Evangelicals backing Giuliani

IsItJustMe
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-11-08
User is offlineOffline
Evangelicals backing Giuliani

At first glance this may seem very odd. The evangelical leaders are, supposedly, first and foremost social conservatives, who favor such "Biblical values" as discrimination against gays and restricting women's rights to control their own bodies. Giuliani is a conservative in many ways, but a social conservative he is not, as all of us who have seen the footage of him in drag know.

 

But here we see demonstrated the fact that the national evangelical movement is controlled by some very cynical leaders who do not hold the values they espouse but only use them as a way to manipulate their followers.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/08/roland.martin/index.html

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I wonder if the followers

I wonder if the followers of these evangelical bigwigs have figured out that their leader care more for the power they wield than the God they purport to serve.

Probably not. They'll just tell their flock that Rudy's a good Christian and lo, he will be. It worked for Bush.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Zombie
RRS local affiliate
Zombie's picture
Posts: 573
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I guess this is a case of a

I guess this is a case of a lesser evil preferred to a greater evil in their minds. Politics do make for strange beffellows.

Morte alla tyrannus et dei


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
IsItJustMe wrote: At first

IsItJustMe wrote:

At first glance this may seem very odd. The evangelical leaders are, supposedly, first and foremost social conservatives, who favor such "Biblical values" as discrimination against gays and restricting women's rights to control their own bodies. Giuliani is a conservative in many ways, but a social conservative he is not, as all of us who have seen the footage of him in drag know.

 

But here we see demonstrated the fact that the national evangelical movement is controlled by some very cynical leaders who do not hold the values they espouse but only use them as a way to manipulate their followers.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/08/roland.martin/index.html

 

 

 

Actually, the evangelicals are split between Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and Huckabee.  Which is fantastic news.   From what I've read, evangelicals like Pat Robertson have backed Giuliani because Rudy has promised to nominate SC Judges that interpret along the lines of Thomas and Scalia. 

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


EverLastingGodS...
Posts: 84
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Roisin Dubh

Roisin Dubh wrote:
Actually, the evangelicals are split between Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and Huckabee. Which is fantastic news. From what I've read, evangelicals like Pat Robertson have backed Giuliani because Rudy has promised to nominate SC Judges that interpret along the lines of Thomas and Scalia.

Another reason why Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Guliani is because Guliani's proposed policy toward Israel and Palestine, which favors using US troops and resources to defend Israel, plays into End Times theology. 


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Roisin Dubh

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Actually, the evangelicals are split between Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and Huckabee. Which is fantastic news.

As a Christian, I won't vote for Giuliani. It will be too easy for him to slide on the justice appointments. He's not a social conservative, and once he knows he can win without the support of social conservatives (because of the lesser evil argument or whatever), he will ignore the requirements.

Of course, the price of a stacked court is increased power for the president (which we have seen). If people want to prevent that, they need to push for a "Definition of life, and right to life" amendment.

I am split between Romney, Huckabee, and Ron Paul. I don't see that as bad at all. It means there is actually some choice and debate going on, which I haven't seen since I've been able to vote (96 Dole).

I'd like to be able to think about a Democrat (in case the Republicans go with Giuliani). But I have yet to see one who is pro-life (legal but rare doesn't cut it, you wouldn't say murder should be legal but rare).

And it's true many evangelical leaders have sold out for power. It's a sad thing, and an insult to Christianity. They should apologize and change their behavior (repent).


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote: Of

nedbrek wrote:

Of course, the price of a stacked court is increased power for the president (which we have seen). If people want to prevent that, they need to push for a "Definition of life, and right to life" amendment.

Come again? 

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Roisin Dubh wrote: nedbrek

Roisin Dubh wrote:
nedbrek wrote:

Of course, the price of a stacked court is increased power for the president (which we have seen). If people want to prevent that, they need to push for a "Definition of life, and right to life" amendment.

Come again?

Sure, that is a lot of stuff in a short space Smiling

Right now, we see a battle for power between the executive (president) and legislative (Congress) branches of government.  This isn't new in the history of the county,  but it is new in recent memory.

The deciding factor between these two will be the judicial (Supreme Court).

We have been stacking the court with Republican friendly judges.  Judges are supposed to be neutral, and often "betray" the party that appointed them.  But if we consider to stack the court, it is likely it will side with the executive.

We see this in decisions are wire-tapping, data mining innocent people, shipping people to Gitmo without trials, etc. 

This is a pretty heavy price to pay. 

It could be averted, if there were a Constitutional amendment defining when life begins, and laying out more of the "due process" necessary before killing someone.

Hope that helps! 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote: Roisin Dubh

nedbrek wrote:
Roisin Dubh wrote:
nedbrek wrote:

Of course, the price of a stacked court is increased power for the president (which we have seen). If people want to prevent that, they need to push for a "Definition of life, and right to life" amendment.

Come again?

Sure, that is a lot of stuff in a short space Smiling

Right now, we see a battle for power between the executive (president) and legislative (Congress) branches of government. This isn't new in the history of the county, but it is new in recent memory.

The deciding factor between these two will be the judicial (Supreme Court).

We have been stacking the court with Republican friendly judges. Judges are supposed to be neutral, and often "betray" the party that appointed them. But if we consider to stack the court, it is likely it will side with the executive.

We see this in decisions are wire-tapping, data mining innocent people, shipping people to Gitmo without trials, etc.

This is a pretty heavy price to pay.

It could be averted, if there were a Constitutional amendment defining when life begins, and laying out more of the "due process" necessary before killing someone.

Hope that helps!

How would a "help the pre-born, screw them afterwards" piece of legislation help? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin