Sadie Fields Retires

Love her or hate her, there was a time in Georgia politics where everyone had to fear her. But now, Sadie Fields has decided to suspend the activities of the Georgia Christian Alliance, and place herself into somewhat of a political retirement.

Jim Galloway brings us her announcement,

Dear Friends,

Since 1997 I have had the privilege of working with you to further our conservative values in the political arena. First as head of the Christian Coalition of Georgia and more recently the Georgia Christian Alliance.

It has been a wonderful journey, and as I have said many times before – memories of our times together are woven into the fabric of my life. I cherish each moment – each memory.

Throughout all these years we have worked together in our common quest to return this state and country to the vision of our Founding Fathers. There is still much to do – now more than ever. I know you – as I – will continue in the battle.

A time for change comes to us all. It is now my time for a change and I wanted to let you know that I am taking a leave of absence from my current position as State Chairman of the Georgia Christian Alliance. While I will no longer serve in that capacity, I will continue to work toward furthering our conservative agenda in other ways.

Please accept my heartfelt thanks once again for your support and encouragement over the years. You are my extended family – and I sincerely appreciate each one of you.

I am looking forward to what the Lord has for me in the future and I ask for your prayers as I begin another chapter in the book that is called my life.

God bless you and keep you and make His face to shine upon you – and give you peace.

It’s true that her power as an individual or that of social conservative groups in general peaked about a decade ago. But Fields is still able to command an audience, and the respect of those who want to advance in Republican politics in this state. While it’s clear she wants to scale back a bit, I don’t expect her to go away. She’s made her niche, and I expect candidates will continue to seek her support and involvement for election cycles to come.

31 comments

  1. Jane says:

    No matter who you are if you become the face of an activist’s movement, you are going to get criticized. Fairly sometimes, but unfairly most of the time. Sadie Fields took a lot of grief from a lot of people especially liberals because she was the face of social conservatism in Georgia for a long time. Sadie did as good of a job as anyone could have done in her position. The movement was advanced and the state is more socially conservatism and in my opinion is more social responsible as a result of her involvement. Sadie Fields is soft spoken and a true lady. Her actions and the tactful way she handled most issues have brought credit to her world view. While her critics on the other hand have at times been very shrill and have acted in a way that has been a disservice to their own agenda.

    Sadie will be sorely missed and after almost 20 years in Leadership it will be hard to replace her. I will be curious who has the experience and the presence of mind to take up the cross so long carried by Sadie Fields. I did not always agree with you, but I always respected you.

    • Red Phillips says:

      Oh good grief. There is not a single issue where the consensus on “social issues” in 1787 wasn’t to the right of where it is now, and even to the right of most hard core social conservatives. So the Founders would have been just peachy with the idea of gay marriage? Give me a break. They would have been horrified and/or amused at the very idea.

      • Goldwater Conservative says:

        Would they, Red? I seem to remember reading about this thing the “founders” advocated called the separation of church and state.

        Find a secular reason that gay marriage should be outlawed. Find a secular reason that abortion should be outlawed.

        Certainly there were a few “founders” that would allow their religious persecutions of cloud their judgement.

        That being said, there is a time and a place for everything. The abolition of slavery was considered by the “founders” at the constitutional convention…but they came to the conclusion that they were neither in the time nor the place to settle the dispute. I am certain they would have felt the same way about gay marriage and a host of other issues we deal with because too many people believe in fairy tales.

        • Red Phillips says:

          Goldwater “Conservative” change your name please. It is both dishonest and embarrassing.

          “I seem to remember reading about this thing the “founders” advocated called the separation of church and state.”

          Well first of all no they didn’t, especially not in the rigorously secularistic way that term is used these days.

          Religious beliefs have been influencing the laws of society since the initiation of human government. The idea that they are not supposed to is incredibly novel historically. Of course, if you were any kind of conservative you would know and respect that.

          • Goldwater Conservative says:

            Oh…so there is another definition or characteristic of “conservatism” that people do not agree on. What a suprise.

            I will not change my name because my namesake, like the founders, only used “god” to get votes and legitimate the governing bodies for you sheep that do not see the big picture. Do ou really think Washington, Frankling, Madison or Jefferson really “had trust in god.” No. They did not. The religious beliefs, as you call them, that influence government are more often than not (and in the case of this nations founding this is true) a means to legitimate action that simpletons and part time political observers do not understand.

            Just as religion was created to explain that which has yet to be scientifically evaluated, keen politicos, such as our founders and heros of modern politics, do just the same today. These moral codes of religions are all the same…they were reasoned out ethically as a matter of enforcing some theoretical abstraction such as the social contract. It took an all seeing eye and eternal damnation to be made up to get the peoples’ simple minds to follow and obey.

