WASHINGTON – Conservative evangelical leaders have long openly expressed dismay over the prospect of being forced to choose between two pro-choice presidential candidates. But now, a coalition of evangelicals has gone as far as to threaten to pull their support for the Republican Party if such a candidate is selected for the last stretch of the White House race.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Charles Dharapak)Republican Presidential hopeful, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani addresses the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in Washington, Friday, Oct. 5, 2007.
Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family – who recently emerged from a controversy over a private email he sent criticizing Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson – says he and others in the social conservative coalition will not support Rudy Giuliani or any pro-choice candidate that the Republican Party picks for its presidential nominee.
“Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles,” Dobson wrote in an Op-Ed in The New York Times on Thursday.
“In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades.”
Dobson said a candidate should support the “the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles.”
Giuliani, on the other hand, supports abortion and gay rights.
Some Roman Catholic leaders have also opposed Giuliani’s stance on abortion. An archbishop from St. Louis this week said he would withhold communion from Giuliani, a Roman Catholic.
Giuliani’s personal life is also another red flag for some conservative Christians. The former New York mayor has been through three marriages, two divorces and is estranged from his two children.
Yet despite these moral obstacles, Giuliani is said to have reached out, with some positive response, to more than a dozen pastors of large evangelical churches and Christian leaders including Jonathan Falwell, the son of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, according to the New York Times.
A recent Gallup Poll also found that the former New York City mayor had an overall favorable rating from churchgoing Protestants. Among the top tier Republican candidates, Giuliani rates third after Fred Thompson and John McCain among religious Protestants.
As the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, Giuliani has repeatedly stated he can beat Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton – an appealing statement for those who see Clinton as a larger threat.
But to Dobson and others in the coalition, “Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.”
The coalition met Saturday in Salt Lake City after a larger meeting of the Council for National Policy – an exclusive conservative networking group. The smaller group included Dobson, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and dozens of other politically concerned conservative Christians.
RSS
I cannot as a matter of faith and conscience cast my vote for any individual who is against the Lord. Abortion is the willful extermination and murder of innocent blood. I will not vote for a party to come in and pick apart our military defenses because they never having served don't see the point of defending us. I cannot support any candidate that would suspend my constitution rights by forcing me and my children to compromise my free exercise of religion and our desire to be Christian and then give other group exclusive rights and privilages to promote theirs.
We are truly getting to a time where we may no longer be able to vote for the lesser of the two evils considering all the choices are wearing horns.
Ron Paul on Life and Liberty
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life."
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Ronald Reagan is dead, and we conservatives have clearly demonstrated that we will not stand by a truly conservative man anyway. (Bush)
The cold hard truth is that Giuliani and McCain are the only two candidates with the starpower to offset the Major Press lock step support of democrats. Of those two, Giuliani is the obvious better option.
The other choise is Hillary, and the christians will be sure to elect her in a temper tantrum, so get ready to surrender your guns, your free speech, get ready to give up the right to decide anything for your own children (ritalin, prozac, homosexual teachings, anti christian teaching), get ready for state sponsored abortion on demand for anyone at any age, get ready for the EU, WTF, and United Nations to close in and control our country with Bill at the Helm. Get ready for the horrific level of care under socialized medicine, get ready to be declared a crazy wacko by our government and placed in the same category as the KKK for being a christian. Get ready for your standard of living to go down under the heavy burden of taxation. Get ready for the economic decline that is caused by all of this to be blamed on Bush and conservatives. Get ready to never have a truly democratic election again. Take a hard look at san francisco, and get ready to live there.
Get ready for the power hungry, tunnel visioned, arrogant so called conervative christian leaders to elect the next best thing to the anti-christ himself. That is ABSOLUTELY CORRECET.
Government regulation of abortion is the least of our concerns. THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE IN A CHURCH PERIOD IS ON THE LINE. JUST GO AHEAD AND DO SOME RESEARCH ON HILLARY CLINTON, BECAUSE I KNOW FEW OF YOU HAVE EVER HEARD WHAT SHE FEELS ABOUT CHRISTIANS. EDUCATE YOURSELF.
