Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	I don't believe him. I'm glad I don't have to vote in that election.
	Talk about picking the lesser of two evils.

				Alfred

I liked what columnist Mike Royko wrote about Duke.  If Duke says he's a born
again Christian then Royko doesn't doubt him for a moment, only he's worried
that some people who are more cynical might be suspicious of Duke's motives.
Royko's suggestion to Duke: do what other born again Christians have done.
For example, live in a monastery for ten years and *then* tell the people
of Louisiana that you've repented of your evil Jew hating and Black hating
ways and now you want to be their governor.

				-- Bob

    re:2
    Bob,
    	the chance of him living in a monastery is nil, being that most
    monasteries I know of are Catholic. The KKK has Catholics on their
    hit list next to Jews.

    If I had to vote, I'd vote for the crook. I would fear that Duke's
    evil intelligence would be more dangerous than the other guy's 
    self-serving evil. 


    How did Louisiana wind up with these two ? Don't they have primaries ?

    Jim

    Today's Boston Globe indicated that the battle between Edwards and Duke
    is turning into something of a religious battle, with Edwards being a
    Catholic and Duke being a Born Again Christian.
    
    -- Mike

    I strongly suspect Duke's motives and wonder if his "conversion" is
    more for political reasons.  I hope he does not win.  Similar to 
    what Bob quoted in .2, time will help reveal his beliefs and
    convictions.  
    
    I believe a major point he's advocating in his campaign speeches is 
    the halting of state welfare payments to "encourage" recipients to 
    obtain jobs.  This is positioned as a way to achieve a great cost 
    savings for state government, re the taxpayers.  I also believe the 
    majority of welfare recipients in Louisiana are black.  So what is 
    this really?  I can't help but wonder if, at this time, Duke's past 
    and present have combined to create a racist dressed up in lamb's 
    clothing... 
    
    Karen

    Scripture says that, "by their fruits you shall know them."
    
    It is certainly possible for someone who led a 'misguided' early life
    to repent of it and be converted in Christ. The question is, has 
    Duke really become born-again?
    
    I only get the standard TV 'bites', but from what I've heard, Duke
    has denied that he ever was a Nazi although there are photos of him
    in a Nazi parade. It seems that he is not saying, "I was wrong and
    see that my former views treated humans in an unhumane way." Instead,
    he is saying, contrary to evidence, that he was not really associated
    with those groups or their ideals. Therefore, where's the repentance?
    
    What he HAS done is identified a more 'moderate' stance which also
    exploits underlying non-Christian attitudes and fears. The only thing
    that has changed is the "packaging".
    
    Duke is promoting hatefulness when he portrays the people on welfare
    as being predominantly lazy and/or crooked and therefore deserving to
    be dealt with in a harsh way. If his analysis had contained a under-
    standing of the poverty, lack of job skills, discrimination, poor
    education, and the long-term governmental factors which have created
    the need for welfare, and if he had addressed these fundamental needs
    in a compassionate way then he would be more believable as a Christian.
    
    Duke, in my opinion, is a very dangerous wolf in sheep's clothing.
    Edwards, the crook, would be the less dangerous choice. I'm concerned
    about Duke, though, because he has conned so many people so far. I'm
    concerned about the people of Louisiana (and people everywhere),
    because true compassion and justice is being "voted out" in favor
    cold solutions which creates entire classes of people as being
    expendible and underserving of our care. This is just the tip of a 
    very frightening iceberg. 
    
    As Christians, we need to pray for these cold people and ourselves in
    our coldness so that we will be able to resist all forms of this evil.
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    

    
    
    David Duke is a perfect example of extreme intentional denial, and 
    a lot of people are choosing to buy his 'story'.
    
    Carole

    The latest polls show him trailing.  Perhaps he needs to run some
    Willie Horton ads on television; that ought to get him some votes.
    
    -- Mike

    re  .4
    
    Yes, I think it has turned into a campaign involving religious issues.
    
