More Broken Promises

24 11 2008

Last week, I discussed Barack Obama’s leftward shift of his party despite the perceived claims to govern from the center. I also said there would be more. Here it is:

Barack Obama told voters during the presidential election that he wanted to work with both sides of the abortion debate to reduce the number of abortions. Yet, over the weekend, he picked a top staffer for one of the biggest pro-abortion groups to become his communications director.

The selection of Ellen Moran, the executive director of Emily’s List, to become the White House communications director makes it clear that the only agenda Obama plans to communicate as president is more abortions.

Moran hails from Emily’s List, a group whose sole mission is to regularly spend tens of millions of dollars on promoting pro-abortion candidates for office.

FRC responds:

As things progress it is becoming clear the so-called “middle ground” on abortion that we were told Barack Obama was pursuing in his campaign might elude him now that he is President-elect. Obama continues to fill key positions with politicians and activists who have radical pro-abortion records. The latest, Ellen Moran, the executive director of EMILY’s List, a pro-abortion political action committee, who will be the face and voice of the new administration as the President’s spokesperson. As the Washington Post put it, “A candidate must meet three qualifications to be considered for an EMILY’s List endorsement: back abortion rights, including the right to late-term (or ‘partial-birth’) abortions; be a Democrat; and, in primary elections, be a woman.” Ms. Moran’s fealty to abortion is so strong that after the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion (a “medical procedure” where scissors and a suction tube are used to kill a partially delivered infant) she saw it as a call to arms to raise more funds for her group to work towards overturning the decision and cut off funding for politicians who voted to ban the gruesome practice. 

None of this comes as any surprise for those who actually studied Obama’s record and possess the ability to understand what a candidate means he says determining when life begins is “above his pay grade” and not wanting to see his own daughter be “punished with a baby.” The real question is, what will “Obama-logists” (Christians who voted for Obama) have to say. So far, their silence has been deafening.





Back to Obama’s Future

27 10 2008

What would an Obama presidency actually look like?

Focus on the Family released a chilling letter from a Christian in 2012 (pdf). 

Here is a sampling:

Far-left liberals could hold a 6-3 majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nation’s highest court could rule same-sex “marriage” is a constitutional right — in all 50 states.

Preaching from the Bible could be banned from radio and television.

States may not be able to restrict abortion, and taxpayers could be forced to fund abortions.

In several states, it could be illegal to own a gun.

Fear mongering or justified warning?





Just Discuss It, Please

9 09 2008

We at least need to go there. That’s all. Please read on and see what I mean.

Sarah Palin, Republican nominee for VP. Woman. Mother of 5. And much more. 

This is written primarily to anyone who believes the bible is the primary source of truth. Those of other beliefs may tend to misinterpret the context of what I am saying. But, as a conservative, you must give me credit for not being “married to the GOP.” Just so you know up front. 

The best thing about faith in politics is that the bible is always there as a moral benchmark. Christians should never become so inordinately focused on politics that it becomes the solution to solve our moral dilemmas. Christians are called to be prophetic. And when it comes to politics, that role means speaking biblical truth to all situations and issues, including the focus of this post, the sensitive issue of the role of women. This doesn’t mean I am opposed to Christians being politically active or running for office. It simply means we should participate on the premise of truth, not a party affiliation. 

I am a true conservative in every sense. Most already know how I’ll vote in the upcoming election. And I realize that discussing this issue before the elections runs the risk of alienating a segment of conservatives that may not apply the bible to this specific situation. This issue has never been brought up because we’ve never had a mother of young children nominated for the second highest office in the land. But as Christians, it’s important to promote the good in our candidates while we cling unswervingly to our biblical convictions on important issues. 

Do I think Sarah Palin is unfit to serve because she is a mother of 5? No. Is it wrong for a mother to work? No. Were those on the left wrong to criticize Sarah Palin for running for VP while being a mother of young children? Yes, absolutely, there is a double standard there. Rarely, if ever, do we see this same standard of parenthood applied to mothers in the Democrat party. But conservatives, especially Christians, need to be careful not to create our own double standard. 

What does that mean? It’s easy for Christians to defend Sarah Palin’s candidacy because she is running on the Republican ticket. But what if Sarah Palin, mother of 5, was a Democrat? Would she be receiving the same level of support? Doubtfully. Dr. Albert Mohler, one of only a handful of evangelical leaders to take the lead on this discussion, correctly points out the biblical context for this discussion:

The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, but not in roles of public responsibility.  I believe that women as CEOs in the business world and as officials in government are no affront to Scripture.  Then again, that presupposes that women — and men — have first fulfilled their responsibilities within the little commonwealth of the family.

(another good commentary on the subject here).

Bottom line: consistency, not condemnation. 

