Holier than Who?

27 06 2009

Charles Blow’s op-ed in the NY Times titled, The Prurient Trap, is the latest feeble attempt by liberals to broad-stroke conservatives because of Gov. Mark Sanford’s extra marital affair. Blow’s point can be surmised in this single paragraph:

There are Democratic (sic)* sex scandals to be sure, but Democrats didn’t build a franchise on holier-than-thou moral rectitude. The Republicans did. They used sexual morality as a weapon and now it’s shooting them in the foot. They could avoid this hypocrisy by focusing more on what happens in their own bedrooms and avoiding the trap of judging what goes on in everyone else’s.

He goes on to bolster his argument by illustrating how divorce, teenage birth rates, and  subscriptions to online pornography sites are higher in mostly red states. Perhaps Mr. Blow would do well do research his own party’s hypocrisy first: the most polluted states, states with the most uninsured, and states with the highest crime rates are mostly blue states, even though global warming, nationalized healthcare, and social justice are largely liberal issues. Mr. Blow’s obviously never heard of taking the plank out of his own eye before looking at the speck in his neighbor’s.

But I have a couple of questions.

First, since when does a political position on a moral issue become “holier-than-thou”? If liberals weren’t trying to dismantle the foundations of our society, such moral positions by conservatives wouldn’t be necessary in the first place. Liberals have driven the Democrat party to the far left by twisting moral issues into political ones, and vice versa. In doing so, liberals have designated themselves the judge and the jury. Poisoned the Well, as the logical fallacy is known. Tipped the playing field in their favor. Holier than who, exactly, I ask? There is right and there is wrong. And those standards apply to everyone. A moral slip-up, by a conservative is not hypocrisy. It’s simply sin. But Mr. Blow and his liberal friends are attempting to apply one standard to conservatives while giving themselves a pass on their own shortcomings.

That leads to my second question. Since when does moral failure by a conservative denote political collapse for the Republican party? Why do results only apply to the Republican party? They obviously never apply to liberals. No, with the Democrat party, it’s only about their good intentions. Take education for example. Liberals have had a stranglehold on the public education system for past 70 years with nothing short of a dismal record. And it’s getting worse. What answer do liberals have? Throw more money at the problem. Result: more failure. Any accountability for this colossal disaster? Of course not, because liberals meant it for good. Alrighty then, have a nice day.

I am not making excuses for any moral failure. Gov. Sanford was wrong. He admitted his mistake and he will probably continue to pay for his sin with his political career. But I have a feeling that we may see more of this liberal “stoning” of conservatives running for office in the future, namely, if Newt Gingrich decides to make a run for president. For now, I’d remind Mr. Blow that his party’s failures are no different that Gov. Sanford’s. Life could be easier for all of us if liberals could manage to compete on a level playing field. Then again, liberals aren’t about making life easier for anyone other than themselves…

* Sex scandals are hardly “Democratic.”


A Christian Response to President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama

5 11 2008

Well, it’s the weekend after Barack Obama won the election. I have compiled a collection of responses from a Christian standpoint to his election with some of my own comments sprinkled in. 

After John McCain’s concession speech, several Christian supporters of Obama immediately began quoting Romans 13:1-7. 

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

My first thought was to wonder if they would have had the same response if Obama had lost. If not, then the verse probably isn’t in correct context. I certainly did not have this particular verse locked and loaded to fire at Obama supporters had he lost. I assumed most knew that in American, power belongs to the people. The people temporarily loan it to elected leaders who do not rule over them. They are in place to interpret the Constitution in two areas: condone good and punish evil. Government has overstepped in bounds in the last 200+ years, but presidents who focus on these two aforementioned biblical roles are the most successful. For Americans, these authorities referenced in Romans is not a person, but the Constitution, which is amendable, by the way, by the people. It can also represent an employer or another entity but is not applicable in situations when the authority tramples on the Word of God, which Obama does. 

Also, as a bonus to my precious friends who fired Romans 13 across my bow, I respond with Psalms 2:1-4:

1 Why do the nations conspire  
       and the peoples plot in vain?

 2 The kings of the earth take their stand 
       and the rulers gather together 
       against the LORD 
       and against his Anointed One. 

 3 “Let us break their chains,” they say, 
       “and throw off their fetters.”

 4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; 
       the Lord scoffs at them.

Some said this verse in Psalms was out of context. It’s hard to take a Psalms out of context. Both verses are fully applicable. But I don’t think you can pluck one verse out and quote it to a group of people with whom you have moral agreements with, but variance on a list of political issues. 

And it was clear in this past election which candidate was mocking God: the one who couldn’t define life. 

