home
RSS
January 20th, 2012
01:13 PM ET

Why Gingrich 'open marriage' allegation may not scare off evangelicals

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) -
The ex-wife of a Republican politician alleges her then-husband asked if they could have an open marriage, so evangelical “values voters” rethink their support for him, right?

Not so fast, say some evangelical leaders and experts.

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s second ex-wife, Marianne, made the “open marriage” allegation in an interview that aired Thursday night on ABC News.

But because of political circumstances and the way Gingrich parried a question about the accusation during Thursday’s CNN debate, the episode may cause relatively little fallout among evangelical voters, who are expected to make up about 60% of the vote in Saturday’s South Carolina primary.

Some say the drama may even help Gingrich among such voters.

“To a degree, it will give [evangelical voters] pause, but there’s a much more insatiable appetite to defeat President Obama,” said David Brody, chief political correspondent at CBN News at the Christian Broadcasting Network.

“Gingrich has never claimed to be a patron saint,” Brody said. “People have known for years about Gingrich’s marriage issues. In a way, his well-known history of troubled marriage works for him here.”

CNN moderator John King opened Thursday’s debate in Charleston, South Carolina, by asking Gingrich about whether he would like to respond to the allegation.

“No,” Gingrich responded to mounting applause, “but I will.”

"To take an ex-wife and make it, two days before the primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine," Gingrich went on, calling the allegation “false” and provoking a standing ovation from the debate audience.

It’s a safe bet that evangelical Republicans were among those clapping.

“The press is so unpopular with Republican voters that his answer helps him in the short term - it was a tactically brilliant answer,” said Richard Land, the public policy chief for the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest evangelical denomination.

“Whether it will work strategically is another question,” Land said.

The Christian Broadcasting Network’s Brody said that Gingrich’s response to the “open marriage” question “took a weakness and turned it into a strength.”

“Evangelicals have been bashed by the media for decades, so this is a common bond he’s able to play up with them,” he said. “He was able to develop a kinship with evangelicals over this last night.”

Brody said that Gingrich has spent lots of time on the campaign trail discussing stances that matter to evangelicals, like opposition to abortion and confronting radical Islam.

Land said the allegation from Gingrich’s ex-wife may hurt the candidate in the long run because it reminds voters that he was seeing his current wife, Callista, while married to his second wife.

Gingrich has admitted to his affair with Callista, whom he married in 2000.

“This reminds people that Callista is the other woman,” Land said, “and that the other woman could become the first lady.”

Gingrich’s evangelical backers have not shied away from discussing his past marital problems. In a conference call with evangelicals last week, Gingrich spoke extensively about his failed marriages.

“We're all quite aware that there was a season in Speaker Gingrich’s life in which his lifestyle was unacceptable,” Jim Garlow, a prominent evangelical pastor who was on last week’s call, said in an e-mail message. “He does not defend it. Nor would any evangelical. Nor do I.”

“He is as flawed as King David in the Old Testament,” wrote Garlow, who helped lead the campaign to ban gay marriage in California in 2008. “However, that did not keep God from restoring King David and using him after his moral failures, for the benefit of the entire nation.”

Still, even before this week’s allegation from his ex-wife, Gingrich’s personal baggage had given many evangelicals pause.

“Forgiveness is not the issue here, trust is the issue,” Land said. “Redemption is something that’s in our code as evangelicals, but trusting someone with the presidency is something entirely different.”

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Newt Gingrich • Politics

soundoff (1,224 Responses)
  1. Marilyn

    This just shows that these so called Christians would look the other way if it benefits them, what hypocrites, they should all be taxed for being involved or stating which side they vote for, the government doesn't tax them but then they try and influence how we vote. Character does count this man not only cheated on one wife but two, at the same time judging another man (Clinton) when he was doing the same thing. He is slime.

    January 21, 2012 at 12:41 am |
    • George

      He is less slime than what we've got.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:45 am |
    • jtarver

      Bill Clinton is Disbarred and is a convicted Felon.

