Evangelicals for Obama?
90 comments | PermalinkI know that some evangelicals are contemplating voting for Obama.
But let's keep in mind that the National Journal rated Obama as the single most liberal senator in the U.S. for 2007, and that he is considered to be the most pro-abortion presidential candidate--ever.
Many argue that (1) presidents can't do that much about stemming the tide of abortion, and (2) there are other positions besides just abortion that evangelicals should be concerned about.
Both points have some truth to them, but I would encourage fellow evangelicals to consider a couple of helpful responses by Joe Carter:
Update: Michael Patton asks some good questions of emerging Christians:
Read the whole thing.If we have a respect for intrinsic human dignity—the imago dei in all people—which motivates us to provide a voice for the poor, for those discriminated against, and for Aids victims, how much more do we have the obligation to speak for the unborn? There are over three thousand children who are aborted each day in the United States alone (over 40 million worldwide). That is more than who died in the world trade center bombing.
Isn’t it hypocritical and imbalanced for us to speak with 10 decimals about the environment, the poor, and aids victims, and speak with only a hesitant whisper, if at all, toward the dying unborn who are being scraped from their mother’s womb?
Are you so disenchanted with a Republican agenda that you neglect these little ones for fear of being identified with the religious right?
If so, wouldn’t this neglect through disenchantment evidence an irresponsible and, indeed, sinful reaction that is totally inconsistent with the missio dei?
Even if we have, as of yet, not been able to do anything about abortion (which I do not concede—read Beckwith’s book), does this mean that we silence our passions and lay down our political arms in a democratic society where the people are the government?
Here is some more difficult questions:
Do you think slavery should have been abolished (or could have been) through a gentle appeal to the mass public to do what is right at the same time as keeping it legal?
Should we given up on the abolition of slavery because for hundreds of years political activists were not able to do anything about it?
Do you think that it was right, in hindsight to have gone to war over the issue of slavery?
If so, would you support such a war—a civil war—over abortion. If not, why not? What is the difference?
Do you, as an emerger, believe that life begins at conception? Or are some emergers—social emergers—uncertain about when life begins? Is this why you don’t speak about it?
If you don’t speak to this issue, do you really expect people to listen to you about others? Why? Sometime silence can speak louder than words. In other words, there is a message in silence.
posted by JT at Saturday, March 01, 2008
90 Comments:
I recently wrote a paper on abortion as an assignment for a class. The statistics I found were crazy. There are approximately 5.4 million births that occur every year and of that 1.4 million end in abortion. That is one in four. It blows my mind. As a Christian, I must beware that self righteousness at my door when I begin to judge others for their acts but what I don't get, and maybe this could facilitate conversation, is how Christians can vote for a candidate that support the killing of innocent lives for the sake of convince. The reason I say convince is that a poll was taken for the reasons for having an abortion and 12 of the 13 responses were self centered. Only one had to do with a "possible medical problem of the baby." Again I am not trying to judge but really want to understand how a vote can be given to a pro choice candidate.
This post has been removed by the author.
I have been amazed at the number of younger evangelicals (early career and college) that are flocking to Obama. He has the mark of cain and is proud of it, yet that seems not to matter to them. It breaks my heart to see them blindly dance to his tune while millions of babies are murdered . God have mercy on us.
Mike,
What do you mean that he has and is proud of "the mark of cain"?
JT
I mean that by supporting abortion so fervently he is by all intents a murderer of his fellow man just like cain. Its an antiquated expression "mark of cain". I guess I was trying to politely say the man has blood on his hands.
Barack Huessein Obama should be rebuked for his stance on killing humans in the womb.
Rick Warren allowed him to speak in his pulpit.
I wonder did Rick rebuke Obama, who names the name of Christ as His Savior.
Abortion is clearly a sin. It's the taking of innocent life, so that woman can have liberty.
If a woman is pregnant with a girl, and she wanted a boy, then she can have this little girl torn apart, and sucked out of her womb.
Simply explaining what an abortion is should cause us to question why we do such a thing. But many don't seem to care.
Obama represents the worse king of president, if we ever want to see abortion illegal again.
Thanks for letting me rant.
Thanks, Mike. I would definitely avoid using that phrase.
From the Wikipedia entry on the curse and mark of Cain: "The curse of Cain has been used as an explanation for the dark skin shades of people in various parts of Africa, and a justification for racism and slavery, and a ban in interracial marriage. These racial implications are closely linked to the related implications derived from the curse of Ham doctrine, which has a much longer history, and has often been combined (or some would say conflated) with the curse of Cain doctrine, as well as the "curse of Esau" doctrine."
JT
What are Christians to do this election. Honestly. John McCain flip flops on issues, and correct me if I am wrong but he claims to be pro life but yet his history is pro choice and well the other two candidates on the important issues are far left. Thank God that we are not home yet and that we are going to a better place. I am thankful for that.
I'm an evangelical...I'm for Obama. 20 years of pro-life presidents hasn't done anything for the cause. It's time to get educated about the issue and stop voting for presidents based on their religion and morality...which Obama is a Christian and is certainly NOT pro-abortion. This was one of the single-most biased subjective blog posts I've seen. I think you're just worried b/c he's probably going to win.
Justin,
Thanks for the clarification about race. My beef with Obama has nothing to do with race. Our hope should always be to elect a president who has the moral authority to lead us. Senator Obama has no moral authority whatsoever because of his beliefs not because of his race. Alan Keyes, J.C. Watts, Dr. Alveda King (neice of MLK),Dr. Johnny Hunter, etc. would agree with me on this.
mpaseven,
Staunch pro-life defender (and Notre Dame law professor) Gerald Bradley thinks McCain is very solidly pro-life: ""He has served in Congress for 24 years, and cast a lot of votes on abortion legislation during that time. His record is not merely exemplary — it is perfect. McCain’s votes on abortion really could not be better."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDAyYjVkNmU3MGIzODQ4ZGU2Y2M1OGUzYWQwM2VhMDk=&w=MA==
JT
Luke,
How do you vote for a president if it is not based on morality? What would you suggest?
Luke,
The most subjective post you've ever read?! I find that comment baffling.
Have you read the pieces I linked to? You may disagree with them, but if so, please offer, or at least engage some, arguments. Just repeating the (incorrect) notion that pro-life presidents haven't made a difference isn't helpful.
Blessings,
JT
This post has been removed by the author.
It does seem rather clear that Obama is most definitely pro-abortion. That doesn't seem to be something he denies, as he stated proudly in his released statement on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade:
"Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America."
The whole statement is on his own web site
The issue tracker sites also put him pretty squarely into the pro-abortion camp.
Abortion is a pretty important issue for me. I admit that I've felt the impact of postmodern "what does it really matter?" thinking and wavered a bit but posts like this help remind me why I am still against killing babies and why that is really what the clinically sounding word "abortion" means.
Justin Thanks for the input. I did not know how to stand when it came to him but thanks for the information. It is hard to differentiate when you listen to the news what is true and what is not.
I have been amazed at the number of younger evangelicals (early career and college) that are flocking to Obama. He has the mark of cain and is proud of it, yet that seems not to matter to them. It breaks my heart to see them blindly dance to his tune while millions of babies are murdered.
I'm not amazed. Not shocked either. But I am totally disgusted.
Possible Root Cause Factors:
(1) Poor Parenting
(2) Poor Pastoral/Youth Ministry teaching
(3) Young Evangelicals desire to be liked by secular liberal peers
(4) Young Evangelicals are just lame overall.
