Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party'

Brian · Postby **Brian** » April 18th, 2009, 2:52 am

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/17/mccain-strategist-warns-gop-risks-religious-party/

"John McCain's top adviser from the presidential campaign urged fellow Republicans on Friday to warm up to gay rights and warned that the GOP risks becoming the "religious party" with its opposition to same-sex marriage."

So let me see if I can understand this..... give up on some of the standards of holy rightous living and follow the world view of a watered down faith just so they can remain in "power"? Don't they realise that the powers of this world are the enimies of God?!!! No, I'm not saying that "all" political leaders are evil, but the ones that this fellow (and many many more) are trying to mold and shape are most definately wolves in sheeps clothing trying to scatter and destroy the flock! Stand strong in your faith people!!!

Full Quiver · Postby **Full Quiver** » April 19th, 2009, 4:12 am

wouldn't that make them Democrats?

bibleguy · Postby **bibleguy** » April 19th, 2009, 4:32 am

Republicans have long presented themselves as the party of "values." Of course, one must ask, "Which values?"

Well the values upon which this country was built were Judeo-Christian. But ALL value systems stem from belief systems.

When they say "the Republican party risks becoming the religious party," they mean to imply "... the Christian party," and you can tell they want to just spit. They don't mean that the GOP might be the new home of people of all religions.

And don't think that the value system of the left isn't built on a religion. They support abortion (passing children through the fires of Molech), they promote militant feminism (woshipping the divine feminine of Diana), their environmental policies are none other than the worship of Gaia or Mother Earth.

All of their "religion-free" policies are merely a reiteration of policies of past civilizations that expressed them in idolatry.

Man is made by God to believe, to be a religious entity -- to worship something. We just commented at last night's Bible study that the debate used to be between Christianity and atheism (a religious belief system based on the absence of God). The new "tolerance" debate has weakened the voice of atheism, by introducing to the discussion all of the other world religions.

Everybody is religious. But our society has increasingly embraced the politically correct A-B-C policy: Anything But Christian.

MacUser · Postby **MacUser** » April 19th, 2009, 4:51 am

If you stand for nothing.. you fall for anything.

This is why John McCain lost. Sara Palin was the ONLY thing that keep him from a massive embarrassment.

DaJudge · Postby **DaJudge** » April 19th, 2009, 5:21 am

MacUser wrote:
This is why John McCain lost. Sara Palin was the ONLY thing that keep him from a massive embarrassment.

True. The McCain people try to blame Palin for their defeat. The opposite is actually the case. Had Palin NOT been on the ticket, a lot of Christian Conservatives would have sat the election out and Obama would have COMPLETELY blown McCain out of the water. Palin is the only thing that prevented an Obama landslide.

Brian · Postby **Brian** » April 19th, 2009, 7:15 am

bibleguy wrote:Republicans have long presented themselves as the party of "values." Of course, one must ask, "Which values?"

Well the values upon which this country was built were Judeo-Christian. But ALL value systems stem from belief systems.

When they say "the Republican party risks becoming the religious party," they mean to imply "... the Christian party," and you can tell they want to just spit. They don't mean that the GOP might be the new home of people of all religions.

And don't think that the value system of the left isn't built on a religion. They support abortion (passing children through the fires of Molech), they promote militant feminism (woshipping the divine feminine of Diana), their environmental policies are none other than the worship of Gaia or Mother Earth.

All of their "religion-free" policies are merely a reiteration of policies of past civilizations that expressed them in idolatry.

Man is made by God to believe, to be a religious entity -- to worship something. We just commented at last night's Bible study that the debate used to be between Christianity and atheism (a religious belief system based on the absence of God). The new "tolerance" debate has weakened the voice of atheism, by introducing to the discussion all of the other world religions.

Everybody is religious. But our society has increasingly embraced the politically correct A-B-C policy: Anything But Christian.

Absolutely!! 100%!!

Brian · Postby **Brian** » April 19th, 2009, 7:16 am

MacUser wrote:If you stand for nothing.. you fall for anything.

This is why John McCain lost. Sara Palin was the ONLY thing that keep him from a massive embarrassment.

Yep!

one love · Postby **one love** » April 19th, 2009, 8:19 am

Karl Rove said that after Bush there would be a more independent/not conservative that would run. That is why he said they chose Cheney because they knew he would not run for president! He was right.

McCain wants to change the Republican party, this is why he LOST. I agree the only reason he got the votes he did, or why any of us got a Little bit excited was because of Palin.

We need to get our roots back, not change more to the liberal side. Anyone that is a die hard liberal is not going to come to the republican party because they seem to be more into gay rights now, it will never happen.

We need a true conservative to arise. I would still like to see Romney or Huckabee be in Play with Palin as a vice.

Romney and Palin, I like that combo. I am not implying he is a perfect conservative by any means but I do think he is much better then anyone else I have seen run in a long time. Had HUckabee not been in the race, I do believe he would have beat McCain, or vice versa, had Romney not been in the race Huckabee would have beat McCain.

Full Quiver · Postby **Full Quiver** » April 19th, 2009, 8:25 am

Karl Rove said that after Bush there would be a more independent/not conservative that would run

What Rove failed to say here was that neither was Bush a conservative.

rjjunior · Postby **rjjunior** » April 21st, 2009, 9:11 am

Full Quiver wrote:
Karl Rove said that after Bush there would be a more independent/not conservative that would run

What Rove failed to say here was that neither was Bush a conservative.

You wouldn't say he was a social conservative? Fiscal conservative, no. But I would contend that he was social conservative.

Full Quiver · Postby **Full Quiver** » April 21st, 2009, 12:24 pm

Not conservative enough for me therefore not conservative. Everyone can claim to be socially conservative but it depends on who's judging.

dolfan · Postby **dolfan** » April 21st, 2009, 12:41 pm

How can you be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative? Unless, that is, you mean by socially conservative someone who agrees with the Judeo-Christian moral ethic. But, to order the ways and means of government impacts people, and where you impact people, what you do is, by definition, social. You can be a fiscal conservative without being a Judeo-Christian moralist or believer; although, I'm not sure to what extent anyone who claims to be one should be all that excited about claiming to be the other. If you love government enough to devote yourself to its fiscal policies, seems to me you're probably more likely to be a Levite; they were more devoted, after a time, to self-service than loving God and justice. Sound familiar? (slowly turns head toward Washington, DC)

Jude 2