      January 21, 2012 at 1:02 am |
    • Not so daddy-O

      Clinton was definitely a slimer, but the felon thing, especially the convicted felon angle, is just not true. Check out the truth at the link below, and stop being a stereotypical right-wing conspiracy theory nutter who accepts every Limbaugh Lie that comes along.

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/felon.asp

      January 21, 2012 at 4:54 am |
  2. O.S. Bird

    It's curious how the religious overlook Gingrich's open disdain for the Ten Commandments, but they (the religions) would be screaming bloody murder if it were a Democrat doing the same thing. I get sick to the teeth with so-called "Christians".

    January 21, 2012 at 12:21 am |
    • Fundie Republican Christian

      I'm sorry, I'm having trouble reading your post with these awkward blinders on.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:23 am |
    • Donald Shimoda

      There are no commandments. Be happy, or not.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:33 am |
    • George

      Well, I'm religious, and I don't overlook it. Not at all. However, Gingrich has quite a way to go before he is anywhere near as immoral as what we now have.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:42 am |
    • O.S. Bird

      George – I think both Gingritch and Obama are slimebags. Trying to determine which one is worse has nothing to do with my point. My point is that "Christians" are among the worst hypocrites of all.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:57 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What is your problem, George? What has Obama done that is 'immoral' in your blighted view?

      January 21, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
  3. WOT

    Marriage is no longer a vow to God between two people. In today's world civil (law of man) is more important; so Holy Mat means nothing to our sick society!
    He without sin cast a stone!

    January 21, 2012 at 12:10 am |
    • Donald Shimoda

      Consider your own happiness, not the happiness of others which you cannot control.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:17 am |
    • I have a name, thanks

      I have lots of rocks to throw. It is only under civil law that marriage means anything in a civil society.

      Religious views are spiritual and have nothing to do with the real world where we all have to live together under common law in a multi-religious society. That takes civil law to do the trick. A civil law does not regard any particular religion with any favoritism or else there is no equality, no peace, and no reason to respect anyone else. It would be time to raep and pillage.

      January 21, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
  4. The real john

    I hope all of you atheists like BBQ, because where you're going, it's going to stink like burning pork.

    January 20, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
    • Donald Shimoda

      There is no heaven or hell. Just your imagination and what you make of it.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:07 am |
    • Reality

      A prayer for The real john:

      The Apostles' Creed 2011: (updated by yours truly based on the studies of NT historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

      Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
      and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
      human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven?????

      I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
      preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
      named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
      girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

      Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
      the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

      He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
      a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
      Jerusalem.

      Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
      many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
      ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
      Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
      grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
      and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
      called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

      Amen
      (References used are available upon request.)

      January 21, 2012 at 12:09 am |
    • O.S. Bird

      Hmmm...is that a remark that Jesus would approve of? Some Christian you are.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:12 am |
    • O.S. Bird

      Is that a remark that Jesus would approve of? Some Christian you are.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:13 am |
    • tallulah13

      Blah, blah, blah. Get back to us, john, when you have an ounce of proof of the existence of your god or satan, or heaven or hell. Or heck, any evidence of life after death. Frankly, all you have is the impotent waving of you little fists at those of us who weren't gullible enough to fall for bronze age fairy tales.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:14 am |
    • The real john

      Existence is proof of God. He created everything you see.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:25 am |
    • Donald Shimoda

      TRJ
      You created, and continue to create everything you see. What you see and believe is up to you.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:35 am |
    • *facepalm*

      "Existence is proof of God. He created everything you see."

      You obviously haven't the slightest clue what the word 'proof' means. Not surprising, though.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:37 am |
    • The real john

      This is the only response your statement warrants, Donald.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:39 am |
    • Trollkeeper

      Don't feed the trolls, people. Despite the urban legend, neither the Donald's nor john's head is going to explode. They'll just continue to spout the same senseless drivel. You'll have more luck conversing with your keyboard or a rock.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:43 am |
    • The real john

      Face, what more proof do you need? The Bible states that God created everything and us. You exist. Everything around you exists. You think the universe created itself? You think it spoke itself into existence? No. It was created!

      January 21, 2012 at 12:44 am |
    • Donald Shimoda

      TRJ
      If your belief system makes you happy I encourage you to continue to believe that way.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:44 am |
    • Donald Shimoda

      There is much you are not prepared to understand, and that is ok.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:46 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      "The Bible states that God created everything and us."