To the commenter Luke, who claimed that Obama is not pro-abortion: Do yourself a favor and google the 'Born Alive Infant Protection Act' and 'Obama', then come back and try to claim that he values life.
He not only is very much pro-abortion---including partial birth abortion---but he believes that any child that survives an abortion by mistake should simply suffer and die, even after they've taken a breath and should be considered an American citizen with all the rights that you and I enjoy.
Google it. I dare you.
Yeah, I can also google stuff that tells me he's a muslim, which he's not. I can google stuff that tells me Bill Gates will give me money, which he won't.
You all just keep putting your hope in the Republican party to make this a "Christian Nation" again (whatever that means...when was it ever one?). You place way too much hope in politics, and it is disgusting...both biblically and practically.
Google it, I dare you.
I am a "young evangelical" but some of the comments on this board make me wonder what this means. I go to a very sold evangelical university and I have found many of my brothers and sisters who are voting for Obama here.
I in know way want to give the idea that I think abortion is not a big issue. It is. But are we placing abortion as the biggest issue?
The way some of you are talking makes me absolutely disgusted, no wonder we make such bad witnesses for Christ. We can say his name all day long and then throw verbal assaults at our brothers and sisters on the internet.
We do not need a president who is moral we need transformed lives that see abortion as sin that is the only thing that will change this country. Stop your verbal assaults and petty arguments and start living the life that Christ called you to.
I found the comment "Young evangelicals are just lame" as completely detestable by the way. You need a heart check my friend.
Wow people getting pretty fired up here!
As a "younger evangelical" I do find myself torn about voting for Obama. Not because I want to be liked by my liberal peers, or because I had a bad youth pastor (this is poor analysis). But because I also care about human life.
I am sure there is no statistically data to evaluate such things, but many evangelicals who are deeply pro-life, wonder if just as many lives are being harmed and lost because a big business bent of the Republican party leans more toward profits then human well being when it comes to health care. Those evangelicals who find themselves as one of the main constituents of the Republican party, must question how many other evangelical values are deterred and destroyed by a party that also is highly indebted to the business community.
So before you write off all evangelicals who might support Obama as naive or un-biblical, realize there might be others issues as stake which also God cares about and have to do with the well being of humans (poverty, environmentalism, health care, education).
And Luke thanks for engaging here even though you take a lot of flak. I would have to say to you though, that it is impossible not to legislate morality, all laws come from a moral framework, it is just a question of which one.
Truth Unites... and Divides said...
I have been amazed at the number of younger evangelicals (early career and college) that are flocking to Obama. He has the mark of cain and is proud of it, yet that seems not to matter to them. It breaks my heart to see them blindly dance to his tune while millions of babies are murdered.
I'm not amazed. Not shocked either. But I am totally disgusted.
Possible Root Cause Factors:
(1) Poor Parenting
(2) Poor Pastoral/Youth Ministry teaching
(3) Young Evangelicals desire to be liked by secular liberal peers
(4) Young Evangelicals are just lame overall.
Another possible "root cause factor: we're tired of being associated with arrogant moralists who pass judgement on everyone and lack compassion for those who look different from themselves.
Jesus said his followers will be known by their love, and a lot of the "older evangelical's" talk is far from loving. A lot of "younger evangelicals" have noticed this, and yet, when we try to point to a better way, we are called immature, "lame" (?), etc.
Give me a break.
It when I begin writing this, it will be past 8:00 p.m today...
another 105,000 innocent lives will never see the light of day....
at the hands of an abortionist...
Just another day...tomorrow will be the same...
I am a young evangelical as well. It does sadden me that my generation finds "bigger" issues to deal with.
But then, CNN goes green one day…
we cannot dodge the slums forever...
but where is a planned parenthood building in our city? Can we even tell someone the general area of the city of where the building is located, if asked?
In other words, we just don't see it. Since we don't see it...we become passive to it.
I end this note at 8:19...
1,587 more lives murdered tonight...
Forget Republican or Democrat. It is not even about a party but rather it is about my soul, your soul. Lets look at how we will be judged on that day. God says we will be judged for every, I repeat every thought deed and action. It will all be called into account. If we take the biblical interpretation seriously and if we take judgment day seriously then I would say let what you believe dictate where you stand. The blood will either be on your hands or it wont. God cares about the children. Christ said we must become like one if we are to enter His kingdom. It so much more than the party or politics, it is about being a light and let it shine before all men. If we as God fearing men and women can with a clear conscious vote for Obama, then go for it. I can not. Not because I dont think Obama would make a good president but because as a Christian I should make every effort to align my life to what the bible says. That means not loving the world and its systems or ways. So I urge us all to not name call or say your stupid but let us spur one another on, point people to the fact that we are called to be a light, to be different than our counter part culture, let us live in light of that day. It is coming, what is the status of your soul?
I think we can all agree that Christians should seek to preserve the sanctity of life at all stages. We should oppose unjust war, poverty, murder, etc. Senator Obama has sought to raise awareness of these wrongs and for that he can be commended.
In my view, however, what slavery was to the 19th century, abortion is to the 21st. The deaths of all Americans who have died last year from poverty and the war in Iraq aren't but a small percentage of those who have been murdered in silence in abortion clinics. How any Christian young or old can support a man who proudly supports this savagery is beyond my fathoming.
I'm just silly enough to believe that if Wilberforce were alive today, he would be pleading the case of the pro-life movement against the likes of Obama. Does that make me a narrow-minded, one issue voter? Yes, I suppose it does. But if that is the cost that my conscience demands, then I must pay it.
This post has been removed by the author.
To Bernabe,
Why is my comment a foreshadowing of a disastrous evangelicalism?
I never said I was voting for Obama.
I never said that I didn't think the issue of abortion was a very serious one. When people say that its stupid to be a one issue voter, then it would be very wise of me to vote for Hitler even knowing his policy on the genocide of the Jews, because I think he would do loads for the economy. I hope people are one issue voters and I think abortion very well may be the issue that people should decide on.
What I was trying to stress in my post was that ultimately social reform will not happen through the president or supreme court. You must change peoples hearts for that to happen. So my main point is that these verbal assaults (do I dare insinuate that yours is another one?) and misgivings are foolish in the eyes of the world. I'm sorry if my comment leads you to assume that I'm some liberal evangelical, but at the end of the day brother we both love the same triune God and are hoping for justice.
Can you see that Christ goes deeper than politics and that even though others may disagree that Christ will still reign as Lord of our hearts until his return?
It is a sad day that Christians still are so highly concerned with abortion, yet too often don't care for the mother (read Richard Hay's Moral Vision of the NT). Larger, more systemic problems cause abortion, not the urge to abort itself. Usually women have little choice (really) because of financial concerns, stigma with being an unwed mother (usually perpetrated by christians too), or other various issues.
It's time we begin to see the issues that cause abort as important to its cause. Afterall where has so-called 'anti-abortion' presidents got us? Higher abortion rates (especially under Bush).
Brothers and Sisters - its time to wake up.
theologica.wordpress.com
"It is a sad day that Christians still are so highly concerned with abortion"
It's not abortion so much.
It's the baby. The human created in God's image that is torn apart.
The mother, in most cases, kills the baby for her own convenience.
If the abortion is truly to save the life of the mother, then that's a different story.
I know of abortions where women simply don't care about the baby, but only care about themselves. And also don't care what the father thinks.
And there are many other examples. But the bottom line is that God has not said that we can kill babies in the womb.
God is sovereign. God is the One who calls the shots.
We better hear Him.