The whole country is talking about this. McCain/Palin received a huge convention-bounce and now lead in some polls. Palin’s speech garnered as many viewers as The One himself did in Denver. It would be easy for Christians to miss the boat and allow a double standard to apply to us here. But, since no one is perfect, we can disagree with a candidate on an issue and still accept their candidacy. In order for Christians to help America understand the biblical worldview in politics, we must apply the standards to everyone regardless of party affiliation.

I don’t doubt that Sarah Palin is an outstanding wife and mother, second only to my wife 🙂  I’ve heard she sleeps maybe four hours per night. It’s not up to us to judge her and criticize her candidacy because she has young children. I believe that she understands her biblical role of wife and mother comes first and her career comes second. She seems to have the blessing of God upon her life and career as evidenced in her life’s journey and convictions. But when those on the outside looking in see Christians fully supporting a mother of 5 who has a newborn with Down’s Syndrome and has a 17 year old daughter who is 5 months pregnant, that message can get cloudy, fast. As they say down south, “That dog won’t hunt!” 

In speaking truth to this situation, there is no right or wrong answer. It’s up to each individual to come to their own conclusion on what God is speaking to them. But we do need to at least address this issue in our minds so we can help others work through it before we just accept it on a universal level. A balance can be found here. I am simply saying we need to look for it instead of assuming it automatically exists. If we compromise the view that we have held for a long time, then the manifestation is hypocrites who seek power more than truth. This could ultimately damage our witness and result in a worse position than when we started.





What Happens When Christians Create a Theological Smorgasbord

19 08 2008

I’ve heard the notion by the Christian left that Jesus was a “liberal.” But He wasn’t liberal to the degree that He would support abortion, as Barack Obama supporter, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, purports.

From last Wednesday’s The O’Reilly Factor (8/13/08):

O’REILLY: … Barack Obama has been the most progressive voice in the country, more than Barbara Boxer, more than Nancy Pelosi, in supporting abortion on demand, whether it’s in the third trimester, whether it’s partial-birth abortion. No matter what it is, he says, “Yes.” So – How do you reconcile finding Jesus with the being the most pro-abortion politician in the country? Don’t you want to know that?

HILL: I think he’s made that very clear. In fact, he’s probably been most clear on that point. There are different schools of theological understanding, many of which believe that the Bible is not something that should be read fundamentally, but —

O’REILLY: The question is simple. (crosstalk) Would Jesus be as progressive on abortion – does he believe Jesus would, based upon his knowledge of theology – as he [Obama] is?

HILL: Absolutely. I think, absolutely.

O’REILLY: You believe Jesus would say, “Partial-birth abortion: No problem”?

HILL: I think Jesus would be even more radical than all the candidates who are —

O’REILLY (incredulous): On this issue?

HILL: On this issue and on all these other issues. I think a fundamentalist understanding of the pro-life/pro-choice debate is misguided and misses the point. And I think Barack Obama understands this kind of thing — (inaudible) close to the center —

O’REILLY (incredulous): That would be a stunning dissertation if the Senator would give it. And I would absolutely want to hear it.

HILL: And I think he would. I think he will!

Jesus was liberal only in the sense that He gave freely of what He possessed. Translation: He gave salvation to anyone willing to accept Him as their personal savior. But He certainly didn’t use government to dole out government programs stealing from some to give to others. And He definitely would not have supported abortion of any type. Best of all, Hill offers no biblical ideas to support his ridiculous assertion. 

This is the result of a worldview held by Obama, Hill and other leftists that tweaks biblical ideals to meet a political agenda. Just pick and choose the convictions that fit your lifestyle. As we saw in last weekend’s visit with Rick Warren, Obama has no idea when life even begins…it’s “above his pay grade.” Actually, it’s well within his pay grade. Because he’s the one putting it there. Life is actullay something outside the realm of all our pay grades. Any justification for the purposeful taking of innocent life is playing God, something we should all tread lightly upon.  Sadly, Barack Obama and his supporters see life as a political issue that politicians can legislate their version of liberalism upon while simultaneously claiming Jesus’ liberalism is synonymous with their own. They couldn’t be any more wrong on such an elementary issue.





The Life Factor

18 08 2008

Most Americans want change from the next president. But change is pretty much a given no matter who is elected. The entire mantra of change being trumpeted by Barack Obama implies one of two things: Bush is running again in 2008 or McCain will be Bush 3.0, neither of which is true. It’s not wrong for Americans to desire change from their next president. We just need to understand what we’re getting. And with McCain we have a very good idea. But with Obama, we have no idea, with the exception of how his views on life will translate into politics. Last Saturday, Barack Obama and John McCain visited with evangelical Christian, Rick Warren, pastor of the mega-church Saddleback Church in California and their answers on life spoke volumes on how they will legislate life.

