Southern Evangelicals know the truth. This is why Satan’s Little Helpers purged Liberal Baptists from Bible College. Instead of promoting Jesus and God’s True Will that first appear in Britain, these Liars point to Liberal Democrats as the ones who oppress Jesus and God in this Democracy. These Men and Women of Satan hate the Civil Rights Movement!
The first Emancipation of Slavery in America was ordered by King Charles V of Spain whom was escorted by my kinfolk, Gottschalk Rosemondt when he came to Holland. Pope Adrien was Charles’ tutor. Adrien made Gottschalk the master of the Pope’s College for poor students. Francis Marion College is located in South Carolina where the un-holy Liars met to anoint a Republican candidate for President. Gottchalk’s kin fought for Francis Marion – and helped found the Republican Party!
Below is a potpourri of prattle coming from the Liar of Satan who hate the poor and minorities – in the name of Jesus the Abolitionist!
Francis Marion University (formerly Francis Marion College) is a state-supported liberal arts university located six miles (11 km) east of Florence, South Carolina, USA. It is named in honor of American Revolutionary War hero Brigadier General Francis Marion.
MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. — Texas Gov. Rick Perry spoke like a preacher from his pulpit to an evangelical crowd today, telling them that if they support his presidential campaign, together they can bring about the world’s “next great awakening.”
“It is time for people of faith to take this country back. The greatness of America stems from the humble act of mortal men recognizing a higher power, proclaiming our rights that emanate from that great creator and not from government,” Perry told the crowd at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Debate Kickoff.
“Don’t let the voices of secularism in government silence your voices. Together we can build more than just a winning campaign. We can bring about the next great awakening in this world, and we can make America more than just the freest and the most prosperous nation on the earth, but as Ronald Reagan said, we can again make it that shining city on the hill.”
Perry, who lost the backing of a group of religious leaders and social conservatives to Rick Santorum over the weekend, warned of the decline in spirituality due to an uptick in “political correctness” in this country.
“When school children are prohibited from wishing our troops Merry Christmas by school leaders worried about lawsuits, America has lost its spiritual awakening. It has lost its spiritual moorings. It has lost its spiritual ways, and we need to stand up,” he said. “Political correctness has got to stop in this country.”
On his third event of the day, the most he’s ever held before a debate, Perry let out a loud “woo” and “yeah” as he came onstage, then said: “Get the fire hose out because I’m going to put them on fire out there. You’re going to have to wet down the whole crowd. God and country! God and country!”
Perry praised the concepts of the Founding Fathers, particularly the issue of states’ rights, while railing against abortion and gay marriage and touting the initiatives he implemented as Texas governor to combat these two issues, drawing loud applause for defunding Planned Parenthood in his state.
Tailoring his signature closing line to the Christian conservative audience, Perry cited a Bible passage — Ecclesiastes 4:12 — to inspire voters to support his campaign, despite his low position in South Carolina polls.
“It said that one man standing alone can be defeated, but two men back-to-back can conquer. If you’ll have my back this Saturday, I’ll have your back in Washington, D.C. for the next four years,” Perry said to a standing ovation.
The term Great Awakening is used to refer to a period of religious revival in American religious history. Historians and theologians identify three or four waves of increased religious enthusiasm occurring between the early 18th century and the late 19th century. Each of these “Great Awakenings” was characterized by widespread revivals led by evangelical Protestant ministers, a sharp increase of interest in religion, a profound sense of conviction and redemption on the part of those affected, a jump in evangelical church membership, and the formation of new religious movements and denominations.
Abolitionism in the West was preceded by the New Laws of the Indies in 1542, in which Emperor Charles V declared free all Native American slaves, abolishing slavery of these races, and declaring them citizens of the Empire with full rights. The move was inspired by writings of the Spanish monk Bartolomé de las Casas and the School of Salamanca. Spanish settlers replaced the Native American slaves with enslaved laborers brought from Africa and thus did not abolish slavery
Some of the first court cases to challenge the legality of slavery took place in Scotland. The cases were Montgomery v Sheddan (1756), Spens v Dalrymple (1769), and set the precedent of legal procedure in British courts that would later lead to successful outcomes for the plaintiffs.