    What astounds me, having watched much of their televised debate, 
    is how they are going after each other on their respective
    religious stances -- how they sizing each other up on their
    "Christianness," accusing each other of not being a real/true
    Christian.  I guess, for better or for worse, that sort of debate
    is important to the people of Louisiana.  
    
    I don't understand why Bush and the Republican party are so adamant
    about pushing Duke away.  Willie Horton dejavu.  When Duke speaks on
    the issues, he sure sounds like Bush and all the other top-level 
    Republicans I've ever heard.  
    
    Wolf in sheep's clothing?  Like a lamb (and like Dan Quayle), Duke
    is "cute" on the outside, but something else entirely on the inside.
    In Duke's case, a racist.  In Quayle's case, a moron.
    God bless America.
    
    St. Paul
    

re Note 341.6 by JUPITR::NELSON:

>     Duke is promoting hatefulness when he portrays the people on welfare
>     as being predominantly lazy and/or crooked and therefore deserving to
>     be dealt with in a harsh way. 

        Isn't this a familiar pattern?  History repeats the picture
        of the demagogue who rises in popularity as he blames the
        people's problems on some minority which isn't all that
        popular to begin with.  Hitler is certainly the most extreme
        example, but only the most extreme.  Less extreme examples
        fill American history, too.

        Another minority group whose "unpopularity" will rise are
        lawbreakers: criminals and especially those in prison.  After
        all, they DESERVE being dealt with in a harsh way, right? 
        Who could complain, right?  There is a continuing movement
        to make punishments for crimes across the board harsher (I
        suspect this is the number one reason for a move towards
        capital punishment -- otherwise it's hard to make "life in
        prison" any more severe).  All sense of balance, of
        punishment fitting the crime, and certainly all intentions to
        rehabilitate the criminal will be swept away.  Criminals make
        such a convenient target for society's fears and hatreds.

        People on welfare are only slightly less convenient.

        Bob

            <<< GOLF::DISK$COMMON:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;1 >>>
               -< ...by believing you may have life in His Name >-
================================================================================
Note 139.495                  Religion in the news                    495 of 497
FORTSC::MOK                                          73 lines  15-NOV-1991 23:08
                    -< WSJ: David Duke abuses Christianity >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Duke Abuses Christianity

By Doug Bandow (Mr. Bandow, an evangelical Christian, is a fellow at the Cato
Institute and the author of "Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of
Politics" (Crossway, 1988)

The Wall Street Journal. November 15, 1991.

Among the oddest aspects of the race between David Duke and Edwin Edwards for
governor of Louisiana is the role of religion.  For years politicians have
blatantly used "God words" in an attempt to win votes; Ronald Reagan was
particularly adept at bringing tears to the eyes of evangelical Christians. 
But David Duke - a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and purveyor of Nazi books
- has done his offensive best to outdo Mr. Reagan.

Mr. Duke first used religion in an attempt to disassociate himself from his
past.  In a television debate with Mr. Edwards, he declared: "Look, I've been
too intolerant, and I'm a Christian person, and I believe that we have a chance
to find redemption in Christ and we have a chance to move forward in our
lives."

Wonderful sentiments, of course, but the Christian faith requires both
repentance for past sins and commitment to the reformed behavior.  While Mr.
Duke professes to have undergone a life-changing experience, his apology for
years of hate-mongering seems at best perfunctory.  There is, for instance, no
sense of anguish for all the harm that he has caused.  Moreover, he remains
active in the National Association for the Advancement of White People, a white
supremacist organization, and until two years ago was selling Nazi literature
and making anti-Semitic attacks on Jews.  

Indeed,  Mr. Duke stretched his credibility even further by claiming that he
became "a born-again Christian at 13" though he said he did some "backsliding"
since then.  After Mr. Duke met with church representatives to discuss his
faith, religious leader Neil Curran said: "We had to conclude that he was
lying.  it is not possible that someone who found Christ 28 years ago could
have burned the cross, could have twisted the cross into a swastika."  On
Tuesday, Mr. Duke's own state coordinator, Bob Hawks, quit after deciding that
"David's relationship with Jesus is not as he portrays it when he is on stage
center trying to obtain public support."

