Posted on 01/23/2012 3:57:55 AM PST by AmericanInTokyo
Mother Jones has a profile up about Reverend O’Neal Dozier, a pastor who runs the Worldwide Christian Centor in Pompano Beach, Florida, who currently serves as the honorary chairman of Rick Santorum‘s Florida campaign. Dozier is a well-known social conservative who obviously shares many of Santorum’s views on issues like gay marriage, but has made rather controversial statements that have raised people’s eyebrows over his connections to the GOP candidate.
In a video posted online, Dozier explains his church preaches “the dangers of Islam and Islamic fascism,” and once proudly boasted that God is “100 percent for capital punishment.” But at the same convention where he made the latter statement, he stated that homosexuality is “so nasty and disgusting that it makes God want to vomit.”
[T]he rise of tea party politics gave Dozier a new calling. He campaigned vigorously for Rep. Allen West, an African-American conservative who shares Dozier’s views on gays and Muslims. West has spoken at Worldwide Christian Center’s services, quoting a John Adams letter that claims “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” And Dozier can often be found on Federal Highway in Fort Lauderdale, hoisting signs and holding court with the powerful local tea party. “The tea party is a godly ordained party,” he’s said. At one recent event, he expanded the thesis: “God would never ordain a government to take from the rich to give to the poor, you see, so therefore God is not a socialist. God is not a Robin Hood.”
Those sentiments, and Dozier’s revitalized reputation in the black community, seem to have struck the right chord with Santorum’s campaign.
Santorum hosted a forum with Dozier today called the “Sanctity of Life Sunday.” After initially supporting Cain, Dozier shifted his support to Santorum because “he’s not a compromiser” or “a politically correct kind of guy.”
Ditto to GO AWAY RICK!
I don't agree with you at all on this.
Homosexuality is a wedge issue, not only for conservative Christians but for lots of non-Christians who view homosexuality as disgusting and perverted.
As one farmer put it, “even pigs don't FY— that way.”
It's also a key area on which President Obama disagrees with large numbers of black pastors. I'd personally love to see a conservative evangelical black pastor given lots of media time by pro-homosexual media who think reporting on his views with hurt Republicans.
I'm very much aware that there's a lot of homosexuality in the neo-conservative part of the Republican Party. I'm also aware that for the economic conservative and libertarian parts of the Republican Party, lots of Republicans oppose the government “getting into bedrooms.”
Okay, fine.
If the only way Republicans can win races in California and Massachusetts and New York and other left-of-center places is by being economic conservatives who think limited government means the government doesn't promote morality, I don't have a problem with saying that I'll take the votes in Congress of a Republican who agrees with me on 90 percent of issues when the alternative is a Congressman from the Democratic Party who disagrees with me on 90 percent of issues.
But don't try to argue that most Americans don't care about homosexuality. Despite all the efforts of the movie industry to glamorize gayness, it hasn't succeeded, at least not yet. Ronald Reagan was absolutely right about the dangerous power of mass entertainment to corrupt America, and what the movie and television entertainment industry is doing with homosexuality is a key example of that, but it hasn't yet succeeded in doing so.
” But many evangelical Christians and conservative Roman Catholics agree with what this pastor said, though perhaps not with the way he said it.”
That sums it up nicely for this Roman Catholic. I agree that homosexuality is an abomination & like abortion, is intrinsically evil. Can’t say I would have put it quite like this pastor did, though.
I do beleive that with God’s grace, people can change & repent. I pray daily for the conversion of homos as well as abortionists. I turst that God will forgive them if they seek Him.
Be safe!!
Did he retract his statement about how being gay is similar to ice cream preference?
“” But many evangelical Christians and conservative Roman Catholics agree with what this pastor said, though perhaps not with the way he said it.”
That sums it up nicely for this Roman Catholic. I agree that homosexuality is an abomination & like abortion, is intrinsically evil. Can’t say I would have put it quite like this pastor did, though.”
Ditto.
Strange days around these parts when a man faithful to his wife is ridiculed as Mr. Goody Two-shoes.
Personally, I'd like to see the God that says, "P1$$ on my gifts and I'll smite you down." I'm thinking that would go a lot farther nowadays than a big 'ol heavenly hug in terms of getting people to correct their behavior.
Having a few pillars of salts appear where a liberal once was, wouldn't give me any heartache whatsoever.
:: attacked by a homosexual mob ::
Yo, Lot! Send your new friends out to “play” with us!
GO AWAY NEWT!
Good to get your direct insight. This is what I love about Free Republic. Never know who is going to show up or with what kind of interesting information or insight. That is what has kept me here and active, for sure, for 12 years+ now. Wow.
Strange indeed! I never imagined that FR was populated with so many hypocrites. Whatever happened to 'Character Counts'? I guess it only counts when rats are displaying bad or weak character. What a shame.
Is there a context to your statement that is missing?
..I don’t think that was vomit that showered down on Sodom and Gomorrah...
I always enjoy your posts from Japan. Especially the On-The-Scene Insights during the recent catastrophic events! Be Safe, my FRiend!
Agreed.
I find it helpful, when dealing with intelligent liberals who are sincerely confused, to hand them a copy of the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Bible, and ask them why, if they believe it is impossible to translate the text accurately, do they believe it is quite possible to accurately translate business contracts and military documents from Arabic into English and vice versa? After all, the Defense Language Institute does spend lots of money training Arabic translators and most people in the Pentagon think that money is well-spent.
The issues of translation and textual integrity simply aren't legitimate issues in biblical scholarship. Yes, we can point to a few verses here or there which are potentially problematic, but the main points of Christian doctrine are clear and obvious from the plain text of the Bible.