The court case of 1569 involving Cartwright, who had bought a slave from Russia, ruled that English law could not recognise slavery. This ruling was overshadowed by later developments, but was upheld by the Lord Chief Justice in 1701 when he ruled that a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England.
After the formation of the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1787, William Wilberforce led the cause of abolition through the parliamentary campaign to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire with the Slave Trade Act 1807. He continued to campaign for the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, which he lived to see in the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
Despite the ending of slavery in Great Britain, slavery was a strong institution in the Southern Colonies of British America and the West Indian colonies of the British Empire. In 1785, the English poet William Cowper wrote:
“We have no slaves at home – Then why abroad? Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs receive our air, that moment they are free, They touch our country, and their shackles fall. That’s noble, and bespeaks a nation proud. And jealous of the blessing. Spread it then, And let it circulate through every vein.”
By 1783, an anti-slavery movement was beginning among the British public. That year the first British abolitionist organization was founded by a group of Quakers. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the campaign. On 17 June 1783, the issue was formally brought to government by Sir Cecil Wray (Member of Parliament for Westminster), who presented the Quaker petition to parliament. Also in 1783, Dr Beilby Porteus issued a call to the Church of England to cease its involvement in the slave trade and to formulate a workable policy to draw attention to and improve the conditions of Afro-Caribbean slaves. The exploration of the African continent, by such British groups as the African Association (1788), promoted the abolitionists’ cause by showing Europeans that the Africans had legitimate, complex cultures. The African Association also had close ties with William Wilberforce, perhaps the most important political figure in the battle for abolition in the British Empire.
Black people played an important part in the movement for abolition. In Britain, Olaudah Equiano, whose autobiography was published in nine editions in his lifetime, campaigned tirelessly against the slave trade.
Women played a large role in the anti-slavery movement but were not eligible to be represented in the British Parliament and often, in the manner of the times, had to form their own separate societies. Many Women were horrified that women and children were taken away from their families. In 1824, Elizabeth Heyrick published a pamphlet titled Immediate not Gradual Abolition. In this Heyrick urged the immediate emancipation of the slaves
The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade, (or The Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade), was a British abolitionist group, formed on 22 May 1787, when twelve men gathered together at a printing shop in London, England.
For Quakers, finding a middle road would prove a frustrating task. At first they tried simply to advocate conciliatory measures. At home they published statements condemning all (English and American) breaches of law and the English constitution; in England they tried to broker reconciliation with the king. Their efforts were to no avail. With the Revolution underway, in September of 1776 the largest organization of Quakers in America—the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting—formally directed its members to observe strict neutrality. This meant that Quakers should not vote or take oaths of loyalty to support either side, should not engage in combat or pay for a substitute (a not uncommon practice in that era) and should not pay taxes to support the war effort. The responses of Quakers to these requirements varied. Probably the majority, torn by conflicting loyalties, sympathized with both sides. Many remained tacit Loyalists, supporting without materially aiding the King’s army. Other Quakers renounced neutrality and actively sided with the Patriots. In Pennsylvania almost 1,000 Quakers were disowned during the course of the war, the large majority of them for taking up arms. One group even formed their own separate denomination, the Free Quakers or Fighting Quakers, whose leader Timothy Matlack served on political committees alongside such radicals as ex-Quaker Thomas Paine.
This past weekend marked the New York Times’ unmitigated revelation of its feelings for Mitt Romney: deep dislike. The paper was crammed with anti-Romney articles. One argued that the former Massachusetts governor is deliberately exploiting racial tensions. An editorial attacked Romney for failing to address the issue of income inequality, while sniper columnist Maureen Dowd listed at least a dozen reasons why the Republican presidential candidate is unelectable.
Of particular note, though, the Times devoted a front-page story to an issue that so far has not dared truly speak its name: the fact that as a Mormon, Romney is alienating a vast swathe of Republican born-again and evangelical voters.
