[Previous entry: "Repeat Divorces"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "The Season of Transition"]

03/12/2005: "Why does Chuck ask such good questions?"

Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naïve, or Willingly Ignorant?
By Chuck Baldwin
March 11, 2005


It is time to ask some hard questions about the preponderance of
leaders and organizations commonly identified as the Religious
Right. Are they gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant? How can
anyone who truly believes that unborn babies deserve the right to
life continue to support President George W. Bush? His track
record on the life issue screams betrayal! Let's get real: on the
subject of protecting the lives of unborn babies, Bush is just so
much hot air!

American Life League president Judy Brown, columnist Thomas
Droleskey, Howard Phillips, Covenant News.com web host Jim
Rudd, and many others have provided the American people with
incontrovertible documentation regarding G.W. Bush's dismally
pathetic record on the life issue. They have chronicled facts
including:

Practically everyone in Bush's cabinet is pro-abortion. Bush is the
first president to authorize stem cell research. In fact, his appointee
to directorship of the National Institute of Health, Dr. Elias
Zerhouni, is a pioneer in embryonic stem cell research. President
Bush even blocked a vote on a congressional amendment that
would have banned the patenting of human embryos.

President Bush has done nothing to remove abortifacients such as
RU-486 from the shelves. He even supported the National
Organization of Women (NOW) in their racketeering suit against
Joe Scheidler and other pro-life advocates.

President Bush has approved millions of taxpayer dollars in
funding for Planned Parenthood. He has authorized federal funding
for abortion providers overseas to levels even higher than those
authorized by President Bill Clinton!

Speaking of overseas funding for abortion, President Bush's $15
billion AIDS package provides payments to organizations that
provide abortions including the International Planned Parenthood
Federation.

President Bush even admitted his opposition to overturning Roe v
Wade by stating emphatically, "there will be abortions. That's a
reality." Of course, the President's wife Laura has also publicly
said she is opposed to overturning Roe v Wade.

President Bush has repeatedly said that he has no litmus test on the
life issue when it comes to appointing federal judges. Why does
the Religious Right claim he intends to do something he has
plainly and repeatedly denied? Again, are they gullible, naïve, or
willingly ignorant?

Beyond that, how far will the Religious Right go in their
compromise and surrender of the life issue? Indications are there is
practically no limit to their sellout.

We are already hearing leaders within the Religious Right say they
will support the Republican presidential nominee in 2008 even if
that nominee is openly pro-abortion. Such talk is obviously an
attempt to begin calming potential concerns among pro-life
conservatives if and when the Republican Party nominates a pro-
abortion presidential candidate, which appears very likely to
happen.

For example, a recent national gathering of Republicans voted
Rudy Guiliani and Condi Rice as the top two choices to lead the
GOP ticket in 2008. Of course, both Guiliani and Rice are pro-
abortion.

It will more than interesting to listen to leaders of the Religious
Right postulate on how a pro-abortion Democrat is evil but a pro-
abortion Republican is righteous! Again, is the Religious Right
gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant?

Perhaps disgusting is a more appropriate word to describe the
behavior of the Religious Right. In order to keep its most favored
special interest group status, it has compromised and capitulated
just about every cardinal principal, including the life issue.

As a result, Republican presidents and congresses will continue to
come and go, the Religious Right will continue to bask in the
warm glow of Republican acceptance, and millions of pre-born
babies will continue to have their little bodies torn apart by the
abortionist's scalpel.

Do not fear, however. At least a Democrat is not in the White
House. Obviously, that matters little to the more than 4 million
unborn babies who have been slaughtered in the wombs of their
mothers since G.W. Bush became President. What does matter, of
course, is that the Religious Right is happy to embrace the
Republican presidential candidate, his or her commitment to the
unborn notwithstanding.

Is the Religious Right gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant? It
really doesn't matter. Whatever the motive or whatever the cause,
the Religious Right has ceased to be a credible proponent of
protecting the lives of unborn children, which leads to the greater
question: who will pick up the mantle as the voice for the unborn?

© Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be
republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or
organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or
advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit
is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck
Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts
interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact
chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.
When responding, please include your name, city and state. And,
unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the
Chuck Wagon address list.

To subscribe to these columns, send a message to
majordomo@chuckbaldwinlive.com with the words subscribe
chuck-wagon in the body of the message. To unsubscribe put
the words unsubscribe chuck-wagon in the body of the
message.

Replies: 6 Comments

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28527-2005Mar11.html

Read this article in the Wash Post said @ 03/12/2005 08:00 AM CST

Thank you for the link. This article makes a point that Hugh Hewitt always makes. In politics, you need to win in order to lead.

There is also another point I am learning in politics, all changes are incremental. Small changes overtime change a society. These changes can be for the better or for the worse.

Q and A Blogger said @ 03/12/2005 04:20 PM CST

The wealthy and powerful are God's elect. Minimum wages, subsidized health care, and other such laws and regulations only corrupt the poor, who must depend upon charity.

Changing society said @ 03/12/2005 08:04 PM CST

God's elect are any who He chooses to give the gift of faith. That would be either rich or poor, healthy or sick, black or white or green.
God's ways are higher than our ways.

Q and A Blogger said @ 03/13/2005 04:06 PM CST

Isn't faith man's gift to God? Does not man, by his deeds and his faith, determine whether he will be a recepient of salvation? And what of free will? If man is in bondage to his evil nature, if man is inherently sinful, then can he freely choose? If he cannot freely choose, then faith is only a gift from God, and man does not contribute to his salvation. Then it is God's choice of the sinner, not the sinners choice of Christ, that leads to salvation.

Choice said @ 03/13/2005 06:05 PM CST

The Bible clearly teaches that faith is a gift from God and that man has free will. Can I understand that? Nope. I can easily admit that. My brain is too puny. God's ways are a mystery to us. But just because we cannot understand them, does not mean they are not true. At the same time, it is not a bad thing to try to understand.

q and a blogger said @ 03/14/2005 09:27 AM CST

Powered by
RSSgenr8

Blog Hugh Hewitt

<xBlogxPhilesx>