So are we done ignoring the Evangelicals?

[RoyalShock]

Winning over evangelical Christians must be a long-term goal of the "revolution". It's not just for this election, but for the future of America. We (I am an evangelical Christian) have been told since at least 1994 that we must "vote our values". We were told that all legislation is some form of morality and if we don't get our morality legislated then someone else will get their morality legislated.

The so-called "leaders" have hammered and hammered this line of thinking on the Christian voting base for at least a generation. One candidate is not going to suddenly change their way of thinking. It is going to take time and it is going to take Christians who "get it" to win the hearts and minds, using sound biblical doctrine and constitutional principles, of the Christians who don't get it. It is a complicated issue. Broad brush strokes aren't going to get it done.

Every pastor that can be won over is a coup. But here is an approach I think will get a foot in the door of most Christians (keep in mind, Christians aren't unlike other voters in that some, particularly if they fall on the Democratic side of gov't filling their requirement to help people, won't change their minds):

- Ask them what two political issues are most important to them.
- Inform them that Ron Paul is a born-again Christian.
- Explain Ron Paul's position on those issues. For some (or many) this will get them at least receptive to Paul's platform and hopefully, rethinking their views.
- Others will probably come back with arguments that the federal gov't should be doing things we believe it shouldn't. That is the time to discuss Christ's teachings, particularly emphasizing who Jesus was instructing (individuals).
- Qualify EVERYTHING by demonstrating how strict adherence to the Constitution allows Christians the most freedom to exercise their faith. This was one of many goals by the founding fathers.
- Argue (state a case) that attempting to legislate our morality will only alienate and harden the hearts of those that we, as evengelicals, are trying to reach for Christ.

Sorry for the bump, but I think this is a worthy discussion.

 

[Talldude1412]

Winning over evangelical Christians must be a long-term goal of the "revolution". It's not just for this election, but for the future of America. We (I am an evangelical Christian) have been told since at least 1994 that we must "vote our values". We were told that all legislation is some form of morality and if we don't get our morality legislated then someone else will get their morality legislated.

The so-called "leaders" have hammered and hammered this line of thinking on the Christian voting base for at least a generation. One candidate is not going to suddenly change their way of thinking. It is going to take time and it is going to take Christians who "get it" to win the hearts and minds, using sound biblical doctrine and constitutional principles, of the Christians who don't get it. It is a complicated issue. Broad brush strokes aren't going to get it done.

Every pastor that can be won over is a coup. But here is an approach I think will get a foot in the door of most Christians (keep in mind, Christians aren't unlike other voters in that some, particularly if they fall on the Democratic side of gov't filling their requirement to help people, won't change their minds):

- Ask them what two political issues are most important to them.
- Inform them that Ron Paul is a born-again Christian.
- Explain Ron Paul's position on those issues. For some (or many) this will get them at least receptive to Paul's platform and hopefully, rethinking their views.
- Others will probably come back with arguments that the federal gov't should be doing things we believe it shouldn't. That is the time to discuss Christ's teachings, particularly emphasizing who Jesus was instructing (individuals).
- Qualify EVERYTHING by demonstrating how strict adherence to the Constitution allows Christians the most freedom to exercise their faith. This was one of many goals by the founding fathers.
- Argue (state a case) that attempting to legislate our morality will only alienate and harden the hearts of those that we, as evengelicals, are trying to reach for Christ.

Sorry for the bump, but I think this is a worthy discussion.

+ 1 billions for effective dialogue.

 

[John of Des Moines]

Ron Paul is a far better Jesus candidate than Huckabee, but so many of you just don't want to talk about that aspect of Ron Paul.
...
The evangelical vote should be firmly behind Ron Paul. This is something we should work on.

Hate to disagree with you but the campaign went after the Evangelicals and many, many of them walk around with blinders on. They'll do whatever the human in the pulpit tells them. They won't go discover on their own the necessary information to discover the correct choice. The only ones who support people are the ones who are willing to devote time and energy into finding the truth. And the campaign did target the Christian vote, i.e. Drew Ivers and Paul Dorr. Doctor Paul was the subject of a whisper campaign from the sheople herders.

 

[freelance]

I don't think we have a prayer of getting through to the INDIVIDUALS you all want to target. You want to get the Christian vote? Then, you have to get to the pastors.

 

[JMann]

'We' haven't ignored evangelicals, they are welcome just like anyone else. Seems to me they have decided to ignore 'us'.

 

[Sandra]

I think one needs to separate "corporate" evangelicals, whom politicos pander to, and mainstream evangelical who tend to lean more toward separation of church and state. Southern and Independant Baptists are corporate and mix a lot of politics in their services. Catholic, Methodists, and most other Protestants are more separatist.

 

[Sandra]

Corporate religion cannot exist with free thinking or open education. It is crucial that schools and universities are sponsored by the targeted church as well as all activities both recreational and educational. From womb to tomb the average corporate evangelical rarely exists outside the groupthink of the church and will do anything his church elders tell him to do.

Enter Bush.
Bush is now the devider of evangelicals. He used Christian catch phrases and pretention to garner the easy pickens of the evangelical corporate vote. And why not, they were already tied up in a nice tidy package. A shift is taking place, however, evangelicals are seeing Bush as a traitor to his faith and theirs. He lied us into a war, and lied and lied. He has become so rancid in their eyes that some,, especially around here are talking about looking for candidates that IMPLEMENT Christian ideals rather than stumping them. This is also what mainstream Protestant and Catholics are going after.

 

[TruckinMike]

scenario-- An Average Dumb Atheist and Ron Paul supporter door to door canvassing;

DA:knock knock -- Hi, my name is billy, And i think All Christians are stupid. Oh, BTW, I'm supporting Ron Paul for President, Would you like a flyer?

Home Owner: "I would never vote for that ANti-Christion nut bag." -- SLAM!

This scenario is played out day after day after day right here on the Ron Paul forums. We have Thousands of visitors poking around checking out this site, all the while the DA RP supporters continue to bash Christians! Over and Over and Over.

Now lets change the scenario:

We have a Dumb CHristian RP supporter.

DC: Hi, my name is Fred, I'm a Christian and I think all atheist are going to burn in HELL, Oh BTW, I'm supporting Ron Paul for President, Would you like some literature?

Home owner: "I would never vote for that hateful Authoritarian god worshipping NAZI" ---SLAM

Lessons Learned:

Both of the above examples will not help the campaign. So why continue belittling any group. It serves no good purpose.

Remember, we are salesmen/saleswomen, here on the forum as much as at the door.

Just to set the record straight --- There are NO Christians running around this forum indiscriminately bashing atheists using derogatory adjectives as insults.

Sorry if I offended any atheists, but what I said is true.

PS- I refuse to even tell my church members about this forum. Why? I want them to vote for Ron Paul, and not be offended by insulting supporters.

TM

 

[ChelC]

I can't help but toss in my $.02

I don't believe we should play both sides of the card, unless we're consistently playing both sides... at the same time. The fact is that Paul's message is the same as our founders message and it's one of freedom. Freedom is something we can all rally behind.

Does Ron Paul support atheism, gay marriage and legalized drugs? No! That's the point, he's saying leave it to the people as the constitution intended. We might have one state that becomes the polar opposite of another because the majority in that state consist of a different people.

I will be honest here and say that I haven't posted all that much on this site because it is offensive. To get to good posts I have to wade through an awful lot of verbs being used as adjectives and nouns... if you catch my drift. I've never read more bashing of my religion in any one place before. If I was just looking into Paul and came here first, I might not get that far in my search to be honest.

As for Christians being one issue voters, well I don't think we should vote for someone just because they share our religious affiliation. However, I absolutely do not believe in seperating religious and political beliefs. My religion is my religion of choice because I believe in it with all of my heart. With stakes that high you'd better believe it encompasses every aspect of my life, and it's a factor in every decision I make and there with every breath I draw.

Paul has a strong atheist following AND he has a strong Christian following. While we try to get our man elected let's unite on what we have in common, and then later we can duke it out in our individual states over the issues of abortion, drugs and everything else.