40 posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 7:19:32 AM by C. Edmund Wright: “I agree with D James Kennedy (and you) on this issue, but it’s not the foundation upon which to build a Presidential campaign. I don’t need a President to tell me what is right in regard to this issue. I don’t need Rick Santorum nor his campaign staff to tell me either. I absolutely resent the implication you made that because I think this is totally stupid campaign strategy that I disagree with you on the foundational truths. It’s that exact kind of judgmentalism and stridency that is such a turn off to RS (like Bachmann before him).”
Okay, I take you at face value regarding your agreement with me and Dr. Kennedy on homosexuality, and since I resent it when people misrepresent me, I have no desire to do so with you.
My point was not that you support homosexuality, but rather that I think we have a real disagreement on whether opposition to homosexuality is politically viable. Am I understanding your position correctly on this issue, that in your view Republicans shouldn't focus on homosexuality or other moral issues because it confuses the role of the church in preaching against sin with the role of the state in punishing lawbreakers?
I don't want to go into details about Dr. Kennedy's political positions with regard to homosexuality without citing specific statements he's made, but regardless of what Dr. Kennedy believed, I believe you and I do have a serious and significant disagreement about whether opposition to homosexuality is a winning political strategy. I believe it is clearly a winning strategy in Republican Party circles in most of our red states and probably in a national election.
I'll cite an example in my own Congressional district where I was on he losing side of the issue, and one where many Freepers will disagree with me. Vicky Hartzler, the spokeswoman of the anti-gay-marriage amendment to the Missouri Constitution, used that issue to win victory over the conservative Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who authored “Don't Ask, Don't Tell,” throwing out a man with more than three decades in Congress who has brought not just hundreds of millions of dollars but literally several billion dollars of federal military spending to Fort Leonard Wood, Whiteman Air Force Base, and the Missouri National Guard.
Hartzler won the Republican Party primary based on her Christian conservative credentials over a pro-military conservative Republican in the primary election despite being a member of a Mennonite church (which changed its name during the election campaign) and being married into a prominent Mennonite family. Then she won the general election despite nearly all Republicans in my county near Fort Leonard Wood publicly supporting the Democrat or staying quiet in public while working for the Democrat behind the scenes. I was a finalist for a national reporting award for my coverage of that campaign, and I saw firsthand the power of an anti-gay agenda to propel a Republican candidate to victory who ordinarily would not have a chance in either the Republican primary or the general election.
I'm not going to stand here defending Ike Skelton on Free Republic — that election is over, I've said for years that my main problem with Skelton was he should have become a Republican long ago, and I wrote repeatedly in 2010 that our county's voters need to decide whether we should vote in our own self-interest to defend Fort Leonard Wood or the country's long-term best interest in getting rid of Democrats. Our strongly Republican county voted mostly Democrat, most of the rest of the district voted Republican, that election is behind us, and our district now has a member of Congress on the House Armed Services Committee whose main prior political credential is opposition to homosexuality.
My point is that if opposition to homosexuality can propel a Republican candidate with a very thin resume to victory over a very senior Democrat who was regarded as not being sufficiently anti-homosexual and kowtowing too much to Nancy Pelosi and her agenda out of San Francisco, I think opposition to homosexuality is a winning campaign issue in lots of other places in the United States.
Pardon me, I did not invest the time to read your entire post. Brevity is the soul of wit.
To cofidy: No, in 2012, running on a platform highlighting the gay agenda is not a winner, especially from a candidate who drips self righteousness and yet refuses to attack anyone except those on his side.
As Newt said, those interested in promoting the gay agenda should vote Obama.
Next issue please.
Okay, next issue.
From reading many of your posts, I think we fundamentally disagree on whether focusing on moral issues, not just homosexuality but other questions, is a winning strategy. That's leading us to support different candidates, and that's fine — that's what elections are for.
There's a good chance your side is going to win this primary, and if it does, we're moving toward a European style conservative party in which personal morality isn't very important. I will be very unhappy if the result is that many more Republicans start acting in their private life the way Gingrich admits to having acted on the grounds they can get away with it.
However, that's better than a President Romney and a **WHOLE** lot better than our current President Obama. I'm not very happy with any of the choices this year, and Newt Gingrich may end up being the best we can get.
I think I showed in my last point that at least in my Congressional district in conservative rural Missouri, opposition to gay marriage was a key part of a winning strategy that took down a Democrat who in most years would have been untouchable, and replaced him with a Republican whose resume apart from Christian conservative concerns was thin at best. If the Republican Party neglects the social issues part of its base, it's going to have big problems down the road, and maybe in the short-term as well.
57 posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 8:11:46 AM by C. Edmund Wright: “Pardon me, I did not invest the time to read your entire post. Brevity is the soul of wit.”
I understand your point. Sound bites work.
I've also spent too many years listening to liberals accuse conservatives of being incapable of thinking and incapable of sustained rational argument. I'm certainly not accusing you of that, but I won't permit myself to be accused of that, especially knowing that anything I write on Free Republic could come back to bite me years later if I don't explain myself in sufficient detail to be defensible in context.
I suspect on this issue I may agree more with your candidate's approach to political discourse than you do ;-) I do appreciate Newt Gingrich's willingness to present his politics in long-form debates, not just sound bites, though sound bites are definitely important in summarizing complex arguments.
..IIRC, the sulfur deposits present in that area have shown that something akin to a nuclear explosion happened—and it wasn’t from Iranians...
Santorum's chairman is not exactly correct.
Idolatry makes God want to vomit. The first and 2nd commandments BOTH a very clear about Idolatry.
As Romans 1 explains, homosexuality is a result of (and a form of) idolatry.
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.