I would not vote for Giuliani, if he was the only one running... I am still registered as a Democrat...But, voted Republican, at the last 2 Presidential elections...
If they support Gay marraiges, and Abortion, I am not voting for them... Can't believe our Country has gone down so low....
I also will not send Pat Robertson anymore money, beause he is not in Gods Will, about the election... How can I trust now, with anything else....
Jon said:
The first primary has yet to be voted, so it's much too early for this question to be asked. There are several Republican candidates who are better matches for social conservative or "values" voters. The focus at this point should be to coalesce support for one of them.
However ... To decide at this point that if Guiliani is the Republican candidate then values voters should not vote for him is a strategy that is guaranteed to result in the election of a far worse Democrat. The abortion, gay marriage, etc. issues will not be decided directly by the President. They are issues ultimately for the Supreme Court. And the justices likely to be nominated and affirmed under Guiliani will be far preferable to those a President Clinton or Obama would foist on us.
Get behind Huckabee or McCain now. But if Guiliani wins the nomination, you have to vote for him if you want any hope of prevailing on these issues.
Charlie Dale said:
I am a social conservative, and I will vote for the Republican nominee. But, if Republicans are looking for someone who can win a general election, they should not just assume that a more secular Republican is more likely to win.
I support Huckabee for the nomination, and if you want someone with passion who can connect with the common person, he is it.
NO WAY would I vote for Giuliani! He might as well be democrat in his values. I will not vote for someone who supports the right to murder children in the womb and supports any kind of sanction for any kind of union of gays.
Although he isn't perfect, the one I have found that is most likely to be one I would support is Huckabee, even if I have to write him in.
Irene Moreno said:
No, I would not vote for Giuliani, just because he was mayor during 9/11 doesn't qualify him to become the president of this country. What with his support on the aborption issue and his opinion on gay rights, I am not willing to support him in anyway.
Jay said:
Should a man who does not know how to preside over his own household preside over everyone else’s? (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
It is noteworthy that Jesus Christ did not involve himself in worldly politics even though the world of his day had problems similar to ours. Christ was no part of the world or its politics. (John 14:30; 15:19; 17:14; 18:36; Luke 4:5-6; 1 John 5:19; Jas. 4:4) Neither were the first century Christians (as observed by many historians). Political involvement and other deviations arose later, after the death of the Apostles as forewarned by Bible prophecy. (2 Thess. 2:3-7; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 4:3)
Christians follow Christ’s example and teachings by advocating his Father’s sovereignty and looking to the establishment of God’s kingdom government as the only hope for humankind. In the meantime, Christians can busy themselves in the work assigned (Isaiah 2:2-4; Matt. 6:9-10, 33; 24:14; 2 Tim. 4:1-5)
Jon said:
If one is going to quote scripture, at least get it right. "Jay" didn't say anything in 1 Timothy. It is attributed to Paul. And 3:4-5 is not referring to government officials, it refers to Bishops of the Church.
Jon said:
Oops, sorry. I misread Jay's post. I read it as attributing the passage from 1 Timothy to "J", ie. Jesus. I appologize for my mistake.
Jay said:
Jon correctly noted that my first observation (11/14/07)is attributed to Paul and applied to those given religious oversight. It might be a helpful principle; however, to consider regarding any pursuing weighty positions of oversight.
My remaining comments were meant only as a historical observation that leading Christian “conservatives” of the first century were generally neutral with regard to worldly politics. Their choice was unpopular even then, and hotly disputed as it is today.
My purpose was to reflect on the perspective of a noteworthy group of early religious conservatives and not to endorse or reject any particular politician. Of course, each individual is free to pursue his or her own conscience.
Vicktor said:
Yes, I vote for Mr. Giuliani if he is nominated. There is much more at stake in this election than disagreement in one or two issues. Our country has change so much in the past 30 years to the extreme left that many times while watching the nightly news I do not recognize it. The rights that as citizens we took for granted 30 years ago are no longer today “in the name of progress”. Even if I do not agree with smoking cigarettes, excessive drinking, pornography and many other aberrations chosen by humans to indulge on, the primary responsibility is on the individual, not the collective. We are NOT a village. We are a nation of people with a great majority of us knowing the difference between right and wrong. As President Reagan said so eloquently "If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.