"It is a sad day that Christians still are so highly concerned with abortion, yet too often don't care for the mother (read Richard Hay's Moral Vision of the NT). Larger, more systemic problems cause abortion, not the urge to abort itself. Usually women have little choice (really) because of financial concerns, stigma with being an unwed mother (usually perpetrated by christians too), or other various issues.
It's time we begin to see the issues that cause abort as important to its cause. Afterall where has so-called 'anti-abortion' presidents got us? Higher abortion rates (especially under Bush).
Brothers and Sisters - its time to wake up.
"
I keep hearing these arguments but they don't seem to hold much water. First regarding abortion rate being up under Bush. Could you site some the figure? A quick search online shows abortion rate is down (http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/01/17/on-women-for-mixed-reasons-abortion-rates-fall.html)
Second, according to the stat here (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html) it shows that most women have abortion for "personal" reasons and only a minority of women chose abortion due to finances.
If I am wrong on both points, please show me where.
Denn
Bernabe Belvedere, instead of just making insinuations, could you please tell me what, exactly, I said that "[foreshadows] a disastrous future for evangelicalism"?
In Ron Sider's book, Just Generosity, he sites statistics regarding the increase in abortion under Bush (I & II).
Although many evangelicals claim to be pro-life, often it isn't a consistent theme. Many are pro-life and yet for war. Many are pro-life, but aren't willing to vote for those who'll increase spending for social programs for the poor, the single mother, the widow ect...
In Scripture God cares much more for the larger systemic issues of justice, poverty, and deliverance, than one specific issue (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment).
I want to ask you, through what hermeneutic do you read Scripture in order to become a one or two issue person?
Regarding Sider, et al:
You'd think that pro-life Christians (even if they're "conservative" on other issues) would find natural allies within the ranks of Christian progressives, because you'd think that while there may be disagreement on things like just war and pacifism, politically active Christians of certain strains would have some natural convergences around their dedication to protecting the most vulnerable. I haven't seen much evidence, though, that this is actually happening, Frank Schaeffer's recent essay ("Why I'm a Pro-Life Obama Supporter") aside.
If anything, missives like Schaeffer's underscore the point: there is no progressive Christian cohesion around abortion as a crisis of rights, ethics, and ontology. Not so, it seems, on other issues. The Christian Left is, for example, increasingly normative and vocal about their stance against the Iraq war, much to the mistrust, I'm sure, of conservative pro-lifers. There's a more monolithic view about social reform as well, exemplified by the emerging truism that Obama will do more for the downtrodden in general than, say, any Republican, and he will do so in such a way that will reduce the reasons for abortion in the first place. Nevermind that he voted against the Infants Born Alive Act, the argument goes, because his approach is nearer to the seamless garment ethic of life that Christian pro-lifers claim to support.
Anti-war (I'm not an out-of-hand pacifist), anti-death penalty (I am), pro-environment (I am) and pro-life Christians, then, should stop trying to change policy and start trying to change hearts. This is essentially the "legal, safe, and rare" argument first proffered and recently affirmed by Bill Clinton.
What Clinton missed in his campaign-trail tirade a few weeks ago was that if there's nothing wrong with abortion, that is, if it ought to be legal based on the nonhumanity of the aborted, why should we care whether or not it's rare? I can understand wanting something like war, which clearly involves combatants we define as "human" to be rare, but why abortion? Put another way, American slavery was predicated on the notion, codified in the Constitution, that blacks were not human persons. Progressive Christians lead the charge against that vulgar definition. Can you imagine if they'd appealed to socioeconomic arguments and concluded that slavery should be legal but rare? Today that's unthinkable, and rightly so. Abolitionists refused that convenience. To borrow an image from the contemporary Christian pacifists, they concluded that the answer to "Who Would Jesus Enslave?" was "no one."
Who, by God, would Jesus abort?
Will emerging Christians subvert political seduction and articulate a coherent political ethic as honest-to-God friends of the friendless? We have that opportunity.
I've only skimmed, not read, this conversation. But let me say that being pro-life does not necessarily mean being unconcerned about the women abortion affects. In fact, I think that abortion is one of the cruelest things that can happen to a woman as well as to an unborn baby. Go to afterabortion.com and read the stories of women who have had abortions. This is not a pro-life site, but is an after abortion support site. Abortion does great, great harm to women as well as children. I think that what the church needs to do is work fervently against abortion, and work fervently to provide assistance to women who are struggling with what to do with an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy.
I also think it is very tempting for young evangelicals to support Obama. He is young, black, and refreshingly relatable, and I think a lot of young conservatives are tired of being pigeonholed as right-winged and closed-minded. I would love to be able to vote for him. But I cannot in good conscience. So I really appreciate this post because it explains some of the issues.
Some of the questions that were directed at the Emergent caught my attention. I am not an Emergent/Emerging, but here’s my answer to some of these questions:
“Do you think slavery should have been abolished (or could have been) through a gentle appeal to the mass public to do what is right at the same time as keeping it legal?”
As I recall, it took a war—The Civil War—to end slavery. Neither a “gentle appeal to the mass public” nor the activism of abolitionists were able to do away with slavery.
“Do you think that it was right, in hindsight to have gone to war over the issue of slavery?”
We should not have had to go to war, but God allowed war to happen. War, if you will, was God’s judgment on our nation because of slavery.
“If so, would you support such a war—a civil war—over abortion. If not, why not? What is the difference?”
I am thoroughly pro-life, but I don’t think abortion is an issue worth fighting over. Would any Christian seriously encourage war over the issue of abortion? I hate abortion, but I am not going to even consider committing an act of physical violence against someone because they support abortion. Or, to put it another way, my opposition to abortion doesn’t include hatred toward abortion supporters or abortion providers.
And, by the way, given a choice between Obama or McCain, I am not sure for whom I would vote. I am a Christian—conservative, Calvinist, evangelical, born-again and Bible-believing—and, yes, I have considered voting for Obama. Honestly, I don’t see Obama as being any more pro-abortion than Clinton (or most any other nationally-known Democrat politician). If a candidate had to pass a religious litmus test in order to gain my vote, I’d probably never vote for anyone. Do we honestly believe any candidate is a Christian simply because he or she say they are? Unless you know them or know their doctrine and life, you can’t know for sure.
However, abortion is not the first and foremost issue in my mind. What is on my mind is the verbal venom being cast by both the “right wing” and the “left wing”, liberals and conservatives. One specific factor pushing me towards Obama is the absolutely hateful things I am reading from my fellow conservative, Reformed and evangelical brothers and sisters. I’m all for hating the sin, but it sure seems to me like many of us hate the sinner, too. I believe that’s wrong.
Support whomever you wish (or oppose whomever you wish), but do we have to be so hateful about it? Yes abortion is an awful, unspeakable sin, but abortion is no cause for hatred or hate-filled comments.
Wyeth Duncan
Jerald,
I also wanted to mention that abortion and capital punish are part of those larger systems of justice you mentioned. I don't think we can understand them outside of that paradigm.
Wyeth,
I agree -- abortion isn't something we should get violent over. I'm advocating moral suasion based on Christian ethics and sound reasoning. I think Calvin would approve =)
I doubt if Calvin would approve. He would either say God ordained it, or burn the ones who had abortions at the stake.
Luke,
that's not an unfair point.
I just meant that he'd like the reason/ethics thing. Even though, you know, our reason is fallen....
BLM,
I understand now
"I don’t see Obama as being any more pro-abortion than Clinton"
Yes he is. He believes any aborted baby that is still alive after being aborted, must not be tended to, but left to die.
Hillary I believe does not think this is right.
