Comments

Wow, Stan, I want to be here with you on this one, but I would have to take the "guts and experience to stand up to (evil)" comment as an endorsement of a tough, militaristic view of national defense, which, as a pro-lifer, I cannot endorse.

You cannot support a strong pro-life agenda AND a "shoot-first" national defense policy.

Unfortunately, there appears to be no one on the ticket who can produce a pro-life agenda both legislatively and diplomatically.

It's the pro-life, pro-war candidates I worry about. At least Giuliani has a consistent position - lack of respect for life at all levels.

What is a tough question is what has been motivating so many pro-life evangelicals for the past thirty years to assent to some pretty amazingly anti-life policies. It is right and good to hold candidates' feet to the fire in regards to their position on abortion, but why then advocate the march to pre-emptive war without honest debate of the moral issues involved? If more evangelicals would strive to be as ardently pro-life in foreign policy and the environment as they are on abortion, perhaps they could better appeal to the consciences of (and soften the hearts of) Americans who favor abortion choices.

Of course, when this is pointed out, there will no doubt be a litany of voices justifying our military involvement around the world. That's not the point, the point is that by and large evangelicals supported the war from the get-go without much soul-searching. The point is not whether you support the war or not, but whether you think war is a moral issue to be grappled with or not.

If we ever get a presidential candidate who is consistently pro-life, let me know.

It's confusing why Stan believes Giuliani is the only candidate who would be sufficiently tough on terrorism. Is it because of McCain's support for campaign finance reform, perhaps, or his opposition to Bush's first round of tax cuts? I think there's other stuff at work here.

I missed all those scriptures where Jesus and His followers were active and invested in the legislative process of Rome. Someone please point them out to me, as I still have much to learn about God's Word. Thanks in advance.

Consistent pro-life, just-war, small government candidate?

Ron Paul is the only one.

I'm at a loss to figure out where Guiliani's foreign policy clout comes from? Sure, we can look back at the events of 9/11 and admire his display of leadership in that situation, but what foreign policy experience does he have that will truly be a benefit to the country? Also, aren't some of his proposals for "Homeland Security" frightening to those of us who are more libertarian or concerned for civil rights? And shouldn't his pro-torture policy also make Christians of conscience think twice? Guiliani's pro-abortion views only make my decision against him easier.

Patrick, That's a hypothetical question, isn't it? I know exactly why many (not most) evangelicals are not anti-war. I can't say that I agree with them, but I do know where they are coming from. Most of it has to do with how they read the Old Testament. If that wasn't a hypothetical question, then let me know and I'll go into greater detail.

I strive to take a person at his word rather than make up a story about them, yet how can a person be "personally" opposed to abortion and then not use their talents, position, and influence to uphold what they believe? I wonder, if Mr.Giulian had no fears, would he say that he can't impose his religous views on anyone else?

And what criteria is used to categorize one's pro life view a religous issue in the first place? Since when has anti murder been a "religous" view. You know, all these fights over "rights" are rooted in man's continuing battle with self: self importance, self-gratifying, ad nauseum. Didn't Jesus Christ have the "right" to the pursuit of happiness, health, and prosperity--as well as the masses' allegiance? Yet He layed down His life for many.

Jesus followers acting as political activists? I don't know but Paul was itching to go to Rome to defend his "religous" views before the courts.

When it comes to abortion, it would be easier to deal with a candidate who stated he/she was opposed to abortion, but did not think legislation banning it was the best way to combat it, and then used the bully pulpit to encourage/persuade/hector women to forgo an abortion and/or sponsored other types of legislation to reduce/eliminate abortions (encouraging/supporting women who carried to term and then gave the baby up for adoption, for example). The trouble is that those who say they personally oppose abortion, but don't want to ban it fail to use any alternative means to stop/discourage abortion. This is truly problematic. Sin is sin and murder is murder. We can disagree as to the best way to combat it, but combat it we must.

As a lifelong New Yorker from the Big Apple, I absolutely cannot and will not vote for Mr. Giuliani because of his pro-abortion public policy stance. Favoring the legal ability to kill the unborn is tantamount to favoring the legal ability to kill based on disability, gender, age, or racial/ethnic backgrounds. It is immoral.

If one cannot trust the judgment of a leader on this foundational moral issue, then one cannot trust the judgment of such an individual on other significant public policy areas.

Does Mr. Giuliani truly know what evil is? No! If he can advocate a pro-abortion public policy position and support Planned Parenthood, then he is truly blind to the face of evil.

What's Guiliani's stance on AIDS in Africa? On Darfur? On east Asian sweat shops? On third world poverty? On international debt relief? On trade justice issues? Or what's the view, on all these and more, of any other candidate? Do the churches care? Life issues mean a whole lot more than abortion and the war in Iraq!

No to Guiliani. Vote Ron Paul or maybe Huckabee.

Supporting Guiliani will be tough for me. I have difficulty about supporting any pro-choice candidate; Republican or Democrat. It is not that I'm a single issue voter, rather a pro-choice position makes me doubt their moral reasoning. How can I trust them to be right on any other issues?

If you examine Rudy's other positions on social (moral) issues, he is pretty liberal. Why should I believe that once he enters the oval office, that he will abide with all his promises to appoint "conservative judges". By making those promises, he indicates that expediency is his highest moral guide.

As a New Yorker (since Dinkins took office), I'd vote for Rudy over some of these other candidates. But he is not my favorite. Still this series of comments reminds me of what Martin Luther apparently said, "I'd rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian".

