The religion of Jerry Ford - and his '76 election

This is one of the very few times in a Presidential election I voted for a Democrat. Looking back, it was probably the worst mistake in an election I ever made. My reasoning was that the economy seemed to be in shambles and the pardon of Nixon (your other thread). Carter was from the South, appeared to be conservative and Christian, and I believed the country needed a change. So, on election day, I voted for Carter from Mississippi, where I had grown up, being only 24 at the time.

Looking back, a more mature and insightful person would have made another choice. One, as the article states, Carter used his faith as a political tool, whereas Ford used his faith to reflect his everyday actions. Also, about the economy in shambles was nothing compared to what it was in 1980 when Carter ran again. The next time I jumped at the chance to vote for Reagan. I had voted for Nixon in 1972. We had bought our house in 1979 at 15% interest.

Also, my other reason for voting for Carter turned out to be wrong, the pardon of Nixon, which I responded to in the other thread. The whole thing was a bad mistake on my part. I do believe President Ford to have been a solid Christian.

 

President Ford was an Episcopalian in an age when Episcopalians still were believers, and there are some today. His wife was pro-choice, strangely. I think that President Ford is underrated. Those were hard times, like now. His choice of Nelson Rockefeller at the time seemed based on reassuring people that someone who knew about money was helping. President Ford seems like a more competent politician than either Nixon or Carter, although Nixon was highly intelligent and a master at foreign policy. Eisenhower still stands tall--I like Ike.

 

The middle 1970's were hard times for most Republicans.

Nixon's Watergate scandal certainly didn't help them, and the pro-left media hounded Ford for his pardoning Nixon--not that they were Ford supporters in the first place.

Carter won in 1976 but never was able to restore the faltering economy. Thank goodness that the American voters turned to Reagan in 1980.

 

And all this time I thought your two favorites were George McGovern and Walter Mondale.

 

Oh, they were very nice personally.

:wavey:

 

I do not agree. Ford was an Episcopalian who believed that the Episcopal Church was making great strides in it's 'inclusion' of practicing gays into the ministry. Gerald Ford was a board member of the Republican Unity Coalition and was often noted for his “inclusivity”.
He called his pastor before the 2003 General Convention of the Episcopal Church and said 'that the human sexuality issues dividing the church ought not to cause a schism'. The pastor conducting the funeral service brought this up during Ford's eulogy! Gerald also thought Bishop Spong to be a great thinker. At Ford's funeral John 14:6 was read. Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; (however, this part of the passage omitted) no one comes to the Father, but by me.” Clearly in having chopped this verse midway it was meant to be cut consistent with liberal theology by a pastor that Ford supported. BTW, the Rev. Certain (picked beforehand by President Ford to conduct his service) said that “if anyone is going to heaven, it certainly is the Fords, because they have done so much good in their lives.”
I don’t think there’s too much doubt about why John 14:6 got left in the dust.
President Ford was definitely in the liberal camp theologically, and what he said about the inclusion of actively gay clergy in the Episcopal Church was an accurate reflection of those liberal theology/revisionist views.

 

The choice at the time was Ford and Carter. It was not Jesus and Ford. I voted for Carter based on a young age and flawed reasoning. All one had to do is be awake in 1980 to see the disaster of this decision. Another thing I do not understand about your reasoning. I would think the way you described President Ford would be much closer to your theology than Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter.

 

Have I ever given you the idea that I'm theologically liberal? That I support sexually active gays in the ministry? Or that I believe, as Ford's pastor did, that good works earn a person salvation? I'm not sure I understand where you think I stand theologically. Maybe you have me confused with someone else?

 

Saturneptune:

The pastor of the church in which Gerald Ford attended (St. Margaret's, Palmdale Ca) has made comments such as: 'To say that resurrection is essential doesn’t mean that if someone were to discover a tomb with Jesus’ remains in it that the entire enterprise would come crashing down.' Here is another: 'the truth is, we don't know what happened to Jesus body after His death'. Really? Would 'a solid Christian', as you say Ford was, attend a church where the pastor believes the physical ressurection of Jesus is an optional belief? I guess if you believes that the bible is just made up of inaccurate historical documents and that it isn't to be given serious attention like so most clergy of The Episcopal Church now believe and all their seminaries except Nahotah House and Trinity School for Ministry now teach, then it is easy to also conclude what The Episcopal Church does and did while Ford was a member of TEC, about sexually active gays in the ministry and gay marriage.

 

It is my belief that the Anglican Church in the late 30's and 40's lead the way for easy acceptance of immorality by accepting contraceptive use. Most of Protestantism by the 1960's accepted contraceptive use. Fortunately, the Southern Baptist have Back Pedalled somewhat on this issue. But it seems that the American union of Anglicans or the Episcopalian churches tend to lead the liberal charge.

 

No, you have never given me that idea. This was a Presidential race, not a election for Savior of the World. All I am saying, is that looking back on my vote, Ford would have been the better choice, which I rectified in 1980 by voting for Reagan.

 

No, I did not know his church believed that, nor do I understand how that would have made him a better or worse President. I believe the Bible to be 100% true period. If I believed that Epsicopal doctrine was more accurate than Baptist, I would be an Episcopalian. There is a lot more to being President of the United States than comparing denominations. I voted against Ford in 1976 because of the Nixon pardon and the economy, and because I believed Carter to be more conservative. In reality, he was not a leader in any sense of the word. I am not really sure how you would rate his Christianity compared to Fords, especially coming from your perspective. No, I do not analyze Presidential candidates on a doctrine by doctrine basis. Overall, I would say he had more moral standing than Nixon or Johnson for sure, and probably Carter.