Maybe an atheist can answer this question I've always had - an honest question, not an attack. Why the fuss over allowing someone to practice their religion in your presence? You know, how dare anyone say God in the pledge, or how dare anyone say a personal prayer in school? It seems to me that if you don't believe in God that it would be as offensive as someone talking to Santa Claus, or pledging to the flag under mickey mouse. I've always wondered that. Especially since many of the same people think they should have the freedom to swear in every sentence, and smoke doobies all the day long in public. When I lived in Hawaii we had to learn all about Pele and various Gods... we had to learn mythology in every school, we read about all major religions, but never ever were we allowed to discuss Christianity. What gives? Are atheists atheists because they don't believe in God, or because they are bitter about Christianity? It seems to me that it's been about 50/50 with the atheists I've personally met. Actually I think higher numbers had very religious parents who pushed them during adolescence into a religion that they didn't wholly believe and they rebelled. My personal experience is that some of those come back though, which leaves us still at about 50% bitter and 50% just don't buy it.

I figure since I've had to defend my faith here several times, evangelicals have too, that it's fair to ask these questions to some of the atheists out there. Not attacking your beliefs, just seeking clarification of what seems hypocritical to me.

 

[constituent]

I

Maybe an atheist can answer this question I've always had - an honest question, not an attack. Why the fuss over allowing someone to practice their religion in your presence? You know, how dare anyone say God in the pledge, or how dare anyone say a personal prayer in school? It seems to me that if you don't believe in God that it would be as offensive as someone talking to Santa Claus, or pledging to the flag under mickey mouse. I've always wondered that. Especially since many of the same people think they should have the freedom to swear in every sentence, and smoke doobies all the day long in public.

straw man, gimme a break...

::not an atheist, but::

when was the last time someone fussed at you for saying a personal prayer in school?

(piety, pass it on)

............


"how dare anyone say 'God' in a pledge?"

how dare you engage in idol worship, and then debase your creator by
throwing 'his' 'name' in there with it?

pledge allegiance to your creator, your savior or whomever you choose, but not a flag...
a symbol, an idol (as a "christian" you shouldn't have to be told this... tsk tsk)

"especially since some.... freedom to swear....smoke doobies all day long in public"

does not deserve a response.

........

"move over and share the high ground where you stood, you're so heavenly
minded you're no earthly good."

........

 

[fj45lvr]

Winning over evangelical Christians must be a long-term goal of the "revolution". It's not just for this election, but for the future of America. We (I am an evangelical Christian) have been told since at least 1994 that we must "vote our values". We were told that all legislation is some form of morality and if we don't get our morality legislated then someone else will get their morality legislated.

The so-called "leaders" have hammered and hammered this line of thinking on the Christian voting base for at least a generation. One candidate is not going to suddenly change their way of thinking. It is going to take time and it is going to take Christians who "get it" to win the hearts and minds, using sound biblical doctrine and constitutional principles, of the Christians who don't get it. It is a complicated issue. Broad brush strokes aren't going to get it done.

Every pastor that can be won over is a coup. But here is an approach I think will get a foot in the door of most Christians (keep in mind, Christians aren't unlike other voters in that some, particularly if they fall on the Democratic side of gov't filling their requirement to help people, won't change their minds):

- Ask them what two political issues are most important to them.
- Inform them that Ron Paul is a born-again Christian.
- Explain Ron Paul's position on those issues. For some (or many) this will get them at least receptive to Paul's platform and hopefully, rethinking their views.
- Others will probably come back with arguments that the federal gov't should be doing things we believe it shouldn't. That is the time to discuss Christ's teachings, particularly emphasizing who Jesus was instructing (individuals).
- Qualify EVERYTHING by demonstrating how strict adherence to the Constitution allows Christians the most freedom to exercise their faith. This was one of many goals by the founding fathers.
- Argue (state a case) that attempting to legislate our morality will only alienate and harden the hearts of those that we, as evengelicals, are trying to reach for Christ.

