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: 04-07-2002
They were lieing & screaming bloody murder when we passed a Death with Dignity law in my state. I was here...I was subjected to it. And, luckily, unlike in the past, it didn't work the last time. Reporting what actually happened is not being closed-minded btw. There was no 'gross misrepresentation' in my post.

FYI, I do support the death penalty in some very limited instances. But I also don't believe a fetus is an 'unborn child' in that it cannot survive outside of it's mother during the time frame that dictates legal abortions. We are not discussing abortions done to protect the life/health of the mother nor those done because the baby would not survive after birth due to birth defects (THAT is up to the parents as to whether to proceed with the pregnancy or not). In my state, as in many others, the restrictions for second or third-trimester abortions are very strict.

Most of the 'regular liberal posters' here do consider themselves Christians...just not right-wing Christians. I'm not a right-wing Christian but I have always treated them with a lot more respect than they've shown me.

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
I respect that. You are not the example I was giving. I think what you and your family have managed to do is commendable.
Sorry that there has to be one that can't get with the program.

I have 2 deeply religious sisters, I am religious, I just don't tend to 'wear it on my sleeve' and I see it as a personal decision. One of my sisters is more demonstrative in her beliefs, and over the years has simply accepted that we all don't display our religion like she does. The other has become some what of a zealot, and doesn't hesitate to comment on others choices that she see's as an a front to her religious beliefs, to the point of commenting on my kids clothes; which may not be the most modest outfits, but aren't all that revealing either, just very co-ed, not club wear. I can't even imagine if one of our family members was not a Christian. I don't think she would know what to do with herself.
May I ask, do you observe another religion, or do you consider yourself agnostic or atheist? You don't have to answer, I know it's a personal question on a very public board
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
FYI, I also said "many" NOT "all"....

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
It may be hype to you, but I assure you, it's not to many believers. It bothers me now more than when I was younger. Probably because of how I saw it through my kids eyes and mine. My kids were much more eager to grasp the commercial side than the religious aspect. I think that had much to do with the gift part of it, and also that while in the season they receive many more commercial messages regarding Christmas and I was not able to balance all that glitz with the religious aspects. It's just kids being kids.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Yep, you made my point with the whole sure it's embarrassing, but it's not like something wasn't in there before (I'm paraphrasing) statement. A transvaginal ultrasound is unnecessary prior to an abortion, is not usually medically indicated, yet some folks have decided that it's okay to make a woman go through with one anyway, unnecessarily....to what purpose? I submit that it is done to humiliate/embarrass women who have chosen to undergo an abortion as there is absolutely no other reason to force women to jump through a bunch of hoops to undergo an abortion, again, a legal medical procedure. It is done as a way to force their religious beliefs on everyone else in the country by attempting and/or succeeding in passing these types of legislation on something that should be between a woman and her doctor and is nobody else's business.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making personal comments regarding what you think is going on in my mind. Thanks.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
What I put in my post from the legislation clearly shows that miscarriages could and likely would be investigated, certainly based upon all the other language in the bill that I also copied.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002

****Any of the recent attempts by states to pass laws regarding abortion to include such things as investigating miscarriages, requiring ultrasounds (particularly when it comes to the type of ultrasound that would be needed for the majority of abortions which occur very early in a pregnancy), all designed to humiliate and "get back" at those sinful women for daring to have sex and becoming pregnant...all based on their religious beliefs. Any of the laws limiting civil rights for homosexuals based on their homosexuality. ****



iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
I was referring to your posts. The comments and interpretations of my posts say a lot. I will continue to make my observations and if you don't want to read them then you don't have to.

What you have presented is nothing but opinion and it cannot be debated. You have a right to your opinion, however, nothing you have presented supports it except for my admission that placing a transvaginal ultrasound probe can be embarrassing. It's almost like putting a tampon in in front of someone. You may think that translates to your claim that the motive of legislation to require an ultrasound is done to humiliate and embarrass the woman, but it doesn't, it is simply a fact of the procedure for ANY woman experiencing it. Not just those that have one prior to an abortion. If you like, I will, at a later time, locate all the sources that will show you that the motivation for this procedure pre-abortion is to ensure that the woman is fully aware of the stage of life the fetus is in. It's done to attempt to sway her to reconsidering the abortion when she sees a heartbeat. I can also retrieve links that will support my facts about how an ultrasound prior to abortion can aid the physician and decrease risks, especially in the event of an unknown condition. Note: I did not use this information to support the use of transvaginal ultrasounds pre-abortion, I was simply stating some facts.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
I've always been open about considering myself "Pagan". I was raised Christian but I found it just didn't speak to me & sought out my own spiritual path. I agree - it is a personal decision & that's why I feel it should be kept out of gov't, public schools, etc.

I just believe in the Universe - the wonder & the terror of it. I also believe there is 'more' but I make no pretense at ever being able to understand what that is, at least in this existence! ;)

One of my SILs is a neo-con ultra-conservative right-wing Christian who belongs to a 'mega-church'. She's told me many times that "I'm going to hell" when I die. To which I usually respond "At least we'll be neighbors!" LOL!

The other is Christian, and while she doesn't wear on her sleeve either, she can't understand how anyone couldn't be Christian. However, she's getting worse with age.

I also have a first cousin & her family who used to be much more moderate, but it's gotten to the point where their prejudices against those who don't believe as they do have driven the rest of the family away.

It's kind of funny. My DH considers himself Christian but has no problem with my beliefs. Our DD considers herself agnostic but is open to learning about other beliefs - but then, her friends are of many different cultures & belief systems.

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Yes, they absolutely could. I know I never said otherwise. But it was not a call to "investigate miscarriages" which in that statement there are no exceptions noted or limits placed. That was what I was responding to. Written as you did, it is misleading.
What I posted provided a more thorough explanation of the bill, and I provided a link acknowledging that there was more available. I was hiding nothing. What you provided actually supported my comment that the bill is more about outlawing abortion.

Pages