| Home > Community Forum > Chuck Baldwin Responds to Jerry Falwell « Previous Entry | Next Entry » |
September 07, 2006
Chuck Baldwin Responds to Jerry Falwell
by Jesus Politics
What is the Christian Right thinking about the 2008 presidential elections? Two articles are revealing. In the first one, Jerry Falwell lists his priorities. In the second one, Chuck Baldwin, a lesser known Christian Right leader, lists the reasons he thinks Falwell has all the wrong priorities. The Christian-Republican coalition seems to be breaking up. The hard right conservative Christians may abandon the Republican party and stay home or vote for a third party and the soft right conservative Christians may be tempted to vote for a Democratic candidate.
Some excerpts from the Jerry Falwell article:
With that in mind, I decided to break down what type of presidential candidate could win the energetic support of the evangelical vote, which is a significant bloc that has greatly figured in many elections since the 1970s. In my opinion, no Republican candidate can win the primaries and the general election without that energetic support. [ ]
First, any presidential candidate who wishes to secure the evangelical vote, which is essential to victory for a Republican, must be a social and fiscal conservative. That's a given. While the mushy middle of the Republican Party will want a candidate to be nebulous on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and religious freedom, no Republican candidate can survive the primaries who is afraid of taking a stand on these critical social issues.
Fiscally, evangelicals will be looking for a president who will intrepidly seek to rein in the out-of-control federal spending. We also seek after a leader who will unite government with the private sector and religious institutions in mending the American family, which is being torn to shreds.
And we will not accept a candidate who is soft on the war on terror, whether here at home (the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, etc.) or in Iraq, or wherever. [ ]
But there are two other burning issues that will probably decide the 2008 election. Those two issues are immigration and energy independence.
Dr. Falwell's column is entitled, "The candidate who can win in 2008." He begins his column by saying, "First, any presidential candidate who wishes to secure the evangelical vote, which is essential to victory for a Republican, must be a social and fiscal conservative."
I must respond by saying, I only wish that were true! However, the fact is, evangelicals across the country (including Jerry Falwell) have enthusiastically supported George W. Bush, and Bush is anything but a conservative. [ ]
The truth is, President Bush has done nothing to stop legalized abortion. [ ]
In addition, President Bush has repeatedly expressed his support for homosexual unions. [ ]
Furthermore, to call George W. Bush a fiscal conservative is a misnomer, to say the least. President Bush has increased federal spending and federal deficits to levels never seen before. His spending habits rival those of the most liberal Democrats. In nearly six years as President, George Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill. Not one.
To say that a Republican must be a social and fiscal conservative in order to obtain the evangelical vote just isn't true. George W. Bush has proven that Evangelicals are willing to support Republican administrations (and candidates) no matter how liberal they behave. All that seems to be necessary for Republicans to obtain the evangelical vote is for them to profess Christianity and talk conservative. [ ]
As to the war in Iraq, do we Christians really desire that our young men and women continue to die in another non-declared, no-win war? Is it wrong to wonder whether this never-ending "war on terror" really serves the cause of national security or rather the commercial interests of globalists? Do Evangelicals really have a litmus test whereby any future president must be determined to continue and perhaps expand constant interventionist policies, nation-building, and preemptive invasions of foreign countries? Must we be equally determined to turn the United States into an Orwellian nightmare until life in America looks like one giant airport terminal? None of this reflects historic Christian conservatism as I ever understood it! [ ]
In fact, Bush has done everything he can to encourage illegal immigration! [ ]
For the record, however, I believe evangelical Christians for too long have been unduly wedded to the Republican Party. In my opinion, this has seriously hampered and compromised their ability to stand courageously and independently for critical principles affecting our liberty and national autonomy.
Instead of playing politics and trying to figure out who can win, Christian conservatives need to circle the wagons around truth and constitutional government and let God determine the winner. We need to remember the sage counsel of John Quincy Adams who said, "Duty is ours; results are God's." Besides, we haven't done a very good job of picking winners; why don't we let the Lord do it for a change?
-------------
Thanks to Bruce Gourley at Mainstream Baptists for the links.
Posted by Jesus Politics at September 7, 2006 05:24 AM
Comments
Your contention that the republican party has some dire split that will ruin them is just liberal wishing as we approach the elections. While there are disagreements between the far right (those who oppose all immigration "amnesty" and who want prayer in schools and anti-sodomy laws), the mainstay of evangelicalism is united behind the issue that it considers important - pro-life legislation, fiscal conservatism, pro-family legislation (anti-gay unions), energy independence (read "let us drill off of our coasts and in Alaska"), and anti-terror.
