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.
Only someone without vision can see no difference between Chuck Baldwin and the two establishment lunatics, Obama and McCain. I feel sorry for anyone who is so blind.
It is very obvious the Religious Right has become little more than a propaganda mill for the GOP. In their lust and hunger to sit at the king’s right hand, they are willing to compromise their principles, no matter how important they are to them. As such, it has become a hollow movement.
They are now a movement without a cause, except for the chore they take on of advancing the Republican Party.”
James Dobson who once said “I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances” now supports him.
How does this make sense? I mean, if family values are a main focus of his movement, how can he condone the shallow, self serving behavior McCain displayed to his first wife when he dumped her for the younger and very rich beer heiress Cindy Hensley?
And how does Obama, a man who has been married to the same woman for nearly two decades with two daughters to show for it, “contradict” and “threaten” Dobson’s view of the family?
One thing is certain, he and other leaders of this movement will have at least four years in the socio-religious-political wilderness to reflect on the bizarre spectacle they represent to the rest of us and their flock as they try to figure out what they are doing wrong and how not to repeat their role in this upcoming defeat of the GOP in the general election.
their lust and hunger to sit at the king’s right hand...I mean, if family values
The Founding Fathers saw the dangers of European influence where church and king were intertwined and that's why the Founding Fathers specifically provided for a separation of church and state in their vision for America.
Having a Pastor Baldwin figure, or a Rabbi Baldwin figure, or a Cleric Baldwin figure in the White House is antiethical to the Founding Fathers' conceptual dream for America.
Furthermore family values are warm fuzzy mushy watch words for a movie script but how do family values help a President to save America from its single worst threat to its future survival - ie foreign entanglements and 24/7 militarism?
Founding Fathers specifically provided for a separation of church and state in their vision for America.
They never called for a for a separation of church and state this was taken from a letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist minister....maybe it would serve you to get a copy of Jeffersons Bible
They never called for a for a separation of church and state this was taken from a letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist minister....maybe it would serve you to get a copy of Jeffersons Bible
In 1791, the first Constitutional amendment came into effect. The 1st Amendment is a de facto separation of church and state because it was written to protect its citizens' religious freedom by prohibiting the establishment of an official or exclusive church or sect.
My religious freedom would be threatened if the President of the USA - the face of the most powerful elected office in government - were that of a minister, rabbi, or cleric.
Perhaps you need to read the text of the Constitution including its Amendments more carefully.
The 1st Amendment is a de facto separation of church and state
de facto....OK in your interpretation... however its freedom of religion rather than your view freedom from religion..the constitution does not bar a minister, rabbi, or cleric
however its freedom of religion rather than your view freedom from religion..the constitution did not bar a minister, rabbi, or cleric
How can the freedom of ALL US citizens' religious beliefs not be threatened when the head of state is also a RELIGIOUS LEADER - not merely a practitioner - but a religious leader of ONE specific religion? Hello? Don't you see the problem?
Perhaps if it were Cleric Baldwin or Father Baldwin as opposed to Pastor Baldwin we were talking about, you might see the problem more clearly.
How can the freedom of ALL US citizens' religious beliefs not be threatened when the head of state is also a RELIGIOUS LEADER - not merely a practitioner - but a religious leader of ONE specific religion? Hello? Don't you see the problem?
The problem I see with your argument is only "Athieists" need apply
Every time you think about posting a pro-Israel remark, just put this nice lady's face in your mind for a moment. Keep in mind that she's what I see when I read your posts. Just letting you know.