Christian Leaders/Third Party

Lightkeeper · #1 (**permalink**) 27th October 2007, 06:37 PM

Quote:

'This Is Not a Bluff'
A Christian political leader on the threat of a third party.

By Jeffrey Bartholet and Eve Conant | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Christian conservatives want more respect. They were instrumental in propelling George W. Bush to power—twice—and now they're feeling neglected. At a "Values Voters" summit in Washington last week, leading evangelicals gathered to speak out and take a straw poll. The survey showed how unhappy they are with the twice-divorced, pro-choice Republican front runner for the presidential nomination, Rudy Giuliani. He got less than two percent of the overall vote. (Some Christian activists have threatened to back a third-party candidate if Giuliani wins the GOP nomination.) Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the straw poll of 5,775 conservatives, which included voters who have been able to cast online ballots since August. But many evangelicals are uncomfortable with Romney's Mormon faith. That may have factored in the voting of people who actually attended the summit: Romney lost that tally by a wide margin to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is also an ordained Southern Baptist minister. To better understand the current thinking of Christian conservatives, NEWSWEEK's Jeffrey Bartholet and Eve Conant spoke to Richard Land, a leading evangelical who serves as president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: So we wanted to ask you, first of all, about the third-party idea and whether it's serious. A number of people are suggesting it's just a threat.
Richard Land: My intuition [is that] this is not a bluff. If Giuliani is the nominee there will be a third party. There are things that Giuliani could do to help mitigate the damage. But I have been in too many discussions over the last 15 years where evangelical leaders have said, "The one thing we will never allow to happen is for the Republican Party to take us for granted the way the Democratic Party too often takes the African-American community for granted."
This is not a bluff.

So what you are saying, as a bottom line, is that you would be prepared to
help Hillary [Clinton] get elected if Giuliani were in the race?
Well, I personally wouldn't be saying that … It's just [that] I'm not willing or able to violate my moral conscience. It would be like asking an African-American to choose between Strom Thurmond and George Wallace or asking Abe Lincoln to vote for a pro-slavery candidate. I personally can't do it. I am not going to criticize those who choose the lesser-of-two-evils option. [But] I can't do it, and my guess is somewhere between 25 percent and a third of our people won't do it.

We met with Gov. Huckabee recently, and he said, "Well, why don't they vote for me right now? They've got me. Why do they need a third-party candidate?"
Well, I think if anybody other than Giuliani is the nominee, there won't be a third party.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57631

What happened to the separation of church and state? Have we taken steps backward if we are voting for someone for their religious beliefs rather than their abilities as a leader. What do you think?

Eolas Pellor · #2 (**permalink**) 28th October 2007, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

What happened to the separation of church and state? Have we taken steps backward if we are voting for someone for their religious beliefs rather than their abilities as a leader. What do you think?

The Fundamentalist/GOP alliance has, long since, abandoned any idea of the separation of Church and State. While the extreme fringe is inhabited by Dominionsits, who want to tear up the existing Consitution and to substitute whatevere the Preacher-du-jour decides to be the "Word of God", the majority certainly want to enshrien "Christian Values" above all else, and enforce a second-class status on anyone who does not agree with them.

Although it is more than likely that many who have sided with the Fun****etalist/GOP in the past would likely jump-ship if they tried to impose ever more puritanical laws and ideology on America, there might be just suficient numbers of them to precipitate a crisis. What would happen then is anyone's guess...but it may do well to remember that, back in the 18th Century, it is unlikely there were more than 20% of Colonists who supported the aim of independence from Britain --- certainly in 1770, and likley as late as 1774 or 1775.

In other words, it doesn't take a majority to precipitate a crisis...merely a intrnasigent minority.

**angeleyes** · #3 (**permalink**) 29th October 2007, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

What happened to the separation of church and state? Have we taken steps backward if we are voting for someone for their religious beliefs rather than their abilities as a leader. What do you think?

Great question and I have no clue what the answer is.

I think there are alot of hard-core fundamentalists that would love to see more influence of the church upon the state, but I also think certain issues (like abortion) extend beyond the fundamentalists to include some of the more moderate populace.

As long as goverment/supreme court is involved in controversial issues, I think there will always be disagreement. The more conservative/religious person will see things through their particular color of glasses, just as other groups do.

Some of the issues we have to deal with in today's society aren't easy ones, even without the religious/nonreligious take on it. That's my opinion, anyway.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode