Getting Evangelical,Christian values back on the table

"The term, Yellow Dog Democrat, blossomed during all of the Hoopla which surrounded the 1928 elections, when Al Smith ran for President against Herbert Hoover. During that campaign, Senator Tom Heflin, of Alabama, declined to back his fellow Democrat, Al Smith the Governor of NY. In fact it was much worse than that, Senator Heflin decided to back Herbert Hoover, who would then go on to become President- a Republican President no less. Heflin's controversial actions were considered heresy, especially in the South. As you can imagine, quite a large number of Alabamans vehemently disagreed with Senator Heflin's decision to cross his "Party Lines". Hence, the popular saying, "I'd vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket" was born! It was adopted as the proud slogan of the staunch party loyalist.
At the time, this phrase certainly did not reflect well on Senator Heflin."

It's odd. Democrats now consider it an insult. :laugh:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Pray for the gift of discernment. Then read the Bible.

It's all there.

That's why prayer is necessary.

It sounds like you don't believe the Bible will tell us how and what to evangelize. I disagree totally.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted your remarks.

 

Sorry guys, I didn't know we switched to the war in Iraq. I mean, if you don't want to be financially responsible for poor choices and large scale violation of others right to live then we must be speaking of the war in Iraq. Right?
Or are you saying it's ok to do it in Iraq but don't dare use this standard on our soil?

 

Partially. But it's not a coincidence that the new crop of democrats are more moderate, more in tune with America, and more willing to openly discuss their faith in God. To that degree, the democrats also got the message.

America rejected extremism, as well as corruption and incompetence.

They presented an agenda; they just didn't recycle the leftist ideas that cost them in the past. Remarkably, they seem to have learned from the years out of office.

 

Waaaait, waaaait.

Political Evangelicals are all for legislating laws against equal rights for homosexuals - marriage, for example. They are all for protecting people from making choices about a wide variety of things, including whether or not they want to gamble, for example.

If Political Evangelicals truly believed in a self-disciplining society, then there would be no problem in insisting the government extend the same rights and tax breaks to same-sex couples that are afforded traditional married couples.

If Political Evangelicals truly believed in a self-disciplining society, there would be far less time spent hollering at abortion clinics and more time spent praying with young people.

If Political Evangelicals truly believed in a self-disciplining society, they would cease insisting that the Federal, State, and local governments run the moral show according to only their narrow definition of righteousness.

It is typical Political Evangelical Conservative Lockstep Brownshirt claptrap to parrot the party line about Liberals thinking some animals are more equal than others, but offering nothing substantive by way of argument or discussion.

We've had the "Moral Majority" crowd deciding who was and was not a True Christian(tm) now for several decades. What's gotten better? Not a stinking thing. While this should tell us all somthing about Political Evangleicals and their lust to control the thoughts and minds of every American, it sadly does not.

 

I am saying that war is always tragic and undesirable but sometimes necessary to win a greater peace.

Iraq does not even come close to the 50 million + murdered by abortion in the US alone over the last 34 years.

Abortion is a matter of convenience for someone who has already exercised their rights and want to escape the consequences.

When we went to Iraq, we had every reason to believe that Saddam had WMD's and was prepared to share them with terrorists. The intel convinced everyone privileged to see it... even the hypocrites who opportunistically have now risen to power by bashing Bush for believing it.

This war was intended to protect life. Those all to willing to take life are the ones perpetuating it. Whose life does abortion protect?

I hope that you are not truly confused about the difference between Iraq and abortion. If so, God help you.

 

I agree it's a legitimate question and there is no doubt the answer is found in scripture.

Any other definition of "evangelical" doesn't matter to me.

 

So... you're calling on Christians to declare war on abortion clinics and those who get abortions?

Jihad! Woohooo!!!!!

 

Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege. I have stated here several times that if the left will agree that no one has an obligation to recognize the validity of the homosexual lifestyle or honor their personal contracts then I won't be the one to tell them what kind of contracts they should have with each other.

Marriage is a contract. Gov't should leave the personal part out of their involvement. At the same time, no employer, insurance company, church, civic group, club, or any other entity should be required to accept people whose behavior they find offensive. It is a constitutional right to be prejudiced against behaviors by not associating or doing business with those who do them.

If this were even close to being true then you wouldn't have a lottery in SC or riverboat gambling in Mississippi.

Some people do oppose it though. I would argue that even those people would be silenced though if they didn't have to see things like a woman in a quick stop using her welfare money to buy lottery tickets and cigarettes while buying milk and bread with food stamps. If the people who gambled were responsible for the consequences of their behavior then there probably wouldn't be enough of it to bother with.

