Political Discussions
A Conservative Christian Argument for Obama
Posted by opinionstreams • 10/28/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Barack Obama, election 2008, evangelical christian
I recently joked with Anok that I should start a "Christians for Obama" website. Since I don't really have the time to do that, I decided to use the last article in my "Case for Obama" series as an opportunity to examine why this Christian supports Obama and why evangelical Christians should reconsider our alliance with the Republican Party.
This article is primarily addressed both to professed Christians on BC who use values as a basis to withold support from Obama and to BCers who vilify Christians as backward, crazy wackos. It also addresses a perceived void in the political discourse; for while I've read many endorsements for Obama, I have yet to read a conservative Christian endorsement (they may be out there, though).
I obviously do not intend for this BC post to spawn a religious discussion. Rather, we can discuss arguments for why people from all social or economic sectors in society can support (or not support) Barack Obama.
So, read the article (and, yes, digg/stumble), and discuss...
opinionstreams.com/blog/?p=65
User Comments
-
Good job Opinions! Although I cut Palin more slack than you do, the Republican party has gone amok. Arrogance and self-righteousness is not an attribute to be praised.
Soon, it will be time for conservatives to see what they are really made of. Can they love their neighbor or not?
My endorsement of Obama is less enthusiastic because I am not going to cheerlead clear liberal leanings, but I cheer a humble attitude and an open heart.
Obama is a great communicator...and that is something that should be mandantory for a U.S. president. -
Read and commented. Excellent post!! -
Rob,
Thanks for that article. I have made a similar case throughout the season among my pro-life friends. It has been difficult. (I wish I were gifted with your eloquence!)
People of faith should not, in my opinion, reduce their vote to a referendum on a single issue. Instead, I believe we are called upon to support the greatest good. That is what I have tried to do this election season. I hope, moving forward, that our country is able to make progress on the pressing issues facing us all.-
I suggest not holding it against people that they are voting on a referendum on a single issue. As we know, the issue of abortion is a deal breaker for some.
It can be said that anti-abortion is also moving toward "the greatest good.
So be it. Work from there. -
what do you mean that It can be said that anti-abortion is also moving toward "the greatest good? -
There are people that view their stance on abortion as "working toward the greatest good" while some people view voting for Obama as the same.
So, in conclusion, I suggest respecting that position, not demonizing it. -
TBR - I hope I haven't demonized the pro-life issue. As the article points out, I am pro-life. I just think it's a shame that people have turned themselves into single-issue voters based on a platform from a party that could really care less about Christian values.
And "anti abortion" may be the greatest good, but there are more ways to achieve it than overturning Roe v. Wade. As Obama points out, the best way to eradicate abortion is probably to make it less likely that people will seek abortions. Face it, Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere. We shouldn't give our allegiance to a party bent on doing the greatest harm in the name of hoping for the greatest good.
BTW - thanks for your comment above about my article and your thoughtful words in support. I know I will always be a harsher critic of Palin than you will be. -
@OS....no, I did not get the sense that you were demonizing the anti-abortion side. I'm just talking in general...that we should all make an effort to respect both sides of the serious issues.
I think it's more of a party that misinterprets Christian values than a party that could not care less. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water! There ARE brothers and sisters involved...misguided though they might be! -
Alex,
I agree that there should be no demonizing. I hope my comment did not come across as that.
I do, in fact, consider myself to be "pro-life" and feel abortion is morally wrong. I just don't think that holding out for the Supreme Court to overturn a decades-old decision is the best use of my pro-life vote.
To me, it makes much more sense to look at the entire range of pro-life issues and to my best to vote my conscience "for the greater good" that way. When I hear the Democrats saying that everything must be done to support young mothers, to increase adoption, to educate young people about the consequences of their actions, *and* that they are against placing the American military in ill-advised or needless (or endless) combat, it makes my choice as a voter that much more clear.
I hope that makes sense. I did not mean to offend or upset. The "single issue" to which I referred was not life, it was the Supreme Court. -
@MM....Your comments certainly did NOT offend or upset. I was attempting to put things in perspective.
What I am saying is that I do not hold those drawing the line with their anti-abortion stance in contempt.