      Considering the buybull is the only thing that speaks to gods existence, I would say your reasoning is circular...you can't use the buybull to prove god.
      The buybull also states 'spare the rod spoil the child'...do you beat your kids? It also says that a woman must marry her ra.pist, do you support ra.pe?
      Get your head out of the sand and join the 21st century!!

      January 21, 2012 at 7:34 am |
    • Reality

      What we do know: (from the fields of astrophysics, nuclear physics, geology and the history of religion)

      1. The Sun will burn out in 3-5 billion years so we have a time frame.

      2. Asteroids continue to circle us in the nearby asteroid belt.

      3. One wayward rock and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.

      4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.

      5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.

      6. All stars will eventually extinguish as there is a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the universe. When this happens (100 trillion years?), the universe will go dark. If it does not collapse and recycle, the universe will end.

      7. Super, dormant volcanoes off the coast of Africa and under Yellowstone Park could explode catalytically at any time ending life on Earth.

      Bottom line: our apocalypse will start between now and 3-5 billion CE. The universe apocalypse, 100 trillion years?

      January 21, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • The Elephant in the Room

      @the real john,
      The total energy of the universe is zero. (Gravity can have a negative energy sum). Thus, the sum, in the end is "0". What you see is 1% or less of "reality". (Our) existence proves nothing. Too bad you have no science education.

      January 21, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • I have a name, thanks

      How can hell smell when we won't have noses, bodies to burn, or any way of perceiving anything?
      We use our brains for everything we consider to be our souls. Without a living body there can be no after–life life.

      January 21, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • I have a name, thanks

      The total energy in the universe is anything but zero, elephant.

      Why am I talking to an elephant who makes bad jokes and cannot grasp simple physics?

      January 21, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • ......

      Reality bull sh it? hit report abuse on all of it

      January 22, 2012 at 8:46 pm |
  5. Reality

    Going way back to see some early thinking about adu-ltery/open marriages?:

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/ham/ham02.htm

    The Code of Hammurabi- 1792–1750 BC

    "If she had been a bad wife, the Code allowed him to send her away, while he kept the children and her do-wry; or he could deg-rade her to the position of a sla-ve in his own house, where she would have food and clothing. She might bring an action against him for cru-elty and neglect and, if she proved her case, obtain a judicial separation, taking with her her do-wry.

    No other punishment fell on the man. If she did not prove her case, but proved to be a bad wife, she was dro-wned. If she were left without maintenance during her husband's involuntary absence, she could coh-abit with another man, but must return to her husband if he came back, the children of the second union remaining with their own father. If she had maintenance, a breach of the marriage tie was adu-ltery. Wilful des-ertion by, or exile of, the husband dissolved the marriage, and if he came back he had no claim on her property; possibly not on his own."

    Hmmm, there appears to be a lot of Judaism and Islam in this Old Code. Pl-ag–iarized? Hmmm, probably!!!

    See added comparisons at "Comparing the content of
    Hammurabi's Code, Mosaic Law, and Justinian Law"

    http://www.h-yperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw03hammurabijustinlaw.htm

    " If a man and woman were caught in ad-ultery, Hammurabi and Moses decreed that both man and woman be put to death. (i.e. "Billy Boys" had short life spans in the good old days!!!!!) Each set of laws also proh-ib-ited a man from having more than one wife at a time. In addition, Justinian and Biblical law required parental co-nsent for any marriage. "

    January 20, 2012 at 11:58 pm |
    • jtarver

      Jacob had two wives and children from each of their handmaidens as well.

      January 21, 2012 at 1:14 am |
    • Reality

      But did Jacob even exist? Probably not based on the following:

      origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482 NY Times review and important enough to reiterate.

      New Torah For Modern Minds

      “Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

      Such startling propositions - the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years - have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity - until now.

      The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc-ument.

      The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."

      January 21, 2012 at 10:23 am |
  6. George

    Evangelicals should get behind Santorum. He is the most favorable candidate to conservative Christians.

