Obama To Christians: We Are The Way, The Truth, and The Life — Not Christ.
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (156) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We should be prepared for a lot of this in 2008. The Democrats, in cooperation with the MSMTM, have decided to start pushing the idea that Christians are outside the mainstream of American values. We Christians are, to borrow a phrase, dividers not uniters.
B. Hussein Obama is the latest to put forward that idea.
"Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us," the Illinois senator said."At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," according to an advance copy of his speech.
The profound absurdities in that statement are just overwhelming.
It is the left that has advances a secular agenda. It has tried to remove God from our coinage and our pledge. It is the left that has been most aggressive in denying students the right to pray in graduation ceremonies. It is the left that would rather starve the homeless than allow churches to participate in federal aid programs. It is the left that has forced church affiliated healthcare providers to provide services that go against church teachings. It is the left that has pushed church affiliated adoption providers to cater to the homosexual lifestyle — a lifestyle those who actually follow Christ believe is sin. In short, in the left's eagerness to embrace the Christ's telling of the Good Samaritan as the sole tenet of Christian faith, it has ignored all but a very superficial understanding of Christ's telling of the rich man and Lazarus.
I could go on and on and on.
Read on . . .
The problem Senators Obama, Clinton, and other Democrats are going to face is that many American Christians, in fact most American Christians, fundamentally do believe that abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, and intelligent design are fundamental issues today. Why? Because Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, the Democrats, and the media have been aggressively waging war against basic Christian values for three decades and that war has been fought against basic Judeo-Christian values of life, repentance, and faith.
You see, what the left does not comprehend is that calling yourself a church or a Christian does not actually make you a follower or believer in Christ as the one and only path to salvation.
Said Christ, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) The Democrats reject that very basic message and they should not be surprised when Christ's followers reject them because of it.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Somebody warn Fred. — Comments (4) »
Obama To Christians: We Are The Way, The Truth, and The Life — Not Christ. 156 Comments (0 topical, 156 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Methodists organize in covens not parishes.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I also wonder what the reaction would be if he were a unitarian.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
no other commenter has mentioned. The link explains one of the many reasons, why I do not
believe this politician is right for America.
I wonder if Barack Hussein Obama learned this view of Christianity while in his Indonesian school?
Really though, it is true that Democrats, as a party, disrespect the Christian faith and have for many years; how anyone could argue that being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and against the right to pray also is in line with the fundamental teachings of Christianity, is just absurd. Yet Barack Hussein Obama and secular leftists attempt to advance this for the purpose of undermining the religious right, and in turn, the faith-based community. Remember, they're the "reality-based community." And to many of them, reality conflicts directly with faith.
Donate to Fred Thompson's Campaign right here...you know you want to!
Why must you keep saying "hussein" when you refer to Barrack Obama....is it that you dont' trust the merits of your arguments...and you feel the need to resort to name calling.
And do you follow the Bible? I do... I especially follow Matthew 5:9 (blessed are the peacemakers.) or “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions as his own, but they shared everything they had.” (Acts 4:32 & 6:1-6). Sounds almost communistic...though I am a capitalist....
There are many on the left, who concern themselves only with helping the poor....and we are with Christ. We are not always right, see (john 12, 3-10...whereing the conservatives are correct....but we are all welcome at Christs table.)
I welcome you. Do you welcome me?
walker
jefferson
herbert walker
wilson
earl
etc
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Many of those men either use their middle names commonly, or use them in politics or public life to distinguish themselves from others with similar names.
Obama doesn't use his middle name, either commonly or in politics. It's dragged out exclusively by his opponents in order to smear him with a nonexistent Saddam/Islamist association. There's no other credible explanation for it, and it's breathtakingly dishonest and repugnant.
names Earl and 41's 4 names that included "Herbert Walker" in between George Bush.
Get over it
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
"Quiet Riot" was brewing. He should have been discredited as a viable candidate after he said that but the MSM protected him.
As to Saddam, Barack himself says he favored protecting Saddam's regime from the overthrow by the US.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You haven't watched Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory?
whose only use of the bible and church are for photo-ops.
There's nothing wrong with being devisive....against sin.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Said Christ, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) The Democrats reject that very basic message and they should not be surprised when Christ's followers reject them because of it.
I'm OK if they reject Jesus' divinity. A lot of the Founders did, too, and the US was not founded on the question of Jesus' divine nature. I think GOPers should back off on that.
The difference was that the Founders left space for those who didn't reject it, and the Democratic Party of recent years has left no room at all. The difference was that regardless of whether God is a Trinity or not, they all believed, even up to FDR and Jack Kennedy, that there's still a God who loves us and Whose Providence led to the founding of this blessed nation. (Read "blest" as opposed to "bless-ed" if you want, it makes no difference.)
And even the semi-godless Jefferson was afraid that one day He might withdraw his favor from America over its toleration of slavery. (Jefferson was right, see 1860-1865.)
And neither do I have to park my pro-life sentiments at the door just because much of Christianity agrees with them. That makes them no less legitimate. I don't need a church to tell me there's something morally questionable about disposing of human life out of convenience or using it for spare parts.
No need to lecture Christians on the Beatitudes. Altho we also realize that the poor will always be with us, we give more to charity than non-religious types nonetheless. You could look it up. No,
Christians also heard Christ when He said that His Kingdom is not of this world. Democrats still ask us to vote as if that Kingdom doesn't exist.
Sorry. I'm a good citizen and all that, but they ask for too much faith.
I take exception to this comment in the post
"a lifestyle those who actually follow Christ believe is sin"
How the hell can anyone say who actually follows christ. You sound like Al Sharpton when he was talking about mormons.
there are 2000 years of pretty definitive teaching on what one has to do to follow Christ (the name is capitalized, btw). There are books on it in the library. You can look them up.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
...I see nothing in either the Nicene or Apostles' Creeds that requires me to choose between endorsing gay marriage and following Christ.
So while I recognize and regret that my opinion on this makes me a bad Catholic (more accurately, it makes me a heretical Catholic), I fail to see how it makes me a bad Christian.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Start at about verse 24 or so. If you still think that it is possible to approve of gay marriage while professing Christianity, there's a huge problem.
Exactly. Also look at I Timothy 1:10 and I Corinthians 6:9. Really it would never occur to me to look outside the Bible to find something like that, but I think that creeds could be useful as a quick reference to show what you believe.
...but the man may not stand between me and the Risen Christ. No mortal man or group may. My salvation is a personal matter between me and the Lord; I will happily listen to the wise counsel and advice of other Christians, but they may only counsel and advise, not command. In the end, it's me, Him, the Cross and the Tomb - and how I must make the leap of faith between the third and final items on that list.
And the only problem here is yours. I say this kindly, but firmly.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Is that Christ himself said that rejection of apostolic authority was a rejection of his authority. See John 14-16 generally, especially 15:20, Matthew 10 (especially vv. 11-16), and I could go on and on but you get the point.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
...for His opinion on the range of acceptable variations, or Matthew 10:32-39 for a sense of His priorities. We can trade Bible verses all night (and this is neither an unpleasant nor illegitimate activity in which to engage in), but at the end I will still be centering my Christian faith and identity around the Death and Resurrection.
If you have a problem with that, again, all you. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
and might even agree with you for the most part, you are getting on shaky ground when you try to show Moe up on Biblical teachings.
He's ahead of you on theology!
The creeds and confessions contain the historical testimony of the Church spelling out the specifics of what it means to follow Christ.
We then need to examine the Scriptures with the light of this testimony and to strive to apply the Word to our world today and our personal lives, petitioning for and trusting in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ.
I'd look to both.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
...and not dispositive, I have no idea where you're going with that, unless you're suggesting that mere adherence to the Nicene Creed (or the Apostle's Creed) is the entirety of Christianity, let alone Catholic Christianity.
