SBC launches voting initiative in view of 'critical' '04 ballot

PA Jim, I understand your point. And I also understand the point of view of other conservatives who think that Mr. Kerry must be defeated even if it means continued expansion of government by Mr. Bush. I don't agree with their reasoning but I understand it.

I am trying to maximize the votes for Mr. Peroutka and in those States in the South and Plains where Mr. Bush is a shoo-in I am pleading with conservatives to vote for Mr. Peroutka where their votes will do more good in getting the Republican Party's attention than in simply adding to Mr. Bush's vote total in a State he will handily win.

 

I know, and I don't blame you. I just don't see much hope of things improving until people are willing to face the truth instead of following an idol.

 

I am hoping that if Mr. Peroutka does well enough in 2004 that a Republican similar to Congressman Ron Paul(he's getting on up there in years so it may need to be someone younger in Congress with his views) will make a serious run at the Republican nomination in 2008.

Frankly, I believe that if conservatives do not regain control of the Republican Party in 2008, then there will be no hope for another Goldwater/Reagan revolution in that party. And at that point, Christian conservatives would no longer be able to justify their continued votes for Republicans like George W. Bush in any way that makes the least bit of sense.

 

Brother, I think the above statement is accurate except about 6-8 years behind. IMO the Republican Party is history, beyond repair.

 

You may be correct, but I'll give the Republican Party another chance in 2008 if and only if they return to conservatism. Otherwise, I will write that party off totally.

 

The Repub's have become a party much like the Dem's, winning at any cost is what is important. Don't mind if they want to win, I mean if your going to keep score and all, it is the at any cost part that is a problem.

I found it interesting that Land's comments where edited in the Baptist Press article and not in the other news sources. If you read the article where they quote him saying "recount again" on BP he only said it once the others had him saying it several more times. An obvious dig at the Dem's recount efforts. Somehow I don't think this going to be JUST about getting people to vote, but to vote for a certain person.

 

You are probably right, but can you or anyone confirm that the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission gets Cooperative funds? If so, perhaps they should get separate funding. I am only wondering.

 

Church Mouse Guy,

Good question...did not see on website www.erlc.com, but since it is an entity of the SBC, I don't know where else the funds come from other than gifts through the Cooperative Program. Would love to hear what others might know about this.

Charles

 

www.sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=http://www.cpmissions.net

According to information provided at this site, the CP supports entities that ".....address social, moral, and ethical concerns...", thus the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission seems to be supported by CP dollars.

 

David Alan Black has published my letter on his Web site: http://www.daveblackonline.com

 

Jim, thank you. I finally remembered where I asked the question. I'll check them out.

My vote will be overwhelmed in Texas, of course, but maybe there will be enough of us to make someone take notice.

Thanks again.

 

Hey, the Texas site has a "dangerous" pollitical cartoonist, Kevin Tuma. I don't agree with everything he's doing, but he is funny, and wickedly to the point.

Very nice.

 

Yep. And that's how to get it started.

 

Doubt it!

 

Well, I'm going to try.

If my side wins, we can at least hope to restore the constitutional Republic based on Godly principles.

If your side wins, we can have a pagan government that trashes everything Christianity stands for. I guess that's ok so long as it's run by Republicans.

If the Lord tarries, we can discuss it in Heaven (although we'll probably have better things to do!) while our grandcildren live with thr results of our actions.

 

Jim,

Because I am not for your side, that doesn't mean that I am for the status quo either. There need to be sweeping and I mean serious sweeping changes, I think we will agree on that, the method of those changes is where we mostly differ. And yes, I'm sure heaven will give us much more to discuss then the American constitution, thankfully!

 

I noticed in his BLOG that he linked to this board and the Christian Forums board. He also quoted some of my ramblings.

Wow! I'm famous - I've been quoted on the Internet!

 

The site iVoteValues.com launched yesterday. I noticed they had Bush, Kerry and Nader listed on the "Whos Running" page, when I contacted them about adding Peroutka, they responded by removing Nader, and adding a link to "Other Candidates" that has Nader and Peroutka buried in a list of 200 other candidates who will never see ballot access.

Does the SBC want Christians to vote based on values and principles or just vote for Bush? Contact them and let them know that they need to add Peroutka to the site to let the Christian voters know about him.

iVoteValues.com
901 Commerce Street
Ste., 550
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 615-244-2495

 

I think they probably want Christians to vote for Bush II. Although I haven't really figured out why unless it has to do with party loyalty or the money they're receiving from faith-based initiatives. Because Bush II isn't exactly clearly and unambiguously on the Christian side of very many issues.

If they really wanted folks to vote their values, they would include some of the better-known independent candidates like Petrouka. The problem (for them) of putting Petrouka in the list is that he is far more clearly on the Christian side of issues than Bush II is (though he doesn't have a record of public service). I vote values? Then vote for Petrouka! Unless you want to choose the lesser of two evils as I am doing this cycle.

 

The ivotevalues.com website has links to fox news and project vote smart.

Certain parallel information is missing from the information posted about the two candidates. It doesn't state Bush II's position on civil unions but it does state Kerry's. (And stating Bush II's support for a marriage amendment without stating Bush II's opinion on civil unions is in my opinion misleading on an important issue of values.) It (Fox News) says that Kerry will appoint "pro-choice" judges but doesn't state what Bush II will do regarding Supreme Court judges.

That doesn't exactly look fair and balanced to me. Then again, I didn't expect it would.