Rudy Guliani Opts Out of Religious Broadcasters MeetingIs Rudy Going to Ignore Evangelicals?

Associated Content ^ | February 16, 2007 | Jeff Musall

[WalterSkinner]

With the bare fact being that no Republican in recent memory has been able to win a major contest without at least the tacit backing of the religious right, Rudy Guliani might be trying to buck that trend.

[garv]

No, I got the point. An ironic choice of authors.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

And you people have adopted every insulting liberal tactic in the book.

Yes they have...

The most notable for me is equating opposition to Giuliani ON THE ISSUES as "hate."

I am an atheist and I will vote with my feet if the GOP is stupid enough to nominate that phony...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

All I hear people saying is AGAINST, AGAINST, AGAINST .. nobody's FOR a candidate ...

I don't like the perverts, the baby killers, the dopers, the gun grabbers, the illegals or the religion bashers (and I am an atheist).

I will vote for the Ranger and no other...

[WalterSkinner]

..a book co-authored by two of the apostles of the post-modern emerging church, one of which was Bill Clinton's "spiritual advisor"--this speaks volumes...

[OMalley]

Out of touch? Geez why dont they just come out and say HEY im ok youre ok.

Im so sick of "feel good" do nothing churches.

[Delphinium]

What point did I miss about churches wanting their leaders to be more in touch with the society that they live in?

I know the Bible quite well if that's what you are asking, and that's what I go by first. Then I look at the Constitution. After that I consider years of political experience.

When I gave up on the religious forum, you were there arguing about doctrine. What could you share with me from the Bible that would justify voting for such a proabortion, pro-homosexual agenda, pro-gun control candidate?

[Delphinium]

why dont they just come out and say HEY im ok youre ok.

That is exactly what they want.

These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling [words], having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. Jude 1

[Dr.Zoidberg]

You might want to be clearer in the future. Statements such as

"The Religious Right had better get right..and sit in the back seat and STFU!

lend themselves easily to misunderstanding.

Considering the status many "so called" conservatives wish to relegate Christians to these days, you could hardly blame someone who misunderstood the intent of your statement.

I'm glad you clarified your position.

I was thinking more along the lines of little children.

That's so much better when trying to belittle someone because of their belief.

So much better...

[CyberAnt]

"... don't believe he is our only hope ..."


I totally agree. And .. it's still too early to know if he will even be the nominee.

However, if he is the nominee .. I WILL VOTE FOR HIM .. because having Hillary is just out of the question.

[CyberAnt]

And .. the "Ranger" would be whom ..??

[gathersnomoss]

Some of these folks better stash their bunnies.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

And .. the "Ranger" would be whom ..??

[PhiKapMom]

ROFLOL! That is too funny!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

...if he is the nominee .. I WILL VOTE FOR HIM .. because having Hillary is just out of the question.

There isn't a dime's worth of difference... I'll just write in my favorite (don't forget a pen).

[Delphinium]

"The Religious Right had better get right..and sit in the back seat and STFU!

He is just trying to get us to listen.

[Corin Stormhands]

What could you share with me from the Bible that would justify voting for such a proabortion, pro-homosexual agenda, pro-gun control candidate?

Probably just as much as you could share that tells me you shouldn't vote for such a candidate. Get me the Scripture that tells us how to vote and we'll start from there.

I am an Evangelical, pro-life, Christian conservative and I am unashamedly supporting Rudy.

Now you and others in your judgemental attitude may, as someone did upthread, tell me that's a "sin."

But after years of political activism for socially conservative causes I have realized that I am fighting those battles in the wrong arena. I've marched up Capitol Hill, but I did far greater good by going to the local Crisis Pregnancy Center and folding laundry or running the vacuum than I ever did on Constitution Avenue.

When I look at the current list of candidates, and I look at the issues that are most crucial to our survival as a nation, I see Rudy emerging as the leader. Was he my first choice? No. But my first choice imploded.

I could accept several (not quite all) of the other choices. And I will support the eventual nominee.

But those who seek to judge my faith, my committement, my conservatism ~all because I support a candidate they don't like ~ are severely mistaken and are consumed by a judgemental attitude for which I can find far more Scriptural condemnation than I can for voting for the "wrong" candidate.

[ecurbh]

Ummm, Eomer was ~not~ a ranger. You've never read the books, have you?

[Corin Stormhands]

I was right, you ARE clueless about The Lord of the Rings.

Yeah, I get the "ranger" reference for Hunter.

But the LOTR ranger was not Eomer. Eomer was a Rider of Rohan.

Aragorn is the "ranger."

You really need to try another analogy. This one ain't workin' for ya.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Does not matter... the personae is identical... I want a warrior... not a limp, tassle shoed lawyer on Viagra shooting blanks...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]