I wasn’t going to say anything about this until I read it somewhere else. The reason is, it works better for the Repubs if the left operates under false assumptions.
One of the statements Mike Huckabee made in last night’s speech was this…..
While this convention is supposed to focus mostly on the economy, and while Huckabee did attack Obama over his handling of the issue, he did made the case for why social conservatives need to rally around their party’s presidential nominee.
“Let me clear the air about whether guys like me would only support an evangelical. Of the four people on the two tickets, the only self-professed evangelical is Barack Obama, and he supports changing the definition of marriage, believes that human life is disposable and expendable at any time in the womb or even beyond the womb, and tells people of faith that they must bow their knees to the god of government and violate their faith and conscience in order to comply with what he calls health care,” he said.
Republican strategist John Branbender said that social conservatives are extremely committed to beating Obama. “The important thing Mitt Romney needs to do is moving them from being voters in November to being activists.”
There has been a reoccurring thought among the Dems that Romney wouldn’t carry the evangelical Christians; that they would rather sit this one out rather than voting for a Mormon or Obama. Huckabee then went on to echo a sentiment I expressed months ago.
The attack on my Catholic brothers and sisters is an attack on me….This isn’t a battle about contraceptives and Catholics, but of conscience and the Creator. I care far less as to where Mitt Romney takes his family to church than I do about where he takes this country.
Now, I’m an evangelical. But, often my political observations and priorities are out of synch with the core of evangelicals. (Only evangelicals would notice.) But, my mother is not. She has a finger on the pulse of the community. So, sometimes, if I’m not sure about what I’m seeing, I’ll ask her. Let me state a couple of things in an unequivocal manner. First and foremost, the evangelicals, as Huckabee articulated see this contraceptive issue as an attack on religious freedom and more specifically an attack on Christianity. Even though they have a more liberal view of contraceptive use, we will fervently stand by other Christian bothers and sisters in opposition to this attack on faith. I’m not sure who the Republicans could have run which would have kept the evangelicals home. Someone from the ACLU? But, the evangelicals are highly motivated already. While they would rather have someone of their own faith, they will vote for someone with faith.
I’ll put it to the readers in this manner. When Romney made his VP choice, she asked me what I knew about Ryan. Knowing what she wanted to hear first, I told her that Ryan was a devout Catholic, but is known more as a fiscal conservative than a social conservative. Before I could get the words about fiscal conservative out, she stated, “Oh, good!”.
These are strange times, indeed. But, there was never a question of if the evangelicals were going to vote or stay home. Last night, Huckabee and Ryan moved them from voters to activists.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
This might incite PhD to riot! 🙂
Lol, maybe. It’s strange how quick the world moves. When I was a young man, most Catholics voted Dem. The Dem party, today, is throwing Catholics at the Republicans. And the Republicans are all too happy to welcome them into the big tent.
My family were strong Democrats.
“This isn’t a battle about contraceptives and Catholics, but of conscience“…says it all.
There are many agnostics and atheists against abortion and taxes to provide contraceptives.
Some feminists [ Planned Parenthood ] screech ” stay out of my bedroom'” – I’ve never wanted into their bedroom – I want them out of mine.
I certainly didn’t turn out devoutly religious, despite my mom’s best efforts. Though I’m certainly aware of most of their most sacred beliefs. My brother is an ordained minister & missionary.
I certainly believe in separation of church & state, the freedom to believe what you want, or to believe nothing at all.
Religion is certainly not what I choose as my ‘guide’— I would say more that ‘Nature’ is my god. But sometimes I find religion & nature firmly in alignment, especially when I examine some of the devout beliefs of today’s Liberals. Most obviously: abortion & homosexuality. The female of the species intentionally killing her offspring in her womb, & the mating of two members of a species that cannot help guarantee the continuation of that species.
Belief is not in play here. The obvious unnaturalness of these two actions is self-evident. Whether you’re about a god, or about nature. Yet liberals, in general, would stampede in a rush to be enablers of these things. When your agenda requires the rejection of reality, I believe It’s time to re-think your agenda.
Your post is spot on. While I don’t consider myself a rank evangelical, the issue of freedom to express one’s faith, whatever it is, is important to me. More important is that our country be led by one of faith. Not just religious faith but faith in what made our nation great – the American dream, work ethic, and pride that made us a unique culture so very different from others. Obama has demonstrated no faith whatsoever in any of these but only contempt.
I would much prefer a Mormon in the White House who understands the concept of faith in his personal life and can generalize the concept to leading our country with faith in what makes us great. I am counting down the days to when I can cast my vote for him so we can send the empty suit that presently occupies the White House a bus ticket back to Chicago.