I don't believe that the gov't should be in a position to endorse any personal relationship and certainly not to control behavior through tax breaks. We should go to indirect taxation like the founders envisioned... as well as limited gov't like they envisioned.

BTW, it is liberals who demanded that issues such as these be fought out in the halls of gov't. Pragmatically, as long as it must be that way then even folks with ideals like mine must take a stand against gov't affirmation and funding for things that are contrary to our core moral values. I don't want morals determined in the legislature... but if liberals demand it then I'm not going to silently be railroaded either.

Non sequitur. I would suspect that those who believe that abortion is morally wrong and who believe that it is a violation of human rights and should be illegal spend much more time "praying with young people" than their counterparts who affirm abortion "rights".

Liberals started it. For years we tried unilateral disarmament... while liberals pushed through abortion funding and various other things to force us to approve of and pay for things that directly contradict our values. Things that make us complicit in sin.

If you think that you either haven't read what I've written or are simply a moral coward who has to cast insults because they really have nothing more to respond with. I have given you substanitive arguments. Where are yours?

Show me where you have proven that the unborn are not human lives and therefore not worthy of having their right to live protected.

Show me where liberals are truly willing to let conservative Christians live out their values and beliefs without forcing their children into indoctrinating schools or forcing them to pay for immoral behavior or forcing us subsidize people who are engaging in self-destructive behavior.

Where is your substance? Where is your biblical or even rational support for liberalism (aka socialism)?

Nope. We have simply spelled out what the Bible says on the matter. In fact, I haven't said that you or anyone else isn't a Christian. If you are voting for liberals though then you are not voting on biblical principles... and if you think I am wrong, show the substance of that argument.

Funny. A newswire report just talked about how Alito and Roberts may provide enough of a shift on the Supreme Court to uphold the partial birth abortion ban... a ban that never would have seen the light of day in a Dem Congress.

With Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and the greatest judicial mind in America, Scalia, we were only one justice away from taking another look at Roe.

With a Dem Senate, this won't happen.

BTW, politics is about agenda and direction. Seldom do you get the kinds of majority you need to effect things all at once. Compromises are made where you get 60-70% of what you want and give up 30%... but you move things toward your goal. The last twelve years have produced some positive change on welfare. Positive change on taxes. Positive changes in the judiciary and especially a shift in the Supreme Court. Things have moved. Not as far as they need to move but they have moved.

Liberals did this for 40 years to get us in the mess we were/are in. The Republicans became more like them and less like the 94 reformers. That's why they're out on their ears.

I have explicitly said that I don't want to do this. I have proven that the liberalism you seem to support MUST do this. You can't leave other people or their wallets alone and achieve the aims of that humanistic/socialistic agenda.

Any time you want to affirm freedom with responsibility, I'll be the first one to "amen". But this idea that people should have "freedom" but the responsibility should be born by society is wholly perverse and breeds the type of licentiousness that destroys whole societies... and appears to be doing so to ours.

 

I didn't even come close to saying anything like that. Take my words and prove that I did or perhaps work on your reading comprehension.

Jihad? Liberal humanists have been conducting their own Jihad since the 60's. Silencing the opposition. Killing on a massive scale. Unification of their religion (secular humanism) with gov't characterized by making their moral opinions the law of the land.

Were always at war with sin... but murder and oppression are the tactics of the other side.

 

I don't agree with you, but I like the fact that you reply substantively.

 

Thanks.

Sorry if my antagonism went a little overboard.

 

I give as good as I get, so no apology needed.

 

Agreed.

No, actually it was more than that. It was not just the allegation that Iraq had WMD, it was that they were an "eminent threat." Remember Cheney advising that there was "no doubt" that "Iraq had reconstituted" their nuclear weapons program? I have heard several soundbytes where both Bush and Rice were warning that the "smoking gun" could possibly come in the form of a "mushroom cloud."

It was much more than simply a belief in his WMD program. Despite Ritter's claims to the contrary, we invaded anyway. And yet, we haven't found anything.

Regards,
BiR

 

Are you saying were not getting enough bang for the buck in Iraq? We've certianly spent more of your money in Iraq so if the body count is low then I can see why you'd be upset.

Who are you talking about saw this proof? I thought we all took Bush at his word.

You said your tax dollars should not be spent on killing innocent lives. Then you defend all the innocent your tax dollars killed in Iraq? You think I'm the confused one???

 

Cheney , nor anyone else in the Administration, ever said Iraq was an "imminent threat".

I believe you know that. If you still contend they did, please supply us with the quote and source.