 

As far as the use of contraceptives, there is no back peddaling to do. It does not violate any Biblical principle, and the Baptist faith has never seen it as something to be avoided. This is the ultimate strawman, prohibiting something that is not condemned in Scripture. And just for the record, this in no way relates to abortion. I do not know where you got the idea that Baptists ever entertained the idea that birth control was a sin. That is just more Catholic nonsense.

 

Here you would be wrong. Ref. Genesis 38:9. Also for SBC

and

 

Mr. Mohler is entitled to his opinion, but has nothing to say about the policy of local autonomous churches. Birth control is a Catholic issue. Abortion is murder, and is a Christian issue. Anyway, this needs to be a seperate thread.

Not only are you taking Genesis 38:9 out of context, as this was a specific action at a specific time, not a doctrinal teaching, you have misrepresented Baptist stances on birth control. Baptists defend Catholics right to be against contraceptives, not stand with them on it.

Why Baptists stand with Catholics on birth control mandate
By Bryant Wright, Richard Land and O. S. Hawkins
We acknowledge that Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists have differing views on how we understand and practice our faith, stemming from our differing concepts of what we view as our supreme authority. For Southern Baptists, authority is in Scripture alone. For Catholics, authority is in Scripture and the church.

For example, most Baptists have a different perspective than do Catholics on the use of contraceptives by a married couple, because we believe Scripture does not condemn it, yet we hold an almost identical perspective on abortion because of the Bible’s clear teaching on the sanctity of every human life.




Despite our theological differences, we cannot remain silent while others find their First Amendment freedom of religion rights trampled.

As Baptists we defend Catholics’ right to not have their consciences coerced by government edict on the issue of contraception.

In the Manhattan Declaration (2009), Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians proclaimed, “Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience.”

Pope John Paul II wrote that religious freedom is the “first freedom.” It is, he continued, “the premise and guarantee of all freedoms that ensure the common good.”

There are areas of our lives in which we are to submit to the state and there are areas, clearly delineated by our faith, in which the state must not intrude. As Christ Himself said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s (Mark 12:17).

As Americans–Catholics and Baptists alike–we are in absolute agreement on the inviolable freedom of conscience, a right recognized and guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution to every American citizen.

It is difficult to comprehend why the Obama administration would so excessively overreach in their January 20 mandate that health insurance plans for Catholic and other faith-based hospitals and charities, etc., must subsidize coverage for contraceptives as preventive services. In light of the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (2012) that the government telling a religious group who they can hire or fire is clearly in violation of the First Amendment, it is amazing they would engage in such government overreach once again.

The president’s “compromise” 21 days later revealed the White House’s basic lack of understanding by thinking this issue could be solved simply by word games or accounting tricks. Moreover, it ignores the needs of many of the oldest and largest church insurance plans in the nation. GuideStone, the provider of insurance for many Southern Baptists, is self-funded, which means it pays benefits directly instead of using a third-party insurance company. In the name of religious freedom, it cannot be forced by the government to provide services contrary to its religious convictions.

The federal government’s decision is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause protections enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

This mandate by the executive branch is less about birth control, abortion or the Catholic Church than it is about the government attempting to compel people to subsidize and pay for that which they find unconscionable.

Thomas Jefferson understood the impropriety of requiring citizens to involuntarily fund activities they find morally repugnant. In the draft of the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (1779), Jefferson wrote, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”

The Obama administration’s mandate on contraception coverage is a blatant and outrageous encroachment on religious freedom.

We urge Americans of all faiths (and no faith) to call upon the Obama administration to rescind this order, which is a gross violation of the First Amendment. We encourage you to contact your U.S. senators and your congressman, urging them to press the White House to reverse this decision and to support legislation that would undo this unwarranted government overreach.


Bryant Wright, President of the Southern Baptist Convention and Senior Pastor of Johnson Ferry Baptist Church

Richard Land, President, The Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

 

Certainly, but I think it is significant that he is president of a leading seminary for the denomination. I'm certain there are local autonomous churches that hold his view.

I disagree. I believe its a morality issue which makes it a national issue. But of course you are free to disagree.

Yes, at least we agree on this.

True enough.

I dont' see how as 1) God give us the command to multiply and hasn't recinded that command. And 2) the specific circumstance you mention is where the man in question was avoiding conception by using a contraceptive method. The man was obviously responsible for inpregnating the woman not just using the woman for his personal sexual pleasure. God found this so evil that he killed the man instentanously.

You would have had a point had I commented on the statements or provided commentary made by the SBC documents. I did not. I only quoted the documents. So I don't see how they are misrepresented.

I agree with the 1st amendment as well.

 

Hmmm... If you believe that life begins at conception and some birth control methods such as the pill/morning after etc. can cause a fertilized egg to abort (called abortifacients), in that case contraception is equal to abortion and thus violates biblical principle.

Someone has some thinkin' to do...

WM

 

Nope, I would say the RCC has the market on has some thinkin to do. There is a clear line. Either the egg is fertilized or it is not. Anything that causes a fertilized egg to abort is abortion and therefore murder. You are the one that put the morning after pill in the birth control catagory. Why dont defend your position with a more likely senario, like using a condomn?