New Election 2008 thread

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

if you look into it, you will see that the evangelical churches are making huge strides worldwide to combat human trafficking, AIDS in Africa, bringing clean water wells to India, etc. It's not just about spreading the Word, it's about doing something to help our fellow man. My church in particular is hands on doing these very things. It's sad that blowhards like Falwell and Robertson have sullied the reputation of the Church. Evangelicals are aware of this perception and are trying to do something about it. Churches have gotten a bad rap over the years. It shouldn't be the goal to influence politics, but rather to take care of the needs of those less fortunate locally and abroad and be an example.

 

There are inroads that are made. But it's been like Bush's (supposed) faith-based initiaitive, where funding is tied to being the "right" faith-based organization.

 

I worked for years with UMVIM, the Methodist missions organization, so there are pockets of stuff done. Working from inside I can tell you they butt heads with church politics and starve from inaction, with rare handouts of $ with strings attached. Churches love to have pics taken of them holding the donation check, but they won't get their hands dirty.

 

i'm really sorry you feel that way. that's certainly not what i see every Sunday.

 

As far as the "segregated hour" that is a cliche among clergy and national church leaders -- the most prominent time I heard it was during a "leadership conference" put on by the super-mega-church in Illinois -- their leader's quite a boater, I hear.

[bjorn_skurj]

Anyone who believes in the inerrancy of a piece of writing first written in ancient Hebrew, translated into Greek about a half a dozen times, then translated into English about 30 zillion more times is disrespecting the reason that God gifted them with. The Bible has some of the best moral guidance and wisdom ever collected, but fundamentalists are wrong, in my humble opinion, to think they can correctly divine what that book means at all times and without error.

[uncle wilco]

I worked for years with UMVIM, the Methodist missions organization, so there are pockets of stuff done. Working from inside I can tell you they butt heads with church politics and starve from inaction, with rare handouts of $ with strings attached. Churches love to have pics taken of them holding the donation check, but they won't get their hands dirty.

i happen to attend a church that is self-sufficient and isn't subject to oversight by a huge denomination. they deal directly with the missionaries in the field (because they are actual church members). it's a very hands on deal because they are the ones doing the work. it is certainly rewarding to know that your contribution is not being run through a huge organization, but rather going directly to the source.

 

Anyone who believes in the inerrancy of a piece of writing first written in ancient Hebrew, translated into Greek about a half a dozen times, then translated into English about 30 zillion more times is disrespecting the reason that God gifted them with. The Bible has some of the best moral guidance and wisdom ever collected, but fundamentalists are wrong, in my humble opinion, to think they can correctly divine what that book means at all times and without error.

i'd rather not turn this into a debate on theology. i believe that everything that the biblical apolstles dealt with in regards to the church is valid to this very day and very plainly worded. but, that is my belief.

 

your point of view is duly noted.

[Beltmann]

well, if that is the case, then they aren't really evangelicals.

This strikes me as the kind of political fascism that I often face within Christian circles, where political divergence is too often considered a form of heresy. The problem with calling Obama and his evangelical supporters "untrue" Christians is that it requires us to assume, wrongly, that all "real" Christians must share an identical political and social agenda. It is true that Obama subscribes to a more progressive political system than the version espoused by most members of the Religious Right. Obama's views on, say, homosexuality and abortion, may not be majority Christian opinion, but they are indeed shared by many people who self-identify as Christian and even evangelical. (And it's clear that Obama shares with typical evangelicals a belief in the sanctity of life; the difference isn't one of values, it's merely a disagreement about how to most pragmatically address the topic of abortion.) Such variance of political opinion does not automatically disqualify an individual as a believer, and does not free others to judge the quality of his or her faith. That judgment belongs to God alone.

 

One of the enormous failings of the Christian Right is how they assume that their vision of Christianity is the only possible Christian vision--and how they assume that Christians who happen to disagree on certain political points must have somehow lost their moral compass. That's hubris, not religion.

 

I grew up in a home where it was taken as fact that Republicans represented moral values and Democrats represented the corruption of America. But I had the good fortune of always being an inquisitive thinker, and eventually my questioning allowed me to see that the truth is rather more complex. While I have rarely doubted the theology of evangelical Christianity, I have had many questions and turnabouts regarding how that faith ought to manifest itself in politics.