Senator Obama (D-Illinois) told Pastor Rick Warren he was not sure when an unborn baby should be considered a human life worth protecting. “I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade,” said Obama.

It’s obvious anything above the pay grade of President of the United States of America can only mean God, whom Obama believes in. How puzzling that he doesn’t just listen to what He has to say about it then. I wonder where Obama does say life begins. If not conception, and obviously not birth, any murder of a person of any age could then be classed as a “botched abortion.” Fortunately, moral trends in America appear to be swinging back in favor of life as seen in cases of murder of a pregnant mother being sentenced for taking two lives. More:

Obama contends he believes in Roe v. Wade not because he is pro-abortion, but because women do not make decisions about abortion “casually.” He also suggested Americans can find common ground on ways to prevent “unwanted pregnancies.”

No amount of planning an abortion morally justifies it. Obama continues to paint himself into moral corners as he attempts to appeal to voters right of center. Obama’s views bring to mind a warning from author, Henri Nouwen’s book, In the Name of Jesus: “What makes the temptation of power so semmingly irresistable?  Maybe it is that power offers an easy substitute for the hard task of love. It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life.” This describes Obama’s campaign perfectly. He believes it’s not up to him to legislate when life begins, but each individual can. And he believes it’s up to government (led by a Christian president) to give everything to the poor at the expense of others as opposed to the biblical teaching of individual believers to each do their part to help the poor. 

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) on the other hand, strongly declared that he believes a baby is entitled to human rights at the moment of conception. “I have a twenty-five year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate and as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies,” he stated. “That’s my commitment.”

Much better. No matter how appealing Obama’s “change” might appear to Christians, there is simply no justification for voting for him. Life is the most important issue, and the easiest to define. Any candidate failing this elementary check point, is not fit to be president of a country whose Declaration of Independence declares life first among its unalienable rights provided by God. Especially when that candidate doesn’t care what God says about life.





Kids Can Pick Murder, but not Religion

31 07 2008

Americans United for Destruction of Religion Separation of Church and State believes students aren’t wise enough to decide for themselves on religion. But, somehow, kids are extraordinarily mature enough to choose to murder an unborn baby, recognize evolution is the only logical explanation for science, and be tolerant of homosexuality when they struggle with their own heterosexual hormones. AU sent an email today encouraging their members to direct questions to members of Congress while they are on August recess and in their home towns. One of those questions was particularly hypocritical, as I just pointed out:

Question: Do you believe that the public schools should be leading prayers and worship for students or should that task be left to the students’ parents?

It’s obvious that the Founders preferred Christianity over other religions and desired that it be taught and encouraged in schools and by the government. But the Founders also recognized other religions and tolerated their existence in a perfect blend of satisfaction for Christians and other beliefs. At least there weren’t efforts to silence or separate other beliefs from the majority like AU and other liberals attempt to do today. 

AU also claims prayer in school has been outlawed. But a cursory look at 150 years of judicial precedent shows this outlawing is actually unconstitutional. Like I’ve said before, liberalism is based in emotion, not fact and this question exposes that pretty well.





Our Work Cut Out for Us

30 07 2008

It’s no secret really. California politicians are liberal and don’t like family values. They are doing everything in their power (and some outside it) to be intolerant of any worldview contradictory of their own. After four judges gave the left a gift in May and legalized gay marriage, activists attempted to have a marriage amendment taken off the ballot in order to prevent their marriages between June and November from being invalidated. That effort failed, but homosexual lobbyists did succeed in getting the language on the amendment changed that dealt a blow to pro-family advocates in California. 

The ballot title originally approved for Proposition 8 described the proposal as an amendment “to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”  But after homosexual activists failed to get the initiative removed from the ballot, Secretary of State Debra Bowen changed the title to describe the proposal as amending the state constitution to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”  The description also claims, with no supporting evidence, that the state will lose “several tens of millions of dollars” if the measure is passed.

Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, has been working to support the proposed marriage protection amendment. He believes that most people entering the voting booth will have only thing on their mind — and it will not be Prop. 8.

Consequently, says Dacus, pro-family forces have their work cut out for them in educating the voters. “We’re just going to have to work twice as hard to get the information out so that people aren’t confused and [so] they understand that marriage – as it has been defined for centuries, including as it has been defined throughout California history – has always been between one man and one woman,” he states. “This alleged ‘right’ recognizing homosexual ‘marriage’ is something that was just newly created by a few activist judges…a few months ago and is not to be treated as something that is long and established in the State of California.”

This presents a wonderful opportunity for churches to design and distribute literature educating voters in their communities on the facts on the amendment.