This would be, let us say, an ahistorical proposition at best.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
They're not the entirety by any stretch of the imagination, but they contain the common elements of the faith.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The creed to which you most commonly profess is actually merely an encapsulation of the Ecumenical Councils' wisdom to that point, including the all-important rejection of Arianism. The enunciations of the first Six Ecumenical Councils are the common elements of the Faith with Protestants; the teachings of the magisterium (certainly at least to that point, and probably for three centuries after) and the first Seven Councils (and arguably those in the three centuries after) are the common elements of Faith with the Orthodox. Nicaea was, after all, merely the first ecumenical Council, and if we're limiting ourselves to its creed, I presume Monothelitism is back on the table.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
There are days when it seems that the Mystery of the Trinity was designed to destruction-test theologians. I will grudgingly concede your point re Arianism: while I would snidely observe that the rejection of that doctrine was infinitely more political than theological, it is excluded by my argument. They also aren't around any more*, so as a practical matter... shrug.
As for Monothelitism, well, can I say the phrase 'Marionite Church' without starting a vulgar brawl? ;)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*And there's now a webpage of the Modern Arian Church, just because I wrote that.
Some Unitarians claim an Arian origin for the church
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...(bearing in mind that my wife is now one) you can put anything after 'Some Unitarians claim' and still have it fit. :)
Also: lo, and there are Arians after all! Sprung from the aether, solely because I believed they didn't exist. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
that you guys ain't gonna solve the problems introduced in the church by the Protestant Reformation...
Besides, the Reformation wasn't all bad. We got Jesuits and Puritans out of it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I have 100000 comments to one thing i said. i do not think anyone here can say without a doubt who believes in what. thats is all i was talking about. screw gay marriage screw creationism. that is it.i quoted the duechebag that started this thread and he said those who actually believe in christ. none of us will figure that sh[*]t out till we are dead. i prosume to know nothing. and im drunk. take care.
We're pretty strict on profanity.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
After all, it gave us one of the great scenes in literature, when Thomas Mann's unnamed Mephistopheles nearly swoons in rapture as he recounts to the Arnold Schoenberg character, that the soul of the young Martin Luther was perhaps his greatest purchase of all time.
Gee, you mean this stuff can't be made up? You can't be a church member and adhere to your own doctrine (it's between you and God, ya know!)
Heavens, to be an adherent of Monthelitism I might suffer the same fate as Pope Martin I. That would be rather unfortunate... Frankly, I always thought the Monophysites had a better argument.
We could get into esse (by the way Thomas, one or two?) but certainly that is question for another day and thread.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
If your view on Christianity is limited to the two Creeds they you are right. If your view is expansive enough to include the Pauline letters and "gospel", so to speak, and the words of Christ, Himself, declaring that Mosaic law will not pass so long as there is a world and the He is the fulfillment of, not the replacement for, Mosaic law then not so much.
The point being that there are two millenia of Christian teaching and philosophy that very adequately define what "following Christ" entails. You can ignore it if you wish, but you can't say that it doesn't exist.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
...I'm saying that my criteria for determining whether somebody's a Christian doesn't draw from it. That's all.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
what do we mean by the term 'Christian' anyway? Is that someone who thinks Jesus was a cool guy and likes some of what he said? Is that someone who is 'born-again' and going to heaven? Or is that someone who is a disciple of Jesus who tries to become like him, which is what he had in mind:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
I believe the term was initially coined to describe the 'disciple' category, and if it doesn't mean that anymore we should start to use some new terminology.
The early church neglected to include a statement about the authority and inerrancy of scripture in those early creeds because it was just a given that you took those positions if you were a Christian. It wasn't until the 1800s or so that that ever became an issue in the church. The catholic church had debates about the importance of tradition as it related to scriptural authority, but the authority of scripture was never questioned.
If Christian means follower of Christ, and Christ took the scriptures seriously (as did all Jews at that time), then there is no way you can say that homosexuality is ok or that God did not design marriage to be for one man and one woman.
Anyone who studies the Jewish culture during Jesus' time would understand that the scripture was of the highest importance to them, which is why all the little boys tried to memorize the Torah verse by verse.
Excellent...Christ Himself did affirm the inerrancy of the Scriptures within the Gospels. He is 100% God and 100% man, and He is Lord and King. We are to go by what His Word says...which is the entire Bible! All the Scriptures are inerrant and authoritative...inspired by God, written by sinful men just like you and I. It's a miraculous thing to think that our God is so humble that He would use men to write His perfect Word! Since The Bible is 100% by God, we cannot ignore what it says about homosexuality. We must, though, remember that homosexuals are worth no less than anyone else (and no one here has suggested anything to the contrary), and their sin is 100% forgiven by Christ if they come to Him. He will give them the strength to overcome, even though they may be tempted even as Christians. We need His grace every day. I remember a story by Pastor John MacArthur that he told of a Christian man that had lived a homosexual lifestyle prior to his coming to Christ. He told MacArthur that he felt like he wasn't getting any better and that the temptations were just the same. However, he told him to go home and write down every single time he had a temptation and come back to him the next week with the list. Amazingly, the man discovered that it wasn't nearly as bad as he thought, and that Christ was gradually cleansing him of his temptation. No one is beyond the grace of God, and I feel like our media saturated culture acts like the Christians that are part of the so-called "Christian right" have no compassion or understanding towards homosexuals. What a lie, what a lie.
Why not reference the Bible? The Nicene and Apostle's Creeds are man made and not what'd I'd consider the final answer.
Homosexuality, as well as all sexual immorality, are antithetical to God's Word as given to us in the Holy Bible. You can't serve two masters.
If the rich young ruler would have loved candy canes more than God, then Jesus would have told him to give away all his candy canes.
The story has nothing to do with money.
Jesus directed him to give away everything his wealth because he knew the man loved his wealth more than his God.
Is is not God's will that everyone have equal stations in life. In fact, it is exactly the opposite.
Obama You Didn't..
I always knew he was a "flash in the pan "presidential hopeful,but unlike Trent Lott and Hillary (who is probably laughing right now, while backpeddling from recent "Fix"remarks) he didn't shoot, he amputated his foot with a rusty penknife, and effectively lost any appeal to mainstream and conservative christians, catholics, baptists, and others that do not embrace homosexuality and same sex marriage.They actually read their Bibles pretty regularly so I wonderwhat Bible is he reading from. Even the Gideons that you find sometimes at the "Notell Motels" across the country make clear reference to these.As such Obama is going to be haunted by demon voters like Judas was in the "Passion".
The Bible makes continual reference also to the tongue and its evils. Without quoting scripture I think That "God" is playing with these characters and making them committ political suicide with their own words. hahaha. When "God" turned the pharoahs heart to stone and change his mind about releasing the Jews,
I can Imagine his high priests exclaiming .."What? are you damned crazy?, we have frogs raining from the sky and jumping out our trousers,, stink red water in the plumbing, hell we're leaving with them didn't you here The man say let my people Go, let his people go, can't you understand Hebrew?!"
I am laughing so hard my washboard abs (joke) are hurting.hahaha.
Notice there is no shortage of issues, but significant numbers (just being nice here) of both republican and democratic elected officials are really clueless as to what the country needs. We have had to educate them via faxes and emails and don't say it too loud @Talk radio@
I am not Catholic but I have a confession to make..Yes we Christians have hijacked our religion back and we want our traditional values back, and God willing we will hijack our government and country back!. Based on the level of Intelligence 100 Senators mostly lawyers who can't write a straight bill, I don't think we will have too difficult a job.. Keep an eye on the "fixers", who are really the Pharoahs "snakes", You know what happened to them . I believe they were swallowed up by just one of Moses.
Let me check mine again to make sure, sometimes I let too much dust accumalate on the cover. But just like the fire extinguisher at the office, both things need to be checked regularly.
When He meets his maker in the sky he will claim..I'm sorry but..but..my script writer..no it was Hillary..no..really ..The Devil made me do it!
I dislike the move toward religion by the Left more than other issues except for perhaps abortion. The feint is frustrating because it is so out of phase with their national policy. But that's the point. Blur the lines, make what is wrong look right (wow, there's a Bible verse about that somewhere).
They do the same thing with other issues. Peace ends up meaning that you cannot stop a madman from getting nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Helping the poor means that the government takes my money to give it away rather than me doing the good deed (and more effectively too).
That said, there are some genuinely religious people that sincerely believe in liberal philosophy, or rather a few of the presentations of the philosophy and how it mirror religious viewpoints. It is exasperating because it is extremely obvious to me that the Left is not pro-God so to speak. I don't know how to defeat the mentality directly rather than continue to point out to those that are on the fence the multitude of ways that the Left opposes God in public life and for that matter in private life sometimes.
