Full Quiver wrote:Our soldiers everywhere should be offended that you would even suggest that we not accept one. They fought, bled, and died that we would have the liberty to do so without "pressure" from you PA.
How is this ungodly but promoting a Pro-Choice candidate is godly?
Since you have decided to High-jack my thread, I am forced to respond to your "continual dripping" which is basically rooted in your man-love for Romney (no perverted analogy intended).
Do you buy newspapers, magazines, or books? Do you pay for cable, satellite, or go to movies? For that matter, do you buy products from companies who pay for advertising?
If the answer to any of the above is affirmative? THEN... you indirectly support someone in high places who supports Pro-choice with their dollars.
I am Pro-life, but I also believe that Gen. Powell or Condi Rice would make excellent, experienced VP's. Gen. Powell's ability to re-establish a weakened military and Rice's ability to be a reputable ambassador to the nation's has nothing to do with the ultimate outcome of the Pro-life vs. Pro-choice debate. For you to slant your argument in that direction is just futile.
Even Jesus said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
Dolfan put it better than I can when he said, "You are arguing, whether you realize it or not, that government IS the means of expressing and living out our sanctification. More particularly, you say that a specific kind of political activity is "godly" and another kind is "ungodly". It is the conservative Christian catch-22. You want less government of a certain kind and more of another kind, and "real Christians" must politic and they must do so in line with a particular view of preferred government."
Btw, if I'm ever in your area, I'll buy you dinner.
Have a great day,
pa