    January 20, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
    • The real john

      I love him!

      January 20, 2012 at 11:58 pm |
    • Donald Shimoda

      If the world is destroyed, there are a thousand million other worlds for us to create and choose from. As long as people want planets, there will be planets to live on. Politicians have nothing to do with our individual realities.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:12 am |
    • TR6

      I'm ceratain that Santorum is god's own candidate; but, then again so whas Hittler

      January 21, 2012 at 1:20 am |
    • Sid

      It is clear how badly George wants to get behind Santorum.

      January 21, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What he wants to do back there is the real question.

      January 22, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
  7. Michael

    Values Voters – yea sure – whatever?

    Let's get on with the rumble – Obama v Romney!

    At the end of the day – I will be shocked if Obama can't make a case for his re-election.

    January 20, 2012 at 10:12 pm |
    • The Phist

      Heartwarming. Our two choices will be narrowed down to a religious fanatic or a inexperienced anorexic who has continued bush-era policy. Can we get another debt ceiling hike? *golf clap*

      January 20, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
    • The Phist

      that was supposed to be an, not a.

      January 20, 2012 at 11:30 pm |
    • jtarver

      Romney is Obama's best hope for re-election.

      January 21, 2012 at 1:17 am |
  8. Donald Shimoda

    If you want to be with what you are imagining, you have to put yourself in the picture.

    January 20, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
    • The Elephant in the Room

      Thenk you, glasshoppa.

      January 20, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
    • Ban Religion

      More mindless stupidity from the fortune cookie regurgitating queen.

      January 20, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      You mean like being framed?

      January 20, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • Observer

      You know, you can buy these tremendous plastic jars full of fortune cookies. I bet Donald has one and his just about worked his way through it.

      January 20, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
    • Donald Shimoda

      You seem afraid to embrace the reality of our existence. That is ok. But I can help you if you wish. Or, you can persist in being unhappy with yourself and others. That is ok too.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:06 am |
  9. Donald Shimoda

    Imagine the universe beautiful and just and perfect, then be sure of one thing: I have imagined it quite a bit better than you have.

    January 20, 2012 at 9:17 pm |
    • Dear Donald

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLxGOLaM5dQ&w=640&h=360]

      January 20, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
    • Donald Shimoda

      If you will practice being fictional for a while, you will understand that fictional characters are sometimes more real than people with bodies and heartbeats.

      January 20, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
    • Shut up, herbie.

      herbie, shut up.

      January 20, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
    • Donald Shimoda

      While I do not know who Herbie is, I do hope he is happy.

      January 20, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
    • herbie

      i was not shut up
      i was brought up
      and every time
      i see you
      i throw up

      January 22, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
    • herbie

      i am herbie

      January 22, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
  10. Susie

    Way to go Newt! I love it1 the liberal media are helping us in this campaigN> The more they give Barry o a pass the more people want to vote for a republican. The dems need to run someone against obama becasue if they don't they will lose this campaign. Oh well, maybe he will go on another one of his 4 million dollar vacations and charge the taxpayers for it.

    January 20, 2012 at 9:17 pm |
    • No...just no.....

      your thoughts do not work, please try again

      January 20, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
    • Sue

      Neither Sleazy Newt nor Crazy Mitt stand a chance against Obama. Bring 'em on. You lose, whichever of Sleazy or Crazy you pick. It's going to be a fun election.

      January 20, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
    • The Phist

      Except for the fun part. The choices are all trash.

      January 20, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Your opinion is duly noted, Susie. We won't know who will win until the election. I just wish that there was a candidate in the republican party that knew how to tell the truth. I've never seen such a bunch of liars in my life. If these are christian values, then I am truly happy to be an atheist.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:18 am |
  11. The Elephant in the Room

    The Roman Catolik church says it's god doesn't permit divorce. How in hell did they justify marrying this creep ? IN THE CHURCH. What a bunch of hypocrites. How much does an annulment cost ? Maybe giving one's first born to the bishop ?

    January 20, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
    • Donald Shimoda

      If you really want to remove a cloud from your life, you do not make a big production of it; you just relax and remove it from your thinking. that's all there is to it.