Peter R - Praetorium.org
That said, there are some genuinely religious people that sincerely believe in liberal philosophy,...
I believe these to be abhorrent anomalies. There are two predominant themes behind what is popularly referred to as liberalism. The first is rebellion against Authority. The second is consistent inconsistency. Every derivative work can be traced back to an entangled mess rooted in these two things.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine
If the rich young ruler would have loved candy canes more than God, then Jesus would have told him to give away all his candy canes.
The story has nothing to do with money.
Jesus directed him to give away everything his wealth because he knew the man loved his wealth more than his God.
Elegant reasoning, sir. Cheers.
"It is the left that would rather starve the homeless than allow churches to participate in federal aid programs. It is the left that has forced church affiliated healthcare providers to provide services that go against church teachings. It is the left that has pushed church affiliated adoption providers to cater to the homosexual lifestyle"
Is this all because federal funding will be shut off if they don't go along or is it something else.
If it's federal funding, it begs a bigger question - exactly why is the government paying for that stuff to begin with? It's been proven that religious people give their time and money to help others - I would rather see the federal government get out of those types of programs, cut taxes and let people decide if they want to donate or do whatever with their money.
Massachussettes was one of the states that told the Catholic Churches adoption program that they would have to place children with gay families or they would no longer be able to place children at all. The church opted out of the adoption business.
I am not so sure much has been done at the Federal level to deny religious groups participation in certain programs outside of the whole faith based initiatives push by the Bush administration (and that program tried to draw religious charities into the Federal fold, rather than deny them access).
The best way to confirm why the Left is ant-Christian and anti-Catholic is to see how they vote on federal court judges who are conservative and who cannot find constitutional rights in gay marriage, homosexual sodomy, abortion, right to die, and judges who believe that the wall of separation between church and state must be an impregnable barrier to drive out Christian believers from the public square and in our public schools, colleges, and government workplaces. It's a left-wing judiciary that has changed the culture and character of our country. B. Hussein Obama and the Clintonistas see Justice Ginsburg as their role model- the woman who argued for a constitutional right of prostitution because being elected to the bench.
Redstate 2.0 has threaded comments.
Some of us "old-timers" find it much easier to follow the discussion if one clicks the Reply To This tab when responding to a specific comment. ;)
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
"At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," according to an advance copy of his speech.
Well, the religious right doesn’t care only about those issues; but those issues unfortunately still bring the most to the polls. In this day and age, when most people can spend an hour and become extremely knowledgeable on any local or national issue and let their voice be heard; the hot button issues still wear that title; and for good reason.
"We should be prepared for a lot of this in 2008. The Democrats, in cooperation with the MSMTM, have decided to start pushing the idea that Christians are outside the mainstream of American values. We Christians are, to borrow a phrase, dividers not uniters."
Seems funny, during gay pride weekend(according to what I saw of CNN today) that CNN reports 4% of the country is gay, and we’re supposed to change marriage and further destabilize the future of the american family and america.
Yep, these darned US christians have only made the US second to none in private(read church) charitable donations worldwide and leads the world in numbers of people helping 3rd world countries(read missionairies).
You know what, I think they’re right. I think I’m going to just keep it all to myself from now on. That’s at least six ski trips I could take instead. I’ll just make sure I’m behind Kerry, Gore(both who have donated less than me) and Obama in case I’m ever held accountable.
...that the reason the government seeks to tend to the needy is because the Church has failed to do so.
I just like mentioning that.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine
People make up the church...
I would agree that in many places people probably become too complacent and do not try to follow what Christ tells us to do.
Similarly, though, people are being trained to rely on government for life's problem.
Solution: people need a change of heart, not new government rules.
but at best they misundersand, and in all probability they lie. They moved it to government because you can't serve two masters, and they want government to be the master.
Taking my money at gun point to give it to someone else isn't charity, it is theft. It may be legalized theft, but it is still theft. And make no mistake about it, if I don't pay my taxes, the guys with guns will be at my door, just like Waco and Ruby Ridge, so yes, I consider it taking my money at gun point.
I haven't read all the comments, but did anyone else catch Obama saying, the right has "highjacked" Christianity much the way radical muslims have "highjacked" Islam. It is no coincidence he is using this language, people. What little respect I have had for Obama just went down the toliet. Let him keep on with this line, and he and Rosie can find work together.
contention is with his statements. Certainly you don't deny that influential members of the "Christian Right" have distorted the message of Christianity for political gains? As I see his speech, Obama is not chastising those who follow Christ's message, but rather pointing out how those who should adhere most strictly to that message are distorting it for other ends.
And please, referring to Barack Obama by using his middle name is disrespectful and low. Those who use it do so only to evoke the memory of you-know-who. So please, stop trying to make that connection.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain
I'm not sure what in his speech you are defending. Do you really believe that the Democratic party respects or likes Christianity (ie that really believe the Bible is the literal, inerrant, infallible word of the living God, or at least that parts of it are)? If so, I have some nice oceanfront property to sell you in North Dakota. Christianity, Catholicism - these just aren't popular in the Democratic party. I'm not Catholic and I disagree on a number of theological issues, but I have great admiration for the way that many of them have fought and are fighting for Biblical principles. Or are you saying that we should not be concerned with abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, and intelligent design? There is a reason that very few (there are a few) real Christians vote for Democrats, and it isn't just because we are easily led ignoramuses as the MSM likes to portray us.
Obama seems to be saying that the leaders of the various Christian sects are abusing their access to large swaths of the Christian population to influence their political ideologies. Obama was not defending the Democratic Party or any cross section of it; he was reflecting on the power the Christian coalition holds over the Republican Party. When a religious group is key to one political party's success, leaders of the churches are inclined to deliver their congregation's votes to said party. This symbiotic relationship is crucial to both groups' interests, with Christian groups having greater influence on policy and the party able to rely on a strong bloc of voters. However, it is also harmful because both the leaders of the church and the political party shape their message and policies to continue to strengthen the bond between the two. When a religion's main goal fails to be preaching the Christian lifestyle and rather becomes pushing a political movement, it is very difficult to determine the motives of the Christian leadership. Conflicts are certain to arise and diminish the credibility of the leaders' message. Abortion is immoral, but fighting an unjust war (determined by the Vatican) is defended by church leaders. Jesus instructs "he who is without sin cast the first stone", but vitriolic rhetoric is frequently hurled at homosexuals and their defenders.
I'm not saying there are not very serious moral concerns that the Christian Right should be tackling, but their leaders' credibility is severely damaged when they are so closely tied to one political party.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain
Thanks for the explanation. I misunderstood the attitude behind your post. I still don't agree, though. What other party can they be a part of? Obviously, there is no place with the Dems for us. The Constitution Party would be a nice option, but with the amount of votes they get it would be a waste of time. Libertarians (big "L", not little "l" libertarians) don't want us for the most part, and we wouldn't fit with the Greens or communist party. There isn't anywhere else to go.
While I agree that the purpose of the local church (not the universal church) is to preach the Gospel and feed the flock, the fruits of Christianity have to come out in our politics as well as everything else in our life. I definitely agree that if a "church" concentrates on political action, rather than the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, they aren't a church at all, but a weekly political meeting. But when the political work does need to get done, the Republicans are the only real option. Your point about the "just war" was good, but I really haven't paid a lot of attention to finer points of Catholic doctrine. I can't think of anything like that from a protestant fundamentalist viewpoint that is similar. While Jesus did say that those without sin should cast the first stone (if that story is really part of Scripture since it isn't in many of the best manuscripts), He never told us to ignore sin. I can't tell someone that they will be damned because of what they do since as Moe said above, that depends on what they do with Jesus Christ, and nothing else; but I can tell them that what they are doing is wrong.
is probably the best fit and you are correct that serious Christianity must include politics. I think naturally this blurs the line between the two but perhaps the current relationship is the one with the most benefits for both sides, even if some views are compromised. I suppose it's a trade off.
I guess in an ideal world, the Republican Party would have its set of independent views, the Christians theirs, and when they happened to overlap, all the better for both.
