Greg Rabidoux Seeks To Divide On Religious Grounds
Republican Marsha Blackburn is one of the more backwards members of Congress, promoting an agenda for America that many people may have assumed disappeared decades ago. Using religion as a justification for bigotry, Representative Blackburn seeks to gain majority support by directing popular anger against scapegoated minorities.
There’s a great potential for a challenger with a more enlightened perspective to take on Blackburn and make a significant, positive change in the political identity of the 7th district of Tennessee, and in the United States in General. That potential, however, is not met in the one Democrat to offer to take on Blackburn in the 2010 election: Greg Rabidoux.
Rabidoux starts out on the right foot, calling for a unified, tolerant approach to representing the 7th district. He writes, “Our great nation and state was built on the belief that we are all stronger and better served when we seek to pool our talents, our energies and our labor than when we are divided along racial, religious or ethnic lines.”
Unfortunately, almost immediately after this statement, Rabidoux sets about Marsha Blackburn’s own dirty game, seeking to divide people along religious lines for the sake of political gain. Rabidoux positions the USA as a nation for Christians first, and everyone else second, claiming that the United States is “a nation founded on Christian principles”, although it’s a secular Constitution, and not the Christian Bible, that’s the founding document of United States.
Then, Rabidoux says of his campaign’s values that, “We believe all things are possible through Christ our Savior and believe in one nation under God.” Why, when Tennessee has an 18 percent non-Christian population, would Rabidoux create a religious-based campaign for Congress that appeals specifically to Christians only? How does Rabidoux think that such a campaign will avoid dividing people along religious lines?
Given that he accepts and uses Marsha Blackburn’s politics of division, Greg Rabidoux doesn’t seem like the right candidate to challenge Blackburn in the 2008 congressional election.
Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
She is no constitutional scholar.
See her unconstitutional votes at :
http://bluecollarrepublican.com/blog/?p=614
Mickey
I think it is scary that you have drawn conclusions on a wonderful candidate without having met him. Just because he is not afraid to share with us that he does in fact believe in a god? Democrats can have religion in their lives, he’s not preaching about the second coming.
I know the candidate. I have also had the pleasure of listening to him speak. Rabidoux has the knowledge and the energy for the position. You may not agree with him for believing, but you cannot fault his entire campaign for it. That’s narrow minded and judgmental — some of the very same qualities associated with the religious right. I myself do not believe in god and don’t really understand how and why others do. But I would never crucify someone for having hope and the ability to believe freely. You shouldn’t either.
Sunny,
What Greg believes personally is an entirely different matter than what he asserts in a campaign for public office. He has founded his campaign for Congress around the ideas of the religious right, claiming that the USA is a Christian nation, when it’s not, and claiming Christianity as the center of his campaign. That’s doing what he said shouldn’t be done – dividing people on the basis of religion. It shows extremely poor judgment for him to do so, and indicates that he’ll be inclined to promote theocratic ideas if he’s elected to office.
Sorry, you can claim that he’s a nice guy, but his actions speak louder than your words.
Greg is the only viable canidate this district has seen in over a decade. Do you want to keep Marsha in office? Talk about actions speaking louder than words.
His actions do speak louder than his words, you’re correct. And I have seen him in action. I have heard him speak. I’ve watched him take constituents seriously, which is something Marsh Blackburn has never done.
His website exists so people can get to know who he is. So unlike most, he choses honesty and you chastised him without ever hearing him speak or meeting him?
He has not founded his campaign around the ideas of the religious right. If he had, we’d be seeing he and MB in the same circle and they’re not.
And statistically speaking, the United States is in fact a Christian Nation. Over 75% still identify themselves as Christian. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
However, I think Rabidoux was speaking more along the line of we are a Christian nation as far as our beliefs/actions to and for one another go. This country was founded for religious freedom but the basics tenets of right and wrong and loving thy neighbor came over on the boat also.
How is it viable to run a candidate who embraces the same theocratic, right wing ideology as Marsha Blackburn?
It’s basic marketing. You can’t beat a frontrunner with a Me Too approach. Greg Rabidoux, with his embrace of the Religious Right’s propaganda of the United States being founded as a Christian nation, excluding the non-Christians in his district that he needs to create even a small margin of victory, has come up with a Me Too campaign.
A genuine viable candidate would present a real alternative vision. No, I don’t want to keep Marsha Blackburn in office, but I also don’t want to see her replaced with a Blue Dog Democrat who continues to support the same policies, and has no respect for the Separation of Church and State, or other fundamental principles of the Constitution.
Listen, as a man of faith, that also knows Mr. Rabidoux, I can say that his own beliefs hold no bearing for me, over his ability to run a campaign that is unified for all Tennesseans. I believe that Mr. Rabidoux understands his population here, and while you may have heard of him espousing his own religious views, I do not believe him to be one who lets that fact rule out his consideration for all the people in his district. Quite frankly, my friend, I agree with Sunny, and I think you should meet the man before you go accusing him of being divisive. Let me ask you this… do you feel threatened by his personal views? If there’s any candidate out there right now, in any district who holds the integrity to separate his own views from those of a larger mix of people, it’s Mr. Greg Rabidoux.