And at the same time, people who vote for the "overall picture" in voting for Obama, should not be despised by those that did draw the line at the abortion issue. -
@ TBR - amen to that.
-
-
Good article Rob. Dugg. -
-
If your main purpose in life (blog) is to point out the hypocracy in others...what a sad existence! Here again, slamming what technically (in some cases) are supposed to be his brothers and sisters in Christ.
-
-
posted this on twitter and tracking the click will digg also, curious to see, this is a good point and a great article
-
Of course you are!
-
blah blah
-
-
I have both Dugg and stumbled this post. The research and writing are both excellent. You said what you meant to say and framed your opinion with great thoughtfulness and respect. I salute you for being impeccable with your use of words and for deeply exploring the issue. I was deeply touched by reading it. I don't know a single pro-choice person is pro-death. There is so much that can be achieved if fear filled legalists would choose to exhibit compassion, rather than a desire to control the personal private affairs of women. The upcoming months and years point towards a need for increasing cooperation, nor the polarization of the past. Much can be done towards educating citizens to prevent unwanted pregnancies and this is indeed is the underlying issue.
-
Joe Biden, Abortion and the Catholic Vote
Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Biden is telling the Catholics in his audiences that St. Thomas Aquinas had a different teaching on abortion than the current pope and his immediate predecessors. Many Catholics are saying, "He simply cannot be right." Well, the short answer is: Biden is right. The news media are saying that American bishops are giving him a theology lesson on abortion. Mr. Biden is in a position to give them one right back.
www.newswise.com/articles/view/545780-
Did he remember to tell people that St. Thomas lived in the late 13th centrury?
You have to go back 800 years to find someone that agrees with him in the Catholic church.
And they accuse McCain of grasping for straws... LMAO, priceless.
Edited to add...
This gets even better.. the man was excommunicated for his teachings.. -
@csiuntac
I believe you may want to click the link and read the entire article from beginning to end. It was written by Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D., adjunct professor of religious studies in Arts & Sciences and author of the Encyclopdia of Catholicism (2007). -
I did read the whole thing.
And as you probably know, there was nothing wrong in my original statement.
Also, whatever the 800 year old stiff thought, it is hardly relevant since the current pope along with the previous one have condemned it.
So, as the good PHD would agree, it's an entirely academic and historic reference, unless of course Mr. Biden is suggesting that catholics should disregard what the current pope says. And revert to pre-inquisition thinking. -
csi - now I'm hurt. You said you wouldn't read my blog article but you read TT's?
Anyway, Christians can be social conservatives without being fiscal conservatives. I think your view of my prior posts favoring "liberal" economic policies leads you to believe I'm not conservative. So, perhaps your partially right. But the main reason the GOP appeals to Christians is because of it's socially conservative platform. That's what drew me to the Republican party up until 2006 - I am a social conservative. I hope you understand the distinction. -
A reply to Joe Biden, Abortion and the Catholic Vote
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/can-christians-support-democrats#comment_...
and I think you'll find the Catholic Answer to this skewed
presentation of history and doctrine by Biden quoting Flinn on this audiofile
Catholic Answers audiofile link - tinyurl.com/54vxba -
Using the definite article the in "the Catholic answer" is a bit rich. Catholics are breaking on both sides of this issue. There is no single one-size-fits-all Catholic answer on which candidate is right.
See "Why Some Anti-Abortion Catholics Support Obama" by Barbara Bradley Hagerty on NPR. Key word here: some. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96281602 -
If you look in the polls thread you'll also notice that the numbers tell a different story.
-
@markstoneman
"Catholics are breaking on both sides of this issue. There is no single one-size-fits-all Catholic answer on which candidate is right."
no doubt, however the question is not what every Christian Catholic believes, the question placed infront of us by those like Joe Binden is what does the Church teach as doctrine and belief which we are called to embrace so we can make an educated vote on the right candidate.
The greatest evil in our western culture is the death of the children inside and outside the womb this cannot be neglected or relegated to the sidelines.
can you explain Mark what you mean by, "Using the definite article the in "the Catholic answer" is a bit rich."
Catholic Answers is not my choice of words it is the producer name of the audio file.
-
-
I should mention I am also a social conservative like Opinionstreams however I have voted Liberal the majority of my life unlike him and last election I voted Conservative for the first time.