      January 20, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
    • The Elephant in the Room

      Rife have no croud.

      January 20, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      Donald..ok you"re gone...byeeeee.

      January 20, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • CNN Moderator

      Donald, you are banned. Please email CNN if you wish to protest this ban.

      January 20, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
    • Donald Shimoda

      If metaphores are difficult for you to understand, that is ok.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:03 am |
  12. Donald Shimoda

    Some people spend a lot of money and time to see horror movies or soap-operas that other people find dull and boring. You don't have to see their movies. They don't have to see yours. Freedom. Some people think the deserve horror movies. Some people think they have no control over their own films. People are unhappy because that is what they choose. And that is alright.

    January 20, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
    • The Phist

      If you were truly happy, you wouldn't be here trying to convince yourself and others that you are.

      January 20, 2012 at 11:23 pm |
    • Donald Shimoda

      I never said I was happy. Death can be glorious.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:15 am |
  13. Susan

    Let's see, Obama first president to reside over a downgrade in our credit rating. Wants to blame Bush when he has spent 6 trillion dollars and counting. It was not the republicans that caused the downgrade. Moody's had warned for the debt levels to get under control. this president demanded more deficit spending to take care of his unions and donors. Fast and furious where innocent Mexicans have been killed and a border patrol officer killed. Billions of taxpayer dollars lost on green energy jobst Barry O. knew would fail. IN fact put his donors in front of the taxpayers when Solyndra went under. GAve Brazil a billion dollars for offshore driling and shut down the drilling in the US. Gave Brazil a billion dollars to build military airplanes when an American company bid on the contract and would have done just as good of aa job , his senate majority has not passed budget in over a 1000 days. more regulations than any president in history, 24 million people unemployed, 1 out of every four children on food stamps. has been campaigning since he was in office. He is an empty suit way in over his head for this job. Newt, Romney or Pual will be the next president. ABO is the mantra today for the super majority in this country. Obama is toast no matter how the liberal media tries to spin this thing.

    January 20, 2012 at 9:00 pm |
    • The Elephant in the Room

      Re-write history much ?

      January 20, 2012 at 9:07 pm |
    • Donald Shimoda

      Susan
      Life is a game. We cannont die; we cannot hurt ourselves. But we can believe we are victims, shuddered around by good luck and bad luck. Space and time is an illusion. You can change what you wish.

      January 20, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • The Phist

      obama hasn't exactly done us any good.

      January 20, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
    • O.S. Bird

      It's hard to believe anyone blaming the economic crisis on Obama, who wasn't even in office when teh banks came crashing down. Regardless of the wisdom – or lack of wisdom – that Obama's used in trying to get things going again, the truism remains: If you broke it, don't complain about someone else's efforts to fix it. W Bush, you blew it. Obama might too, but don't blame him for something he didn't cause. By the way, I didn't vote for Obama, and I'm not a "bleeding heart liberal". I'm a conservative Tennesean who tries to keep his wits about him.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:45 am |
  14. AGuest9

    Newt, what about all that money at Tiffany and Neiman Marcus? I guess if you can forgive the impropriety of stealing nearly a million dollars from his PAC, you can forgive just about anything. Hypocrites!

    January 20, 2012 at 8:56 pm |
  15. Susan

    I totally agree with Newt. I am appalled that they would open a presidential debate with a question like that. I do not know of very many exs who have anything kind to say about their ex husbands or wives. I am surprised at the level of mendacity that the liberal press has railed at every republican candidate. Herman Cain had to drop out because of it it was so vicious. It s blantently obvious that they are giving Obama a pass on everything. This thing will backfire on the liberal media, they have horrible ratings already. The only time I watch them is during a republican debate. So, lets pull out the dirt on Obama and his past to make it fair game for all.

    January 20, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Sure, he's a politician, we already know that he can't do anything more than hand the country over to China. The rich already have their escape plans set. Gold bullion in Switzerland!

      January 20, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      They already tried that in the last election Susan, or have you forgotten the whole birther thing already?