That is right!! Take 2 steps back, and ask yourself if you should follow all these power hungry so called christian leaders with their 15000 seat houses of gold. (not god) Ask yourself if you want to follow their money driven power hungry ways, or listen to your instincts. Your instincts will tell you how monumental of an election this is for christians. NOT so they can make a grab for power, so they can PREVENT the colapse of the greatest society on earth that allows them to flourish.
The President cannot overturn Roe vs. Wade anyhow, so not voting... well, I have said my piece.
To "quetzal"
Thanks for your kind words regarding my recent posting.
I can understand how one might come away with the perception of pro-life conservatives being more worried about the unborn and the pro-abortion liberals being more worried about the welfare of children after they're born.
Such a common notion is perpetuated by our mainstream media & cultural elites. However, I take exception to such generalizations.
Many of our pro-life conservatives are concerned about life from conception through natural death. Many are involved in serving the poor, hungry and imprisoned through many non-profit organizations such as Compassion International, World Vision, Food for the Hungry, Prison Fellowship, etc. Many are also actively engaged in adoptive and foster parenting of needy children. Of course, the more visible fringe elements of the pro-life movement are often paraded in the media as shrill, violent, uncaring and solely focused on the unborn child. How else can one get ratings and sell advertisement space in the papers, magazines, radio, television and cable news programs.
On the contrary, ordinary Christian pro-lifers are quietly serving the Kingdom of God via acts of compassion, often unnoticed by the public, day in and day out. It is not the most exciting news reporting to hear about another adoption of a needy child each day, although it happens almost everyday.
Also, dollar for dollar, conservatives generally give more to charitable organizations than their
liberal counterparts. The main difference is that many conservatives want to give their own
money in caring for the poor and hungry. And they do so often without a whole lot of media attention. While many liberals want to give other people's tax money via governmental social welfare programs and are less willing to part with their own money. Again, the media latches onto such visible government programs as obvious evidence of one's "compassion."
So to be in favor of governmental fiscal restraint and against the expansion of certain
governmental social welfare programs is painted as being uncompassionate. On the
other hand, to be in favor of governmental social welfare programs is viewed as compassionate.
I suggest that such views, although politically correct, do not accurately portray the
situation on Main Street, USA. There are many valid reasons to oppose certain governmental
social welfare expansion & to do so with motives of compassion for the born also.
Squeaky wheel, congratulations on a reasoned explanation about the possible ways of making decisions. I personally can understand the anathema against abortions but it would be heartening to see pro-life people spend half as much time and energy worrying about the neglected, abused, hungry children who are already with us as they do about abortions. It is ironical that the pro-life conservatives worry more about the unborn, and the pro-choice liberals worry more about the welfare of children after they're born, as evidenced by their social welfare programs.
Hilary gets in, maybe a way of bringing on Gods Judgment-Chastisement on America . As far as Giuliani goes, is a RepubliCrat. Oh well... I like Huckabee is a sweety and younger not as known tho, not a globalist for sure. I can feel safe again. :) But I like the cute Edwards... wish we had a republican face like his whoohoo...
To "John 3:16"--
Great question! There is a difference of opinions among Christians about how to best approach such a scenario.
1) One option is to vote for the candidate who is least pro-abortion. In other words, the one who would do the least amount of damage to the pro-life cause. So one would measure the candidates' views on a continuum or sliding scale and the "winner" of your vote would be the person closest to your biblical values. (Pragmatic view)
2) Another option when all are pro-abortion, is simply to sit out the vote. One does not vote for any candidate who is even a tinge of favoring abortion rights. (Purist view)
3) The current American political time frame is such that we are not yet in such a position of having to choose between 2 pro-abortion candidates. Although the polls may give evidence of public preferences for certain candidates, things can change, and change can occur rapidly and unpredictably (especially when God's people pray). One year's time is considered an "eternity" in the political season. Therefore, the key is to agitate now while it is still early & make "waves."