I wonder, how important is a candidate's religious viewpoints in garnering your vote?
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain
I think naturally this blurs the line between the two but perhaps the current relationship is the one with the most benefits for both sides, even if some views are compromised.
I think this is one area where somehow we are arguing past each other. To the best of my knowledge, I don't compromise anything I believe as a Republican. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything Republicans do, but as far as I know, I have no theological problems with the official platform (I'll probably find something tomorrow now that I said that). If I had to compromise Christianity to be a Republican, I wouldn't be a Republican. There is nothing that important about the party label.
A candidate's religious viewpoint is important, but not the most important. I want someone who is an originalist and who is willing to follow the Constitution strictly. That is the most important criteria to me, which means that no one that I really want ever has any chance. I would be hesitant to vote for an atheist or agnostic. There are many good men who are atheist or agnostic, but our worldviews would be so far apart that I would have a hard time supporting him. However, in some circumstances, I would vote for one. If it came down to someone who claimed to be a Christian but was liberal, and an agnostic who was conservative, my vote would definitely go to the agnostic. I would not vote for eastern religion or new age types.
Name a few who have "distorted the message of Christianity for political gains". Cite examples, names, events. And spare me the extreme stuff from Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell and similar, because for every extremist stupid statement from a prominent Christian, I can name you dozens from the Michael Moore and Al Franken crowd.
Obama's statements reflect a common KnownFact™ from the Left that we Christians are being led about by the nose by the "leaders of the Christian Right", which is a load of manure. We believe as we do because it is true per the truths reflected in the Bible (and to Moe's assertion about the creeds - many/most Christian conservatives adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or "by Scripture alone"). The Scripture is (usually) THE source of truth for Christian conservatives.
And yes, he is "chastising those who follow Christ's message". That's exactly what he's doing, unless (and it appears you do) you believe that "Christ's message" is the watered-down, patently un-Biblical positions of the UCC (where Obama attends).
It's interesting, however, that the Left seems to be very comfortable getting in bed with liberal-leaning, social-justice-preaching "Christian leaders" like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo, who just so happen to adhere to the Democrats' unbiblical views on those topics that Obama calls out. What a coincidence....
What the Democrats believe is "politicizing" is, to most conservative Christians, simply a matter of pursuing the whole counsel of God, as opposed to the previously-mentioned Christian Left, who tend to be "Red Letter" Christians who pay attention ONLY to the words of Jesus Christ, and conveniently ignore the fact that there are vast amounts of other teachings in the Bible that reinforce (not contradict) Christ's teachings.
Oh by the way, if you're hypersensitive about us using Barack Hussein Obama's full name, then tough nuts. That's his name. Live with it.
are exactly the type of extreme leaders who have "hijacked" the movement, so to exclude them and those like them is to nullify the argument. Obama is not speaking of the countless preachers and church leaders who truly are doing Christ's work; he's emphasizing the disproportionate influence that the more extreme leaders possess.
It seems to me that you're characterizing Obama's comments to include all of the Christian right while he was specifically condemning the leaders who blur the lines between political activists and church officials. No insult was directed at the great majority of true Christians that are unfortunately affiliated and characterized based on their leaders' actions.
"B. Hussein Obama" is not his full name.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain
You're not only libeling the Christian Right by associating them with Fred Phelps; you're libeling Jerry Falwell. I didn't care for the man either, but he's dead and can't defend himself.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
It was bs that associated Falwell and Phelps.
While I generally disagree with nearly everything Falwell says he is not even close to in the same ballpark as Phelps.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Is the intolerant something left and a democrat thats certainly true. I doubt any genuinely spiritual people embrace him.
P.S. I know I have pointed this out before but Phelps is a Democrat.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But Phelps is simply an evil human being. His party affiliation is based on whatever suits his deranged and self-serving agenda.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Yes, I brought up the names, but maxwell just confirmed that they were the poster children he was thinking of.
And you're right - no comparison between the two. However, they are both used as illustrations of how evil Christians are.
I do think Phelps is evil but I don't think he is a Christian in any way.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Well said. As the hymn says, "They'll know that we are Christians by our love." Phelps has only hate.
To identify Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell as hijackers of American Christianity or exerting disporportionate influence itself begs the question.
Fred Phelps leads a tiny band of followers composed almost entirely of family members and members from families and has been denounced almost universally by all respectable Christian leaders of all persuasions. In so far as his influence is labeled disproportionate is the invention of the media through their decisions to give disproportionate coverage to his activities relative to their tiny numbers and the theater that they evoke due to controversy and conflict they engender.
Jerry Falwell, of course, had a large influence some years back, which declined long before his death. To turn that into a hijacking both presumes that this trajectory solely represents an false direction for Christians rather than representing changes over time between the convictions of many Christians and Mr. Falwell's changes as the world itself changed. to label this trajectory as hijacking and exerting disproportionate influence that Christians later escaped from denies the dynamic changing nature of evangelicalism that change the relationships.
What Mr. Obama is trying to do by his attempt to delegitimize those Christian leaders who take political positions on the right (calling them hijackers) is to define and appoint himself the self-appointed spokesperson for and leader of a new "silent majority" of Christians who he asserts on his own authority are supportive of his faith positions.
That is, he is begging the issue by defining those who support Obama as Christians who are welcome to be part of the political process and to cast out of the civic process those who disagree with him by pronouning them hijackers and radicals akin to Al Qaida.
church with or met a Christian that even remotely takes the likes of Phelps seriously, much less view him as some kind of Christian leader.
Not to mention Phelps is a long life democrat that has campaigned for various democrats over the course of his life. So in the end he is an extremists that belongs to the DNC more than he does the GOP.
But I would be willing to bet the left has just as many and probably more people that adore and admire the likes of Michael Moore as the GOP has evangelical Christians that admit Jerry Falwell.
you didn't answer my question, but instead you verified that you are using the extreme caricature of "leaders" as your proof point. Phelps, as has been pointed out previously, is a kook, and I believe that 99.999999% of Christians would tell you that they have no association with his flavor of hatred. Falwell, as "civil truth" points out, began the Moral Majority with good intentions in promoting Christian values through his organization. The fact that he made a few wacky statements over time doesn't mean that all Christians agree with him. He didn't/doesn't "represent" us - he spoke for himself. I suspect there are more than a few (sane) Democrats who would deny any association with the absurdities that spew forth from Michael Moore on a daily basis.
1) As I alluded to before, there are no "Christian leaders". Well, there is one - Jesus. No one else can presume to represent my beliefs. Funny, I don't see Democrats claiming Barry Lynn or Madalyn Murray O'Hair or Richard Dawkins as "Atheist leaders". Why must Christians have "leaders" but not the other side? The answer? Because they're trying to demonize those who express opinions that disagree with the Democrats' warped values.
2) In your comments, you seem to reflect an attitude that Christians have no business participating in politics, which is patent baloney. We have as much right to promote our values through political representation as any other community, including homosexuals, blacks, etc.
3) In another comment, you state:
I guess in an ideal world, the Republican Party would have its set of independent views, the Christians theirs, and when they happened to overlap, all the better for both.
Why must there be "independent views"? Any particular reason? It so happens that the Republican party holds to almost exactly the same values that most conservative Christians do. Folks like you claim that this is because Christians have "co-opted" the party. Actually, what it recognizes is that conservative Christians are conservative! They do "happen to overlap" - a lot. Conservative Christians are Christians first, and conservatives second. If there were values espoused by the Republicans that conflicted with our views, we would not be Republicans.
And that last point is the one that really cracks me up with respect to the Democrats. They are clueless about why the 2004 "values vote" went to Bush and the Republicans (for some amusement, search back thru the news stories that were written shortly after the 2004 election and witness their abject cluelessness). They simply couldn't understand why Christians wouldn't vote for their "values." They don't get it. The reason that most conservative Christians are not Democrats is that Democrats do not represent the conservative OR Christian values that matter to the community.