I’m glad that someone in media is finally addressing the issue of Romney’s Mormonism in a substantive way, rather than alluding to it obliquely or as a deliberately understated afterthought. To be clear, reporters rarely miss a chance to mention the fact that the Romney family are Mormons. But – until Sunday – they have generally eschewed declaring it a major weakness in his candidacy and the cause of a potential schism in the Republican party.
Romney’s “evangelical problem” runs much deeper than appears at first glance. Certainly, Romney was never going to win the endorsement of the most prominent conservative groups that met in Texas this past weekend to anoint Rick Santorum as their man of the moment.
And undoubtedly, Romney’s dismal ratings among evangelical voters, many of whom openly consider Mormonism a cult, may not block his winning of the South Carolina primary. Indeed, though 2008 exit polls showed that 60% of that state’s voters were white and born-again or evangelical, Romney can count on that substantial block being split between other candidates, giving him an overall advantage.
That, after all, was Romney’s winning strategy in Iowa, where only 14% of born-again and evangelical Christians voted for him. The rest were fragmented, giving him an (admittedly tiny) plurality of the vote. An analysis of entrance polls in that state showed Romney scoring big with traditional, upscale, suburban Republican voters – voters who quite notably do not prioritize family values in the same way others in the party do.
The great divide between born-again and evangelical Christians on the one hand, and less religiously-oriented, pragmatic conservatives on the other, has become increasingly clear in the support Mitt Romney has attracted during these primaries. And this, in turn, reveals a more fundamental divide in the Republican party – one that may cost it dearly at the general election.
For years, I have been forecasting that so-called “big tent” Republicanism was doomed to failure. As more pragmatic conservatives evolve in their views of critical issues – such as, gay marriage, which a plurality now supports – born-again and evangelical Christians are intent on preserving the doctrinal status quo. And that tension is unsustainable.
George W Bush deftly handled that divide by offering something to everyone – tax cuts for the rich and a ban on stem-cell research for the religious. He was also handed the opportunity of the 9/11 attacks to unite Americans of all persuasions.
But Romney has no such luxury. Why? Well, bluntly put, he is a Mormon. As such, evangelicals will never trust him. Will they vote for him, reluctantly, against Obama in the general election? Possibly, but not in a way that will represent the energized base Republicans need to win this election.
A near analogy is with the 2004 election. George W Bush was universally hated by Democrats (as Obama is now by many rightwingers) and yet the left failed to fully coalesce around the anemic character of John Kerry with any great enthusiasm. The result was dismal Democratic base voting on election day – and that ultimately secured George W Bush a second term in office.
This is the risk for Romney now. Will he be able to sew together the cracking seams of the Republican party? Certainly, he’s trying in South Carolina, running a deluge of television ads that emphasize his vetoing of stem cell bills and over-the-counter sale of birth control.
But my guess is that’s just not going to cut it. Either in South Carolina during this primary, or with evangelicals during the general election. In what will likely be a highly competitive election, it could take just a small percentage of those voters to sit at home on election day to swing it for Obama.
Of course, all this depends on Obama’s ability to turn out his voters. But there, Democrats have reason to be optimistic. The African American vote, for example, shows signs of returning strongly in his favor. And recent stratospheric fundraising will help mount a “ground game” like nothing history has ever seen, as well as a barrage of anti-Romney ads that will depress Republican turnout.
It’s too early to tell for certain whether born-again and evangelical Christians will sit out this election. But the answer to that question will, without a doubt, be critical in determining who is president for the next four years.
The idea that polyester-attired preachers will be winding hayseed congregants into a fit of anti-Mormon hatred because Mormons believe Jesus Christ has a wife is a myth, although it will continue to be pushed.
Mormonism is founded on impossibilities: 1. Mormon cannot be sons of Aaron, a requirement for holding the Levitical Priesthood. 2. Mormons cannot be descendants of Joseph, either Ephraim or Manasseh as anyone can be accepted into the church. Mormons cannot hold the Melchisedek Priesthood as Jesus Christ is Melchisedek; He authored the Abrahamic Covenant, Davidic Covenant and the New Covenant. Being liberal or evangelical has nothing to do with this.