My background
I'm Canadian and live in central Canada and have voted Liberal the majority of my life. If you know anything about the Canadian political landscape you'd know central Canada has held the rest of the country together through thick and thin and we are hated for it by the regional fringe of the nation and by popular parties which pop up from time to time.
Over the years we've had to deal with separatists in the East (Quebec) and also in the far West (expat Americans). Western Canada has always been fickle either voting for extreme left or extreme right (a personality disorder of sorts). Voting Liberal in Central Canada once meant stability, and a socially responsible government but in recent decades they've had to curry-flavor their support with outlandish bills, which I believe will help to destroy the family unit as we know it.-
I wonder, Kevin, if conservative and liberal carry the same meaning in Canada as it currently does in the US?
-
Anok we have a parliamentary system up here much like Great Britain, but regarding party titles think of it like this
Liberal = Democrats
Conservatives = Republican
there are slight differences in meaning but that is the easiest way to describe the political landscape
edit: I should correct this by explaining although the Liberal party in Canada is moving more to the left than ever it was always known as a centralist party -
Well I got the impression that the parties were along those lines - but I meant more in actual voting, decisions, and legislation.
Does the conservative party harbor more religious folks - and do they attempt to make laws with regards to religion...does the liberal party try to make more social programs and more government - that sort of thing. (I just threw out any old examples there)
What do they do? -
Anok I will say a majority of socialist Liberal leaders have been religious folks. Practicing religious is however another question all together and perhaps a personal one between them and their creator.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada
Canada is more socially-minded perhaps on policy than America, we are currently going through a cycle partly influenced by the educational system and teachers and profs who have lost faith altogether. These are the persons who lack a moral compass yet are teaching our young. Thankfully young today question everyone not only their GP and priest but their university professors and they are looking for what is authentic, what is truth.
Yes there are religious on both sides of the political divide.
e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wappel, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_O%27Brien_(politician) -
@Anok
I'm a western Canadian and a Libertarian living in a very small community with strong anarchist leanings. I see little difference between the neo-con and the neo-lib platforms, neither reflect my values. I have never voted for a candidate from either the Liberal party or the Conservative party. Luckily, our population out west is growing and in time our concerns and values will not longer be overshadowed by Ontario & Quebec, which are the 2 provinces that in essence make our federal political choices for us.
What I have observed is that here in the west the vast majority of Catholics and evangelical fundamentalist Christians have families of a size that are NOT larger than the 2 kids that typify Canadian families. I believe this indicates that Catholics are obviously holding the stand of the Vatican in regard to reproductive matters in contempt and have done so for the last 40 years. I believe it also indicates that evangelical fundamentalist Christians have the same family planning practices (contraception) in place that those Canadians who are not yoked to religion do. -
@kevinatseriatalk and Timethief
Why didn't we have this conversation around the Canadian elections? It would have been so interesting. -
@midwestmom
Please read this quote from kevinwiththeimpossiblylongusernamethatnoonecanremember
Over the years we've had to deal with separatists in the East (Quebec) and also in the far West (expat Americans). Western Canada has always been fickle either voting for extreme left or extreme right (a personality disorder of sorts). Voting Liberal in Central Canada once meant stability, and a socially responsible government but in recent decades they've had to curry-flavor their support with outlandish bills, which I believe will help to destroy the family unit as we know it.
It's that kind of arrogance and ignorance of Western Canadian concerns and views that is the reason that I chose NOT to discuss Canadian politics in the BC forum previous to our election. It's also that kind of mean spirited and off base poppycock that will prevent me from discussing it in the future.
We need a complete reformation of the electoral system in Canada. Since confederation we westerners have been operating within a system whereby Ontario & Quebec voters in essence choose our federal government for us. In turn they have the audacity to see our desperate efforts to be heard and properly represented as "voting for extreme left or extreme right (a personality disorder of sorts)". Oy vey!
-
-
Quite frankly the Catholic Christian Answer Mark and others is what the teaching authority of the Church instructs even if that is a hard pill to swallow. Catholics who live out the Christian faith will understand this is not up for debate, unlike Joe Biden who wants to make-believe it is.
