Behind the Scenes, Christian Right Leaders Rally Behind Rick Perry

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Behind the Scenes, Christian Right Leaders Rally Behind Rick Perry
111
Tue, 07-05-2011 - 10:50am

I was wondering if there was still an active "Christian Right" they've been so quiet of late.

Does Perry stand a chance in hell of being nominated by the GOP?

http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/05/behind-the-scenes-christian-right-leaders-rally-behind-rick-perry/

In early June, TIME has learned, a group of prominent figures on the Christian Right held a conference call to discuss their dissatisfaction with the current GOP presidential field, and agreed that Rick Perry would be their preferred candidate if he entered the race. Among those on the call were Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; David Barton, the Texas activist and go-to historian for the Christian Right; and John Hagee, the controversial San Antonio pastor whose endorsement John McCain rejected in 2008.

Religious conservatives have often played a substantial role in choosing past Republican nominees, but leaders on the Christian Right have been conspicuously quiet so far in this campaign season. Privately, however, they are enthusiastic about Perry and are encouraging the Texas governor to throw his ten-gallon hat into the ring.

Perry’s favor with the Christian Right is relatively new, and he is their candidate of choice as much by default as anything. Many leaders had hoped that Mike Huckabee would make a second run for the nomination and give them a fellow religious conservative (and a Southerner) to support. When Huckabee chose to sit out the race and Haley Barbour stepped aside as well, some Christian Right bigwigs considered throwing their support behind Newt Gingrich.

The former Speaker has made religious freedom for Christians his signature issue over the past few years. And more importantly, Gingrich needs religious conservatives more than they need him — he might feel indebted to that constituency if he won, the thinking went.

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
"To be fair, it's just a smaller group of Christians (usually the fundamentalist evangelicals) who think they are being persecuted. Unfortunately, they are very vocal."

I took that as a given.
I'm a Christian but do not identify myself in anyway with the Christian Right.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000

One example: Every Xmas loud complaints because Christmas isn't mentioned on every Xmas card.

Another: Not teaching evolution in schools.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Yes, that's something that some people who cry about Christians being bashed fail to realize, that most people in the U.S. are Christian and they, too, have major criticisms about fundamentalist evangelical Christians.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
<>

Yes, that's another example of people trying to legislate their religious beliefs...trying to claim that ID is a valid theory and should be taught as a science in a science class. Their anti-science stance also affects legislation relating to anything that has to do with funding for needed science-related projects, the EPA, etc.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007

Isn't there a School Book Company in Texas that's trying to re-write history and impose the Religious Rights views?

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
That was the Texas Board of Education committee that was rewriting the standards on what they wanted included in textbooks.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
>"In the past, Cargill, of The Woodlands, has supported curriculum standards that many have said sought to undermine the teaching of evolution."<
>"Instead, the board will choose online material. One of the choices includes science material promoting creationism and intelligent design."< Quotes from....

Perry's new education board chair brings mixed reactions
Conservative Cargill is Perry's third choice.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/article/Perry-s-new-education-board-chair-brings-mixed-1453518.php
From 2010...
Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook change
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Don't Know Much About History
Controversial changes may be in store for your textbooks, courtesy of the Texas state school board.
http://www.nea.org/home/39060.htm