Sorry for the bump, but I think this is a worthy discussion.

and let them know that their ideas they seek to implement may well be turned and used AGAINST THEM (the biggest reason it is WRONG to FEDERALLY legislate controls (not within the Constitution) because it will very well be that those instituted will NOT be the ones you were thinking of)....live by sword/die by sword and if they stuck to the Constitution they wouldn't have to live under the THREAT of their darkest dream or vision.

 

[ChelC]

Um... okay.

I guess the doobies remark sounded like I was lumping in all atheists there. I'll give you that. I'm an idealist and I do that sometimes. The question though is an honest one, and one that hasn't ever been answered for me.

Why is it that when I respond honestly I get this moral highground stuff? It's like Christian people cannot open their mouths without someone saying we're trying to make off like we're better. I just want to go on a forum without someone trying to make me out to be a country bumpkin with mush for brains because I believe in my Creator.

If I replied to this thread saying something offensive to Christians I would have gotten a dozen LOLs.

 

[Redcard]

I am new to Ron Paul, and am checking him out. One thing that really bothers me is that it appears people think the man's Christianity is not an issue to how he'll run government. In checking his voting record, though, I see issues where he believes that Churches should be allowed to politic from the pulpit. I see a lot of tax relief (which is good), and a lot of defenses of christianity in government (which is not.) Now, I'm trying to figure out if he believes that the US should be a theocracy (since he votes along those lines.. in votes regarding God in GOvernment, the Right seems to have no problem with him) , or whether states should have the right to become theocracies if the people wish, or whether religion should not be in politics directly.

If it's the former, would he mind if the US became an Islamic theocracy, or just religious in general. If it's the second, would he mind if certain states elected to go Islamic vs Christian, since that might be an option coming up. If it's third, why has he voted in the past for less seperation of church and state?

I ask this as an atheist, one who accepts full well that Ron Paul is a Born Again Christian. I understand a lot of you will say that he will not try to force his opinion on me, but his beliefs are that when I die I will burn in hell. There's no real escaping that fact and I accept those are his beliefs.

What I don't understand is how people here are acting like they're surprised that he is an evangelical christian all of a sudden, and how they feel that Ron actually talking to the base he talked to in 1988 is suddenly "pandering." This is his base, folks. You knew all along he was an evangelical christian. Why is everyone acting surprised now?

 

[unklejman]

The characteristics of Evangelicalism as defined by David Bebbington, in his study of British evangelicalism, are known as the Bebbington Quadrilateral, [1], the four characteristics of evangelicals are :

1. Conversionism - Emphasis on the conversion experience, also called being saved, or new birth or born again after John 3:3. Thus evangelicals often refer to themselves as born-again Christians. This experience is said to be received by "faith alone" and to be given by God as the result of "grace alone".
2. Biblicism - The Protestant canon of the Bible, as God's revelation to humanity, is the primary source of religious authority. Thus, the doctrine of sola scriptura is often emphasized. Bible prophecy, especially as interpreted according to dispensationalism, is often emphasized as well.
3. Activism - Encouragement of evangelism—the act of persuading others of one's beliefs—in organized missionary work or by personal encounters and relationships with others.
4. Crucicentrism - A central focus on Christ's redeeming work on the cross as the only means for salvation and the forgiveness of sins.

All four points are inline with my beliefs.

If this is the crowd you now want to pitch to, then re-read my post above where I explain why this crowd and the typical Ron Paul crowd don't mix well. Ron Paul preaches non-interference and letting people live their lives the way they want. He does not try to persuade others of his beliefs. If he did I think he would lose most of the people on this forum.

I mix very well with the Ron Paul crowd, in-fact I'm part of it! The idea is that it is the responsibility of the church to spread the message of Christ, not the government. I agree with in letting people live their lives the way they want.

I also think that if Ron Paul started saying that people were sinners and the ONLY way to redemption was to focus on Christ's actions on the cross I can guarantee you would lose a lot of the folks you have here.

He probably believes that. He just keeps in on a personal level and not a political level.

Evangelicals have a very narrow focus of acceptability. Huckabee will play well with that crowd because I believe he probably believes all of the four mentioned criteria. Ron Paul however, will not play well with that crowd. If you try to force him into that box, 1. you are lying; and 2. he can't hold a candle to Huckabee.