"There is a debate in our church," Biden said. " -
Thanks for the link Mark,
"In September, Obama running mate Joe Biden went on NBC's Meet the Press and wandered into the religious minefield that has harmed so many Catholic politicians."....
One of those watching was Carl Anderson, head of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic service organization. Days later, he bought several full-page newspaper ads criticizing Biden's stand on abortion. Anderson says he did it to correct what he saw as bad theology.
"We felt, look, this is taking the discussion to a different level, and it is a level which can confuse members of the Catholic community about the church teaching. And that's an issue that we should join in," Anderson says.
He signed the open letter to Biden "on behalf of the 1.28 million Knights of Columbus."
AN OPEN LETTER TO SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN - tinyurl.com/5n9kco
I guess we'll all take from this something of interest, for me it was the final words from George Weigel,
Weigel says the Supreme Court has chipped away at abortion — upholding parental consent laws, for example, and banning late-term abortions.
"Moreover, what does it mean to say that a fundamental injustice has been written into our law, and that we must be prepared to live with that?" he asks. "I'm not prepared to live with that. And millions of people — many not Catholic or religious — are not prepared to live with that either." -
I think that if you use your Christian beliefs as a model to live your life and you aren't influenced by other things in our society then you would vote for the party that is pro-life. And I think that is why some can't look past the issue and must vote for the pro-life candidate.
With that being said I consider myself to be a Christian and I use it more as a guide. I am pro-life but I can definitely see why in some cases abortion maybe the only option. However my wife works in labor and delivery and sees a lot of women who have had multiple abortions seemingly for no reason other than they didn't want to have a child at that time in their life and I don't care who you are whether you are Christian or not that is wrong.-
But which party is "pro-life"? The one that focuses on banning abortion or the one that wants to improve health care, education, and the economy so that women don't have to be afraid of bring babies to term? Which set of policies will actually reduce the numbers of abortions? Many will come down on the side of McCain-Palin, but others are following something like the logic I just outlined here, and they are no less committed to what you call "pro-life".
The days of only one part claiming to represent Christian values are over, especially since so many other stances of the GOP contradict those same set of values. Religion will continue to inform many members of the electorate, but there need not be an automatic default to the GOP, as you are suggesting. -
Mark those things you suggested are added circumstances that outside of a simple life vs. death. My point is pro-life vs. pro-abortion that is all. There are some in the democratic party who are pro-life or pro-life leaning and in this race in particular I think Obama is leaning to the center of the issue as is John McCain. As with this two party system I think it is more the extremes on the issues whom get to define the party. I wasn't suggeting it was just the GOP that's why I put pro-life candidate.
-
@MS: If by "some of its values" you mean the economic stuff, I think you're wrong. In fact, I also think that social conservatism isn't really Christian values either. I've heard this argument before, and the main problem with it is that using violence to force people to give up their property for the sake of congresses whacky plans is not "Love thy neighbor as thyself." It is theft. It is theft handled through an unusual method, but theft nonetheless. You have no right to dictate what someone else does with their life, including through the state. This Christianity makes abundantly clear with its many statements about judgement and the simple fact that Christ ALWAYS let people make their own decisions, even to their and his detriment.
In fact, I'd even say that being in favor of banning abortion on religious grounds is hypocritical. Gay marriage ban, only insofar as it applies to the church. What happens with a justice of a peace is none of our business. See, you're not supposed to follow out of fear or conformity, you're supposed to follow out of love, hope, and faith, and godly fear for God himself (and only God himself) to the extent neccesary (and only.) Paul makes it expressly clear in 1st Corinthians that we are NEVER to turn to the law enforcement (or, for that matter, congress) for matters of religious morality. (1 Corinthians 6: 1: "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?" Saints, of course, meaning Christians and not the more limited meaning we use today.) The evil nature of earthly law should be kept out of our temple, and government only involved in legitimate (areligious) state interest.
Further, using pamphlets to encourage people to give up on life, what Christianity is all about, with arguments like "on a mechanical ventilator you won't be able to talk" (try typing, it's worked for Steven Hawking all these years!) is digsusting. See my blog for more details:
hailingfromgeorgia.blogspot.com -
what about the Early Church as described in Acts 4:32-35
"32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."