Though they are both for partial birth abortion which is a process where they turn the baby around in the womb, and pull the baby's body out, and leave the head in the womb, and then suck the brains out of the baby's head. And then they pull the dead baby out.
Many Liberal Democrats voted to ban this heinous procedure, but Bill Clinton vetoed it twice.
I would love to see America make abortion illegal once again, as it was in 1972. This will never happen with Obama. It prolly won't happen with McCain, but there's a chance it could, so I will be voting for John McCain.
Certainly there are many issues. But abortion is the most essential issue for me.
I pray that in the debates the subject of abortion will be heatedly debated.
i would love for this nation to hear the truth, and perhaps even see the truth of what abortion has done to this country.
There was a video that showed what abortion is all about, and I sent it to my pastor, and he didn't even want to look at it.
people are afraid to look at an aborted baby.
Their little bodies are torn apart, and then flushed down the drain.
Sorry for the rant.
Donsands said, “I would love to see America make abortion illegal once again, as it was in 1972. This will never happen with Obama. It [probably] won't happen with McCain, but there's a chance it could, so I will be voting for John McCain.”
I think I understand where you’re coming from. I, too, would love to see abortion made illegal. I do share your concern and, I think, most conservative Christians would share your opinion. However, that’s what troubles me. It seems like many of us conservative, evangelical Christians are pinning our hopes—consciously or subconsciously—on politicians and the political process. Notice, again, your choice of words:
“This will never happen with Obama.”
Humanly speaking, I would tend to agree. But, does this mean that God couldn’t work to change hearts and minds so that, even under a “President Obama”, abortion could become illegal?
“It [probably] won't happen with McCain, but there's a chance it could…”
Why would chances of making abortion illegal increase with McCain? If abortion wasn’t made illegal under Presidents Reagan, G.H.W. Bush or the current President Bush, what makes us think a President McCain would bring about a change? If God doesn’t move upon the hearts of men and women, nothing will change, regardless of who is President.
At this moment, given a choice between McCain and Obama, I’m not sure for whom I would vote. I think both of these men are capable leaders and I respect them both (and, yes, I can respect those with whom I disagree). But, I’m not pinning my hopes on either man; I’m trusting God.
I would just urge us to please beware lest we find ourselves depending upon people to do what only God can do.
Wyeth Duncan
It goes without saying that God is sovereign. He will do His will in all this for sure.
I'm simply looking at the facts as an American. Of what we have before us right now. God surely can do anything he wants, and I believe He is going to do what he purposes to do.
Obama is very pro-abortion. McCain is pro-life.
There may be 4 SC judges retiring in these next four years, and the president may have to appoint 4 new judges.
God is sovereign, and the hearts of the "kings" and the judges are in His hands. Amen and amen.
But i still need to see what the facts are concerning the candidates. That's the way it works.
God could do anything. He could have all the candidates die, and raise up a godly candidate, who will win, and so on and so on.
We can think up tons of scenarios.
But is that what God wants us to do?
I don't think so.
I will be praying for His mercy on this nation. And I will be voting for a pro-life president, because that makes the most sense to me.
Luke,
That's an unfair slam on Calvin...
Actually it's not Nick. Have you studied his life or theology? Even the guy who brought Calvin up said it was fair.
The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.
Ron Paul
Luke, you're sure not a very consistent evangelical if you vote for Obama. How could you vote for someone pro-abortion?
very mind-boggling...
Question Bull:
Do you sin everyday?
The answer being yes. Then I would say you are not a very consistent evangelical. If Luke wants to vote for Obama let him but do not pull the consistent evangelical card, because the reality is none of us are.
Luke,
Do a little more reading on Calvin bud! He was definitely a flawed man, but you make him out to be a heretic hunter who personally burned people at the stake. I might suggest that you read a little primer on the reformation by Glenn Sunshine called 'The Reformation for Armchair Theologians' that tackles this assertion pretty nicely with some facts.
As far as your other arguments go, are there things in the Bible that are certain? Is abortion something that is spoken for or against in the Bible?
I know you are going to want to talk about poverty, war, and a slew of other issues, but answer these questions first. Because if it is spoken about in the Bible and you clearly violate this truth by disobeying it, it is a sin.
I too would love a bigger choice on the issue of who to vote for, but when the Democratic Party makes many Christians 'one issue voters' by rejecting any moderation in abortion, who is to blame? (Note when the Democratic party runs a pro-life candidate they have a great success rate! Think Pennsylvania, North Carolina)
Luke,
Please see Hayden's response. There is much misunderstanding concerning Calvin.
Hayden,
Thanks for your response.
"I end this note at 8:19...
1,587 more lives murdered tonight..."
It took you 19 minutes to write that? Usually I can't stand personal attacks on comments but I am going to go against my own convictions on this one. Your comment makes little to no sense. It is completely scatter-brained and barely coherent, which continues to lend credibility to those who believe that the most out-spoken opponents of abortion are the ones with the most nonsensical arguments. For the record, I am pro-life. But its people like this that make the position difficult to defend against those who mock our arguments.
Hayden and Nick,
You all need to read somebody other than a reformed theologian about Calvin. He's not quite the saint we make him out to be. I don't portray him as a guy who was constantly killing people, but he had some serious issues. Hayden, you're the one who needs to do more reading bud.
As for the rest of your post, I don't know what you're referring to. I'm against abortion and am certainly pro-life. Were you talking to me?
Luke, (This is hayden from previous mis posting on my wife's email)
Sorry about attributing to you a pro-abortion position.
As far as Calvin, I have done reading by reformed and non-reformed sources. While I am somewhat considered 'reformed' I also would not fit that mold in other respects.
All this to say, I have read Catholic, Protestant, and some Reformed sources and realize that Calvin was no 'choir boy'. Either was Luther or Zwingli for that matter. Calvin never burned anyone at the stake either. He stood by and watched Servetus burn at the stake but attributing it solely to him is misleading at best. What went on Geneva was not Calvin as head of state, but Calvin as chief theologian. Some who followed him were into heresy hunting no doubt. Calvin didn't step in as he should have either.
I recommend to anyone the book "The Reformation for Armchair Theologians" by Sunshine for a fun read on Reformation history. Yes, I said the book was fun to read! I know that sounds like an oxymoron history and fun in the same sentence :)
Hayden,
Thanks for responding. I'm glad to see you don't deny that Calvin was no "choir boy" (and Luther for that matter). I find it common whenever I bring up some of the horrible things he did a sense of denial from most people. Usually with a response like "We're all sinners"...which I guess is a pretty Calvinistic response!
I never said Calvin burned anybody at the stake. I said he would burn somebody who had an abortion at the stake. I was just trying to make a point, and didn't mean to imply that he was actually the one who set the fire. I never said this, but I can see how it can be inferred.
Calvin was every bit as responsible for Servetus' death as anybody. Even John Piper said that Servetus' blood was on Calvin's hands the same way Uriah's was on David's. Calvin was the one who defended the case that Servetus should be executed...he didn't want him burned, he wanted him beheaded, but he was executed nonetheless. Even years before, Calvin said if he ever encountered Servetus, he would never permit him to leave alive...if his authority be of any avail. And history shows that Calvin's authority was of much avail. He tried to make Geneva somewhat like a theocracy, and it was miserable because of it. There was a long period of time when the consistory (the local government) would do whatever Calvin told them to do.
It wasn't just people who ran around with Calvin who were heretic hunters...it was Calvin himself. Servetus wasn't the only case where Calvin called for someone to be executed. Some scholars claim that at the least Calvin was directly or indirectly responsible for 38 executions. He also had little kids thrown into prison for being disobedient to their parent. He had a man exiled for interpreting the Song of Solomon as an erotic love poem (which it is), and he had a man exiled for not believing in double predestination (Read Justo Gonzalez' 'History of Christianity').
