive. They only put people’s backs up.
But you have to be able to discuss Romney’s Mormonism, if only to defend it. Romney himself has been the person who has raised the issue most often. It’s unavoidable, although what you make of it is another matter.
And you have to be able to discuss Huckabee’s brand of Christianity. There, too, Huckabee has been the one to put it right out front and make it unavoidable.
As I’ve said before, it’s not an attempt to judge who is going to be saved. It’s an attempt to judge what kind of men these are, and how they might conduct themselves as president. As a Catholic, I’d rather vote for a good, sensible Evangelical than a bad Catholic any day.
I’ll leave Romney aside for the moment and just say about Huckabee that it’s not relevant, for me, that he’s a Baptist. What’s relevant is that he gives every appearance of being a bad Baptist, a fake, a snakeoil salesman, who doesn’t really mean a thing he says when he starts spouting religious language. He just uses it to make political hay.
He has a long and proven record of corruption as a governor, of using religion as a smoke screen to rake in money, so there’s not much doubt about what the fruits are. And “by the fruits ye shall know them.”
We're in a war with Islamic Fascism, and BOTH of the leading Democrat candidates are tightly tied to our enemies. This has never happened before. This needs to be talked about.
As soon as I saw Brian McLaren's name I knew that this letter was not worth the paper upon which it was printed. McLaren is an apostate who has created what he calls "The Emergent Church" - a church that worships itself and uses Christ's name to do it. From such as these turn away.
Well, OK...but I kept reading...What examples of presidential candidate behavior are they talking about?
From the article: “In this year’s presidential campaign, we are troubled to see candidates pressed to pronounce the nature of their religious beliefs,” wrote leaders in the statement, “asked if they believe every word of the Bible, forced to fend off warnings by a few religious authorities about reception of sacraments, compelled to confront derogatory and false allegations of radical Muslim childhood education, and faced with prejudicial analyses of their denominational doctrines.”
Alright. What's wrong with this picture? (other than folks like McLaren being part of the Religious Left who doesn't have anything else to keep him occupied than to sign coalition statements left & right & write a blog with Jim Wallis?) I mean, first this group accuses candidates of misbehavior. But take a look at the words in bold faced used to describe the candidates' behavior--they were pressed, asked, forced, compelled & faced & as far as I can tell, it wasn't from other candidates. Since when can candidates control what they are "asked" about? The "forced" was apparently linked to a "few (unnamed) religious authorities." These words used to describe candidate behavior are mostly rather passive reactions to expositions of their faith. (For the life of me, I can't find what they are "guilty" of...so why did this group aim this document at candidates?)
If you're going to look at candidate rhetoric, I'd look at about a 2-week Romney period when in early December he was "over the top" with his Mormon speech and then in late November when he responded to a query about Cabinet posts...here's how Romney answered:
I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified.
Now if this group was taking aim at candidates' discourse, why was this left out as an example?
Hey does anyone have a complete list of the signers?