Just sayin'... -
Interesting,
How do you suppose we should deal with sharing of resources when so many are not in the church, or belong to other religions. I mean, it states pretty clearly that this was done between the believers.
So with this argument, Christians should have division of resources with other Christians, but I see nothing saying that it should be shared with Atheists, Bhuddists etc. -
I was just pitching JJ some crap
-
First of all, that was a very different situation and so many stupid and poorly thought out interpretations of the bible are built on the premise that Christianity should never change. See, Jesus even healed people on the Sabbath. He's no legalist.
But second, God's highway is a strange one. All the speed limits and other signs are suggestions, and if you crash, it's your fault, and the only insurance company in town is Jesus Christ! God will let you kill yourself at whatever speed you like. And instead of suing government to address these kinds of grievences, except the liberty that God gives you, and "let yourselves be cheated." (1 Corinthians 6: 7) I also think the idea that human life is completely sacred according to the bible is pretty thoroughly thrown out the window by just about the entire Old Testament and decent swaths of the New, not to mention the simple fact that Himself was allowed to be crucified. -
It's good to know that you've thought this out. Many people don't
-
-
Of course, Kevin pulled out one side of that NPR story and missed the other. The purpose of the link I dropped above was to point out that Catholics are divided on the issue, and both sides are explaining their position on the basis of faith.
One could observe the same phenomenon among pro-life Protestants too.
@Kevin: My statement above about the definite article is based in grammar. "The" is a definite article and "a" is an indefinite article. I question anyone who wants to talk about "the" Catholic—or, more broadly, Christian—standpoint on the election, even if reducing abortions is the priority. There are people favoring Republicans and others favoring Democrats on the basis of a pro-life stance. Instead of "the" response you have to talk about what particular groups of people believe. And if you want to get beyond "some" and "many" to "most," you have to start citing polls.
One Catholic or even a group of very influential Catholics cannot speak for all Catholics. (Substitute "Christian" for "Catholic" in the previous sentence and repeat. Do the same for "Evangelical Christian" and so on.)-
"Of course, Kevin pulled out one side of that NPR story and missed the other. The purpose of the link I dropped above was to point out that Catholics are divided on the issue, and both sides are explaining their position on the basis of faith."
How exactly are Catholics divided? Answer, between Catholics who wish to practice the Christian faith and those who are Christian in name only. The real key to this mudding of the waters is any Catholic Christian reading the NPR story or the paper being lauded by Joe Binden shouldn't be looking towards either sources to begin with for guidance on how to vote with faith and morals in mind.
Mark writes,
" One Catholic or even a group of very influential Catholics cannot speak for all Catholics", but the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Catholic Church can any Catholic organization which is simply reiterating magisterial teaching also. This is where individual Catholics who wish to live out the Christian faith should be looking to for guidance on issues of faith and morals not NPR news media driven articles claiming a false division over doctrinal belief or Joe Binden quoting Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D.
Regarding abortion and support of, both practicing Catholics and non-practicing Catholics should understand at least one thing clearly, the Magisterium of the Church teaches without debate or division it is a grave sin to cast your vote for a candidate supporting abortion as the singular determining factor of your choice.
There is much talk in Opinionstreams blog post we've been asked to read asking the question,
Should a voter be swayed to cast their vote for a candidate on the basis his/her position on a singular issue? How about we tweak the question and ask,
Can a Catholic voter with the singular purpose of casting a vote the for candidate who supports abortion do so and not fall into grave sin? Answer, No.
For the record Mark I didn't miss the, "other" side in the NPR story, if I had copied the rest of it , I 'd probably have been accused of copyright infringement by somebody but more to the point I have no intention of making the case for the pro-choice side by confusing other Catholics into believing the battle over Roe is lost as the author would have some believe or that case attempting to be made around Thomas Aquinas some 700 years ago has any validity. once again I again direct those who think it does read, AN OPEN LETTER TO SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN - tinyurl.com/5n9kco
For any Catholics reading along I suggest you examine the Voters Guide for Serious Catholics video at this site
www.youtube.com/v/pSEaDov37R0 -
The question and answer at the beginning of your second paragraph represent both hubris and bigotry.
Let's be clear. I am not criticizing your stance on abortion. I am criticizing the arrogance of claiming to know what all Catholics and other Christians can and should think while remaining within their faith. That is where the hubris and bigotry lie.