Calvin didn't just passively sit back and not do anything, he was very much a contributor to the atrocities that went on. Of course, this part of history gets left out of church history classes at evangelical institutions. I don't know why, but it does. My teacher never even mentioned it.
Can you find good and positive things about Calvin's life? Absolutely! He was probably the best exegete of that time period, and did many good things. However, if John Piper did many good things, but executed those in his congregation who fell into heretical thinking, would you still think the same of him? Mind you, this was after Calvin was a Christian that he did these things.
All that to say, Calvin was no saint, and I would appreciate it if people learned his real story. Still study him, still learn from him, still sing his praises at times...but tell the truth, that's all I ask.
Servetus was a bad heretic. I'm not saying the church is to burn them at the stake, but Calvin's culture at the time was most likely different different. Did Calvin think he was doing God's will, because this heretic was dishonoring the name of Christ and the Gospel?
God's Law called for stoning of those who broke some of the Lord's laws.
Also God told the Israelites to kill all the men, women, and children of certain nations. 1 Sam. 15:3
After saying all this, i am in no way suggesting that the Church should kill people.
I'm just saying God did kill people, because we are so evil, and we deserve to be killed. And not only killed, but then judged and condemned to hell.
Luke do you have any thoughts on these Scriptures?
It can be difficult to understand for us, I think, how God could call for the killing of infants, and whole nations.
Stephen Roberson
so, are you saying that we should go ahead and let people sin? Would you excuse the inconsistency of sin? you're comment doesnt really make sense.
See, you dont excuse the inconsistency of sin. In the same way, I'm not going to excuse someone voting for a candidate that clearly holds moral values that are in direct oposition to the Bible that they claim to follow.
Sure, I sin. But I dont want to and would hope someone would call me out when I wrong, or as you put it, inconsistently sin.
So, no I'm not gonna just leave him alone. Sure, its his right as a U.S. citizen to vote for whoever he wants to, but if he's gonna call himself and evangelical, then he better vote like an evangelical. And I know there's no Jesus candidate and I'm not advocating a thoecracy. However, dont make any dang sense to vote for a guy that is actively for abortion.
I tell you what, you go stand outside an abortion clinic one day and watch the girls go in to have their babies killed and then you tell me if an evangelical can vote for Obama....
Dear Bull,
I think you took my comment wrong but I am probably more to blame than anyone for not being clear enough.
I am not trying to say go and sin for there is a license as we both know there is Romans 7 so I don't know if I should take your comment as degrading or probing to see if I'm a liberal. :)
Vote like an evangelical is a loaded term my brother and a cross-cultural one too. Remember that when the Japanese pastor puts more emphasis on the poor and the economically downtrodden than on abortion in an election then are they not voting as an evangelical?
We can not carry over our own personal and dare I say cultural ideas into words that are universal like evangelical.
Where am I going with this?
My point is this we are not very consistent on our worldviews. So the idea of a consistent evangelical is laughable because honestly you probably have some animism or naturalism and if not that then at least some existentialism or post-modernism mixed into your theology. Yet I could say and rightly so that this is not a consistent evangelicalism. But the fact is we will always have presuppositions that we will hold as true (consciously or unconsciously) even if others tell us different.
Let Luke vote for who he wants to, he has been warned by the milieu at this point and has made clear his stance. He is saved by Christ there is no more a paradox in his voting for Obama than our believing that "devotions" are the recipe for a good day. Or any other inconsistencies in our theistic worldview.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen
"Vote like an evangelical"
LOL. That is hilarious! I guess evangelicals vote for republicans...so that makes me not an evangelical. Oh darn!
I'm just gonna act like that was a joke...and a darn funny one too!
Donsands,
Thank you for your questions and input. That is a very common objection and I hope I can help you see where I'm coming from.
Servetus was a heretic no doubt. He denied the Trinity, and that is not good. However, it's not like the man was evil or something. He wasn't a murderer or an adulterer, and some claim his death as a martyrdom.
Playing the "Calvin's culture" card is very common of Calvinists. I'm sorry my friend, but no matter how messed up the culture is, there is no excuse for such actions. There is absolutely no justification for murdering somebody for their beliefs...period. If you go to a church where they murder atheists for not believing in God, does it make it right if you partake in it since the culture is that way? This is a really, really bad argument.
Did Calvin think he was doing God's will? Possibly so, but what does that matter. Hitler thought he was doing God's will to.
As far as the wars and capital punishment in the OT, that was all abolished with the coming of Christ. God thought it necessary to deal with those particular people that way in that particular time period. With the coming of Christ, we are to conduct ourselves in an antithetical way to this. We are not to repay evil with evil, and Paul tells us that vengeance is the Lord's...not ours.
Your "total depravity" beliefs come out well with your next statement. So tell me, since we've been speaking about abortion, do little babies deserve to die since from the moment of conception they are wretched sinners? Why fight for abortion then, if they are getting what they deserve. This is original sin on steroids, and I personally think it's depressing and unbiblical. It basically stems from our misunderstanding of Paul's terminology...and Augustine's 'original sin' belief is more mythological than exegetical.
For whatever reason, God deemed it necessary to wipe out those nations in the OT...including women and children. However, you can't universalize that and say "We all deserve that" or assume this is how God always works. It grieved God to do this...he does not take delight in the perishing of the wicked. I personally think he did it for the greater good. I think he did it so his vassal Israel wouldn't have any hindrances and stumbling block to worshiping the one true God and being a light to the nations so all might come to a knowledge and relationship with the one true God. God possibly discerned that these people's wickedness was far too great, and to destroy them was the only way.
Why did he let Israel do it and not just rain down fire and sulfur like he did at Sodom and Gomorrah? I don't know, possibly because he wanted to demonstrate to Israel that it was he that gave victories in battle and not their own might and strength.
However, this was at a totally different time period, and in the progress of revelation, we know that this is not God's intent for any human being. We now know that we pray and love our enemies, and we do not repay evil with evil. We repay evil with good.
Calvin knew this, but he ignored it. There is no justification for his actions. Because he had been contemplating the idea indicated the hatred in his heart toward Servetus, and he never, ever publicly repented for this horrific crime that he basically caused to happen.
There is no sugar coating this. It is anti-Christian, and the heresy Calvin committed was greater than the heresy Servetus committed. The shedding of blood is worse than a theological belief. I side with Servetus on this one.
Luke,
Some good thoughts to consider. Thanks.
The Apostle Paul said, if anyone, even myself, preaches another Gospel, let them be accursed. In other words let them go to hell.
He's not saying the church should kill them, but he's showing in vivid words how evil this person is, who perverts the gospel, which is what Servetus did.
Paul also said he wished the legalists would emasculate themselves.
Sounds like Paul hated these teachers, but he didn't.
He simply love Christ and the Gospel much more.
But he loved the Jews as well.
Hey, I'm not taking up for Calvin. I never say that King David was a wonderful man of God either.
He was despicable. he was one of the worse sinners ever. And yet God loved David, and he was a man after His own heart. Although David killed, not only Uriah, but many other people.
God is sovereign, Yes and Amen. There's not a cancer cell He's not sovereign over, nor a bullet fired in a war He doesn't sovereignly know where it show hit.
He creates life, and humans are created in the image of God, and we are not to murder another human, even the ones in the womb.
If any man takes a life, then he forfeits his life. This is how God has set it up.
For me, it's a deep subject, and I need to learn much.