 

What I know is that all of my political positions are rooted in my faith, Christian compassion, and a search for truth. At this point in my life, I've stopped trying to align that mission with the usual right-wing assumptions. Like Emily Dickinson, I've become comfortable in my own spiritual skin. I'm no longer afraid to say that I think much of the conservative agenda directly violates human rights interests and Christian principles. I'm a practicing Christian who sometimes leans progressive, and it's my faith that ultimately steered me down that path; it requires no reconciliation.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, I fail to see why all that right-wing baggage must be an inevitable, intertwined part of my Christianity.

 

Obviously our next president ought to be governed by a strong moral compass, and, as someone who veered progressive as a direct result of his faith, I

[mfwahl]

and i don't personally know any racist evangelicals. way to slip that in there.

You may not know any racist evangelicals but I don't know what you mean about way to slip that in there. I wasn't tying racism to evangelicalism. But there is a history in the South of the problem of reconciling a history of racist attitudes and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Plus this is America. I was just pointing it out as one reason I've heard for people not voting for Barack Obama. I've been astonished by the things I've heard over the past few months when it became increasingly likely that Barack would be the Democratic nominee. I realize that I was naive about where our country is at on the issue of race.

 

Maybe I was also naive in thinking that Obama could get a respectable evangelical vote. I just assumed that evangelicals who can think straight would see health care, fair economic practices, and ending an unjust war more important than stopping gays from getting married and banning abortions.

[fatheadfred]

 

You ain't earmarkin my brew you mofo!

[mfwahl]

I hate to say it, but I agree. Imposing a moral judgment on whether certain companies are making too much money, and then taxing their windfalls, is a slippery slope.

Not if they are getting government subsidies while many taxpayers can't get adequate/any healthcare. Plus some corporations receive tax breaks from our government and then lobby against us in international trade disputes. Gimme their moneys!

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

i happen to attend a church that is self-sufficient and isn't subject to oversight by a huge denomination. they deal directly with the missionaries in the field (because they are actual church members). it's a very hands on deal because they are the ones doing the work. it is certainly rewarding to know that your contribution is not being run through a huge organization, but rather going directly to the source.

 

That is indeed a rewarding situation. Thank you for your efforts to nurture and support such an environment.

 

i'd rather not turn this into a debate on theology. i believe that everything that the biblical apolstles dealt with in regards to the church is valid to this very day and very plainly worded. but, that is my belief.

 

your point of view is duly noted.

 

I believe the words are tested and true. But then and now, the church has been corrupted by power and politics, which has arisen from interpretations of the word.

 

Regardless whether you're a Christian or whatever your faith in a higher power, there can't be a more succinct approach than this:

 

Love the your lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as you love yourself (get your mind out of the gutter).

 

In other words embrace what is right, and be right by anyone.

[dannygutters]

Maybe I was also naive in thinking that Obama could get a respectable evangelical vote. I just assumed that evangelicals who can think straight would see health care, fair economic practices, and ending an unjust war more important than stopping gays from getting married and banning abortions.

 

I don't think it's unrealistic to think the 'evangelical vote' is in-play with Obama. We have for so long assumed that this bloc would go to the republican side that it seems unthinkable. Like the previous poster said I do think theologically, the christian platform of social justice, fighting poverty, tolerance, and pacifism falls closer to the obama side of the fence interms of the war, economic distribution, healthcare, and others (certianly neither candidate emobdies any of these platforms completely, for example imagine how well a pacifist candidate for presidency would do (when was the last on? Debs?)).

 

Theologically tho coming from a catholic background and ending up on the left side of things, I find the book itself quite prone to translation error, revision, embellishment and historical change (see constantine, many popes, vatican 1 vs 2. I mean comon, even within the book, Jesus says forget what you learned in the old testimate here's the new rules) and drasticly misapplied in modern wedge issues. They say the church is a pilgrim, or an entity striving towards perfection itself, why should the book be held as immutable when nothing else in the tradition is (I suppose I'd think differenty as a Protestant on this tho.. )

[mfwahl]

Jesus would totally be on the No FLy List.

