Who represents Christians if Falwell, Dobson and Robertson don't?

He's an ordained minister and public figure?Or Jimmy Carter? He's another very public figure claiming Jesus Christ as his Saviour, teaching Sunday school, and by most accounts, a real Christian.One thing to keep in mind is that being a public figure because you have a media ministry or job that is public due to political or social activity does not mean you are considered the most esteemed spiritual leader, and esteemed spiritual leaders often do not have TV and radio ministries of the type to put them in the eye of the secular media.

First off, those are 4 different people. There are people that love Dobson and can't stand Robertson, and perhaps vice versa, and people that love Falwell but think Binny Hinn is a false prophet, and vice versa and things like that.Secondly, for all the worldly blather about these people from liberals and others, I would think they would clean house a little first before pointing fingers. Maybe I should consider Bill C. your idea of a great leader and moral example? Or perhaps some perverted guy from the past like Freud? Or maybe an outspoken movie star or some such? Jane Fonda? (although she is a Christian now too).But hey, I will just say, why do you guys let a fat slob like Michael Moore be your spokesperson?As far as Jimmy Carter, he spoke about religious issues all the time, said he was born-again while running for president, and based his foreign policy on his religious beliefs. I don't really see your point at all.This message has been edited by randman, 01-21-2006 02:44 PM

Thanks Holmes. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Holmes, the president or his aides meet with or at least communicate with all sorts of folks that are politically influential. It's politics. I can't say for all, but Dobson and I think some of the others have also been very critical at times of the president and Congress. Also, I don't see why shraf and others think Dobson is some bad guy. He seems somewhat mainstream to me although still not necessarily someone that speaks for Christians.Robertson has said some things that really should not have been said, but I think demonizing the guy as some have done is hypocritical. On Falwell, I don't really like Falwell, but once again, the guy built a university; preaches and practices forgiveness of his enemies such as Larry Flint (think they even sort of became friends), etc,...but once again, most Christians don't think Falwell, Robertson or any of these guys speak for them.If you really want to know what specific Christian groups venerate in spiritual leadership, just ask the denomination or church stream whom their leaders are, and they are the people they look to spiritually.But on a political level, Christians in general make up their minds on politics on an individual level, except maybe in some churches like some politically active black churches that get VERY political during election time. Overall though, Christians don't look to ministers for their political stance. They are affected by their minister's opinion, but they don't generally think of a minister as a politician.

I am not aware of Bush consulting much with Falwell, just to be clear. I really think there is some disinformation here.Also, Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson are lumped together because they have similar political views; they are media-based people, and those views agree with most religious conservatives.However, that does not mean views such as advocating killing Chavez agree with religious conservatives, and heck, the Pope's views and some conservative Jewish groups generally agree with much of evangelical religious conservatives (pro-life), but it would be silly to lump all these people together.If you want to talk about a group of core issues such as being pro-life, pro tax cuts, pro school choice, then you can say these guys represent, in terms of advocating, the political views of religious conservatives, but going further than that is silly. They are not spokespersons and the idea Christians should denounce them is absurd. Sure, plenty of people disagree with these guys, but I'd say in terms of politics, we disagree even more with Al Franken, Michael Moore, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. So if we are going to denounce people for their views, it's going to be the people we most disagree with.Let me put it this way. Should we say Al Sharpton represents liberal Christians?This message has been edited by randman, 01-23-2006 02:51 PM

Seems to me Billy Graham has a much more direct "connection" with Bush than Falwell, but you don't see liberals attacking Billy Graham as much because he is more popular than Falwell. Imo, this whole line of argument is somewhat silly. Plenty of black church leaders also have "direct connections" to the White House, and so do all sorts of prominent folks. Anytime a minister or media person has a group of people listening to them, they are going to all have "direct connections" to all White Houses if they are at all potential backers. It's called politics, and there is nothing sinister about it.Moreover, I didn't see too many dems howling about Clinton's religiousity when he carried a Bible openly during the impeachment saga and met with ministers. Maybe though that's because they didn't think he was for real with it and so it didn't matter.Also, there are have been prominent Moslems that also had "direct connections" to the White House, or did at one time.

It's common knowledge Billy Graham is close friends of the Bush family and counseled George personally during his time of conversion. What's not so common knowledge by the way is that, contrary to some claims, George actually prayed "the sinners prayer" with a lesser known evangelist travelling through Waco.There have been well-publicized meetings with prominent black church leaders with the president. I bet TD Jakes has a far closer relationship with Bush than Falwell or Pat Robertson, for example. Bishop T.D. Jakes on African Aid and President Bush : NPR

http://www.thenewstribune.com/...tory/4654653p-4315551c.html Black leaders praise Bush for outreach - Washington TimesI'd have to say though that despite many prominent black clergy backing Bush, the stats indicate dems got most of the African-American vote by a massive margin.Nevertheless, Bush and the GOP do have close ties to many conservative, black church leaders.This message has been edited by randman, 01-23-2006 04:09 PM

I have not heard that Falwell or Robertson are called in to discuss policy issues either on a regular basis. Bush has met with black evangelicals and so has Rove.Can you document where Falwell and Robertson regularly meet with Bush to discuss policy issues? I don't think they do, nor that they agree with Bush all the time either.

Holmes, I have heard some say they have been consulted, but honestly, I think you guys are way, way off the mark if you think the Bush WH consults with Robertson and Falwell over policy decisions.Once the WH has made a policy decision, they may contact these guys and others to see if they can get their support, such as was the case with the Meiers nomination, but the idea they are consulting with Falwell and Robertson to develop policy is wacko, imo. It doesn't happen.This message has been edited by randman, 01-23-2006 04:55 PM

Look, 60 Minutes is about as objective as Howard Dean when it comes to politics. They were invited to the White House. Big deal! So were tons of other people, and guess what, they all "discussed policy."Anytime a new president takes office, the people that helped him get elected are invited to the White House, and if you go back and review the period prior to 911, there were prominent Moslems that were also invited to "discuss policy", so much so Bush was criticized after 911 for meeting with people sympathetic to Hamas.Is Bush a Moslem now? I mean after all, he met with them "to talk policy."

I bet Franklin Graham and advisors like Marvin Olasky and many other evangelicals have had greater access and influence in the WH than Falwell and Robertson. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0122-26.htm

http://ampolitics.ghazali.net/index.htmlProminent Islamic leaders were invited to the White House as well. 911 changed things since the Patriot Act moved the Muslim vote back to the dems, but prior to that, Islamic leaders were also being consulted on policy.

Falwell bragged about his access to the White House. Good for him. It doesn't mean he was effecting policy. The fact is Bush made a big effort to include the faith-based community and leaders early on, and this included liberals as well. He wanted their support and wanted to hear their ideas, and I think that was a good thing.But it's not like it was Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson making policy. You have to realize that at this same time, CAIR was also being invited to the White House to hear their ideas. That didn't last so long since 911 occurred, and some CAIR folks are on tape backing groups like Hamas and Islamic jihad, but nevertheless, Bush did make an effort to reach out, embrace and include faith-based thinkers.Taking Falwell's statements and presenting them as somehow different than dozens of other religious leaders' access, imo, is probably where the spin was, but then again, I did not see the segment. To my knowledge, Falwell has not been very close to Bush, Rove, Cheny, Condi and the rest.

Yes, and thank you for that. Sorry to hear about your suspension, which seemed bizarre to me, as your comments were spot-on, as far as the moderation discussion thread, and hey, if you cannot voice dissent there, where can you?See ya in a day or so....