Thanks for the dialog.
Luke,
You seem to know a lot about Calvin. Where did you read some of the things about Geneva in the time of Calvin? (Just wondering) Also, you seem to have some animosity towards 'total depravity', am I reading you right?
My impression is that you have some problems with Calvin the man and also some of the things he articulated. There is a bunch of stuff on the internet that has some mixture of truth and hyperbole to make their points. I am in no way trying to be patronizing (there is no sarcasm of snark in my tone), but some of the things that you have articulated seem a bit 'over the top'. Justo Gonzalez, a Catholic historian, doesn't even paint Calvin with such broad strokes. (And he doesn't particularly love Calvin either)
Anyway, my brother, thanks for the discussion. I have to get going on sermon prep and am in no way dodging any response. May we both keep reading,and more importantly living for our precious Savior Jesus Christ.
Wyeth, you said:
"Humanly speaking, I would tend to agree. But, does this mean that God couldn’t work to change hearts and minds so that, even under a “President Obama”, abortion could become illegal?"
Of course not, but Obama has a track record that is purposeful in either disregard/support of an unjust war going on against unarmed humans minding their own business in their mom's womb that cannot fight back. Evidence that JT presented means something in this instance (I am not fired up about Senator McCain or our heavily corporate centric two party system, either). I want to vote for someone that at least dimly and remotely upholds the image of the triune God, by not supporting attacks on that image by eliminating image bearers. Now, I recognize that Senator McCain and uninterested Republicans on abortion make my last sentence somewhat of a contradiction, but Obama makes the statement somewhat of an impossibility. That is the problem. Do you see why some of us cannot participate in a mystery or project with ALIAS type endgame scenarios of doing something you shouldn’t do to get the thing you actually want? The ear is for hearing and the eye is for seeing (Proverbs 20:12).
“Yes abortion is an awful, unspeakable sin, but abortion is no cause for hatred or hate-filled comments.”
Does your demand for etiquette protocol factor in that some wouldn't have been nasty if others of us weren't so murderous? Murder of action is begetting murder of words here. Both are damnable (Exodus 20, Matthew 5:21-22), but there is a difference between words and bodies, by evidence of absent wronged parties. I plan on working on all my problems with speech, but I wonder if the other side will ever work on its problem with murder. Please don’t construct a tightrope of careful observation for those who love life, while the human elimination crowd continues its unexamined joyride on a highway of killing.
To all:
More than one person wanted Servetus dead (Even mild mannered Erasumus). Calvin is guilty, yet he was not a Caesar giving a thumbs up or down. Regardless, he is still wrong for his role and God gives grace to clay pots, like you, me and John Calvin. It is ironic, seeing we're pointing at Calvin with our own bloody fingers. Calvin did an awful thing, and even we Calvinists’ cry against it. But you and I know our country is doing 1.4 million awful things a year, and oh my, Calvin was also involved in a THEOCRACY! In this context, that is a designed avoidance.
This post has been removed by the author.
So I know the discussion as moved in a bit of a different direction since it started, but I just read the update with all the questions from Michael Patton, and they're phenomenal. I'm wondering if anyone might care to answer them.
Hey Hayden,
Sorry for the delayed response. Some of the works about Calvin are as follows: "Calvin: A Biography" by Bernard Cottret, and "Adultery and Divorce in Calvin's Geneva" by Robert Kingdon. Also, Gonzalez' "Story of Christianity" has some basic stuff as well that I have gleaned from.
Yes, I have some animosity toward 'total depravity'. I do not deny the fact that all humanity needs the blood of Christ to atone for their sins, I just think total depravity is an extremely depressing doctrine that goes beyond the bounds the biblical text ever takes it.
I haven't gotten any of my stuff from the internet. In fact, I don't know that I've ever done a google search on John Calvin. You're right, Gonzalez (a very candid historian in my view) is not extremely harsh about him, but he tells the truth. He is the one I got Calvin exiling men for interpreting the Song of Solomon in a different way and not believing in double predestination from, as well as some Servetus information.
It's not that I'm hostile towards Calvin, though I suppose you could say that I am. The issue I have is with his followers because they admire him so much. All they do is sing his praises and claim him to be such a great saint, and I take issue with this because it is not the truth. Also, I don't like his theology either. I think a lot of it is unbiblical and eisegetical, and frankly is the result of poor hermeneutics (in my mind)...but we don't want to open that can of worms!
Thanks for the response and the thoughts Hayden. Just because Calvin was this kind of man doesn't mean that his theology is wrong, so I am not advocating an ad hominem argument. You can still be a "Calvinist" and realize that Calvin was a jerk. The same way you can be a Republican and realize George Bush is inarticulate!
God bless you brother
Thanks for your post.
A point of clarification: is it 3,000/day in the US and 40,000,000/day in the world or 40,000,000/year in the world? Also, where did you find those stats?
I want to share some of these thoughts on my own blog, but I just wanted to verify the stats before I repeated them.
wwdunc wrote:
"One specific factor pushing me towards Obama is the absolutely hateful things I am reading from my fellow conservative, Reformed and evangelical brothers and sisters."
Without defending anyone's behavior on either side of any issue or perspective, I'd like to suggest that voting based on this kind of logic is outrageous and unacceptable. You don't vote for someone to serve in arguably the most powerful office in the history of the world because some of the people who support his opponent are mean.
This post has been removed by the author.
Mike Hall:
JT is correct. I thought you were referring to race when you used the phrase "mark of Cain." That is the traditional connotation of the term. I wouldn't use it if that's not what you intend. There are some Christian denominations that still believe the doctrine this phrase refers to, and readers will assume you belong to one of these.
Luke,
I agree with your assessment of Calvin but not of Barack. I think it's important that those supporting Senator Obama acknowledge his pro-abortion (and if you research it there's no other appropriate term) legislative history and nonetheless have a reasoned argument in support of his candidacy. To pretend that he's conservative or even moderate on this issue is either ignorance or denial, and neither one of those characteristics furthers the cause of Obama's campaign or of his evangelical supporters.
www.republicansforobama.org
I find it hard as a Christ follower in all good conscience to support or vote for Obama. There is so much to say, but I would however suggest that you take a minute or so to look at the articles on the links below regarding Obama's continued wrong judgement, inhumane lobbying for policy not worthy of anyone who calls himself a Christian or one living in a so called "civilized society"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm
I find it impossible as a Christ follower to support or vote for Obama. The links below detail Obama's continued wrong judgement, inhumane lobbying for policy not worthy of anyone who calls himself a Christian or one living in a so called "civilized society". For anyone in doubt about the real Obama, or rather the Obama the media is not telling you about... take a minute or so to look at the articles on the links below regarding
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm
Hesed,
Some of us have thought long and hard about how to vote. I was once a single issue voter, too -- anti-abortion and I'll go along with whatever else they say.
I'm now doubting that wisdom:
1. In a "civilized society," I don't see how a Christian could allow torture of guilty or innocent people:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Spring_2008/Five_Years_of_My_Life/page.do?id=1551002&n1=2&n2=19&n3=1552
2. Now many Christians in Iraq have been killed, kidnapped and exiled:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/04/nation/na-lawyer4
3. Tens of thousands of Iraqi have died, I wonder how many injured:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
4. Over 4,400 dead from coalition troops and 30,000 injured in Iraq:
http://icasualties.org/oif/
All of these people matter to me, too.
Also, Jesus talks over and over and over about the poor and widows and orphans. I'm just not seeing Evangelicals care much about that.
Some Christians may feel very strongly about abortion and that's fine, but binding another Christian's conscience isn't right.