And that leads me to 2007/2008 and the Democrat strategy for trying to capture the "values vote". There were some analyses published after the 2004 presidential election that advised the Dems on how to "change the playing field". I tried to find them last night, but couldn't track them down. The advice was for the Dem presidential candidates to redirect the "values" discussion to the more liberal-leaning points, such as the war (which you did with "...but fighting an unjust war ..."), poverty, etc. Wow, what a coincidence - that's exactly what Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are doing now...trying to distract conservative Christians and not pay any attention to the question of gay marriage and/or abortion. Problem is - it ain't gonna work...those aren't issues that resonate. The GWOT is something that most conservative Christians strongly support, and to imply that Christians (or Republicans) don't care about or do anything about poverty is both presumptuous and insulting, as it has been for years. So I believe that the Democrat leadership is going to screw themselves even worse by their obvious Christian pandering.
Dems hand a "leadership mantle" to prominent people in any group they look down on. When was the last time you heard one refer to "white leaders"? They don't. But they do declare "black leaders", "hispanic leaders", and now "leaders of the religious right."
They assume that those groups are simply too stupid to have lots of opinions so they need "leaders" to tell them what to think. In the case of black Americans, if you disagree with what the annointed flim flam artists say you really aren't black. If you have doubts just ask Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell.
It is really that simple.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I think you've clarified my point rather than showing that it's wrong. You're dead on target. You net it out with "They assume that those groups are simply too stupid to have lots of opinions so they need "leaders" to tell them what to think."
Exactly.
To create an equivalence between the Christian Right and radical Muslims akin to al Qaida is despicable. There's no equivalence between Christians who operate with the democratic process and those who see the violent overthrow of non-Sharia government and the forcible conversion (or death) of non-belieers.
"And please, referring to Barack Obama by using his middle name is disrespectful and low. Those who use it do so only to evoke the memory of you-know-who. So please, stop trying to make that connection."
This is as silly as saying we shouldn't refer to Hillary Rodham Clinton with her middle name, because it implies her underlying feminist beliefs - the fact that she, for a long time, went by her maiden name while married.
Barack Hussein Obama is his name. Referring to him by it, just as referring to George W. Bush, Fred Dalton Thompson, Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, is simply stating the truth.
Does the fact he has a middle name associated with a well-known former dictator exempt him from this? What on Earth? Are we now saying there must be some sort of shield rule that doesn't permit the American people to know, fully, what they are getting?
I think the American people have a right to, and should, know that Obama's middle name is what it is. If they choose to vote for him then great. But it would be a travesty to elect someone while hiding a huge part of their heritage, and even their middle name!
Donate to Fred Thompson's Campaign right here...you know you want to!
This is as silly as saying we shouldn't refer to Hillary Rodham Clinton with her middle name, because it implies her underlying feminist beliefs - the fact that she, for a long time, went by her maiden name while married.
You do realize that Rodham is not Hillary's middle name right?
But I'm sure you make a point of calling Clinton Hillary DIANE Rodham Clinton, right? It is her name and you clearly are only interested being accurate with names.
Maybe we should start calling Rudy "Rudolph Louis Giuliani"
And this is just plain dishonest...
I think the American people have a right to, and should, know that Obama's middle name is what it is. If they choose to vote for him then great. But it would be a travesty to elect someone while hiding a huge part of their heritage, and even their middle name!
The American people have a RIGHT to know his middle name? Was it classified?
You use his name to score cheap political points. Erick is even worse with his B. Hussein Obama bit. This has nothing to do with informing the American people unless you really do believe that a person's middle name determines the quality of a President.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
"You do realize that Rodham is not Hillary's middle name right?
But I'm sure you make a point of calling Clinton Hillary DIANE Rodham Clinton, right? It is her name and you clearly are only interested being accurate with names.
Maybe we should start calling Rudy "Rudolph Louis Giuliani"
And this is just plain dishonest..."
Diane was her middle name. Rodham is now her middle name, and the one she goes by. Your point falls totally flat.
"The American people have a RIGHT to know his middle name? Was it classified?
You use his name to score cheap political points. Erick is even worse with his B. Hussein Obama bit. This has nothing to do with informing the American people unless you really do believe that a person's middle name determines the quality of a President."
This is silly. You apparently believe that the American people would be upset at knowing his middle name. As such, you don't like it when people use his middle name. Sorry...that's his middle name, and it's a shame that he gets some sort of pass on it.
Explain why he should get a pass? Why shouldn't we use his middle name?
The American people do have a right to know, not because it was "classified" (you know, I really hate it when people make stupid red herring arguments), but because it indicates his heritage. This is what I said before. We should give the American people the fully opportunity to evaluate his entire background and see if that is what they want as president.
Donate to Fred Thompson's Campaign right here...you know you want to!
About the colorlessness and tolerance of their party.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Her maiden name. But more important it is what she chooses to go by.
I don't think the American people would be upset with knowing his middle name. I think it is petty and childish to try and use his middle name to impugn him which is what you are trying to do.
Explain why he should get a pass? Why shouldn't we use his middle name?
You mean other than the fact the he doesn't? Would you like it if people started calling you by your middle name? And I don't understand why a pass is necessary at all? Why should a person need a pass for their name? It certainly seems to me that you find his name to be something worth criticizing and makes him somehow less worthy to be President. I've heard some pretty shallow reasons for voting, or not voting, for a person but this ranks pretty high on the list.
This is what I said before. We should give the American people the fully opportunity to evaluate his entire background and see if that is what they want as president.
I see. Just in case people confuse the name Barack Obama for a typical WASPY name you want to make sure Americans have the full picture. Quite the public servant you are.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
It's his middle name. It's his middle name. It's his middle name. What is so difficult about this? When referring to him, there's nothing wrong with referring to him by his middle name or initial.
I have no problem with someone using it for me, no. But I'm not ashamed of my Irish ancestry just as Obama shouldn't be ashamed of his Muslim ancestry. And people shouldn't try to cover it up because they think that, by using it, you're pointing out the obvious. Maybe it is you who has an issue with the name of Hussein?
And you keep on attacking the Hillary line of argument but you failed to address the fact that this was but merely one example among many where politicians are referred to by their middle name.
But Barack Hussein Obama is a black Democrat with Muslim ancestry, and as such, should be exempted from this traditional form of addressing candidates for president, of course. Of course! Because to do otherwise would be racist or race baiting!
Donate to Fred Thompson's Campaign right here...you know you want to!
But I'm not ashamed of my Irish ancestry just as Obama shouldn't be ashamed of his Muslim ancestry.
As flyerhawk asked, and you sidestepped, do you think American voters are too dumb to make exactly the same inference from hearing him called "Barack Obama"? Or can they only figure it out when you include a middle name which gained notoriety from a mass murderer with that name?
If Fred Thompson's middle name happened to be Hitler (or for that matter Hussein), and somebody made a point of referring to Fred Thompson as "Fred Hitler Thompson", that would clearly be a cheap shot.
Or do you deny it would be a cheap shot to regularly include Thompson's middle name "Hitler" when referring to him?
... but you [flyerhawk] failed to address the fact that this was but merely one example among many where politicians are referred to by their middle name.
We generally call people by the names they themselves use. William Jefferson Clinton and his staff call him "Bill Clinton", so that's what we usually call him. We frequently used "Hillary Rodham Clinton" because that's how she and her staff referred to her. To the extent we refer to a politician by a name other than what he calls himself, it's usually to make it shorter (e.g. omitting "Rodham"), not to make it longer.
I trust you aren't ignorant or dishonest enough to claim it's a common practice to refer to a politician using his middle name, except when the politician and his staff frequently use it when stating his name. Given that fact, why dance around the fact that you're going for a cheap shot?
Intelligence test: Do you think anyone except maybe retards believes you'd be so anxious to call Obama by his middle name if it was "Dunham"?
As Menorah pointed out in the first comment, if Obama is nominated and doesn't explicitly dissociate himself from the loony to racist positions of his congregation, the Republican candidate will have a great time hitting him with that. Playing infantile name games is just a distraction that works to Obama's benefit; after voters hear and dismiss obviously unfair attacks, they're less likely to listen to what are valid attacks.
As a Catholic I'd agree that the message is distorted because they are Protestants. Beyond the doctrinal difference want to give some specific examples where the "Religious Right" has denied the "message" of Christianity, which, btw is in the title of Erick's story.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
is without any real definition.
