Gains for Obama among people of faith - Page 3

madville · 11-02-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Barack Obama portrays himself as a religious man. He says he's a believing Christian, and he's campaigned heavily for the votes of American Christians.

But does Barack Obama really promote the values of biblical Christianity?

In the videos, I examine Obama's views on the Bible and the role of religion in politics; his views on abortion, infanticide, same-sex marriage and the ordination of homosexual clergy; his philosophy of the courts, his view of judges who make law rather than interpreting it; his socialistic tax policy designed to "spread the wealth around"; his views on the American military; and his beliefs on how we should all educate our children.

After examining the material it becomes clear that Barack Obama's words and his deeds do not reflect biblical Christianity.-Frank Pastore.

STEVE LACKNER: Frank Pastore: "The Christian Case Against Barack Obama"

Very difficult to watch these videos and the arguments made in them and reconcile ourselves to following Christ and supporting Barack's established positions on these issues.
Christians can't serve two masters. I question whether these supposed Christians have "proved all things and held on to what is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21 with regards to Obama.

neumes · 11-02-2008, 04:07 PM

The bumperstickers in my Connecticut Episcopalian church parking lot are largely Obama but I don't see how this indicates that people of faith are voting for Obama, and that makes us any more right than anyone voting for McCain. I volunteer at church and we are of all political stripes. No one has a premium on being a more faithful follower of a faith than another. (addendum: I actually think more people will be voting for McCain, but unlike previous elections (when W stickers where EVERYwhere, they aren't as enthusiastic this year and so are not putting bumper stickers on their cars.)

Righteousness (I don't mean right-wing) is not a useful stance to take, not now and not any time in history. (We could go over the list, but it's too long, and most religions can take some blame on this one.) There's a pretty darn good reason that the founding fathers separated church and state--so that we don't kill each other out of righteousness. It's one of the great strengths of our Constitution.

Hunt · 11-02-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

God can judge me all he wants as to whether or not I am a good Christian. But Barack Obama is absolutely not a Christian.

OK, but I'm not standing next to you in a thunderstorm.
There is more than one tradition of Christianity in this country. When I see a phrase like "biblical Christianity," I interpret that to be evangelical, fundamental Christianity that believes in biblical literalism. There are millions of Christians in this country that are not part of that tradition. Indeed, except for a couple of issues (such as abortion), Catholics are not really part of that tradition, either. You can have your views about who is or is not a real Christian, but if Obama isn't one, then neither are a substantial portion--probably a majority--of Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, member of the UCC, and others as well.

coureur · 11-02-2008, 05:19 PM

>>In the videos, I examine Obama's views on the Bible and the role of religion in politics; his views on abortion, infanticide, same-sex marriage....<<

Obama opposes same sex marriage. Does that put him in conflict with the Bible or make him un-Christian?

Hunt · 11-02-2008, 05:34 PM

He opposes infanticide, too. That's not what the video will say, of course.

FLVADAD · 11-02-2008, 05:39 PM

Is there no room for differences between political philosophies or agendas and personal religious ones? For example, I personally and religiously oppose abortion. However, I do not believe it appropriate to force my personal belief upon others. If I were a politician I would not necessarily support laws that require everyone else to relinquish their freedom of personal choice and force them to live by my personal code of conduct. Is it necessary that Obama does this, however, to "prove" his Christianity? I would say no.

mrego · 11-02-2008, 06:16 PM

Religion Gap?
God gap: No gain for Obama with religious vote - Yahoo! News

dallice · 11-02-2008, 07:02 PM

Barack Obama's view on infanticide is the same as everyone else's. It's wrong and illegal and there are laws in place to prosecute it. Frank's bearing some false witness if he says otherwise.

And I don't think Frank has read his New Testament very well if he thinks "spreading the wealth" is unChristian. If you read Acts the early Christians lived together and shared everything. Not to mention all the rendering unto Caesar. Frank's sounding more and more like a false prophet to me.

And this is absolutely wrong:

Quote:

his view of judges who make law rather than interpreting it

People widely misinterpret writing of Obama's that describes the limits of the judiciary as lamenting those limits. Not true, but a feature of how conservatives see the world. Everything is editorial, no reportage.

Quote:

Christians can't serve two masters.

Indeed. They clearly can't serve God and the people who tell lies like "liberals hate real Americans who believe in God" or falsely accuse people of supporting infanticide.