You might be interested to read my post entitled Far Left, Far Right, and Middle
Posted by: seeker at September 7, 2006 10:01 AM
Dang it, can't you allow html so we can put in links? Argh.
http://www.twoorthree.net/2006/06/far_left_far_ri.html
Posted by: seeker at September 7, 2006 10:03 AM
Lets not get too excited about Evangelicals waking up to getting repeatedly duped by the Republican party. A complete split is unlikely in the next few years, and while Evangelicals are an important Republican base, they can still survive without its 100% support.
What we should take out of this is encouragement to continue talking about progressive Christian values in the political arena. Having struggled for years to reclaim the discussion of morals and ethics in politics from Republicans and Evangelicals, we're finally making truly noticable headway. Lets keep at it, and not count our chickens before they hatch!
Posted by: john g at September 7, 2006 05:14 PM
john g,
What I learned from Chuck's article is that progressives have more in common with President Bush than conservatives do.
Posted by: Gary at September 7, 2006 10:05 PM
I couldn't let this go unchallenged:
"pro-family legislation (anti-gay unions)"
How is not letting gay people get civil rights like health insurance and benefits a "pro-family" effort? The fact is the "pro-family" agenda espouses exclusion and intolerance as it's foremost principles and looks to actually break up families if the parents happen to have matching genitalia. These are NOT the "family values" that I plan to teach my kids. The concepts that are of critical importance in a family (love, support, trust, commitment) are never even discussed, because everyone knows those things don't depend on sexual orientation.
The blanket "pro-family" BS is just so tired and transparent I can't believe conservatives even mention it anymore.
"energy independence (read "let us drill off of our coasts and in Alaska")"
As far as I've read, this "energy-independence" is not only a temporary stop-gap between oil and a real solution, but it also will only bring down the price of gas by a few pennies! And that won't happen for another ten years. It's not worth ruining one cubic foot of our wildlife preserves or precious oceans for this. And in the end, we'll be right back where we started: looking for alternative fuel.
Seems our time and dough would be better spent looking for a solution now, so when oil really does start to dry up we'll be ready. Seems all our current administration knows is "more of the same". Times change. They don't.
greg
Posted by: greg deVeer at September 7, 2006 11:35 PM
Gary,
What I learned from Chuck's article is that no one has anything in common with Bush. He's out in the middle of political nowhere, by which I mean in the dreamworld he thinks is reality.
Lets give it a break on the attempts to inflame people.
greg,
Amen.
Posted by: john g at September 8, 2006 06:09 PM
I guess in the end the politics of the right is not consistent with any presidential platform. Although Bush seems the part it also seems he isn't part of the right at all. Who knew?
I think politics and faith don't mix well. Neither side in this simple writing can show a 'christian' agenda as proposed by a political party in America.
Posted by: Societyvs at September 9, 2006 12:39 AM
Societyvs,
I don't think that it would be productive for anyone, progressive or conservative, to try and find a "Christian agenda" in a political party. Nor would it be useful to advocate putting "Christian" planks into a party platform.
Looking at the experience of Evangelicals in the Republican party, I don't think that religion's place is in the political parties. Rather, religion belongs on the side lines, as a moral voice speaking to both politicians and the people. Rather than get caught up in the reality of the political process, religion should remain outside, where it can powerfully critique the political process and its outcomes.
Posted by: john g at September 9, 2006 08:29 PM
I agree John G.
Posted by: Societyvs at September 10, 2006 01:21 AM
I left my First baptist church because of all this Abortion and same sex marriage BS.Planet is over populated with religous nuts.
Dick G.
Posted by: Dick G. at September 11, 2006 09:37 PM
What goes around....comes around? Not always or if it does, it's rendered irrelevant by the time lag & the loss of memory for those who need it most!
But Mr. Baldwin may just not want to defer to the fat walrus Falwell to speak for himself and others. The discovery, however belated, that a 'Falwellian' world is scarier than the Orwellian world that we have been living all too cognizantly over the last quarter-century is some indication that even fundamentalists are wary of the simplistic solutions & proselytizing that they had bought into. There is certainly a breakdown going on within & between fundamentalists, but each now disinterested party joins another startup group in a garage or storefront to contaminate the matter(s) even more: devolution before one's eyes. Spiritual leadership? Not nearly enough is changing or fast enough.
Posted by: Arden C. Hander at September 13, 2006 12:26 PM