When people hear "religious right" they pull up different pictures in their heads of what this means. It is a vague enough term so as to tar many Christians, but allow for the "but I only meant these" when called on it.
If he believes Christians of some sort of hijacked Christianity, then he needs to start naming names, because more often than not, I interpret religious right to mean conservative religious believers, of which I am one-and I won't be the only religious believer that feels like he is attacking me.
Also, your argument makes the assumption that somehow the voters that do vote based on certain values are somehow cowed and indoctrinated by these "religious right" people, and that somehow our beliefs aren't our own. That is a left argument if I have ever heard one.
nice, honest post.
The very core principle of liberalism conflicts with the core of Christianity.
Liberalism says that you must rely on the government for answers and that humans are in charge.
Christ says man is fatally flawed and that we need to rely upon him for things.
There is the conflict.
Liberalism does not IN ANY WAY say that you must rely on the government. I will agree that it does say that humans in charge but I for one prefer humans over monkey or giraffes.
What exactly does Christ say we must rely on him for? Making a living? Making society equitable? Defending freedom?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
So let me ask, Have you been to a government office lately ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
a few months ago. Whatcher point?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
If it was the DMV probably sloths
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
of liberalism that says government is the answer, but that is certainly how it plays out in the policies they support and advocate.
Put a bunch of liberals in a room and a bunch of conservatives in another room, and give them a problem to figure out solutions for. I can almost promise you that the room full of liberals will have the government and some government funded (ie taxpayer since the government doesn't actually work or pay taxes) program to fix it. The conservatives may have some government involvement as part of the solution-but I doubt it is going to be some huge entitlement program like the Great Society.
I also think at least with modern liberalism as it is the US compared to modern US conservatism, is that liberals also won't admit when their entitlement or other programs aren't working-they just keep arguing that the failure is due to a lack of funding-when maybe the failure is due to the program itself.
Can you find a liberal solution to anything that doesn't actually involve some kind of intervention by the government and funded by the taxpayer?
...for daring to fight back. In this case, its the Evangelical community who gets unfairly blamed by the likes of Obama and other leftists.
First of all, its completely true that the Left/Democratic party dislikes and disrespects the values of Evangelicals and conservative Catholics. They are, afterall, the party that supports the judicial assault on traditional values. They are the party which pushes diversity worship, the end result of which is always to push Judeo-Christian values aside.
The whole bit about leaders of the Christian right being eager to 'exploit what divides us' is a very annoying and insulting soundbite from the Left. Since Obama is such a brilliant man, I would like for him to explain how exactly one can go about trying to enact pro-life laws and how one can try to stop the courts from imposing gay marriage w/o it qualifying as 'divisive' to him. Can it be done? Yeah, I already know the answer to that. The only way for the Christian Right to not be divisive is if it meekly surrenders in the Culture War.
I mean, this is just ridiculous. The Left starts all of these battles, yet it is the Right which is being 'divisive' when it responds. I guess according to Obama, having the courts impose for the Left what can't be won in the proper democratic channels is a unifying practice! If only we rubes would show the proper respect for our black-robed masters. If only we'd accept the Left's assault on our values with smile on our face. If only we'd just shut up.
Of course, the media will never call out Obama or any other leftist on this. They will never be asked in a debate if it isn't the case that the Christian Right is simply fighting back in a battle started by the Left. They will never be asked, for example, if its 'divisive' for the people to vote on state marriage amendments.
Finally, the part about leaders of the Religious Right suggesting that Evangelicals only care about a few hot-button issues is just more nonsense from Obama. The reason why abortion, gay marriage, and school prayer get so much attention from the Right is because those are the issues that the Left is trying to (or already has) remove from the democratic process and turn over to a few judges. When your entire strategy is to remove the people from the equation, and usurp power from them, then its going to get heated and its going to get a lot of attention. But again, these issues would not be nearly as 'divisive' if they were left to states and the people where they belong. None of this means that the Christian Right does not care about other issues like poverty; they can hardly help the fact that the media will not highlight there work in that area. But it does mean that they are not going to roll over and surrender on the contentious issues just because people like Obama and Hillary want them to.
Its really simple; if you don't want these issues to be so 'divisive' on a national level, then don't base your entire strategy in the Culture War on having judges do your dirty work for you.
socialism is not the cure. Whittaker Chambers said it best:
The revolutionary heart of Communism is not the theatrical appeal: "Workers of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains. You have a world to gain." It is a simple statement of Karl Marx, further simplified for handy use: "Philosophers have explained the world; it is necessary to change the world." Communists are bound together by no secret oath. The tie that binds them across the frontiers of nations, across barriers of language and differences of class and education, in defiance of religion, morality, truth, law, honor, the weaknesses of the body and the irresolutions of the mind, even unto death, is a simple conviction: It is necessary to change the world. Their power, whose nature baffles the rest of the world, because in a large measure the rest of the world has lost that power, is the power to hold convictions and to act on them. It is the same power that moves mountains; it is also an unfailing power to move men. Communists are that part of mankind which has recovered the power to live or die -to bear witness-for its faith. And it is a simple, rational faith that inspires men to live or die for it.
It is not new. It is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: "Ye shall be as gods." It is the great alternative faith of mankind. Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision. Other ages have had great visions. They have always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man's relationship to God. The Communist vision is the vision of Man without God.
It is the vision of man's mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world. It is the vision of man's liberated mind, by the sole force of its rational intelligence, redirecting man's destiny and reorganizing man's life and the world. It is the vision of man, once more the central figure of the Creation, not because God made man in His image, but because man's mind makes him the most intelligent of the animals. Copernicus and his successors displaced man as the central fact of the universe by proving that the earth was not the central star of the universe. Communism restores man to his sovereignty by the simple method of denying God....
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/chambersletter.htm...
Liberals think they can fix man by fixing the economic system.
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Is just fantastic. It would take me one thousand lines just to say the same thing my way.
It is interesting to note that men were living out their communist convictions at a time when the works of The Church [Universal] were still watered down, post-"Enlightenment".
But what I think is even more of interest is the way that he clearly communicates the essence of man's rebellion as it takes shape in the annals of politics and governance.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine
That there is a special place in hell for politicians :)
I have always wondered why Alan Keyes ventured all the way to Illinois to run against Barrack Obama for the Senate seat.
Now I think I know why.
take a look:
I'm curious to know the thoughts of fellow RedStaters.
Would you favor the repeal of the "establishment clause" of the first amendment if it could be replaced with the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the United States?
The world sees us as a Christian nation. Shouldn't we cement that ideal?
No. In fact I think it is pretty clear that some of the founders contemplated that and feared an interdenominational fight over Christianity.
to support a particular Church. Thats all it means. It is courts that have unconstitutionally expanded the original meaning to resrict religious free speech in the public square.
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Conservatives in the Mist comments and diaries are off-limits here. Don't do this again.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I heard this idea recently, espoused by someone concerned about the advancement in the US of a certain, shall we say, "competing" religion. That the proposal seemed serious concerned me greatly. I was curious to know if it was becoming a more widely held view in certain quarters.
I heard this idea [establishing Christianity as the U.S. state religion] recently, espoused by someone concerned about the advancement in the US of a certain, shall we say, "competing" religion. That the proposal seemed serious concerned me greatly.
OK, how about some names. Just who was it who espoused this idea, and just who else said that it should be taken seriously?
Assuming you actually have some names to connect to that proposal, it's a safe bet that it's some irrelevant bozo not taken seriously by 99% of Republicans, if they even heard of him. You need to do better than that to presume it's a credible topic of discussion here.
It was presented to me personally in a small group of conservative friends. Serious, because others in the group were swayed by the argument. Irrelevent, yes, if all ideas originate in the party leadership. No, if it were indeed a grass roots idea.
And everything to do with pure politics.
The Democrats are continually pilloried by the Evangelicals sometimes fairly and sometimes not. The Republicans use the Democrats as a whipping post to rile up the Evangelicals.
It is the inverse of how Republicans get frustrated because they feel that Democrats constantly demonize them with the black community.
