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: 05-03-2011
<>

That's what they say their motivation is...since it is their religious opinion that life begins at conception and they are trying to strong arm women into not choosing to abort since they can't outright outlaw abortion. They are trying to do this by legislation, by forcing women to go to specific counseling where they are told lies (like abortion is linked to breast cancer), by forcing them to wait a set amount of time prior to an abortion, by forcing them to undergo unnecessary ultrasounds. Most abortions are done in the very earliest stages of pregnancy and are done chemically, so an ultrasound wouldn't be necessary.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002

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). *****

Being forced to have an ultrasound in order to recieve a legal medical service, which has been performed safely for decades without TVUS, is easily seen for what it is. A way to emotionally tear at a woman who is already making a difficult decision, usually based on economic and family related issues. I have never understood why they focus on making it more difficult for women already in a difficult position, instead of working on legislation towards SUPPORTING women so they feel like they can keep their child. Issues like economic parity, PAID maternity leave, not requiring them to be "poor enough" to recieve food and benefits to take care of the children, better domestic violence laws/assistance. The most likely time a woman is to be murdered is when she is pregnant, usually at the hands of the "father."



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
I agree Xmas is too commercial as is Easter along with non-religious holidays. If a buck can be made then commercialism knows no end.

I was made to attend church when I lived with my parents. My brother's a priest.

Since being on my own I have my own principles on how to conduct myself. I attend church occasionally but am not an active member.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Thanks for sharing.
I belong to a 'mega-church', and it is a conservative bunch, although the lead pastor is a bit more liberal in many ways.
I'm always disappointed to see (and I'm not suggesting you did it or do it) when people assume that mega-church = political radical right-wing. And see it as something bad. There is a lot good in mega-churches. We can do so much because we have the funds that smaller churches don't have. Also, there is not all bad in a right-wing pov. But people use derogatory phrases to describe mega-churches and people with more extreme religious and political views that it ends up preventing any active communication. I think that is way people mostly just yell at each other, hurl insults, and stick to their position. At least it's part of the reason. I know there is more. And I am completely aware and acknowledge that it's not just liberals doing it to the right-wing or the religious right-wing.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002

I would say that to anyone having a vaginal ultrasound, in fact, the first time I had one, when I had a miscarriage actually that's exactly what I told myself. Except that I added "get over it", ****

You had a right to decline it and still recieve other legal medical procedures,. You were not forced to get it, correct, in order torecieve care? It was a personal choice, which you could have refused AMA, not LEGISLATION that required you to have one because you miscarried??



iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Again, it's your opinion, and it's full of hype and rhetoric.
"Most abortions are done in the very earliest stages of pregnancy and are done chemically, so an ultrasound wouldn't be necessary. "

Then what are you worried about? I'm sure you have some facts you meant to supply to support your information. Can you expand on your definition of a chemical abortion?
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002

Most abortions are done in the very earliest stages of pregnancy and are done chemically, so an ultrasound wouldn't be necessary. ****

I was thinking this myself.



iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002

Can you expand on your definition of a chemical abortion? ****

RU-486.



iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
of course I could have refused it. If you want to argue the constitutionality of requiring a transvaginal ultrasound (not the original topic) I would tell you that I would have concerns that forcing a woman to have a non-medically indicated invasive procedure would pass muster and I don't agree with forcing anyone. There are instances, prior to an abortion, where an ultrasound would be medically indicated. I do how believe in informed consent and I do think that it is prudent to ascertain the woman's level of knowledge prior to the procedure and make sure she is fully informed. Of course as someone that is pro-life, I also believe that the woman should understand the development of a fetus. That is where I and pro-choice people split.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
I realize that not all 'mega-churches' are bad. This one, however, has had 'issues' in the past & I have little respect for it. There's another 'mega-church' here - Mars Hill Church - which is extremely conservative - to the point where women must follow any decision made by the men in their lives (husbands, fathers, etc.); children should face stiff corporal punishment for disobeying (meaning beating your kid); etc. It's those types of mega-churches that cast shadows on the others.

 nwtreehugger  

Pages