Its too ugly to contemplate further. Good evening to you. -
Dear me, I had naively thought you had left your patronizing ways in the past but some things simply never change do they.
I don't think explaining to you that Catholic faith is not a democratic party or system would help much in understanding better so I guess there is nothing else for you to do but call me arrogant and depart from the discussion as you've already done. Calling me bigoted is however something you'll have to apologize for. -
@kevinatserieatalk That's all he knows how to do. In his mind he's right your wrong end of it there is no point in discussing things with him. Everytime I comment on these things he responds with this same type of garbage.
-
Kevin, let's not confuse the theology that the Church espouses with a prescription for which political party Catholics should vote for. The Church espouses a whole lot of things that neither party by itself can fulfill. Individual Catholics have to make their own political decisions. If they come to different conclusions than you, they are not suddenly "Christian in name only," as you say.
-
It seems an apology is impossible for you isn't it.
re: what the Church espouses (faith and morals)
Take time examining the Voters Guide for Serious Catholics video
www.youtube.com/v/pSEaDov37R0 if you want to understand better the Catholic voters responsibilities in choosing candidates. You might be happily surprised and less prejudice. -
Since when does Catholic Answers speak for all Catholics? It's a lay organization. A big one, an influential one, but a lay one. And the title of that video is arrogant too. Since when are Christians in the business of judging other Christians' convictions? Reminds me of the "pro-America parts of America" rhetoric I'm hearing from some Republican circles.
For other people: here's the non-fullscreen version, so you have a choice in viewing and can see who posted it to YouTube without the video taking over your whole screen unexpectedly: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSEaDov37R0
Kevin: Last word to you. I'm done. -
"Since when does Catholic Answers speak for all Catholics?"
you really don't read what others post do you or you would have never asked this question, www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/a-conservative-christian-argumen...
Answer - any Catholic organization which is simply reiterating magisterial teaching also.
re: judging other people's convictions? Mark you'll have to explain to all of us how explaining Christian-Catholic belief on faith and morals is a judgement. Has the entire electorate entered the voters booth? Do you know something I haven't Mark? Seriously Mark you're building strawmen arguments and making false accusations.
BTW I didn't have that other link so thanks for posting it, as it will come in handy and I've also found this great link which provides a downloadable embedded widget for the written guide both to Catholics and non-Catholic Christians
tinyurl.com/ldjv7
Mark: I'll accept an apology anytime day or night, when your ready cheers Mark
Edit: your fundamental problem is not understanding what it actually means to be Catholic and I forgive you for it.
-
-
Great points.
i found this article that is the exact opposite view, but the identical concept. A Liberal perspective for a case for McCain.
jgpointofview.blogspot.com/2008/10/case-for-mccain.html
Feel free to comment.-
wrong place
-
-
Okay, I've been so busy responding to the 75 comments comments I've gotten so far on this article, that I haven't been able to get back to BC. Thanks so much Anok, TBR, TT, MM, GMoney, RR, and all the other's who've read, commented, and otherwise supported my efforts at this surprisingly ( )controversial article. Now, let me see where I can fit back into the BC debate...
-
Holy crap - I got through about half the responses - and some of them made me want to rant on your blog!
-
I'm surprised you published some of them. Anti-Christ? Do you think such people actually mean that?
-
Rob, I think you're doing great. I can't believe you're keeping up with the responses so well.
It is clear that the topic you chose was something that resonates with people (postively AND negatively).
Mark,
I believe they DO mean it.
Anok,
I can find nothing in scripture to support your initial exclamation. -
@Mark Stoneman
Yes, I do believe that they actually believe that Obama is the anti-christ just like gg postulated here. Clearly some of my American relatives do believe this. One of the reasons I left the church is because evangelical fundamentalists do embrace and cling to these type of insane notions.
@Rob
You are doing a great job of remaining balanced and calm. I have been grinding the enamel off my teeth, while choosing not to comment again and take issue with some of these looneys on your blog. They have been poisoned by the blind faith agenda. Nowhere in scripture did Jesus say believe on me and check your brain at the door. -
@mark - Yes, these people do believe Obama is the anti-Christ. I remember there was some guy trolling around here trying to spread that message a while ago. Any, I never before had to think about a comment policy, but in light of some of these comments, I just might put one up. I've allowed all the comments to remain to show how crazy and desperate the arguments on the other side are becoming.