James White — pastor, apologist, debater, author, and blogger — is on the same page in this video he made the day after the election:

For those wondering what conservatives do next, Michelle Malkin has some good advice:

We stand up for our principles, as we always have — through Democrat administrations and Republican administrations, in bear markets or bull markets, in peacetime and wartime.

We keep the faith.

We do not apologize for our beliefs. We do not re-brand them, re-form them, or relinquish them. We defend them.

We pay respect to the office of the presidency. We count our blessings and recommit ourselves to our constitutional republic.

Several Christians expressed disappointment with “hate speech” and “racism” they had supposedly seen from fellow Christians on social networking sites and in emails. Now, certainly some Christians calling Obama the anti-christ or islamic is a hit below the belt and does not measure up to the standard of perfection placed on Christians. But Obama’s election just helps to show how easy it will be for the anti-christ to deceive the masses and gain such a large unwavering allegiance. Besides, if Christians would bother to study their bible a little, they would realize the anti-christ is not a person. 

Here is the real racism and hate speech. And it’s coming from Obama supporters:

There is a new national slogan/anthem catching on among America’s youth. It’s a popular rap song, a t-shirt, and a taunting chant: “MY PRESIDENT IS BLACK.”

Go ahead and Google it. They’re blasting it on the streets of Chicago, saying it like a prayer in Durham, singing it on campus, and putting it on their kids’clothes in Harlem.


A sampling of news from around the country after Election Day:

Outside, cars drove across campus, honking triumphal horns as passengers leaned out windows heralding the news of Obama’s unprecedented win. Students giddily repeated the refrain, “My president is black.”


You couldn’t find a single copy of the Chicago Tribune or Chicago Sun-Times on newsstands or in boxes anywhere in the city, from Hyde Park up to Evanston. And at least two tricked-out cars on shiny rims that rolled slowly down Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in the historic Bronzeville neighborhood on the city’s gritty South Side were blasting what appeared to be the city’s new unofficial hip-hop presidential anthem: Young Jeezy’s “My President Is Black.”


The energy around Benedict’s campus was palpable Wednesday, as students walking to and from classes excitedly discussed the election, some shouting “President Obama!” and singing lyrics to a popular song about Obama by the rapper Young Jeezy, “My President is Black.” 

La Shawn Barber exposes the new racism:

It’s a proud moment for many blacks, to be sure, but having a black man in the White House will not motivate black Americans to wait until marriage to have babies, to stop killing their babies (and at three times the rate of white women), or to stop uttering the word racism whenever they don’t get their way.

Of course, Obama never promised that his presidency would have any effect on these things.

As long as families (the foundation of society) are in shambles, conditions won’t improve much. But with Obama in office, white liberals can feel good about themselves and blacks can feel proud, fatherless children and dead babies be damned.

I don’t want to hear any more complaining from any black Americans about how they can’t succeed, but if La Shawn is right, this election only takes it to a new level.

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?

Hats for Hypocrites

15 09 2008

The Obama campaign has announced the release of a new line of faith merchandise:

Dear friends,Great news! We now have faith merchandise available for you to show your support for Barack Obama as a person of faith.

Check out the Believers for Barack, Pro-Family Pro-Obama, and Catholics for Obama buttons, bumper stickers and signs….

Take good care,

Paul Monteiro
Deputy Director of Religous Affairs
Obama for America

Ah, yes. The perfect compliment to your bible, which clearly says, Intentionally. Killing. Innocent. People. Is. Sin. There simply isn’t a biblical justification for an openly pro-murder candidate. Now, it’s true that four Republican presidents have been unsuccessful in overturning Roe. But is that an excuse to vote for a pro-murder candidate that has supported legislation to make abortions easier to have? Absolutely not. It’s hypocritical. 

Abortion is not something any president is going to handle on his own. It’s a moral issue that needs two treatments, in this order: 1. prayer. And 2. political support. Past presidents have done all they could. George W. Bush managed to get Partial-birth abortion banned and made it more difficult for minors to get abortions with parental notifications laws. Those are key accomplishments that often get lost in the fray because Roe has not been overturned yet. But even if he didn’t achieve those things, that’s not a reason to vote for a candidate who has supported and will continue to support legislation that will make abortions easier to obtain in the name of “change.” 

So order your faith merchandise from Barack Obama, if it makes you feel better. Just know that you are a hypocrite and leading others astray. As Christians, our faith is in the Messiah of the bible, not the messiah of the Democrats.

UPDATE: Commenter, birdfan, notes an interview Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun Times did with Obama that is worth posting (Falsani goes by GG in the transcript):

GG: What do you believe?
OBAMA: I am a Christian…I believe that there are many paths to the same place.