So why try?

I think you have a very narrow idea of evangelicals. My dad (a sunday school teacher) is voting for RP as well as some people I've talked to at my southern baptist evangelical church, including the youth pastor. In fact the biggest concern with some of the people I talked to at my church was the Iraq war and "being over there so they don't come here" idea.

One other thing, my dad had a problem with Huckabee BECAUSE he was a minister and didn't think some one called to the ministry should be running for president.

 

[RoyalShock]

I am new to Ron Paul, and am checking him out. One thing that really bothers me is that it appears people think the man's Christianity is not an issue to how he'll run government. In checking his voting record, though, I see issues where he believes that Churches should be allowed to politic from the pulpit. I see a lot of tax relief (which is good), and a lot of defenses of christianity in government (which is not.) Now, I'm trying to figure out if he believes that the US should be a theocracy (since he votes along those lines.. in votes regarding God in GOvernment, the Right seems to have no problem with him) , or whether states should have the right to become theocracies if the people wish, or whether religion should not be in politics directly.

If it's the former, would he mind if the US became an Islamic theocracy, or just religious in general. If it's the second, would he mind if certain states elected to go Islamic vs Christian, since that might be an option coming up. If it's third, why has he voted in the past for less seperation of church and state?

I ask this as an atheist, one who accepts full well that Ron Paul is a Born Again Christian. I understand a lot of you will say that he will not try to force his opinion on me, but his beliefs are that when I die I will burn in hell. There's no real escaping that fact and I accept those are his beliefs.

What I don't understand is how people here are acting like they're surprised that he is an evangelical christian all of a sudden, and how they feel that Ron actually talking to the base he talked to in 1988 is suddenly "pandering." This is his base, folks. You knew all along he was an evangelical christian. Why is everyone acting surprised now?

Since this topic got bumped, I wanted to respond to this.

Allowing politicking from the pulpit just means that church leaders ought to be able to preach areas of their faith that cross into political grounds without fear of government intervention. That is a guarantee of the first amendment and consistent with his constitutional principles.

Paul wants the federal gov't to get out of the lives of EVERY citizen. He's truly for equality. Someone who wants to institute a theocracy would not be in favor of freedom, liberty and smaller government. They are mutually-exclusive concepts.

As an example, he's personally very, very pro-life. He would like to revoke Roe vs. Wade and give the issue back to the states to deal with. He doesn't want to force his personal belief on people, but he does want the federal government to stay out of issues that are better dealt with at more local levels. That is also consistent with a constitutional point of view.

 

[Redcard]

But the states HAD Roe V Wade to deal with at one time.. and it didn't hold there because of the same reason that the Gay Marriage thing wasn't trusted in just the states.

What is RP going to do that will be different than what occurred with RvW the first time it went through at the state levels and got to the SCOTUS?

It'll get up there again, so long as people are opposed to whatever the current law is.

 

[JoBurke]

Just stick this video in thier face!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5uk-T46soz8

If you love jesus, stop supporting this regime and wake up!

 

[Maltheus]

He's RELIGIOUS.... please don't call him a Christian...

Would you please explain this distinction? I seem to have offended people in the past by referring to their beliefs as a religion. Do the "faithful" think that religion is just something the other guys believes? I find this parsing really confusing and I'd like someone to explain it to me.

Or to put it another way, how do I ask someone if they're religious, without having them say no, and then go on an on about their religion as if we're speaking a different language?

 

[unklejman]

Would you please explain this distinction? I seem to have offended people in the past by referring to their beliefs as a religion. Do the "faithful" think that religion is just something the other guys believes? I find this parsing really confusing and I'd like someone to explain it to me.

Or to put it another way, how do I ask someone if they're religious, without having them say no, and then go on an on about their religion as if we're speaking a different language?

Ask are they a Christian? The only people I could think of that would do that are born again Christians. They believe a religion is just rules you follow trying to get to heaven. Instead they believe that having a relationship with Jesus is how to get to heaven.

 

[DrNoZone]

Evangelists held strong sway in Iowa...but they won't just about everywhere else.