This isn’t about Rabidoux’s personal beliefs. It’s about what he states as the central ideas of his campaign: That it’s a Christian campaign for political office. If you want “a campaign that is unified for all Tennesseans”, why are you supporting Greg Rabidoux, whose campaign cast out 18 percent of the population of Tennessee from the start?
If you really want a Democratic campaign to unite, rather than to use religion to divide people, find another candidate than Rabidoux.
I have to agree with Congress Watcher on this, even though I am a Christian. Yes, this is the bible belt, and yes Christianity dominates here, however any candidacy right now needs to steer clear of pandering to ANY religion. It’s core public relations, if he gets asked his beliefs, he should expound on them, but even as a Christian, I don’t like to see candidates putting it in marketing materials. He’s new at this, and he’s a professor (which doesn’t necessarily make him a good public relations person). I think right now he needs to get out there, drum up some cash and then hire a PR person to make sure the message is solid.
To Congress Watcher: I believe that Dr. Rabidoux has made it clear that he is steering his campaign in a way that benefits Tennesseans, not necessarily Christians, per se. Given that his own personal beliefs are a good starting point for this discussion, I believe that he has conveyed in his intent for governance that is selfless. When we make the only smart decision and elect him, I have seen that he intends to make good on his promise to be a public servant. And true servants don’t serve their own interests, but seek out others’ and that’s exactly what Dr. Rabidoux is doing as I’ve followed his moves thus far. I see in him a true servant and, indeed our next District 7 congressman.
If Rabidoux has made that clear, how come his words speak to the contrary? That doesn’t seem very clear to me, Tom.
It’s one thing to run a campaign that taps into personal faith for strength, and quite another to treat someone differently who does not believe the same way. I have also met Dr. Rabidoux on several occasions. He is sharp, articulate, and intellligent, and he treats people with dignity and respect. He came from humble beginnings and understands what it means to be poor and middle class in this country. If you read the issues on his website, you will see that he has not built a “religious based campaign”, but rather is about bringing real lasting healthcare reform, jobs, affordable education for our children, a strong, effective and smart foreign policy, and a clean healthy environment. (I have paraphrased all, but you get the idea). Blackburn has given attention to none of these things. She is an extremist that has divided this district and state, and ultimately she and others of her ilk will divide the nation. Dr. Rabidoux is a breath of fresh air. Let’s give him our support and get rid of Marsha. We deserve better. Check this guy out and give him some money. http://www.rabidoux4congress.com.
Furthermore, of the seven or eight times I have heard Dr. Rabidoux speak, I have NEVER ONCE heard him say anything about basing his campaign being Christian based. It has always been about uniting all of us, finding common ground, and addressing issues that are important to all of us.
As a life long republican who has started to pay attention to what our politicians are actually doing and not what they say they are doing, I would submit that any politician who has been in office for more than two terms needs to be replaced no matter which party they belong to. Our Politicians have made a career of misinformation and appealing to divisive social issues which have nothing to do with the job of running a nation. If we start replacing these people after a couple of terms maybe they will start working for the people instead of working for re-election. Marsha Blackburn is a nice lady, but I need a good politician that will work to improve the 7th district and American, not a nice lady who supports a party.
“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” – United States Supreme Court, 1892.
While making certain not to endorse any denomination of religion over another, the founders of this nation made it emphatically clear that the principles upon which this Nation was built are based squarely upon the Judaeo-Christian Bible.
Virtually every one of the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of various Christian denominations: 29 were Anglicans, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican, and 1 open deist–Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.
This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1892:
“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”
You can argue many points, but any student of the U. S. Constitution and its amendments will testify that it was clearly based on Judeao-Christian morals, ethics, principles and teachings. When the word of God is mentioned, it is referring to the message of the King James Version of The Bible.
1. Carla, 1892 is not the time of the founders.
2. The Supreme Court can make lots of statements, but that doesn’t mean that what the Supreme Court says is necessarily truly in line with the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court once declared that racial segregation was a constitutionally-justified practice. That’s not an interpretation that you’d find many constitutional scholars supporting these days.
3. The Constitution originally allowed for slavery. You are correct that the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Old Testament endorse slavery. I’ll allow for that.
4. Where is there in the Bible a declaration that people must be free to practice whatever religion they want to? There are many declarations that people who practice the wrong religion must be killed.
5. Where is there in the Bible a statement declaring support for freedom of speech? There are many places in the Bible that support the idea that speech should not be free.
6. Where is there in the Bible any moral basis for the right to a fair trial, protection from illegal search and seizure, or representative government?
7. Where is there in the Bible any model for the division of government into three branches?
8. Where is there in the Constitution any mention of Christianity or Judaism, or any statement that the Constitution is Christian or Judaic in its foundations?
etc. etc. etc.
Christianity is certainly not the basis of the Constitution of the United States of America. Neither is Judaism. In fact, the Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office, and that there cannot be any religious establishment made through the laws of the land.
The Constitution was constructed, and amended, in such a way as to ensure that the United States of America would be a secular nation, not a nation of Christianity, or Judaism, or any other religion.
You say that “the word of God is mentioned” in the Constitution, but you’re completely wrong in that respect. Go read the Constitution. Neither “God” nor the Bible are ever mentioned in that document.