Aside from all the details, the main thing to remember is that Obama is a TRUE Christian. McCain is a Christian at the moment as a political necessity. Obama believes in the power of prayer. McCain believes in power; he will assert his 'faith' but he does not practice faith. Look at how he treated his first wife. Look at how he's treated his current wife. Notice that his life is full of anger and resentment. Obama is a calming force, a uniter. He believes wholeheartedly in family, faith and prayer. He may lean right on some issues, but as someone else here has said, no president has been able to right all the wrongs we see in the country. Obama's faith will underpin his governing. McCain will use power unwisely. Let's vote for faith and family.
wilkes,
As one that has gotten angry at unfair attacks on Sen. Obama, I will be fair and get angry at your unfair assertion:
"McCain is a Christian at the moment as a political necessity."
That's the same thing that many commenters on this blog say about Sen. Obama and that's not fair. You don't know that you are correct. Behavior in the past is no definite indicator of faith today.
In my Catholic opinion, I think that the protestant faith tends to be a little confused hence the 30,000 denominations worldwide that can't agree on even basic things. I'm proud to be part of a Church that does not waiver on moral views such as abortion or marriage. We may have had our problems like anything or anyone else, but what will never change is respect for the dignity of life and the sanctity of marriage. What good is anything in the world without good moral virtue? I cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone who calls themselves a follower of Christ and yet refuses to be responsible for considering morals in the voting process. I think that people altogether have become numb to the word abortion itself. How about we just call it murder from now on? This is a man who voted against a ban on partial and even full term abortion!!! What is going on with evengelicals? They seem so impressionable. They are letting the articulate and smooth words of this evil man lead them away! Since they are so strong on scripture ALONE, which is not biblical in the first place, they should be able to find many verses that speak of moral issues and our place as Christians to uphold them. It makes me sick to see this guy say "praise the Lord" while having these positions. He's just another wolf in sheeps wool. Maybe he should attend one of our funeral Masses for aborted babies found in dumpsters. I've been to 2 of them. Maybe he should be forced to look at photos of what a baby looks like torn to shreads. He's a sick sick man, and needs to take another look at Christ and His intentions. In the end, it's all about winning the race. I also think it's very sad that black Christians seem to be rationalizing voting for this guy
because he's black, and completely putting their Christian faith on the side. Anyone can tell that blacks want this so bad that they are willing to forget about Christ for awhile to help justify in their own minds that this is the right man for the job.
Pray for his conversion and for all Christians to pull together. These are MAJOR issues. What good is a nation without strong morals?
In the end, what matters most... morals and virtue, or economy? I think it's easy to say that Christ would choose morals and virtue.
My name is Jason, I'm a Catholic Convert, and I'm 28. Peace to all our brothers and sisters in the Lord.
Also, I think it's notable that John Mcain has been known to adopt children stricken with poverty. He did so years ago with one of Mother Teresa's children. He has said that he will not talk about it because he would like to win this election without people knowing these things. I'm not exactly strong on Mcain, but I do think there is something to be said about this. We should never be braggina bout how righteous we are because we're not. Especially in this country. Mr. Obama just comes out of nowhere with this "I'm such a strong Christian" thing. I'm always a little leary of people who claim to be holy. Words are cheap. Show me what you have done to act on your faith.
Attacking Evangelicals, African-Americans, Sen. Obama as liars, stupid or gullible doesn't gain you any points with me and doesn't further your arguments one bit.
The point is that evengelicals are so inconsistent with what they say they believe. Which makes them even more invalid. Trust me buddy, the early Church Fathers and the Apostles were not anything but Catholic. And, just like they would be, we as Catholics are at the front of the line when it comes to condemning abortion and homosexuality. I wasn't attacking blacks, I was merely saying that all of the religious black, regardless of his position on certain moral issues will vote for him anyways. It's hard to believe someone is a Christian when they have no problem murdering babies. 80% of Planned Parenthoods are in black communities! They have been on record stating that they would love nothing more than to kill more black babies. So, if Mr.. Obama really wanted to make a difference, he would be addressing moral issues as well as economic. This world needs more than just money. I love how he goes after the religious, but fails to talk about anything moral. Same sex marriage and abortion are destroying families, and obviously preventing multiplying. This guy is a joke, and I can't believe so-called Christians are going to vote for him.
Well I knew the Pro-life movement had gone way too far when so many conservative leaders were going out of their way to argue the cause of prolonging life for a very sick woman who had absolutely no chance for life. To equate Shaivo with being pro life was absolutely absurd.
Look it is very hard for people in many of the more bible based fundamental churches, that when the pastor says that 40 million abortions have been performed in America since 1973, it is very hard to be swayed that anything other than repealing Roe Vs Wade is a solution worth considering.
As Pat Robertson recently stated, that the GOP is the gift that keeps on giving, since voters who believe that life starts at conception could never go for any candidate who believes otherwise. Will this spell ever be overcome in America? Obama has bent over backwards to reach young people of faith.
What must we do to help solve this dilemma? The best argument in my opinion is to do every possible to encourage woman under normal circumstances to get counseling that will give them alternatives to having an abortion. Of course there are not statistics that will tell us how many abortions are performed from woman who have been raped.
I think if we look at all the issues both from a secular standpoint and a Christian standpoint, we have to help people to stop being so emotional and more rational. The GOP has been responsible for unspeakable acts around the world and within the US and we need to show undecided voters that Mccain clearly does not have any intention of ending the war in Iraq, and will appoint judges that will be just like Scalia and Clarence Thomas; they vote against workers rights, they vote against environmental reform and they have voted in favor of many cases like on many death penalty cases where the accused recieved unfair trials, and may die soon for crimes they did not commit.
We can't afford to have leaders who allow these injustices to happen, and the biggest pro life quote..about not having mercy for the hands that shed innocent blood should be applicable to all Americans.
Do you really want, though, a child (Palin's daughter was 14 at the time she said this publicly) who through no fault of her own is RAPED or a victim of incest to have the rest of her life (let's face it-less career options, less romantic options, etc.) curtailed in this way? Palin does. With Mccain's health record, his odds of living 8 years are approximately 1 in 3. (I'm in the health care field.)
Biden is Catholic and believes life begins at conception. But he's pro-choice. Why? Because he's not pro-ABORTION. Make no mistake--there is a difference. He believes that, as a fallible human being, not God or the Son of God, it is NOT HIS JOB to choose for millions of Americans facing a choice he physically will never, ever have to face.
"Judge not, lest ye be judged..."
Don't be fooled. Think, even if it makes you unpopular! Jesus was!
averygard,
Are you saying that you support baby-killing?