            The founders had one great vision (atleast those that had substantive influence): to replace religion with the state. Not that people should worship the state…rather the people would not worship at all and if they are to worship anything it is to be the phenomenon known as human progress. Mankind should worship, if anything, itself. Without us, gods would not exist. It is only through the progress of liberal democracy and liberalism that people are able to develop as individuals and determine for themselves what life they would like. Leaving ourselves to conservatism…we would handidly reject progress and science. It is your version of conservatism that the founders feared. Your conservatism, like that of nearly every proclaimed conservative, is why corporations such as the Catholic church has been able to keep nearly a billion people in their place. You conservatism is what has made the generation and accumulation of wealth a zero sum game. Your conservatism creates aristocracies and perpetuates the internalization of systemic structure inferiority through society.

            When mankind wastes its time working for “god” it is not focusing on progress. We are beyond the need for “god” and such fictional characters should not be used to justify political action.

            • Red Phillips says:

              “The founders had one great vision (at least those that had substantive influence): to replace religion with the state.”

              Back that statement up please. Thanks.

              • Goldwater Conservative says:

                Let just say there is plenty to suggest both Madison and Jeffeson’s tendencies toward disestablishment are in dispute.

                Like common debates people have about “what the founders would have wanted” and “who they really were,” many important documents and letters are not necessarily interacted with each other.

                The Danbury Baptist’s Letter from Jefferson or Madison’s letter to Walsh…along with other writings such as the summary of rights of british people’s and jefferson’s inaugural addresses. There are all very important in knowing these men, what they wanted and what they settled for in political negotiations.

                Look through the classic literatures, the works by each of these men and jefferson’s plan for the louisanna territory. The plan he crafted was rejected, but it is evidence that there were views held by these men that run contrary (through omission for popular history texts) to what is generally know.

                The Constitution itself is full of political compromises but is treated as holy scripture by many. It even allows for its own amending. It was written…that is important. The original Consitution and Declaration and every one of these foundind documents still exist and are preserved for all to see. Where is the original bible? torah? quran? Where are the originals? Was there ever an original?

                God was the old government…the state is to be the new one.

  2. Jane says:

    Sadie was not exactly the favorite of the AJC or Southern Voice or Creative Loafing. If you faith that CL, SV or even the AJC would do a sympathetic job in charecterizing the Conversative agenda then say so.

    • ByteMe says:

      Sadie was not exactly the favorite of

      Or her own gay daughter. Family values stopped at her own doorstep.

    • I Am Jacks Post says:

      “Sadie was not exactly the favorite of the AJC or Southern Voice or Creative Loafing . . . ”

      . . . . or the majority of the Georgia Republican electorate.

  3. Red Phillips says:

    The letter says she is stepping down from her position with the Georgia Christian Alliance. Galloway implies that the GCA is going away. What is Galloway basing this on?

    • Goldwater Conservative says:

      Good point, Red.

      Depending on how the GCA is organized the stepping down of Fields may be the end of the organization. It isn’t unusual for a political action committee to disolve when the chairperson leaves…unless it is a corporate pac. That being said, her stepping down only means her minions will likely start up a few another Christian Evangelical Fascist Party of Georgia.

  4. Jane says:

    GCA will probably go away. The group that uses the name Christian Coalition of Georgia is less than a Shell organization after Sadie left. GCA was built around Sadie’s extensive relations with social conservative leaders, without her it probably cannot stand. Other statewide socially conservative organizations are issue specific and better serve thier supporters by being issue specific.

    One question I ask is while most of the GOP candidates are socially conservative, certainly more socially conservative then our nominees in the early 90’s, without a Sadie Fields or similar social conservative leaders will this hurt efforts to organize the socially conservative base? With her retirement, will we see a Gov Barnes two?

  5. Jane says:

    Byte Me,

    Sadie loved her Lesbian daugher, and had a good, all be it, private relationship with her. To condem a person because thier children are not acceptable to you is petty.

  6. Old Vet says:

    Rumor has it Sadie is just chagrined that Arizona and Texas are nuttier than Georgia and she’s afraid that, for all their efforts, the Georgia Republicans can’t bring the state up in the wacko ratings.

  7. Zak Koffler says:

    Good Riddance. Live and let live has a chance again. God forgive her hatred and bless her daughter.

  8. My my, what tolerance… Say what you will about Sadie, but this woman has done more to empower the faith based community in Georgia than most individuals. Her passion and persistence to conservatism and biblical principles is admirable. Hopefully there will be leadership to fill that void.

    Thank you Sadie for giving so many years tirelessly and relentlessly.

Comments are closed.