[Beltmann]

Maybe I was also naive in thinking that Obama could get a respectable evangelical vote.

I don't think this is a pipe dream. This article at Belief.net suggests Obama has a chance to snag 30-40% of the evangelical vote. It might be an outside chance, but wishful thinking? I'm not so sure.

 

Anecdotal note: Even my mother, who is a church secretary and a lifelong staunch Republican and conservative warrior, intends to vote for Obama.

[bobbob1313]

joke after hearing a loud bang in the background while he spoke to the National Rifle Association recently:

 

 

 

he's since called obama personally to apologize, but what a dickweed, dumbass joke to make.

 

Yeah, that makes me like him less.

 

 

And, Uncle Wilco, I'm having a damned hard time trying to find anything that you've posted in this thread that can show me how Barack's policies aren't in line with those of the bible. They might not be in line with the evangelical community as a whole, but I'm of the opinion that a lot of those people lost sight of the bible somewhere along the way.

 

Care to explain exactly why Obama's views are so far out of line with Evangelicals? And please don't say gay marriage.

[uncle wilco]

This strikes me as the kind of political fascism that I often face within Christian circles, where political divergence is too often considered a form of heresy. The problem with calling Obama and his evangelical supporters "untrue" Christians is that it requires us to assume, wrongly, that all "real" Christians must share an identical political and social agenda.

 

wait a minute, i never said they were "untrue" christians. evangelicals by definition are: Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life. (from Dictionary.com). there are many ways to worship and interpret scripture. it is not for me to judge who is and who is not a christian and that is not what i intended to imply.

 

It is true that Obama subscribes to a more progressive political system than the version espoused by most members of the Religious Right. Obama's views on, say, homosexuality and abortion, may not be majority Christian opinion, but they are indeed shared by many people who self-identify as Christian and even evangelical. (And it's clear that Obama shares with typical evangelicals a belief in the sanctity of life; the difference isn't one of values, it's merely a disagreement about how to most pragmatically address the topic of abortion.) Such variance of political opinion does not automatically disqualify an individual as a believer, and does not free others to judge the quality of his or her faith. That judgment belongs to God alone.

 

again, it's not a judgement of obama's own principles, but rather the ability to reconcile my own interpretation of scripture with his politics. i cannot do it with a clear conscience. and i happen to side with the majority of evangelicals in that regard. i refuse to just fall in line with any group. to support a particular candidate is a personal decision. if the evangelical majority ran counter to what i believe to be true, then i wouldn't call myself an evangelical. but, for now, that's not the case.

 

One of the enormous failings of the Christian Right is how they assume that their vision of Christianity is the only possible Christian vision--and how they assume that Christians who happen to disagree on certain points must have somehow lost their moral compass. That's hubris, not religion.

 

true evangelicals are but one division in the christian church and do not claim superiority over any other. i certainly don't. we are all equal in the eyes of God and He alone is the judge. that does not mean that we shouldn't seek a community of believers, who's interpretation is similar to our own.

 

I grew up in a home where it was taken as fact that Republicans represented moral values and Democrats represented the corruption of America. But I had the good fortune of always being an inquisitive thinker, and eventually my questioning allowed me to see that the truth is rather more complex. While I have rarely doubted the theology of evangelical Christianity, I have had many questions and turnabouts regarding how that faith ought to manifest itself in politics.

 

religion shouldn't be involved at all imo. i don't see how endorsements should be sought or given. it is easy enough to find where a candidate stands on issues. there really shouldn't be a need to give voice to it or grandstand. it sends the wrong message. falwell and robertson are perfect examples of that.

 

What I know is that all of my political positions are rooted in my faith, Christian compassion, and a search for truth. At this point in my life, I've stopped trying to align that mission with the usual right-wing assumptions. Like Emily Dickinson, I've become comfortable in my own spiritual skin. I'm no longer afraid to say that I think much of the conservative agenda directly violates human rights interests and Christian principles. I'm a practicing Christian who sometimes leans progressive, and it's my faith that ultimately steered me down that path; it requires no reconciliation.

 

we all have our own spiritual path to travel.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, I fail to see why all that right-wing baggage must be an inevitable, intertwined part of my Christianity.

 

forget the right-wing crap and focus on what you believe. that's all that matters.

