The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 5 of 18)

There is nobody out there who really is one of the main group. Neither are there friends and cohorts from the group at their side, pitching their cause. (The case with Reagan.)

I for one, though, will not stay home. I do not want to be to blame for another 8 scandal filled socialist leaning years of Clinton. That means even voting for someone you know isn't socially conservative, (RUDY), or someone who has 8 years ago tried to get elected by attacking social conservatives, (JOHN), or whoever else I don't fully trust.

p>When faced with the choice of the lesser of two evils, if we won't stand strong against the worst evil, then we will be to blame. br> -- James Bailey /p>

Regarding religious conservatives being left behind, it is apparent that many within the Republican establishment still don't get it. I am an evangelical (Reformed) Christian that is not particularly fond of Dr. Dobson's political activities, nor any of the "great" religious right political organizations. Christianity is not a special interest group of the Republican, Democrat, nor any political party for that matter. True evangelical Christians participates in the political process (voting, running for office, etc.) under a simple and profound ideal: Do whatever it takes, within the guidance of Scripture, and the just laws provided by the state, to further God's Kingdom through Jesus Christ. Christianity is not about saving our culture through the political process; it is about living out the cultural mandate given us by God through His Son and the Apostles as found in the Bible. When evangelicals become entrenched as just another "wing of" or special interest group within any political party, it has already marginalized itself.

I, for one, will not vote for a Republican presidential candidate that does not fully embrace the concept that all people are created in the Imago Dei, and, for whatever reason, seems to think that anyone has the "right" to kill a fellow human in the womb, because of some ideal called "choice." Personal preferences do not trump what is universally right -- the preservation and nurturing of life at all stages of development.

But one would argue that evangelicals voting for a pro-life, third-party candidate would divide the conservative vote and lead to a third Clinton term in the White House, and all of the pitfalls and doom that would ensue? That possibility (or eventuality) is much more preferential to the evangelical Christian than to cast a vote for a Republican that would bring about the same ends.

p>I pray that God through the use of His secondary means (our actions including involvement in the political process), will raise up a Godly man or woman to lead this nation; one that will, through the power delegated to the office, appoint judges interested in preserving life, providing for justice, and is respectful to our God. But if the "choice" comes down to two candidates that are separated only by their differing economic or national security philosophies and that ignore what is clearly true and beautiful and right, then sitting the election out is my only option. With that in mind, I welcome being marginalized, and will redouble my prayers and actions that God has called me to do, in His Wisdom and for His Glory, to be salt and light in an increasingly post-Christian culture. br> -- Morgan P. Yarbrough /p>

Your article states there are only two religious conservative GOP people on the ticket. You are not correct. You have completely forgotten Mitt Romney.

I would tend to say that there is no person more religiously conservative than Mitt Romney. You obviously do not know anything about his religion and how devoted he is to it.

topics:
Health Care, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Television, Social Security, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Books, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Russia, Fascism, Immigration