Social conservatives warn Republicans not to abandon social issues

[Matt Collins]

Leaders of the religious right are warning Republicans not to abandon social issues in a document that is expected to be an outline of the party’s governing agenda if it regains control of Congress.

Some have compared the document, being drafted by the GOP’s congressional leadership, to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s groundbreaking 1994 “Contract With America.” But religious conservatives are worried that their bread-and-butter social issues — opposition to abortion and gay marriage, and support for religious liberty — will be left behind on the Republicans’ path to power, an effort to draw support from social moderates.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42312.html#ixzz0zoavSQMu

[Stary Hickory]

Support for religous liberty is fine.

abortions should be a state issue.

marriage should be a state issue.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't understand these social conservatives (I am one myself, personally)....


Why would they not support Federalism to be the solution to these moral issues? It makes no sense...

[Anti Federalist]

Soc-cons might do well to remove their heads from their asses and realize that the strongest pro life representative they've got is Ron Paul.

[Stary Hickory]

I don't understand these social conservatives (I am one myself, personally)....


Why would they not support Federalism to be the solution to these moral issues? It makes no sense...

I don't know but you can get through to them when you explain it's immoral to use force to force morality on people. Tell them that they can still fight immorality in their churches and communities and through the gospel and so on, but not using government force...Jesus was a man of peace.

Usually this works, because it gives them a feeling of self importance, that they must carry out God's work on their own. And it's true too...if you really believe in God, Jesus and the rest then you would know he would not advocate force to solve moral problems.

[YumYum]

Becoming a Christian may save my soul, but fighting for Liberty and Freedom in Caesar’s world that is controlled by Satan will save my ass. After reading this article, I hope that Evangelical Christians stay focused on saving souls, while leaving the political fight for L&F to the Heathens.

[Slutter McGee]

Damn idiots. They want to push their moral values fine. Save it until after we rescue this country from economic disaster.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Pericles]

What alternative do they have? Vote more guys like Barney Frank into office?

[Brian4Liberty]

This will be the death of the movement. We are all free to have our beliefs, but it doesn't need to be part of a "platform". Freedom unites, this divides.

Why in the world do people want to do this? People want to enforce their personal preferences. Why not add "must hate seafood" to the platform? That should divide us about 50/50.

Unless an issue has almost unanimous agreement, it should not be part of a "platform".

---

Let's take our Red Herring test:

- Emotional? Check.
- Dedicated and vocal opposing forces, split approximately 50/50? Check.
- Utterly meaningless to the Oligarchy (except as a Red Herring)? Check.
- Religious, racial or ethnic undertones? Check.
- Mostly meaningless in fiscal government terms? Check.

Gentlemen (and Ladies), we have a Red Herring...

http://www.guitarsandaudio.com/extras/shite/red_herring3.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Gentlemen (and Ladies), we have a Red Herring...

http://www.guitarsandaudio.com/extras/shite/red_herring3.jpg

That's a cod.

Jus' sayin'...:D

[oyarde]

Support for religous liberty is fine.

abortions should be a state issue.

marriage should be a state issue.

Correct .

[nate895]

Support for religous liberty is fine.

abortions should be a state issue.

marriage should be a state issue.

Most social conservatives would agree. Very few support federal bans on any issue, and if they do, then it is through the use of a constitutional amendment.

[Brian4Liberty]

That's a cod.

Jus' sayin'...:D

Lol! Can't trust anyone!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:M6BSCWwADmoCwM:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v57/morgil99/RedHerring.jpg&t=1

[Southron]

It's hard to say leave it to the states when the federal courts refuse to do just that. They overrule gay marriage bans and outright bans on abortions.

[ChaosControl]

I won't support any pro-abort politicians either.
But outside of that, I want most things at the local level. So sure make local politicians be socially conservative, but federal level politicians just need to support localism.

[oyarde]

It's hard to say leave it to the states when the federal courts refuse to do just that. They overrule gay marriage bans and outright bans on abortions.

If it was up to me , I would pad lock the doors on all of them until New Years . Then evaluate it .

[YumYum]

I won't support any pro-abort politicians either.


Why do you refer to "Pro-choice" as "Pro-abortion"?

[silentshout]

I find it amusing that they want language in there to support religious liberty. Fine,i agree, but that includes ALL religions, as well as the freedom not to believe or to question. I have a feeling they wouldn't like that, though.

I agree that this would be the death of the movement. Keep that stuff in the religious community of your choice..not in the political sphere. Trying to force your beliefs on others drives as many people away as it brings in.

[nate895]

Why do you refer to "Pro-choice" as "Pro-abortion"?

Would you ever call a candidate that says "I think murder is a choice that should be left up to the individual" to get away with call themselves "pro-choice?"

[YumYum]

Would you ever call a candidate that says "I think murder is a choice that should be left up to the individual" to get away with call themselves "pro-choice?"

It depends what the reason for the abortion is. If it is to save a mother's life, it's called "pro-choice". If its because some sexually active woman can't keep her legs crossed and refuses to practice safe sex, and she decides she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy full-term because she doesn't want stretch marks, then its "pro-abortion". There is a difference.

[ChaosControl]

Why do you refer to "Pro-choice" as "Pro-abortion"?

Because there is no choice for the child being killed.

[ChaosControl]

It depends what the reason for the abortion is. If it is to save a mother's life, it's called "pro-choice". If its because some sexually active woman can't keep her legs crossed and refuses to practice safe sex, and she decides she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy full-term because she doesn't want stretch marks, then its "pro-abortion". There is a difference.

There are many people who support the legality of it to save the mother's life, even if they are otherwise pro-life. Most of the people who support "abortion rights" though aren't in favor of limiting it to only the life of the mother.