As a young, African American Christian I can totally understand both sides of the argument. I, like most of you, am strongly anti-abortion and pro-life. I am very disappointed in Obama's views on abortion but, let me shed some light on an issue that was raised earlier. Black people contrary to popular opinion are not just voting for the black man on the ticket simply because he is black. "Most" of us are voting for him because we believe in his message of change. I know that may sound empty to some of you, but looking at the state of this nation, isn't it painfully obvious that we are headed in the wrong direction? If we have done something the same way for eight years, why in the world would we continue on the current path? The war, the economy, education, as well as social values are all important issues. But you can't deny the fact that some are MORE important than others. Our image abroad is quickly deteriorating. Why? Because we have flashed the moral superiority card since this country's beginning and rightfully so. However, when we invade a country that we were DUPED into believing had WMDs while ignoring the man who actually confessed on videotape to the crimes against our country, we can no longer claim to be the moral elites of the world. We need a leader who is capable of repairing our image while still standing firm against our enemies. IMO that is Obama. I harbor NO ill will toward John Mccain although I do think his VP pick was TOTALLY political. But this VP pick just underscores my main point. Republicans are still playing the same old games with their constituency. I REFUSE to let Republicans hold my vote hostage over the important, but NOT all-important issue of abortion. Wake up my Christian brothers and sisters and realize that the GOP has been playing this game for years, and as a relatively new voter, I refuse to play along. They claim they are pro life, but have no problem casting the first stone with capital punishment. I'm from GA where a law was recently passed by our "pro-life" governor that made it legal to carry guns in CHURCH among other unnecessary places. I absolutely believe in the 2nd amendment but that seems quite hypocritical to me. I know this may offend some but the more I here the GOP and the conservative right speak, the more they sound like Pharisees to me. Where is the love and compassion for your fellow man? Where is the concern for the poor and downtrodden? I certainly didn't hear any of the coming from the Republican Convention which is not particularly suprising anyway. I say all this to say: It is perfectly O.K. to consider voting for someone who you have disagreements with. If you disagree with someone on most of their policies, fine. Please don't vote for that candidate. But if you agree with the majority of the policies and think God will curse you because you support someone who is not pro life, please reconsider that thinking. Well... I think I've ranted enough for now, but someone please respond because I want to know your feelings on these issues as well.
Out
falcon08,
Being pro-life and supporting carrying weapons are two different issues and are inconsistent positions.
Why do you think they are?
Why the preoccupation with "change"?
If memory serves, Hitler ran on a platform of change and I don't think any sane individual would think Germany, or the world in general, was better off with him in office.
stan,
I respect your opinion but I have to disagree. This "Obama is reminiscent of Hitler" stuff is getting kinda old. Seriously, just because some feel he has a "cult following" and attracts large crowds, he must be some sort of "pompous celebrity". What if people actually believe in the things he is saying? Surely, that's plausible. I bet if Mccain had that sort of support he would just be "connecting with the American public." Don't get me wrong, I respect everyone's opinions but why are so many people threatened by doing things a different way. I understand that's the gist of conservatism but do you think we can continue longterm on this path? I agree with the old cliche: "If it ain't broke don't fix it", but is it not obvious that things are not working as they should? We need a new, fresh approach and I'm sorry but Mccain-Palin are NOT it IMO.
Since I've done a poor job at explaining my point on this issue before, let me also explain my pro-life and gun issue. I absolutely agree with protection, hunting, and gun collecting. My problem lies with those who are so "pro-life" but at the same time feel it necessary to carry a gun to airports, public parks, and CHURCHES of all places. There is no rationale for carrying a gun to church. Period. It's hard for me to believe someone wants to fully preserve life but are against smart gun regulation. Regulation is a bad word in many conservative circles but it is needed because there are to many criminals with guns.
Last issue: If the Republicans were so pro-life, why has nothing been done these past eight years to change it. At least the first six when Republicans controlled congress. IMO, I think it's because that is NOT a top priority as so many republican candidates have tried to convince us over the years. Just my humble opinion.
After asking myself these questions, I've come to the conclusion that, yes, life is important, and should be fought for. But if the GOP is just pandering to Evangelicals for their wedge votes, I will not be playing that game with them.
Out
falcon08,
This "Obama is reminiscent of Hitler" stuff is getting kinda old.
I think you read something into my post that wasn't there. The point being that change for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing.
...why are so many people threatened by doing things a different way...
How exactly would things be "different" if Obama were president?
There is no rationale for carrying a gun to church. Period.
Ever hear of people being murdered at a church? Search google and you'll see plenty. I think the lives of churchgoers are worth protecting. Why shouldn't I have a gun at church (or anywhere else for that matter) to protect other citizens?
It appears your worldview has a few holes in it.
stan,
If I read into your comment I apologize, that was not my intent. I was just responding to a criticizm I've heard against Obama a bit too long. It just SEEMED that you were equating Obama's "change" message with that of Hitler's which is utterly ridiculous.
Secondly you bring up a good point about change for the sake of change. Obviously anyone can stand up in rough times and talk about making change (Note: Mccain has conveniently altered his message from one of experience to that of change--not suprising.)
The "change" I think Obama is speaking of is one that is missed by many of my friends on the far-right because he is accused of being "too lofty" and speaks in "sweeping rhetoric" and they are turned off by this. If you listen closely, he is espousing an overhaul on the way things are running right now. Sadly, America has become a place where the middle class and lower class are being left out. We live in a country that seems to care more about profits and amassing wealth than one that is concerned for the well-being of its citizens. Before you label me as a "bleeding-heart liberal" (not saying that you are) I agree that those who work hard for the life they want will be rewarded. But there are those that are working hard everyday who fall on hardtimes by no real fault of their own. Obama IMO wants to bring these people back to the table so to speak. I don't get the feeling that the GOP feels the same way. I could be wrong, but I never really got that vibe from them.
Thirdly, as stated earlier. I think Obama would do wonders for our image abroad. Like it or not, our image has been tarnished by our handling of the situation in the Middle East. Like it or not, it matters what other world leaders think of you whether good or bad. Obviously, the way other countries view America determines the type of relationships we will have with them. And as much as I trust our brave military, they cannot defend us from the whole world. I'm not saying we should kiss these other world leaders butts, certainly not. But, needless to say, the "you must agree to what I say before I even have a conversation with you" attitude hasn't worked too well. Why the heck should they agree to our terms if we think we are too good to talk to them? Let's keep it real. I wouldn't, and you wouldn't either.
Lastly, I HOPE Obama can help change the way people view politics in this country. (Obviously, people will not all sit around holding hands and agreeing on everything.) I don't know if you listened to both conventions but there was a stark difference in the themes of both candidates. Obama wanted people to, simply put, voice our opinions and agree to disagree. Essentially, enough with this "my way or the highway" crap. Let's come together and get something meaningful done without demeaning each other. People disagree. So what? We're ALL Americans at the end of the day so let's stop all the personal attacks and partisan fanaticism and GET SOMETHING DONE!
Oh yeah, your point on guns in churches: the most recent incident of which you speak is well documented and, yes, I'm familiar with it as well as others. Somehow I knew this incident would be used as a rationalization for guns in churches like that makes it any better. Let's be real here. A good number of law abiding gun owners having itchy trigger fingers. And who's checking the unlawful gunowners at the church door for their permits? Sooner or later if there is a culture of guns at church, what's to stop unlawful gun owners from coming on the church grounds? If you are that concerned about violence breaking out at your church, why not just hire an armed security guard. That's how other public places are protected.
I suppose you thought after the Virginia Tech Massacre that every "law abiding" student should be allowed to have guns on school grounds too? Or how about law abiding seniors in high school that are 18? There are more gun related fatalities that occur at schools anyway? Why should their gun rights be challenged? (Sarcasm over).
As previously stated, I am all for protecting family, friends, loved-ones, and even strangers when the situation calls for it. But come on stan. Church? I'm sure Jesus packed his gun every Sunday faithfully, right?
Out
A good number of law abiding gun owners having itchy trigger fingers.
Too much to comment on so I'll pick this one.
Name one law abiding gun owner with an itchy trigger finger.
Are you aware of studies showing the crime rates of citizens with Concealed Carry Permits?
Dick Cheney. LOL! No just kidding.
No, I'm not up on my gun facts enlighten me.
I plan to research this subject for myself from both viewpoints since you brought it up though.
But do you actually think guns in churches and schools will make worshippers and students safer? And let's not act like the news reports church killings every week.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home