 

Obviously our next president ought to be governed by a strong moral compass, and, as someone who veered progressive as a direct result of his faith, I

[MattZ]

Not if they are getting government subsidies while many taxpayers can't get adequate/any healthcare. Plus some corporations receive tax breaks from our government and then lobby against us in international trade disputes. Gimme their moneys!

 

Those are different issues. And I agree with you on both. End the subsidies and close the tax loopholes for these companies. No argument from me there. But taxing windfall profits is a different beast and it requires someone to make a moral judgment about how much money is too much money for a company to make. It's a slippery slope. Obama says he will use the tax revenue generated to research alternative energy options, but why should Exxon be responsible for funding research into alternative energy sources? The government has plenty of ways to encourage research of this nature -- offer tax breaks, spend tax dollars, etc.

 

This will be popular because no one wants to pay $5/gallon while Exxon is raking in record profits. But that doesn't make it right. I can't believe I am defending Exxon and the other oil companies here, but jeez, this just reeks of the national gas tax holiday that we criticized HRC and McCain over. Cheap political points.

[uncle wilco]

You may not know any racist evangelicals but I don't know what you mean about way to slip that in there. I wasn't tying racism to evangelicalism. But there is a history in the South of the problem of reconciling a history of racist attitudes and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Plus this is America. I was just pointing it out as one reason I've heard for people not voting for Barack Obama. I've been astonished by the things I've heard over the past few months when it became increasingly likely that Barack would be the Democratic nominee. I realize that I was naive about where our country is at on the issue of race.

 

Maybe I was also naive in thinking that Obama could get a respectable evangelical vote. I just assumed that evangelicals who can think straight would see health care, fair economic practices, and ending an unjust war more important than stopping gays from getting married and banning abortions.

 

i'm all about issues, not ethnicity. if barack espoused the same values as me, i'd be all about getting him into office. i'm jealous that i have no candidate to support that has the personality he has. i just wish i agreed enough with his politics. this whole race issue is hard for me to understand. where i live (midwest) it's certainly not an issue at all and neither is gender, for that matter.

 

i love how you put the jabs in there. (in bold)

[uncle wilco]

And, Uncle Wilco, I'm having a damned hard time trying to find anything that you've posted in this thread that can show me how Barack's policies aren't in line with those of the bible. They might not be in line with the evangelical community as a whole, but I'm of the opinion that a lot of those people lost sight of the bible somewhere along the way.

 

Care to explain exactly why Obama's views are so far out of line with Evangelicals? And please don't say gay marriage.

 

choosing a candidate is a personal decision. therefore, it's not my place to tell you what i've based my decision on. if you read his website and see where he stands and then read the bible and can reconcile the two, obama is your man. i've done both and couldn't go there. sadly, mccain is plan b and i really can't stand the man (mccain). i will be an extremely unenthusiastic voter this november.

 

i really have no desire to have an open discussion on the evangelical majority's problems with obama's agenda. there's really no point to it here. i have neither the interest, nor the time.

[mfwahl]

i'm all about issues, not ethnicity. if barack espoused the same values as me, i'd be all about getting him into office. i'm jealous that i have no candidate to support that has the personality he has. i just wish i agreed enough with his politics. this whole race issue is hard for me to understand. where i live (midwest) it's certainly not an issue at all and neither is gender, for that matter.

 

i love how you put the jabs in there. (in bold)

 

Those aren't jabs; those are very legitimate issues. I have a problem understanding why those issues aren't looked at comparativley in that way by many people of faith (maybe not you). I've had to live with this president whose continous campaign of propaganda relied on support from the religious right.

 

In my first post, I was just speculating that Obama may do well with evangelicals, a voting bloc that has been talked about a lot in the past decade. I thought his religious beliefs and somewhat populist message would be popular with them. I still think it's possible.

 

The race issue shouldn't be important but sadly it is (which is why I barely mentioned it, rather than "slipped it in")

[Good Old Neon]

choosing a candidate is a personal decision. therefore, it's not my place to tell you what i've based my decision on. if you read his website and see where he stands and then read the bible and can reconcile the two, obama is your man. i've done both and couldn't go there. sadly, mccain is plan b and i really can't stand the man (mccain). i will be an extremely unenthusiastic voter this november.