I am curious though do most American Christians really believe that intelligent design is a fundamental issue in America? I live in Heathenland where I can't really find many people that back I.D. in any way. Is this really a big issue in the rest of the country?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Or have you moved ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I think you misread what I wrote.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
but it still works. Hoboken has one of the highest number of churches per capita in the country.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But there are only 5 Republicans in the city.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
FWIW, I think flyerhawk may be over-estimating the number of Republicans in Hoboken.
Just saying.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
When I was there all we had was Air Force.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Or else stop tranking them every three months to run studies of their diet and health. You'll never get a breeding population that way.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Usually they tend to hide under a nice thicket of "I'm an Independent" trees.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
kind of major issue, but it is a symptom of a greater problem that a lot of Christians see-which is a worldview problem (a Christian worldview vs a secular worldview), where it seems like God is expected to hide in the closet, or at least be placed somewhere so that He doesn't cause offense, while every other offensive thing should be dragged out of the closet to be celebrated.
I admit personally for me, the whole evolution/ID thing isn't some kind of major voting issue that I would choose to vote on, but it is a small piece of a larger worldview that does trouble me.
I admit for me abortion is a huge issue-and the position on abortion says a lot to me about a candidates worldview-how they view life, humanity, the preciousness of life, and our place in this world. I have a real hard time with somebody that doesn't recognize the innocence of a child in the womb, and would allow somebody to condemn it to death for nothing more than inconvienience.
The evolution/ID thing isn't so important to me, only in what it says about the larger picture.
How do you view the morality of capital punishment?
Every time a deathrow inmate is released with newfound certain proof of his innocence I am reaffirmed in my rejection of capital punishment.
I pray that we can achieve a culture of reverence for life. Stopping abortion is the bigger part of this mission but I believe that ending capital punishment is the other.
where a person willfully denies somebody else their right to life-if you take away somebody's right to live, you have in effect given up your own right to stake the same claim by your own actions.
However, I am not always convinced that our system acts justly to the point that it is still a just punishment, so I can't say that I am all that supportive of the death penalty.
The difference though is that at least the person accused of a capital crime receives some due proccess. They are given an attorney, they are given access to the charges and evidence against them, they are able to make an argument in court for their innocence and to have their life spared.
The unborn infant receives no due proccess at all. It is condemned to death so one person no longer feels inconvienienced and another person puts some money in their pockets.
These two issues are often placed opposite each other, and more often than not one side uses the other to club them with the label of hypocrisy. In the end, I don't think the charge is fair, because the two causes, while somewhat similar really have little in common.
We only disagree perhaps on how many lives to protect.
I agree that there is no fetus who deserves to die.
And perhaps there is only one in a thousand deathrow inmates who are innocent. If I remember the recent news of The Innocence Project, which uses DNA evidence, there have been more than a hundred deathrow inmates proved innocent.
But taking that innocent life I believe takes from the body of Christ just as surely as does an abortion.
but they count a large number of technicalities in their "proven innocent" category. To me "proven innocent" indicates something as solid as a DNA test proved the person was wrongly accused. Throwing out evidence that was used as a result of an "impromper search" does not count as "proven innocent." By my definition, the number proven innocent is smaller by at least one order of magnitude and probably two.
of capital punishment with the practical application of capital punishment. I am untroubled by any question of the morality of capital punishment; if you take a life and that taking is not justified to protect yourself or others, your life is forfeit in any moral construct I can devise.
That said, I, too, have grave doubts about the practical application in a legal system that has reduced the jury trial to a contest before twelve morons with drivers' licenses to determine who has the best lawyer. Frankly, the better off will ALWAYS have the best lawyer and the less well off will at most have a PD fresh out of school or some lawyer who can't make a living in private practice. I have a lot of trouble sanctioning the government's taking of a life, the most irremediable decision, with such a system.
In Vino Veritas
by endless appeals which is probably inevitable in a system that rightfully errs on the side of keeping innocents from being convicted and/or punished rathe than making sure all the guilty be punished via the beyond reasonable doubt standard.
That said I favor the death penalty even so, and I also predict that we will see the day when we discover that some of the previously convicted that were released due to lack of dna evidence shown to have actually been guilty.
DNA is not God, esp in the hands of
people.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
flyerhawk, your comment "this has little to do with Christianity and everything to do with pure politics" is a good/interesting observation, although I don't think I completely agree with it. To me, the basis of the entire "problem" is: what source does government and our citizens use as a base for their political and moral beliefs?
I think the ID thing is a bit of a distraction, as I believe the Left uses ID and young-earth creationists as a way to try to make Christians look stupid.
I would really, really like to comment a lot more on your premise, but I am recovering from major surgery and finding it hard to focus on anything except staying conscious. I think I'll try a blog entry on it in a week or so...
This guy is an empty suit.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Macranger said it all.
Obama has no room to talk about Christianity.
http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/06/23/obama-of-the-church-of-laod...
From what I've seen and heard, the United Church of Christ is a lot like the church of liberalism Ann Coulter describes in her latest book. Certainly, Obama's affiliation with it does not surprise me. While I would not use one's church or religion as a basis for my vote, I would not support anyone whose politics were in line with those of the United Church of Christ.
It says quite a bit that Barry Lynn is a "pastor" of this type of church.
My family was involved for generations in the Advent Christian Church, an small evangelical denomination. My father who is a minister, switched to Congregationlism in the early 1950s, because of a personal belief that Acts are necessary for salvation. I should mention that the Congregational Church (which later merged with another church to form the United Church of Christ) was founded by the Pilgrim Fathers. However, its theology has evolved from early strict Calvinism to a modern liberal activist viewpoint. The Unitarian Church split off from the Congretationalists (the "Unitarian Departure") in the 19th century.
Personally, I agree with my father on this point of Christian acts. I have vastly greater respect for those who feed the hungry and clothe the naked, than I do for those who simply assert the born-again holier-than-thou attitude of many evangelicals. I give money to the Salvation Army - I think they are extreme, but I respect that kind of devotion to the performance of christian acts.
The UCC has lost a lot of support by moving very far in the direction of political correctness and liberalism. The last time I attended a UCC church, the inept young minister gave a sermon entitled "Would Jesus drive an SUV?". It was every bit as stupid as you would imagine. A lot of my father's generation quietly switched to Presbyterian or Methodist churches, which are more like the UCC of 50 years ago.
http://www.theologyprof.com/about-bonhoeffer-speaks-today-following-jesu...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
It is the left that has advances a secular agenda.
And yet Democrats are overwhelmingly Christian. Why do you suppose religious people would promote a secular government?
Here's why: they tend to be more empathetic to religious minorities. So they think, "How would I feel if Christianity was a minority religion in the US and the government chose 'In Vishnu We Trust' as the national motto?"
How would you feel? Would you be saying, "Well, Hinduism is the majority religion here, so I guess that makes sense that we should put it on our coins. I can go with that. After all, Vishnu is very much like our concept of God."
Or would you be up in arms about how the government is supposed to be atheistic?
I would bet on the latter. And you would do it for exactly the same reasons why the left tends to do it today.
(This is obviously a hypothetical thought experiment, so there's no point in responding that it wouldn't happen. On the other hand, most people in the world aren't Christian, so when the United Earth Federation chooses a motto in 2095...)
Democrats may overwhelmingly claim to be Christian. That by no means actually means that they are. As someone said, "Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you a Christian anymore than calling yourself a lion makes you a lion." Of course, there are Christians in the Democratic party, but they are the minority. Talk to most Democrats and tell them that you believe the Bible is literally true. See how that is received. I can guarantee that it won't be received well.
Our country was founded by mostly Christians. I do disagree with Tom Van Dyke above in that I think the evidence shows that a majority of our founding fathers were Christian with a minority being Deist. Since no one but they and God know for sure, it is an argument we will probably always have. Because of this, Christianity greatly influenced the beginning of our country. Our national motto isn't "In God We Trust" just because most Americans claim to be Christian. It says that because that is what America was founded on.
Or would you be up in arms about how the government is supposed to be atheistic?
I would bet on the latter. And you would do it for exactly the same reasons why the left tends to do it today.
So you like having an established religion, do you? An atheistic government is 180 degrees from a neutral government. You want a government that establishes atheism as an official religion. I want a government that recognizes God while keeping our freedom of religion flourishing by not establishing any religion. Which of us is it that wants separation of church and state again?
