Reports: Tony Blair to Convert to Catholicism this Month

ovationeddie »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Converting from Anglican to Catholic...not much of a difference, so why all the fuss?

Prominent Pro-Life Group to Endorse Thompson

ovationeddie »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Ron Paul is a Libertarian who wants govt out of boardrooms and bedrooms. His pro-life stance is just an attempt to woo socailly conservative Republicfans to his side. HIs isolationist policies are scary....he would just pull troops out of Iraq and let the chips fall where they may...scary.

Thompson Brushes Off Dobson Remarks

ovationeddie »

Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

DannyPoo. I appreciate your post below, and I agree with you.
What I am addressing is dgnymn's comment near the bottom that said: "Check out the Scriptures qualifications to hold public office."
Judging somebody's character "by scripture to a reasonable degree" is always a good idea for leaders in ANY situation (president, school board, team coach, etc.).
But claiming the scripture lists qualifications to hold public office is silly. Sure, there are the pastoral epistles for holding office as a pastor/deacon, but not president of a secular govt.

Christians Urged to Consider Thompson, Other Presidential Hopefuls

ovationeddie »

Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:39 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

First of all: voting for Ron Paul is a wasted vote. Worst yet, he will be like a Ross Perot vote, which got Bill Clinton elected in the first place. Voting for Ron Paul will get Hillary Clinton elected in 2008. Evangelicals need to add their votes with the conservative middle ground voters (fiscal conservatives, Reagan Democrats, Catholics, etc) to win a majority. That's how Bush got in...and barely!

I still say we cannot view electing a president of a secular govt being akin to selecting a pastor of a congregation. Dannypoo made a great point when he said: "the spiritual perspectives of a person running for President is incredibly important to the way a President will respond to a given situation." I agree. But has Bush's evangelical "perspectives" stopped abortion? Caused an amendment to prevent redefinition of marriage? No. However, would conservative appointees to the court be able to do that? Yes. The court judges dont have to answer to anybody politically, where the pres still has to work with congress to get his ideas passed.

So I vote for president with the court in mind. PEriod. That's really the only real power he has...to appoint judges. Everything else just sounds good. And that's why I think Dobson is wrong in his appraoch.
Folks, this is not a Christian nation, and I'm not sure it ever was. Or ever should be. Hmmm...what was that thing Jesus was referring to about the coin with caesar's inscription on it? Hmmm....

Thompson Brushes Off Dobson Remarks

ovationeddie »

Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:37 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

It was written below "Check out the Scriptures qualifications to hold public office. Thompson doesn't even come close!!!"
What scriptures qualifications to hold public office?
Is this in 2 Hesitations? 1 Hezekiah?
Show me, please. It aint there.

Christians Urged to Consider Thompson, Other Presidential Hopefuls

ovationeddie »

Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:31 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

No matter what Gary Bauer is (evang leader or political pundit), I do know for sure that Fred Thompson is running for President of a country, not Pastor of a congregation. When will evangelicals get more straight on this? America's majority in 2007 will not vote for President a guy who is a solid evangelical, right wing on all issues. Aint gonna happen.
Think about it.....if you dont support somebody electible, then Hillary will get in there and put liberals on the supreme Court. Then it doesnt matter who was more conservative on abortion or gay marriage among the Republicans.
It's all about the supreme court nominees, not the President himself (or herself).
Vote Fred Thompson!