      January 20, 2012 at 9:00 pm |
  16. Prayer is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer causes small kids to get hit by buses when they aren't paying attention.
    Prayer takes people away from actually working on real solutions to their problems.
    Prayer wears out your clothes prematurely.
    Prayer contributes to global warming through excess CO2 emissions.
    Prayer fucks up your knees and your back.
    Prayer exposes your backside to pervert priests.
    Prayer prevents you from getting badly needed exercise.
    Prayer makes you hoard cats.
    Prayer wastes time

    January 20, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
  17. The Bitter Politics of Pity

    Newt is the victim here. A man in full like Newt should never be tied to just one woman (unless that's what he's into, of course).

    January 20, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • Fluffy, the gerbil of doom, and a rodent who HATES rap

      That would be fine, except for the fact he went around preaching family values. He is THE ULTIMATE HYPOCRITE. The arrogant sob thinks the rules simply don't apply to himself.

      January 20, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
    • Donald Shimoda

      Can any of you change the past? Maybe. Can you cange Newt from his? No, it is his to change. Change what you can and find happiness if you wish. You can be unhappy too. Up to you.

      January 20, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
    • The Phist

      Or you can "cange." Whatever the hell that means.

      January 20, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
    • Donald Shimoda

      If criticizing a misspelled world brings you happiness then I encourage you to do so.

      January 21, 2012 at 12:21 am |
    • Donald Shimoda

      *word

      January 21, 2012 at 12:22 am |
  18. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things
    Prayer brings healing
    Prayer illuminates the Holy Bible
    Prayer changes things

    January 20, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
    • TR6

      Prayer is like or-al $ex. It can make you feel god; but, it accomplishis nothing

      January 21, 2012 at 2:55 am |
    • AGuest9

      "Prayer" doesn't do anything, other than create increased activity in the frontal lobes of the brain in believers.

      Then again, the frontal lobes are involved in motor function, problem solving, spontaneity, memory, language, initiation, judgment, impulse control, social and se.xual behavior. So these people having intense memories, speaking in tongues (babbling), losing control of impulses and judgement and experiencing euphoria have basically just figured out how to activate their frontal lobes. Again, no religion is necessary and no excuse for a god.

      January 21, 2012 at 8:46 am |
  19. Prayer is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer causes small kids to get hit by big buses when they aren't paying attention.
    Prayer takes people away from actually working on real solutions to their problems.
    Prayer wears out your clothes prematurely.
    Prayer contributes to global warming through excess CO2 emissions.
    Prayer fucks up your knees and your back.
    Prayer can cause heart attacks, especially among the elderly.
    Prayer exposes your backside to pervert priests.
    Prayer prevents you from getting badly needed exercise.
    Prayer makes you hoard cats.
    Prayer wastes time.

    January 20, 2012 at 8:28 pm |
  20. TG

    For Mr Newt Gingrich to "develop a kinship with evangelicals over this last night", as David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network said, shows that these "evangelicals" have become a "part of the world", rather than follow Jesus footsteps of being "no part of the world".(John 15:19)

    The "evangelicals" or the churches, have immersed themselves in the political arena, of which Jesus never did, even refusing to be king (John 6:15), but always directed everyone's attention to God's heavenly kingdom, even after his arrest and abuse at the hands of the Roman soldiers, and when before Pilate on the day he was put to death on a torture stake.

    He told Pilate: "My kingdom is no part of the world. If my kingdom were part of the world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source."(John 18:36) However, the "evangelicals" have deeply involved themselves in the political field, and therefore are counterfeit "Christians". Revelation 17:2 says that these, as part of the "harlot", Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion, have ' committed fornication with the kings of the earth'.

    In imitation of Jesus, 1st century Christians did not involve themselves in either the military or the political arena. It was only after the death of the last apostle John in about 100 C.E., that apostasy or a "standing away" from true Christianity began to develop in earnest. Jesus gave an illustration regarding this at Matthew 13:24-30, with an explanation at verses 36-43.

    January 20, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      Isn't it interesting, in Matthew, it says he said nothing to Pilate.
      "Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
      And he answered him not a word". Woops. 😈

      January 20, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      1 Samuel 8 is why man wanted man to rule over them.

      Amen.

      January 21, 2012 at 4:05 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.