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
I was not familiar with the call to investigate miscarriages, it's a bill in the Georgia legislature that was sponsored by Bobby Franklin. The purpose of the bill is to outlaw abortion; I doubt it will pass. I think some of the hype about "investigating miscarriages" is misdirected. Here is some of the language of the bill and a link to the legislation:
"(2) 'Prenatal murder' means the intentional removal of a fetus from a woman with an
115 intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus; provided, however,
116 that if a physician makes a medically justified effort to save the lives of both the mother
117 and the fetus and the fetus does not survive, such action shall not be prenatal murder.
118 Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically
119 as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human
120 involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event." ......
"SECTION 2.14.
197 Said title is further amended by revising subsection (a) of Code Section 31-10-18, relating
198 to registration of spontaneous fetal deaths, as follows:
199 "(a) A report of spontaneous fetal death for each spontaneous fetal death which occurs in
200 this state shall be filed with the local registrar of the county in which the delivery occurred
201 within 72 hours after such delivery in accordance with this Code section unless the place
202 of fetal death is unknown, in which case a fetal death certificate shall be filed in the county
203 in which the dead fetus was found within 72 hours after such occurrence. All induced
204 terminations of pregnancy shall be reported in the manner prescribed in Code Section
205 31-10-19. Preparation and filing of reports of spontaneous fetal death shall be as follows:
206 (1) When a dead fetus is delivered in an institution, the person in charge of the institution
207 or that person's designated representative shall prepare and file the report;
208 (2) When a dead fetus is delivered outside an institution, the physician in attendance at
209 or immediately after delivery shall prepare and file the report;
210 (3) When a spontaneous fetal death required to be reported by this Code section occurs
211 without medical attendance at or immediately after the delivery or when inquiry is
212 required by Article 2 of Chapter 16 of Title 45, the 'Georgia Death Investigation Act,' the
213 proper investigating official shall investigate the cause of fetal death and shall prepare
214 and file the report within 30 days; and
215 (4) When a spontaneous fetal death occurs in a moving conveyance and the fetus is first
216 removed from the conveyance in this state or when a dead fetus is found in this state and
217 the place of fetal death is unknown, the fetal death shall be reported in this state. The
218 place where the fetus was first removed from the conveyance or the dead fetus was found
219 shall be considered the place of fetal death."
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display.aspx?Legislation=31965

As for the ultrasound, I'm assuming you are suggesting that a transvaginal ultrasound is some how meant to humiliate and "get back" (really?) at a woman for having sex and daring to get pregnant? Honestly, you believe this? With all due respect, I just don't know any other way to put this but that is really twisted thinking. It infers a negative and perverse issue toward religion.
The purpose of the ultrasound can be many. In early stages of development a transvaginal ultrasound is indicated over an abdominal ultrasound; they are usually performed before the 8th week of pregnancy. The reason for the transvaginal ultrasound is to gain a better image, the uterus is thicker early in pregnancy, the fetus is smaller and it avoids going through the layers of the abdomen. While it serves the purpose of seeing a heart beat in the fetus (which is my assumption as to why anti-abortion advocates push for this procedure in hopes the mother will view the fetus as a baby instead of a clump of cells), it is a pointless procedure if the mother does not look at the image. She cannot be forced to view the ultrasound, even if the Dr is required to show it to her. Technicality I know, but the truth is no one can force the woman to look at the image. I don't deny that those pushing for this legislation have an agenda, they think that making the woman more informed about the stage of development and if they were to actually see a fetus that is moving and has a heart beat they may change their mind about the abortion.
All that said, there are also medical reasons for performing a trans vaginal ultrasound. It can aid the physician in the procedure providing information he/she would not have had and making it less a 'blind sweep', no pun intended. It can also alert a physician to any abnormalities in the uterus that the woman may not even be aware of thus decreasing the risk of serious complications.
A transvaginal ultrasound is not painful, it's no more uncomfortable than using a tampon, whereas a pelvic exam can be painful. It is just a little more embarrassing. All I can say to that is: It's not like it's the first time something occupied that space.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
I've read the legislation, thanks.

<>

Honestly, yes, I do believe that it is an attempt to humiliate women. There is absolutely no logical reason for any of these roadblocks being put in the way of a woman receiving a legal medical procedure. I'm perfectly familiar with transvaginal ultrasounds, thanks again, and there is no reason for forcing a woman seeking an abortion to have one. Sure, a woman doesn't have to look at the image...but the state is still forcing a woman to undergo the transvaginal or abdominal ultrasound (to what purpose? It's not medically necessary).

<>

...and that right there says it all and makes my point.

Pages