Let's not get to that point of being forced to select between one of two pro-abortion candidates. Evangelical Christians make up a large percentage of the voting population. We only need to unite & vote according to our biblical values. When we do so, the pro-life candidate will undeniably rise to the top.
That's why I have such great respect for Dr. James Dobson. It's no fun being slammed in the media & constantly criticized for his moral convictions. But God has given him a platform to use to advance the biblical values that Christians hold dear. He is a man of courage who seeks to glorify God with his life.
If Christians vote in fear & in accordance to electability, then 2 pro-abortion candidates will be chosen. If Christians vote by faith, in unity & according to moral conviction, then at least one candidate will be pro-life.
To put it another way, imagine being around during the 1940's. And all the candidates on the ballot have views in alignment with Hitler & his brand of Nazi anti-semitism. However, each one may vary the position on how many of the Jewish people should be killed. When presented with such a scenario, how could one even vote for any one of them in good conscience when they all advocate murder to varying degrees? One's conscience would be stained with blood by casting a vote for the person who is in favor of killing even one Jewish person.
A similar analogy may be made for those who favor the legalization of abortion within the spectrum of varying public policy positions.
I'm new to the forum and also a new Christian. I'm also Canadian and not sure that I completely understand the U.S. political system - as will probably be evident by my question :-)
If Giuliani is the Republican Presidential candidate, and, as a Christian you do not want to vote for him due to his Pro-Abortion position, then, will there at least be a presidential candidate that is pro-life that you can vote for?
The reason that I ask is that in Canada, often all the candidates are pro-abortion, and, in that case, then who do you vote for? Or, do you just not vote?
I will vote my values according to my conscience. I cannot vote for any pro-abortion candidate or pro-homosexual rights candidate. Period. God will hold me accountable for my actions and decisions. He will do the same for each one of us. The votes of all the value voters should be sufficient to swing the election in the proper direction, if only more would vote according to conscience rather than electability.
If Hillary does become President, it will be directly due to the Church's compromise of her biblical worldviews. If that were to occur, surely God will only accelerate the day of judgment for the Church and for this nation.
These are perilous days that will determine the direction of our nation and world for generations to come. May God have mercy on us! Pray for God to open the eyes of Hillary and to soften her heart to the biblical truths of genuine discipleship.
Quote: George, I respect your position on the issue even though I may not agree with it. Great reply though! Impressive indeed my brother.
Thank you for the kind words. Respect for a position doesn't not mean acceptance of it. But mutual respect is truly the foundation of meaningful dialogue.
Pastor George,
George, I respect your position on the issue even though I may not agree with it. Great reply though! Impressive indeed my brother.
Quote: "How admirable is it to sit back and not vote for anyone which gives your vote to the godless democrats?"
I have never "not voted" in an election. But throwing away my vote would also include voting for someone who favors the killing of children for the sake of science or convenience, who opposes the sanctity of marriage being limited to a man and a woman, and who would most assuredly nominate federal judges cut from the same cloth ... simply because he has an "R" next to his name on a ballot.
Quote: "Is it more admirable to completely give up if your candidate is not chosen?"
Oppose a nominee because he/she isn't my preference? Not necessarily. Because his/her views are diametrically opposed to mine? Absolutely!
Quote: "If I recall... giving up is for the losers, and losers are not in Christ my brother."
The Apostle Paul claimed to be chief of the "losers", but that's for another discussion. Romans 13 tells me two things: a) God ultimately places leaders in power and b) our mandate is to simply be responsible citizens. And supporting a person who holds opposing moral values would seem to me to be the height of irresponsible citizenship.
Pastor George,
'Hmmm ... political party trumps values ... how admirable!'
How admirable is it to sit back and not vote for anyone which gives your vote to the godless democrats? Clinton says she believes in a god, but who knows which one it is and Obama is a political socialist who does not have any business being anywhere near politics, but hence, here he is.
Is it more admirable to completely give up if your candidate is not chosen? If I recall... giving up is for the losers, and losers are not in Christ my brother.
Quote: "Please vote for who YOU want to be President, and if they then do not get the nomination, then please vote for your party."
Hmmm ... political party trumps values ... how admirable!