Mr. Duke has not been content to use Christianity defensively to shield his
own unsavory behavior and beliefs.  He also attacked former Gov. Edwards for
ince saying that he "didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 
Morality, of course, has never been Mr. Edwards's strong suit - the former
governor admits to having a "frivolous attitude" toward womanizing, for
instance.  But Mr. Edwards felt compelled to deny Mr. Duke's charge.  "I've
never said I didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus.  I said that I had
doubt about it because it's difficult to explain as a matter of natural law,
but that the doubt is overcome by faith."  One wonders why Mr. Edwards's
apparently abundant faith has not previously been in evidence.

It is bad enough that two such disreputable candidates are willing to use
Christianity for their own purposes.  What is even worse is their assumption
that doing so can win votes from Christians.  Are believers really taken in by
these tactics?

Government is a civil institution, created "to bring punishment on the
wrong-doer," according to the Apostle Paul (Romans 13:4).  Thus, the primary
qualifications for public service are civil, not religious.  Although Christian
convictions may provide an official with a more realistic appraisal of human's
ability to sin, simply being "born again" does not make one qualified to hold
office.

And Christian should refuse to allow political opportunists to use religion to
divert attention from real issues.  Voters should not forgive David Duke his
odious past unless they judge his abandonment of racism to be sincere.  For
the public's purposes such a conversion would be equally valid whether based on
the Humanist Manifesto or the Bible.  And the electorate should judge Edwin 
Edwards's prior record as a governor, not his views on Christ's resurrection.

The Gospel speaks to transcedent issues, yet politicians regularly try to turn
it into a partisan weapon.  it's time Christians stopped allowing themselves to
be used. 

    Duke lost rather convincingly Saturday. I'm basically pretty happy
    about this. I suspect most people are. Though I did hear an interesting
    joke.

    "If a plane crashed into the ocean with David Duke, Jimmy Swaggert,
    and Ed Edwards on board who did God save?" Answer: Louisiana

    		Alfred

I don't think we've heard the last of Mr. Duke.  From the profiles I
watched on him over the weekend, he appears to be a professional campaigner.

Peace,
Richard

    
    If I'm not mistaken, was the ACLU going to represent David Duke
    recently if he were not allowed a place on the Mass. ballot?
    
    Cindy

    I don't know about this instance, but the ACLU will defend the
    civil liberties of anyone, even the people with whom they might
    otherwise disagree.
    
    They have been known to defend the basic rights of even American
    Nazis.
    
    Richard

Re:  341.15

Richard,

  >I don't know about this instance, but the ACLU will defend the
  >civil liberties of anyone, even the people with whom they might
  >otherwise disagree.

Boy, are you being taken in by their propoganda.  The ACLU will
*not* defend the pro-life protestors in Wichita, Kansas whose
civil liberties were *trampled* on.

The will *not* defend those who were:

 - ordered out of town without being convincted of a crime (when
   was the last time you ever heard of someone "ordered out of town"?)
 - run over by a truck while they were lying in the middle of
   the street (police did not charge the offender until two days
   later when it was publicized)
 - women who were forced to strip and some to undergo cavity
   searches in the presense of many men
 - fined ridiculously large sums of money for one civil offense.  Other
   forms of (peaceful) protest which is considered more correct by
   liberals (and evidently by judges as well) bring ridiculously
   small penalties.  For example, one anti-nuclear protestor was
   given probation after his *eigth* conviction doing similar things
   (chaining himself to a fence).
 - *many* other examples during this time

They were asked to defend these instances civil liberties being
threatened and denied and they refused.  (By the way, as far as I
can tell, Operation Rescue represents the very worst civil liberty
abuses going on in our nation today.  You would think that the #1
civil abuse organization would be in the forefront of protecting
their rights, don't you?  Ha, ha, ha.)

Don't believe for a moment that the ACLU will throw their support
behind a movement that they politically oppose.