GG: Do you believe in heaven?
OBAMA: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing. When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them…that’s a little piece of heaven.

GG: Do you believe in sin?

GG: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.

GG: What happens if you have sin in your life?
OBAMA: I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.

GG: Who’s Jesus to you?
(He laughs nervously)

OBAMA: Right. 
Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.

And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

GG: Do you ever have people who know you’re a Christian question a particular stance you take on an issue, how can you be a Christian and …
OBAMA: Like the right to choose.

I’m always stuck by how much common sense the American people have. They get confused sometimes, watch FoxNews or listen to talk radio. That’s dangerous sometimes. But generally, Americans are tolerant and I think recognize that faith is a personal thing, and they may feel very strongly about an issue like abortion or gay marriage, but if they discuss it with me as an elected official they will discuss it with me in those terms and not, say, as ‘you call yourself a Christian.’

WOW! So, we’ve got getting to heaven on your own deeds, sin is out of line with his values, Jesus as a dead, historical figure, and only discussing moral issues on political playing fields. I’m not calling his salvation into question, but I am questioning his judgment. And it’s not a select few disagreements Christians have with his worldview. It’s everything. I’d have to stretch to find common ground here.

Are Christians Wrong to be “Single-Issue” Voters?

25 07 2008

After being gone a lot during the last week, I’m back to blogging. On several occasions, I’ve been berated by fellow Christians for seemingly voting on a single issue, namely abortion. But in recent years, same-sex marriage has become 1b. The recent, “Evangelical Manifesto,” a concoction of the religious left, made drastic pleas that Christians not allow these two issues to define our cultural identity. World Magazine Founder, Joel Belz offers a compelling defense why Christians should not apologize for voting on a single issue, but take an even stronger stand today.

Evangelicals shouldn’t be embarrassed to say boldly and clearly: Abortion and same-sex marriage are uniquely heinous sins. They rattle the foundations of a civilized society. They take a culture in a dreadful direction. We haven’t been wrong to say so. We aren’t fanatics.

And I’m not referring here so much to the young women caught in the anguish of an unexpected pregnancy or folks bewildered by their sexual identity. I’m talking mostly about a society that goes all out to tell such people that what they’re doing is just fine. There’s forgiveness for individual sinners. There’s judgment for societies that lead them astray.

Society is trying its best to exert its tolerance for child-killing and homosexuals on Americans utilizing every arena from schools, businesses, and courts to the media, Hollywood, and advertising. The religious left would not argue that Christians are on the wrong side of these issues. And while Christians have not been as zealous on the environment, poverty, and healthcare, at least we are facing the right direction. Belz notes the key difference:

What evangelical do you know who says insensitivity to the poor should be promoted? What evangelical leader is calling for more racism? Who advocates the uncontrolled plundering of the environment?

That is exactly the kind of cheerleading that is going on for abortion and same-sex marriage. .

But here’s the core of the matter. To be robustly and consistently anti-abortion is at the very same time to cast your vote for environmental sensitivity, against racism, and for economic justice. These are not independent, isolated packages.

It’s hard to see how anyone can claim to be a protector of the environment and not put a high priority on the preservation of human babies. To defend a focus on the future of polar bears and whales, while asking evangelicals to get less noisy about infant humans, is an embarrassing contradiction.

Similarly, keep in mind that abortion is one of the most racist of all social causes in history. Minorities don’t just happen incidentally to be targeted by the practice of abortion. The history of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations is racist to the core—as is their current practice.

And no economist can look at the loss of 50 million American babies over the last 45 years and not wince at the impact of such a drain on the economic vitality of our society. Today’s poor Americans are poorer than they would have been if we’d taken care to preserve enough consumers—and workers—to fill a state one-and-a-half times as big as California. Tomorrow’s elderly will worry about Social Security more than they would have with 50 million more contributors to the system.

The religious left would do well to recognize who the real “single issue” voter is here: the liberal non-Christian who believes tolerance for special rights somehow won’t upset the social balance God created and instilled in the heart of every man. Today’s young Christians have been asked to buy a lie that their elder Christians were too narrow-minded and single-issue focused. I, for one, will not buy that lie and urge my fellow young believers to not apologize for being a single-issue voter either.

“Faith-Based” Separation

2 07 2008

Barack Obama enjoys dressing up like a sheep. It might be innocent enough, but the problem is that he is a wolf. Yesterday, Obama tried again to make inroads with evangelical voters in a speech in Zanesville, Ohio, discussing faith-based initiatives. Christians need to be able to discern the truth about what Obama is saying and what his intentions are. Obama is proficient at hiding many of his intentions and dressing others to appear in line with evangelical beliefs. But truthfully, his worldview is largely inconsistent with that of the bible. 

Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday that if elected president he would expand the delivery of social services through churches and other religious organizations; the announcement was a vow to achieve a goal he said President Bush had fallen short on during his two terms.

But Obama’s plan departed from the Bush administration’s stance on one fundamental issue: whether religious organizations that get federal funds for social services can take faith into account in their hiring. Bush has said yes. Obama said no.

“If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion,” Obama said. “Federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

Americans United for Destruction of Religion Separation of Church and State’s Barry Lynn had mixed emotions about Obama’s ideas.

“I am disappointed,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “This initiative has been a failure on all counts, and it ought to be shut down, not expanded.”

However, Lynn said he was pleased to hear Obama express support for church-state separation and say that he would bar government-funded proselytism and religious discrimination in hiring when tax dollars are involved.

Lynn said he is concerned that the Obama plan apparently would allow direct tax funding of houses of worship to run social service programs. That, said Lynn, raises serious issues of entanglement between religion and government.

If this isn’t an example of pandering for votes, nothing else will do. How can you have a faith-based initiative and not encourage faith for the recipients? Otherwise, it would be nothing more than welfare. Faith-based groups are far more efficient at this type of work than the government. They can make the dollars stretch much further, they are more familiar with their community and its needs, they can mobilize more volunteers, and most importantly, their results are superior. Not to mention a cursory reading of speeches and writings by the Founders indicates a clear preference for federal encouragement of the Christian religion while allowing the freedom to worship as one pleases.  

Obama made it clear that he wants to elevate his plan to the “moral center” of his administration. So, what does Obama mean by the “moral center?” Since Obama won’t tell us the truth on where he stands, we’re left to decipher the code. It sounds attractive, on the outside. His latest statements on the California marriage amendment over the weekend reveal a sinister clue. In a letter to a Sunday breakfast of the LGBT Democratic Club in San Francisco, he thumbed his nose at traditional marriage:

“I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution [to protect marriage], and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of any other states.”

Following Obama’s logic, which he obviously has not done himself, faith-based organizations that support traditional marriage will be disqualified from federal funding under an Obama presidency. Obama may speak “religion-ese” but his rhetoric speaks much louder than his words, if you can tune your biblical ear to understand.

Fallout of Dobson Remarks

25 06 2008

Liberals still have their undies in a wad since yesterday…they couldn’t have slept well like that. Yesterday, Dr. James Dobson accurately noted on his radio broadcast that Barack Obama has been distorting the bible in an effort to steal a few evangelical votes away from John McCain. Obama’s response? A dagger:

“I think you’ll see that he was just making stuff up, maybe for his own purposes.”

Wow, Barack, don’t overwhelm us with any biblical justification as to why you claim to be a Christian while voting for child-killing. Oh wait, there isn’t any. It’s called political expediency. You say you are a Christian in an effort to bring more evangelicals to your side. But you don’t vote like one, otherwise you’d lose the support of your party. But really, don’t hold back, just a one-liner, that’s great. 

Obama supporters also responded to Dobson.

The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Methodist pastor from Texas and longtime supporter of President Bush who has endorsed Obama, said Tuesday he belongs to a group of religious leaders who, working independently of Obama’s campaign, launched a Web site to counter Dobson at JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe. The site highlights statements from Obama and Dobson and asks visitors to compare them.

Caldwell said he has great respect for Dobson’s advocacy for families, but said the criticism of Obama was “a bit over the top” and “crossed the line.”

What Caldwell means is that Dobson’s remarks did not fall in line with his humanist-diluted worldview. Obama’s belief is that Leviticus cannot be used to call homosexuality a sin because the same book includes a passage calling the consumption of shellfish a sin. With the exception of a new, baby Christian, any believer of just one year of faith understands that the ceremonial dietary laws were clearly and emphatically overturned under the New Covenant, whereas the commands against homosexual behavior (and other sexual sins) were not.

Now, if James Dobson used his radio broadcast to call Obama’s salvation into question, that would have been over the top and out of line. But he did not. And neither do I. But what I do dispute is Obama’s claim that his worldview is biblical. If it was, he would not allow himself to support liberal social policies. In the mind of a Christian, social issues take priority over economic and defense. Obama may be a born-again Christian (that is between him and God), but his support for liberal social policies disqualifies him from receiving the vote of any Christian. Any Christian who can justify the vote for someone as socially liberal as Obama has either been deceived into believing the remaining issues are more important than life, or worse and far more likely, they believe Obama’s lie that his interpretation of the bible is godly.