There was a time that Christians were told it was ungodly for white people to treat black people as anything but servants. Thanks to religious liberals, that view is no longer doctrine. I suspect the view that its ungodly to be anything but Republican will soon go the same way.

mciver · 11-02-2008, 08:26 PM

Dallice, if you are interested in equating the disgraceful treatment of blacks by whites for 200 plus years in this country with the way we treat the unborn, let's get into it. Because there is a huge basis of similarity. Voting rights and property rights for black people were denied because they were not "persons" under the law. It was only through decades of struggle with the Catholic Church at the forefront of that struggle that people were made to see that people of color are children of God, deserving of the same protections and freedoms as whites.

The unborn are denied equal protection because, like slaves, they have no one to speak for them. Here we are, some 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade and we have roughly half of the American people who vote Democratic saying that the "fetus" is the property of the master, with no inherent rights or protections, to be disposed of at will, even left to die on a steel platter, because they are not persons. Barack Obama won't even call them babies--he uses the language of "fetus" even when he speaks of infants born alive. Might that have something to do with the fact that none of HIS ancestors were ever slaves?

If his chilling indifference to helpless infants doesn't tell you something about the man's utter callousness and narcissism you are totally blind. Obama only cares about those who are useful to propelling him to the Oval office.

dallice · 11-02-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Might that have something to do with the fact that none of HIS ancestors were ever slaves?

No. That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Am I to take that as a sample of the intellectual rigor you bring to this issue?

Quote:

If his chilling indifference to helpless infants

Assumes a fact not in evidence. This ridiculous smear has been debunked. He voted against the Born Alive bill only because there was already a better, stronger law on the books. The people of Illinois do not practice infanticide any more than the people of Ohio, Alabama or Texas.

It's a ridiculous smear made up by a woman (Jill something) who also tried to float rumors that the Chinese eat fetuses and that regular condom use kills people.

mciver · 11-02-2008, 08:48 PM

You say that the "people" by which you must mean the hospitals and abortion clinics in Illinois do not practice infanticide. You must think this way because you like Obama call a born alive infant a "fetus". Dallice, go ahead and be a "Good German" and look the other way while thousands of third trimester abortions take place every day in this country. Then some day you can say "but we didn't think it was really happening" as you weasel out of your moral responsiblity for condoning such a horror.

Your position is so divorced from reality that it's really time to check the Kool-Aid you are drinking. The "stronger law" was not there. The federal law had not been enacted in the states and many states HAD to enact their own laws in order to give doctors protection against malpractice and figure out just what to do with infants who survive abortions. Illinois at the time had the opportunity to follow suit but Obama WOULD NOT BRING THE BILL TO THE FLOOR OF THE ILLINOIS SENATE. He made up his justification afterward but the real reason was his lockstep (or should I say goosestep) in place with the abortion lobby in the state.

And yes, infanticide takes place in virtually every state in the U.S. New York and California being the most hospitable climates for abortion mills. In our state just up the street from me there is an abortion doctor who completely botched the procedure and rendered the young woman sterile. Guess what, a lawsuit was launched but his insurance covered it and now he is still running the clinic. They open on Saturdays for convenience--woohoo!

People with your attitude are sorry examples of humanity. Vote for Obama and check your human decency at the door.

bulletandpima · 11-02-2008, 08:52 PM

Dallice he did vote 4 times against the abortion issue

This is from real clear politic

Quote:

He told Warren that he favors "limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother's health." But the exception he wants is so broad it makes the restriction meaningless. Obama opposed the partial-birth bill that passed the House and the Senate, 281-142 and 64-34 respectively, and has criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law.

It's not just partial-birth abortion where Obama is outside the mainstream, but on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act -- the occasion for his televised accusation of lying.

In 2000, Congress took up legislation to make it clear that infants born alive after abortions are persons under the law. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League opposed the bill as an assault on Roe, but it passed the House 380-15. Back in the Illinois state Senate in 2001, Obama spoke out against and voted "present" -- effectively "no" -- on a similar bill, aligning himself with the tiny pro-abortion rump of 15 congressmen.

In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a "neutrality clause" specifying that it didn't affect Roe one way or another. The bill passed without any dissenting votes in the House or the Senate and was signed into law. In 2003 in Illinois, Obama still opposed a state version of the law. He long claimed that he voted against it because it didn't have the same "neutrality clause" as the federal version. But the National Right to Life Committee has unearthed documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted to kill it anyway.