I don't believe that most Republicans are Christians, either, but the percentage is considerably higher.
can be found at http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/green.pdf. For more details, see http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html
Further, the distribution of religious affiliations world-wide can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
With respect to the "NeitherParty" comment above, his comments are technically true, but not necessarily relevant to the Obama situation or much of the discussion triggered by Erick's posting. If you dig into the Pew survey numbers in the first reference above, you'll see that the "conservative Christian" population (defined in the survey by "Evangelical Protestant") is overwhelmingly Republican - 56% vs. 27%, and 17% "independent". And with respect to "the majority of the world isn't Christian" - no, it's not, but Christianity is still the dominant world religion. Growth rates may well change that in a couple of decades. But it is rather irrelevant to what is going on in the USA (unless you want to dive into another immigration discussion...). Over 80% of Americans identify themselves as "Christian" (with the caveat already observed by "tcgeol"), and even with vast growth in Islam, it ain't changing any time soon, based on simple mathematics, birth rates and immigration rates.
Oh, and a very interesting article on "church/state separation" is at http://www.answers.com/topic/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-unite...
You want a government that establishes atheism as an official religion.
This is incorrect, but it's my fault for misleading you. "Neutral" would be a better term. I absolutely do not want the government to dictate religion. I'm sorry if that impression has come across.
Which of us is it that wants separation of church and state again?
It's me. :-) My "atheistic" statement, to clarify, was representing the government itself, not the religion the government endorsed, which would be "none in particular".
But this is all aside. I was just pointing out why the left appears to be Godless and was providing a little experiment to allow people to see their point of view, if they wanted.
Our national motto isn't "In God We Trust" just because most Americans claim to be Christian. It says that because that is what America was founded on.
Actually, the push for recognition of God on currency began almost a hundred years after the nation was founded - circa 1860, if we're to take the Treasury's word on this matter:
The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania
I recall reading in a Lincoln biography (don't recall which one) that he was consulted on a biblical motto for the to be printed money. He is reported to have said, "How about "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee" - Acts 3:6.
"Or would you be up in arms about how the government is supposed to be atheistic?"
In no way shape or form is the government supposed to be any one relgion...including atheism. Neutral sure, but an "atheistic" government sure sounds like a government estabilished religion.
America has traditionally been a majority Christian nation. This has informed its cultural development.
To expect America to abandon its culture so we don't offend someone shows incredible weakness. Eventually no American culture above the lowest common denominator is considered polite.
This is why liberalism is cultural suicide.
For the record, Tcgeol, I wrote
I'm OK if they reject Jesus' divinity. A lot of the Founders did, too, and the US was not founded on the question of Jesus' divine nature. I think GOPers should back off on that.
We're actually in agreement, tho. Aside from the theology of Jesus, the Founders all generally had the same God, more or less. That's why we use Judeo-Christian these days, and pretty accurately.
response for this thread. Obama may fool the foolish, but not the righteous!
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I believe in giving every American a chance, regardless of color, religious belief or anything else but what I read in that URL makes me think that Obama would be as bad for America as Hilary Clinton. I dont want a president that believes more strongly about Africa then he does about the United States. I admire his dedication to his church but being a fanatic about being black doesn't rate very high in my book. You dont hear Powell or Rice speaking out for the power of Africa, because they are Americans!
Religious freedom, I'm still trying to figure that one out. We can have Moonies, that's ok. We can have Scientology, that's ok. We can have the church of Latter Day Saints but fundamentalists are outlawed?? What do I care how many wives some guy has! If a guy wants to double or quadruple his misery, who am I ( or the rest of America) to say no? There are religious groups that are persecuted and prosecuted because their religious beliefs stop them from joining the armed forces, I was a Marine for 16 years and I dont care if they dont serve. What I do care about is when a church puts a particular race at the forefront of their belief and I do care that a man that belongs to that church is running for President!
Obama has it wrong about uniting and not dividing. Maybe if he'd read his Bible...
Jesus said in Luke 12:51-53:
51 Do you think that I came here to give peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division!
52 From now on, five in one household will be divided: three against two, and two against three.
53 They will be divided, father against son, son against father, mother against daughter, daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
He knew that God's Word would be a stumbling block for many and would cause divisions. The division isn't an accident.
There are many who call themselves Christians. Just because they say it, doesn't make it so. The fruit they bear will show through eventually. There are many wolves in sheep's clothing now - even as there was in the early days of the Church.
Why don't born again, evangelicals believe the liberal Democrats? Because their actions speak louder than words. Plus, for the most part, when they try to reference God's Word, their ignorance comes through loud and clear.
And, to address the role of government in "helping the poor" that I believe someone mentioned off-handedly, there isn't any reference in the Bible that I'm aware of that places the burden on government to help the poor -- that burden is placed on the individual.
Check it out. There are lot's of Bibles laying around and I'll venture to say that most households have at least one.
"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (Jn. 4:7)
This is the central message of the Bible, reiterated in countless ways.
It is most certainly a message in favor of unity, not division. The passages you cite refer to the (unfortunate and undesirable) divisions that necessarily result from the resistence to this message of those who have vested interests in division itself, e.g., segregationists fighting against the equal status of blacks, or various assortments of nationalists fighting for the supremacy of their nation above others.
Christ understood that a message of radical love, preached to those who are full of pride and desire for dominance, will necessarily create strife. But the core of his message is one of pursuing unity, not division.
As for caring for the poor: Justice is a society-wide obligation. The Bible is quite clear on that in numerous places. In Micah, to give just one of many examples, the prophet Micah complains that the people have "kept the statutes of Omri and all the works of the house of Ahab." (Micah 6:16). Omri and Ahab were Kings, i.e., 'government.' The government has the responsibility to administer and enforce justice. Caring for the poor is part of justice.
Caring for the poor, and, more generally, creating a society in which the poor have opportunities to live decent lives (i.e., a just society) is most definitely a responsibility of government.
Those who 'love their neighbors as themselves' (Lk. 10:27; Mt. 19:19; Mk. 12:31) will, by that fact, be concerned with society-wide justice as an implication of such love.
As for caring for the poor: Justice is a society-wide obligation. The Bible is quite clear on that in numerous places. In Micah, to give just one of many examples, the prophet Micah complains that the people have "kept the statutes of Omri and all the works of the house of Ahab." (Micah 6:16). Omri and Ahab were Kings, i.e., 'government.' The government has the responsibility to administer and enforce justice. Caring for the poor is part of justice.
Caring for the poor, and, more generally, creating a society in which the poor have opportunities to live decent lives (i.e., a just society) is most definitely a responsibility of government.
You are wrong. This is a confusion of Israel and the church. Israel was supposed to be a true theocracy - God was intended to be the ruler in a direct sense. The church is not Israel and has different duties. I challenge you to find any verse in the New Testament that says that government has any such responsibility to take money from me by force to give to others. Repeatedly, God says that I have the responsibility to help others privately and that the church has the responsibility to help those needy within the congregation, but that is the extent of the command. Government has a different role in the NT than in OT Israel.
"Your Kingdom come" is the beginning of the second line of the Lord's prayer, taught by Jesus himself. What every Christian prays is that the earth will be governed in accordance with the righteousness and justice of God. In God's Kingdom, clearly, the poor would be cared for. To the extent that we can, we should strive to emulate this in our own 'kingdoms,' i.e., governments. That seems to me a simple inference from the Lord's prayer.
As for 'taking money from you by force' that is, of course, the nature of all taxation. In response to those who questioned whether or not they had an obligation to pay taxes Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." That is, he acknowledged the right of the state to impose taxes.
As readers here know, there has been some recent controversy about Barack
Obama’s religious background.
Mr. Obama has recently issued statements through his spokesmen in the media
(i.e., reporters) which express his shock at being questioned about such
things.
Most of his media spokesmen (i.e., reporters) have then gone on to cite his
membership in Chicago’s Trinity United Church Of Christ parish as proof that
he is just a regular run of the mill American Christian.
But a visit to the Trinity Church’s website proves that it is not your
everyday Christian parish: http://tinyurl.com/2yy34v
Be sure to scroll down and read the full article and links.