Rick Santorum, buoyed by support over the weekend from national evangelical leaders, is urging Republican voters in the final week of campaigning before South Carolina’s primary to coalesce behind him as the alternative to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
“If all you think we need to do to get this economy going and get this country on the right track is to cut government and reduce taxes, you don’t understand America,” Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, said yesterday at a “Faith, Family & Freedom” rally in Florence, South Carolina.
“America is a moral enterprise, not an economic enterprise,” Santorum said. “Don’t compromise on what you know is best for this country,” he added. “South Carolina, vote your conscience, vote your values.”
It would have been better if it happened a lot earlier — or even a week earlier,” said David R. White, chairman of the political science department at Francis Marion University in Florence, South Carolina. “It’s too little, too late.”
k Santorum endorsement: An evangelical-Catholic truce or marriage of convenience?
By Mary C. Curtis
Never mind the same-sex marriage debate. If ever a union raised questions, it’s the one between evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics. What once triggered accusations of pipelines to the Papacy has settled into an argument over which Catholic can best represent the anybody-but-Romney slate.
What has changed? Are evangelicals more accepting; has Catholicism become more conservative; do evangelical groups distrust
Republican presidential candidate former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, left, leaves the Faith and Freedom Coalition rally with his wife, Karen, on Jan. 16, in Myrtle Beach, S.C. (David Goldman – AP) Mormons more than Catholics? All of the above?
After evangelical leaders met in Texas to endorse a suitable GOP presidential hopeful, one to challenge prohibitive favorite Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum got the nod over Newt Gingrich. A lifelong Catholic who speaks openly and fervently about his religious views beat the Catholic convert, and both came out ahead of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the evangelical Christian in the running. (Second-place finisher Gingrich’s supporters quibble with the vote, but Gingrich is disputing quite a bit as he fights for a win in the South Carolina primary on Jan. 21.)
So, on Santorum’s side, count Gary Bauer, the president of American Values, a conservative Christian advocacy group, and Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, while backing Gingrich are California pastor Jim Garlow and Don Wildmon of the American Family Association.
Given American history, you have to ask, “What gives”? It was in Texas – Houston in 1960 – that Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy pledged to skeptical Protestant pastors, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” in order to squeak by Richard Nixon.
Despite the overwhelming praise for Kennedy’s nuanced speech, many Protestant leaders remained unconvinced and were sure that the Vatican would be pulling Kennedy’s strings on foreign and domestic policies. Though many non-Catholic leaders of the time cautioned against any discrimination based on religion, some of the respected forefathers of Perkins and Wildmon — Norman Vincent Peale among them — warned that a Catholic president would change “our culture.”
Today, similar fears about changes in “American” culture surface. But evangelical leaders have spent years working with Catholics on the abortion issue, among others, and Republican outreach to Catholic voters has given Catholic and evangelical leaders plenty of opportunities to get to know and trust one another.
How All the Big-Name Evangelical Leaders Became So Incompetent
America’s aging class of socially conservative evangelical leaders finally gathered this weekend to pick a presidential candidate to rally around, and, crucially, to make each other feel important again. The 150 or so big-time fundies, including representatives from the Family Research Council, American Family Association, and Focus on the Family, ultimately chose Rick Santorum but came nowhere near a unanimous decision. Let’s all congratulate these once-important gatekeepers: For the second straight presidential election, they’ve swooped in just in time to render themselves useless.
Evangelical leaders, who spend the four years between each presidential election talking trash about how they won’t accept any Republican candidate without 100% impeccable credentials, kept quiet and didn’t coordinate at all when endorsing time came around four years ago.
On Sunday morning, Rick Perry was talking about death-defying stunts at a Myrtle Beach, S.C., prayer breakfast sponsored by Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition. His strange, wan speech argued that a leader is someone whom you’d trust to push you across a tightrope over Niagara Falls in a wheelbarrow. “Friends, that’s what leadership is really all about—who are you going to trust to take you across the Falls,” he said, as the elderly crowd looked at him in confusion.