@Anok and TT - I was half expecting you guys to return and put some people in their place (especially you, TT ). I'm glad you guys think I'm holding my own in there. I have to represent on my own blog
@MM - Thanks. This topic had been tugging at my heart all voting season because I am a reformed "single-issue voter" who decided to be a thinking voter and question my allegiance to the Republican party. When I finally wrote the article, I felt I had atoned for past aggressions. And the opportunity to throw truth at some of the wool-eyed responders on my site...that's just icing on the cake. -
I didn't want to stink up your blog - I feel bad when I argue in other people's personal spaces
-
Anok -- that's why you have a scarf over your nose! stinky!
-
Oh no, Mr Anok is Stinky McStinkerton - not me!
-
-
Here's what James Dobson is predicting for an Obama presidency:
"Now in October of 2012," says the letter, "many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more."
"The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys."
"Elementary schools now include compulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of homosexuality as one possible personal choice."
"There are no more Roman Catholic or evangelical Protestant adoption agencies in the United States. Following earlier rulings in New York and Massachusetts, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 ruled that these agencies had to agree to place children with homosexual couples or lose their licenses."
"The Bible can no longer be freely preached over radio or television stations when the subject matter includes such 'offensive' doctrines as homosexual conduct or the claim that people will go to hell if they do not believe in Jesus Christ."
newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/10/dobsons_obama_scare_ta...
Colorado is turning blue, but there are still a lot of right-wing nut jobs here, and they're very vocal.-
A liberal court? I can't even remember the last time we had such a thing.
The nuts will get louder, of course, but the political center of gravity is shifting. -
What the.....?
I don't, I can't - ARGH!
OK, rant over -
IMO that's fear and hate filled propaganda coming from a person who has no credibility with me simply because his diatribes do not demonstrate any of the customary evidence of being infilled by the Holy Spirit of Truth and Love. His projections and opinions are not in synch with the Christians whom I know, love and respect.
Perhaps when Dobson is counting his millions he will experience a sudden change of heart and put all the funds to good use feeding the hungry and healing the sick, or perhaps not. At this point, IMO he simply sounds like a paranoid and delusional man with a power and control fetish. -
I tend to agree with those voicing concerns over the suggestions made by Dobson as Dobson should know Christianity teaches against fortune telling and trying to predict future events.
On the other-hand, it isn't as if there isn't already case studies available in other jurisdictions, e.g. UK changes
No exemption from gay rights law
tinyurl.com/2dr9xt
Another UK Catholic Adoption Agency Opts for Secularisation
tinyurl.com/5vtz73
"There is growing anger among Catholics over the readiness of the adoption agencies to abandon their religious ethos... The dismantling of the Catholic institution in England and Wales is starting to attract attention"
Bishop Gives Ultimatum to Agency over Gay Adoption
tinyurl.com/6mr64s
Adoption sector concern over likely loss of Catholic agencies
tinyurl.com/66njmh -
And New York has become a maximum security prison for the criminals of America. But when the President's plane crashes there, only one man can get him out.
Oh wait, that's the plot to Escape From New York. Never mind. Vote Plissken in '97!
-
-
HMMMM... interesting post. I hope that maybe you will check out my recent post as well regarding the upcoming election. From one humble perspective to another. -
-
-
Wow, I read your blog and if I hadn't known ahead of time, I would not have thought it was the writings of a Christian. Quite a lot of bitterness and name calling in there.
"...the GOP is doing all it can in the waning days of this campaign to create sloganized hatred and division in this country. And with the “Joe the Plumber” tour, John McCain is trying to trick Americans into falling for the perverse lie that somehow working-class, blue collar tradesmen are economically aligned with the top 5% of wage earners and are on the losing end of a mythical “class warfare” that Obama is waging against the working class. And as if that’s not a far enough transgression, the GOP is on a “religious crusade” to paint all Arabs and Muslims as evil terrorists and to “otherize” a respected United States Senator and fellow Christian who is running for President and happens to be African-American..."