 

i really have no desire to have an open discussion on the evangelical majority's problems with obama's agenda. there's really no point to it here. i have neither the interest, nor the time.

 

So, you don

[uncle wilco]

So, you don

[fatheadfred]

i'm all about issues, not ethnicity. if barack espoused the same values as me, i'd be all about getting him into office. i'm jealous that i have no candidate to support that has the personality he has. i just wish i agreed enough with his politics. this whole race issue is hard for me to understand. where i live (midwest) it's certainly not an issue at all and neither is gender, for that matter.

 

Please drive 20 miles in either direction of downtown KC, hang somewhere that people freely discuss politics and see how many people will not vote for a 'nigger'. Racism is in the midwest, maybe not as prevalent as Arkansas, Kentucky, etc. but it is here. I can't give you stats and I realize the delegate proportion for the Democratic primary is influenced by education, but I still have to think racism is correlated with nonmetro, non higher ed areas. I have lived in rural Missouri and Illinois for much of my life and racism is here. Simply having a multiracial presidential candidate will be a painful, yet much needed, time for America to bring racism to the front of our consciousness.

 

On another note, can you explain why tax exempt churches have become lobbyists? I guess huge corparations that are subsidized do the same thing. I am aware that other special interest groups are involved in politics, but they maintain a sense ambiguity.

[uncle wilco]

Please drive 20 miles in either direction of downtown KC, hang somewhere that people freely discuss politics and see how many people will not vote for a 'nigger'. Racism is in the midwest, maybe not as prevalent as Arkansas, Kentucky, etc. but it is here. I can't give you stats and I realize the delegate proportion for the Democratic primary is influenced by education, but I still have to think racism is correlated with nonmetro, non higher ed areas. I have lived in rural Missouri and Illinois for much of my life and racism is here. Simply having a multiracial presidential candidate will be a painful, yet much needed, time for America to bring racism to the front of our consciousness.

 

On another note, can you explain why tax exempt churches have become lobbyists? I guess huge corparations that are subsidized do the same thing. I am aware that other special interest groups are involved in politics, but they maintain a sense ambiguity.

you don't have tell me racism still exists, but i will tell you that in downtown k.c. and it's suburbs in kansas or missouri, it doesn't seem to factor into politics. i can only speak to what i know. i've never lived in arkansas, kentucky, etc.

 

i don't think churches should have any function in politics except to serve the needs of people regardless of political affiliation. those who choose to dabble in influencing policy give the rest of us a bad name.

[fatheadfred]

you don't have tell me racism still exists, but i will tell you that in downtown k.c. and it's suburbs in kansas or missouri, it doesn't seem to factor into politics. i can only speak to what i know. i've never lived in arkansas, kentucky, etc.

 

i don't think churches should have any function in politics except to serve the needs of people regardless of political affiliation. those who choose to dabble in influencing policy give the rest of us a bad name.

 

I guess we'll leave it at that because neither of us run a poll machine and I assume our evidence is anecdotal, see below.

 

I am glad to hear your opinion on the church/political influence topic. I am by no means religious, however, I respect each person's right to their philosophy; however, the sheer number of constituents the Rove machine accumulated is pure evil. I think these constituents came to the realization they were duped when they found out W couldn't do anything about Roe vs. Wade. They did find solace in continuing the war against the evil Muslims and prevention of gay marriage.

 

More anectdotal evidence: my brother, an almost fundamentalist christian having twice voted for Bush has back Obama since the beginning of the year. While working in his coffee shop has overheard local Democratic leaders saying, "I am not going to vote for that n*****." And these aren't the cliche racist hillbillies. They are considered upper crust.

[EL the Famous]

More anectdotal evidence: my brother, an almost fundamentalist christian having twice voted for Bush has back Obama since the beginning of the year. While working in his coffee shop has overheard local Democratic leaders saying, "I am not going to vote for that n*****." And these aren't the cliche racist hillbillies. They are considered upper crust.

 

Um, he's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

[fatheadfred]

hmmm.

[MrRain422]

While McCain's embrace of the unitary executive theory and necon foreign policy principles is definately pathetic, I don't think it's really very moderate.