Confronted about this on CBN, he said the pro-life group was lying. But his campaign has now admitted that he had the legislative history wrong. Obama either didn't know his own record, or was so accustomed to shrouding it in dishonesty that it had become second nature.

Here's the entire article so you can view that I am not cherrypicking
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Obama Lying About His Abortion Record

BTW it was jill stanbeck or stancheck.

dallice · 11-02-2008, 08:53 PM

mciver, by Godwinning this thread, you're admitting you lost.

You clearly are not able to think rationally on this topic, so all you have is your smears. Guess what? Under George Bush and the Republicans, all the progress the Clintons made in lowering abortion rates came almost to a halt. Because your side is more interested in controlling women than it is in reducing abortion. Your side actually tries to manipulate the system to coerce women into having more unintended pregnancies, knowing that some of them will be aborted, simply to exercise your feelings of power and control.

So don't try to pretend you have the moral high ground. You don't. Abortions could be reduced 25% in this country if the religious right would stop using abortion for birth control and start using birth control for birth control.

>Illinois at the time had the opportunity to follow suit but Obama WOULD NOT BRING THE BILL TO THE FLOOR OF THE ILLINOIS SENATE

Illinois already has a law against infanticide. Lying does not demonstrate moral superiority in the way you think it does.

bulletandpima · 11-02-2008, 09:00 PM

Dallice, after 9/11 many people went back to church...many articles state that people have more faith now than 10 yrs ago and religious organizations are experience renewal among congregants that left.

There are also fallacies on your side of the fence...I trust factcheck.org

Quote:

FactCheck.org Exposes Lies That Abortion Rates Increased Under Bush

June 2, 2005 – Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have been spreading falsehoods about the numbers of abortions occurring under the Bush Administration. Clinton and Dean have been claiming that the numbers of abortions have increased under Bush.

On “Meet the Press” recently, Dean claimed “You know that abortions have gone up 25% since George Bush was President?” Clinton claimed on CNN: “… during the Clinton Administration, abortions went down, and they’ve gone back up under the Bush Administration.”

These statements are untrue. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) posted the truth about abortion under Bush in the Congressional Record on May 27. He used an analysis from FactCheck.org.

The FactCheck.org article, “The Biography Of A Bad Statistic” traces the history of this falsehood back to an editorial by Glen Harold Stassen, an ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. His editorial appeared in the leftist Sojourners magazine in October, 2004. This publication is run by Jim Wallis, a well-known liberal sock puppet for leftwing secularism and the Democratic Party. Wallis has been tapped by the Democratic Party to help them use religious words and selected quotes from the Bible when discussing public policy issues.

According to FactCheck.org. “A close reading of Stassen’s article makes clear that he didn’t even pretend to have comprehensive national data on abortion rates. …Furthermore, Stassen is contradicted by one of the very organizations whose data he cites [the Alan Guttmacher Institute].”

dallice · 11-02-2008, 09:02 PM

bulletandprima--no one is denying he voted against the born alive infants protection act. It was both unconstitutional and unnecessary. Illinois already has laws against murdering children, and if enacted, the bill would likely have been overturned because some of the language was unconstitutional. As a constitutional law professor, Obama cannot be expected to vote against unconstitutional bills that are weaker than existing law.

As for the partial birth abortion ban, this is a subject many on the right do not understand well. The first thing to understand is that it does not save ONE fetal life. Not one. It allows one type of procedure for late term abortion, but leaves another legal. Anyone who needs a late term abortion can still get one; the only difference is that the procedure that is still legal is more likely to result in tissue damage for the mother. The next thing to understand is that the law as written does not allow a doctor to consider a woman's health in making medical decisions about her, not even if she will end up in a coma or lose the use of both her kidneys. Many find that unconscionable, particularly in cases where the fetus cannot survive no matter what happens. One or two women dies in childbirth or from complications of pregnancy every day in America. I can think of no similar situation where doctors are forbidden to consider a man's health in making decisions about him.

A more sensible late term abortion law would focus on the reasons for allowing a disallowing a late term abortion; not splitting hairs as to which procedure is allowed and which isn't. The only reason conservatives consider the current ban (which will not save one fetal life) a victory is that the women who must have late term abortions are now more likely to suffer harm and that pleases them.