So when the Obama campaign and the leftists made fun of Joe the Plumber, that was okay with you? When they delved into his personal information and tried to demonize him, that was okay? You said nothing about that.
You quote in your blog a study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute which is an arm of Planned Parenthood. The same group who advocates that underage girls not report the ages of the men who impregnate them.
From Wikipedia - "In 2002 a pro-life activist, posing as a 13-year-old impregnated by her 22-year-old boyfriend, called over 800 clinics requesting an abortion. The Texas group claimed over 90% of the clinics agreed to her request not to report the boyfriend to the police for statutory rape. In December 2008, Planned Parenthood suspended a nurse after Live Action Films, a University of California, Los Angeles pro-life student organization, released an undercover investigative video showing the nurse at an Indiana Planned Parenthood clinic encouraging a young woman, who was posing as a 13-year old girl impregnated by a 31-year old man, to lie about the age of her partner to avoid reporting statutory rape under Indiana law."
"...John McCain’s policies, while making insurance more – and perhaps cripplingly – expensive for working class Americans, do nothing to ensure that the 47 million uninsured Americans..."
There are not 47 million Americans who are uninsured. That is a fallacy perpetrated over and over again by those on the left.
www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=273280379232127
But besides all your reasons for liking Obama, I have some questions for you.
Are you glad that he funds abortions around the world with American tax dollars?
Does it bother you that he has consistently voted to deny protection for born alive fetuses that result from failed abortions?
"An Illinois lawmaker offered the first draft of the state’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001 after I revealed publicly that Christ Hospital left babies who survived abortion — viable babies whose delivery was induced, and whom the abortionist intended to kill but somehow survived — in a utility room to die.
I first encountered Barack Obama on March 27, 2001, when I testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was a member. My testimony included my description of holding a premature aborted baby until he died:
One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.
Obama questioned whether the born alive legislation would impede the right to abort and doctor/patient decision-making. He and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney speculated Born Alive would force doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies.
Obama opposed Born Alive in committee, but voted “present” — neither “yes” nor “no,” but merely “present” — on the state Senate floor, one of many “present” votes that Hillary Clinton has cited as evidence that Obama lacks leadership skills. Clinton voted for the federal Born Alive bill, putting her on record as more pro-life than Obama."
www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm
What of those babies born after those failed late-term abortions? Do you not think they should have access to medical interventions to ensure their very short time on this earth be at the very least pain free? Obama doesn't, yet you support him. Why? Sounds more like you are just mad at some of the far right members of the GOP, so you demonize the lot of them and then take up with their opposition.
You say this about Obama - "I do not have any messianic delusions about Obama, but his career background and political message indicate that he has tapped into Christ’s message..."
Christ's message is to deny basic life sustaining aid and medical care to those babies born from botched abortions? You support him because he throws the Pro-Lifers a bone by saying he wants to reduce unwanted pregnancies?
You laud him on his "fiscal transparency" and his efforts in "criminalizing voter intimidation." So how do you square that with his withholding the visitor logs of the lobbyists meetings he and his staff have had in conjunction with health care reform. This is the same Obama that promised to put ALL HEALTH CARE DEBATING on CSPAN. And voter intimidation crack down? Why then did his administration drop the charges against the two Black Panthers who did just that in front of a polling place last November?
No, to me it just seems that your position is more of a middle finger to the GOP, rather than supporting someone on their substance.-
Anti: Don't you label yourself a christian? Your comments have a lot of name calling. Does that make you less of a christian or more human? -
oops
-
Hmmm, if you can read that blog and not see the bitterness and vitriol, then I guess you are incapable of seeing anything.
I just wondered why a Christian would support someone who places so little value on human life. -
Actually, I owe you an apology. I misread your opening line. I had thought that you suggested that he wasn't a christian based on name calling and bitterness.
I find many of your comments to be full of name calling and bitterness and I believe that you claim to be a christian. Based on my misreading, that seemed a little ironic. -
Apology accepted, thank you.
I do tend to give back as good or better than I get, yes. Does that make me less of a Christian? No. I do not think, though that responding to personal attacks one on one is the same as castigating someone, say Sarah Palin, as opinion does just to make some point about how unhappy they are with a political party.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