I am proud to be a pro-life "single-issue voter" to counter the many other pro-abortion "single-issue" voters. It seems so "balanced, wise, and mature" to examine all areas of a candidate's position. However, such an approach has fostered the election of legislators who support abortion-on-demand and only further encourages the legal sheddding of more innnocent unborn blood.

Just look at our national and state political landscape and weep over the many pro-abortion politicians in office elected by so called "pro-life Christians."

Pro-life Christians who vote for pro-abortion candidates cannot deny complicity with the killing of unborn babies. One's fingerprints are entangled with the 1.2 abortions occurring annually in the U.S. despite our personal pro-life views when one helps to elect pro-abortion "leaders" into office.

Pro-abortion legislators should be voted out of office. Period. It is hard to respect such politicians when they have so little respect for human life and are wrong on such a foundational human rights issue.

A candidate who advocates the legality of killing unborn babies could hardly be considered "wise." Positions that contradict biblical viewpoints are inherently unwise.

TC, perhaps more anti-abortion legislators should show a propensity for ethics and sound policy in other areas besides abortion. Single-issue voters gave Tom DeLay and Conrad Burns and Randy Cunningham and GWB a free pass on some pretty bad stuff simply because they were against abortion. My advice to any ambitious college grad who wants to get into politics in order to enrich (him)self and (his)fat-cat friends would be "run as a pro-life Republican--there's enough single-issue voters out there who won't care what else you do."

As for me, I applaud any movement to break the partisan divide on abortion. Let's see a pro-life Democrat run for President and maybe we'll get a real national conversation going.

I appreciate the faith and biblical aspirations of my fellow commenters on this thread. Giuliani does have some 'splainin to do on his political and moral positions, where they conflict with the Catholic faith he claims.

But commenters from evangelical church appears to contradict biblical viewpoints too. I've know many churches who teach about Old Testament tithing, but do not know of any who direct 100% of the tithes to the Levites. I know many churches who teach about the love of 1 Cor 13, but do not teach about prophecy of 1 Cor 12 and multiple prophets speaking in order worship of 1 Cor 14.

A pro-choice person could cite Solomon's wisdom--of having a birthed baby killed for the sake of justice--in the matter of the two mothers as exegetical counterpoint against us pro-lifers.

What say you about integrity on tithing, and on prophecy in orderly worship? I predict (but do not prophesize) that I will be deafened by silence.

I'm an evangelical, bible-believing Christian and I'm disheartened by the willingness of many Christians to consider the question, "When does life begin?" Rather than have some considered discussion of this question, many of our brothers and sisters simply ASSUME that life begins at conception. I haven't seen a definitive Bible reference to that end yet. And the references that are often used refer to the mother's womb. For all of us not that familiar with biology, that's NOT the place of conception and it's usually a five-day trip away.

So instead of open consideration of an important question, lots of Christians, based on their not-so-easily defendable position, begin calling everyone who doesn't buy into their "life begins at conception" mantra killers. Go figure.

In the previous post I, of course, meant to write "unwillingness".

Patrick-- Rep. Chris Smith, Rep. Henry Hyde, Sen. Sam Brownback, Sen. Tom Coburn, Rep. Mike Pence & many others are some of the most ethically consistent and compassionate pro-life legislators around. Some of these folks are also leading the charge on fighting human trafficking and other areas of international human rights. Let's get some balance in the examples cited.

As far as the big tent in the Democratic Party...just ask how "Democrats for Life" are doing? They have so little influence within the Democratic Party. If only the Christians within the Democratic Party would elevate the pro-life viewpoint with strength and unity!

"Rep. Chris Smith, Rep. Henry Hyde, Sen. Sam Brownback, Sen. Tom Coburn, Rep. Mike Pence & many others" didn't stand up and speak out against the DeLay/Abramoff/Ralph Reed machine until the stories were already all over the newspapers. These fine gentlemen didn't question the President's implicit suggestion that Saddam was behind 9/11, nor did they question the rush to war. And compassionate Mike Pence seems to think that the federal government can simulataneously take care of the poor in this country while slashing funding for the programs that do so. "Ethically consistent and compassionate" are in the eyes of the beholder.

As far as pro-life Democrats, the trends are on our side. A number of the new Democratic freshmen in Congress are pro-life, the evangelical left is more influential than it has ever been, and younger evangelicals are showing themselves to be less inclined to follow the Dobson/Perkins/Colson agenda but are still holding fast to pro-life principles. I predict that soon pro-life principles alone won't be a convincing excuse for thinking Christians to support the likes of Tom DeLay or G. W. Bush.

"Unfortunately, there appears to be no one on the ticket who can produce a pro-life agenda both legislatively and diplomatically."

Actually, as posted above, Dr. Ron Paul (10 term Texas congressman) is pro-life legislatively and diplomatically. He's very much worth checking out!

I assume that as a libertarian (small-L) and former Libertarian (capital-L), Dr. Paul supports legalization of drugs and prostitution and a relaxation of federal laws governing the manufacture and distribution of pornography. I also assume, on the same basis, that he advocates a dismantling of government programs and agencies that save lives, such as TANF and the FDA. These are all part and parcel of the libertarian philosophy of government. Or am I mistaken?

What makes it an automatic truth that Democrats can't stand up to evil? Rudy's performance in the SC debate shows that he knows nothing of foreign affairs, and given that as a potential Commander in Chief he would have a lot of fire power at his disposal we should be nervous of him. Stan's comments show that Evangelicals have not yet started understanding the world, and have not got past the Republicans-are-always-right syndrome. Time to grow up folks!