I vote for personal responsibility and outreaching to others not imposing my views.
I would not vote for Giuliani, if he was the only one running... I am still registered as a Democrat...But, voted Republican, at the last 2 Presidential elections...
If they support Gay marraiges, and Abortion, I am not voting for them... Can't believe our Country has gone down so low....
I also will not send Pat Robertson anymore money, beause he is not in Gods Will, about the election... How can I trust now, with anything else....
The first primary has yet to be voted, so it's much too early for this question to be asked. There are several Republican candidates who are better matches for social conservative or "values" voters. The focus at this point should be to coalesce support for one of them.
However ... To decide at this point that if Guiliani is the Republican candidate then values voters should not vote for him is a strategy that is guaranteed to result in the election of a far worse Democrat. The abortion, gay marriage, etc. issues will not be decided directly by the President. They are issues ultimately for the Supreme Court. And the justices likely to be nominated and affirmed under Guiliani will be far preferable to those a President Clinton or Obama would foist on us.
Get behind Huckabee or McCain now. But if Guiliani wins the nomination, you have to vote for him if you want any hope of prevailing on these issues.
I am a social conservative, and I will vote for the Republican nominee. But, if Republicans are looking for someone who can win a general election, they should not just assume that a more secular Republican is more likely to win.
I support Huckabee for the nomination, and if you want someone with passion who can connect with the common person, he is it.
NO WAY would I vote for Giuliani! He might as well be democrat in his values. I will not vote for someone who supports the right to murder children in the womb and supports any kind of sanction for any kind of union of gays.
Although he isn't perfect, the one I have found that is most likely to be one I would support is Huckabee, even if I have to write him in.
No, I would not vote for Giuliani, just because he was mayor during 9/11 doesn't qualify him to become the president of this country. What with his support on the aborption issue and his opinion on gay rights, I am not willing to support him in anyway.
Should a man who does not know how to preside over his own household preside over everyone else’s? (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
It is noteworthy that Jesus Christ did not involve himself in worldly politics even though the world of his day had problems similar to ours. Christ was no part of the world or its politics. (John 14:30; 15:19; 17:14; 18:36; Luke 4:5-6; 1 John 5:19; Jas. 4:4) Neither were the first century Christians (as observed by many historians). Political involvement and other deviations arose later, after the death of the Apostles as forewarned by Bible prophecy. (2 Thess. 2:3-7; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 4:3)
Christians follow Christ’s example and teachings by advocating his Father’s sovereignty and looking to the establishment of God’s kingdom government as the only hope for humankind. In the meantime, Christians can busy themselves in the work assigned (Isaiah 2:2-4; Matt. 6:9-10, 33; 24:14; 2 Tim. 4:1-5)
If one is going to quote scripture, at least get it right. "Jay" didn't say anything in 1 Timothy. It is attributed to Paul. And 3:4-5 is not referring to government officials, it refers to Bishops of the Church.
Oops, sorry. I misread Jay's post. I read it as attributing the passage from 1 Timothy to "J", ie. Jesus. I appologize for my mistake.
Jon correctly noted that my first observation (11/14/07)is attributed to Paul and applied to those given religious oversight. It might be a helpful principle; however, to consider regarding any pursuing weighty positions of oversight.
My remaining comments were meant only as a historical observation that leading Christian “conservatives” of the first century were generally neutral with regard to worldly politics. Their choice was unpopular even then, and hotly disputed as it is today.
My purpose was to reflect on the perspective of a noteworthy group of early religious conservatives and not to endorse or reject any particular politician. Of course, each individual is free to pursue his or her own conscience.
Yes, I vote for Mr. Giuliani if he is nominated. There is much more at stake in this election than disagreement in one or two issues. Our country has change so much in the past 30 years to the extreme left that many times while watching the nightly news I do not recognize it. The rights that as citizens we took for granted 30 years ago are no longer today “in the name of progress”. Even if I do not agree with smoking cigarettes, excessive drinking, pornography and many other aberrations chosen by humans to indulge on, the primary responsibility is on the individual, not the collective. We are NOT a village. We are a nation of people with a great majority of us knowing the difference between right and wrong. As President Reagan said so eloquently "If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.
I vote for personal responsibility and outreaching to others not imposing my views.
Vicktor/Clovis CA
researchers911@sbcglobal.net