He thinks present day Israel is still is worthy to be protected becasue of his misunderstanding of scriptures. Until he can understand that is not the case then I can't vote for him. Also his love affair with the confederate battle flag bothers me as well. I won't be voting for anybody for President becasue there is no one running that is worthy of my vote.
He thinks present day Israel is still is worthy to be protected becasue of his misunderstanding of scriptures. Until he can understand that is not the case then I can't vote for him. Also his love affair with the confederate battle flag bothers me as well.
Good points.
Also, isn't anyone here troubled by the fact that a pastor is running for President? I think it's unbelievable that in a pluralistic secular nation as our own a religious minister is running for the highest office in the land. And I would be equally troubled if Baldwin were a priest, rabbi, cleric, whatever. The head of a church or synagogue or mosque should not be heading our nation. It's constitutionally inappropriate.
Our Constitution rejects religious tests in federal government, for or against any particular affiliation or non-affiliation, or beliefs.
buck, I used the phrase "constitutionally inappropriate" not unconstitutional - and a pastor as President, as head of state, is constitutionally inappropriate - it would not be in keeping with the spirit, the vision of our Founding Fathers for our fair nation
The American revolution was preached from pulpits across the colonies. The First Great Awakening had a strong role in firing the colonial mind. A pastor who could raise similar awareness today would be invaluable.
The American revolution was preached from pulpits across the colonies. The First Great Awakening had a strong role in firing the colonial mind. A pastor who could raise similar awareness today would be invaluable.
But a pastor in the Oval Office would make him part of the establishment rulers, right, as opposed to the scenario you described wherein religious leaders were outside the establishment and were not part of the problem that needed to be changed . Furthermore a pastor in the Oval Office would alienate not coalesce the public at large - in America today, there are people of different faiths, different versions of Christianity itself.
But a pastor in the Oval Office would make him part of the establishment rulers...
I'm talking about the ideal pastor with a true commitment to liberty, including a solid and proven track record of criticizing government meddling in cases of religious liberty, as well as governments being used as tools for achieving religious dominionism.
But buck, Pastor Baldwin is not an intellectual ideal construct.
He is a real person, who is a pastor of a specific congregation. He carries very distinct biases and priorities as a result of his religious affiliation that are in conflict with constitutional principles, both against the spirit, the vision of the Founding Fathers who themselves were largely deists as well as against the legal applications of the constitution today. He could not represent America or Americans as a result. He represents his religious flock very well and that's the venue where he'd be best to stay, imo.
He is a real person, who is a pastor of a specific congregation. He carries very distinct biases and priorities as a result of his religious affiliation that are in conflict with constitutional principles, both against the spirit, the vision of the Founding Fathers who themselves were largely deists as well as against the legal applications of the constitution today. He could not represent America or Americans as a result. He represents his religious flock very well and that's the venue where he'd be best to stay, imo.
You honestly believe that Chuck Baldwin is not a better man and that he would not make a much better president than Obama or McCain???
You honestly believe that Chuck Baldwin is not a better man and that he would not make a much better president than Obama or McCain???
Yes I honestly believe that Pastor Baldwin is unsuitable for the Oval Office, a leadership position. He is not an AmericaFirster, frankly. His deficits are different from McCain's or Obama's but a vote for any of the 3 men would be a vote for a lesser of the 3 evils depending on one's perspective on evil.
I strongly suspect that you have read very few, if any, of Chuck Baldwin's articles. He stands head and shoulders above Obama and McCain and would even if they were ten times the men they are (which still wouldn't be a lot).
#114. To: James Deffenbach, robnoel, buckeye (#113)(Edited)
I strongly suspect that you have read very few, if any, of Chuck Baldwin's articles. He stands head and shoulders above Obama and McCain and would even if they were ten times the men they are (which still wouldn't be a lot).
You are correct. I have read little of what the good Baptist pastor has written. What I have read was the article link that robnoel inserted to this thread, wherein Pastor Baldwin defended Ron Paul's position on Israel.
But in the course of Pastor Baldwin's argument, he presents half-truths about Israel and about our current government's relationship with Israel. This shows to me that Pastor Baldwin struggles with what he would do, as opposed to what he says should be done.
Since Pastor Baldwin could not tell the full truth in the article cited by robnoel, I find that dishonesty disturbing. Our current ME foreign policy is AmericaLast/IsraelFirst. I have no confidence in Pastor Baldwin changing the course that has been set for America starting with LBJ's Administration. Baldwin's religious outlook would interfere and cloud his judgment when it came to reversing America's current ME foreign policy. I have no doubt whatsoever. Obama and McCain have been coopted by lobby groups to maintain status quo in our AmericaLast ME foreign policy. Baldwin has been compromised by his religious mindset. Different influences but the end result is the same in all 3 men.
For me, misguided foreign policy is the greatest single threat to America's future. Protecting the unborn blah blah pales in comparison from my point of view. Abortion is not bleeding US blood and treasure in the ME - foreign policy is.
With all due respect the stand for life trumps everything else.... "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man. Though the commonly known phrase is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as written above, the exact quote, as written in the original document is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of personal happiness."
With all due respect the stand for life trumps everything else.... "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man. Though the commonly known phrase is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as written above, the exact quote, as written in the original document is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of personal happiness."
Please note nothing about "foreign policy"
And I'm sure you would agree that US Constitution - written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789 - is the written charter which gives the US government its marching orders, so to speak.
In the US Constitution, its first three words – “We The People” – confirms that the government of the United States exists to serve American citizens. Israeli citizens are not American citizens. The US government is constitutionally prohibited from serving any citizens outside its own citizenry - Israel is not a US state and therefore Israel's citizens are not the constitutional responsibility of the US government. Unborn fetuses are not US citizens and therefore the US government is not constitutionally obligated to serve them.
Israeli citizens are not American citizens. The US government is constitutionally prohibited from serving any citizens outside its own citizenry - Israel is not a US state and therefore Israel's citizens are not the constitutional responsibility of the US government.
This is pure BS
Unborn fetuses are not US citizens and therefore the US government is not constitutionally obligated to serve them.
Unborn fetuses - until they are born and become independent living creatures born on US soil or born to US citizens - are the responsibility of a Higher Power and the property of its mother. How does the US government have any constitutional standing with regards to an unborn fetus? Frankly I don't understand where you see the US government's obligation to serving the unborn fetus comes from.
Biblically speaking that is so. But the Bible is not the Constitution and it is the Constitution that gives our government its marching orders, defining its powers and responsibilities.
According to Amendment XIV, it's all PERSONS BORN [as opposed to fetuses unborn] who are named as being citizens of the United States and of the State they reside.
Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.