Collis

    Re: .16
    
    Thanks for the insight, Collis.  I am not a member of the ACLU,
    nor do I receive their literature.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Re. last few

      The Sec. of State in Mass has decided to put Duke's name on the
     ballot to avoid an expensive court case that the state is almost
     certain to lose. 

      As for the ACLU, they will not defend those who deliberately violate
     the law. David Duke is not violating the law by seeking to run in
     primary elections. The Nazi's in Skoke Ill. were refused a parade
     permit and the ACLU defended them because they were acting within
     the law in try to obtain a permit.
       The ACLU's position is that it will not defend abortion protesters
     because they routinely violate the law in their activities. Criminal 
     trespass being the most common law violation committed by
     anti-abortion activists and vandalism being less frequent, but also
     occurring in a number of anti-abortion protests.
        Now if anti-abortion activists were to be denied a parade permit
     or denied the opportunity to put a referendum question on a ballot
     that would be a different matter to the ACLU. 
        The ACLU's position is that all are entitled to equal protection and
     equal treatment under the law. Deliberate criminal behavior is not
     something protected under the law.

                                                               Mike
                            
     P.S. I wonder if David Duke will still be saying all those horrible
          things about the ACLU now that it working in about a dozen 
          states to keep him from being excluded from primary elections.        

Mike,

Doesn't the ACLU work to protect the rights of orginary prisoners who
"deliberately break the law" by stealing, committing murder, etc.?  This
being the case, to be consistent shouldn't the ACLU be protesting the inhumane
treatment of OR protestors, such as Collis described in his note?

				-- Bob

Mike,

Several comments.

First, you are assuming that the pro-life protesters are guilty before
they have been found guilty - and are accusing the ACLU of doing the
same thing.  I just wanted you to consciously think about this.

Secondly, there were *numerous* people arrested and/or mistreated
at this events that were *NOT* breaking *any* laws.  They were
"in the wrong place at the wrong time".  Does this give police the
right to mistreat them?

I do not follow the ACLU closely.  I am often informed about their
activities through various literature I receive.  Perhaps you know
more about them than I do, but I have never heard this distinction
that you have brought up previously in connection with the ACLU -
and it's a *very* hard one to believe because some of the worst civil
rights abuses are against civil rights protesters.  To allow these
abuses to continue under the guise that "they" deserved whatever
punishment that they have coming to them because they were willing
to break a minor ordinance is hardly a position I'd be willing to
defend if I were a member of the ACLU.  Then again, maybe that's why
I'm not a member.  :-)

Collis

    I do follow the ACLU closely.  They have a predictable political agenda:
    pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-religious suppression, etc.

    It's one thing to give them money because you agree with their
    political agenda.  It's another to suggest that they are non-political
    and neutral for whom they support.  Of course, they support a high
    profile fringe like the Skokie Nazis, all 12 of them, 20 years ago. �It
    conceals their real partisanship.

    I am not an expert on the ACLU.  I do know that each state has its own
    chapter, but I don't know how autonomous the chapters are in policy
    issues or how they relate to the national organization.  I have no
    doubt that the organization has its faults, although it can also be
    difficult to sift out the legitimate criticisms from the usual
    disingenuous slurs.  The David Duke incident in Massachusetts, along
    with the old issue of the Nazis in Skokie, were certainly not
    exceptions to the ACLU's policy of defending free speech rights, even
    for those they may strongly disagree with.  I could be mistaken, but I
    believe that ACLU came to the aid of Oliver North a few years ago,
    regarding his rights as a criminal defendant.  The ACLU *does* defend
    those who they ideologically oppose, and they do so regularly.  The
    ACLU has also worked to defend the separation of church and state, and
    for that I commend the ACLU.

    I haven't heard about the cases mentioned with regard to abortion
    protesters, and if indeed the ACLU is not defending the constitutional
    rights of individuals they disagree with, then they should be
    legitimately criticized; but without hearing both sides of the story, I
    withhold judgment at this point.

    -- Mike