Is the McCain/Palin ticket the "christian" choice?

[achilles12604]

My wife is experiencing something she has never dealt with before. She is voting for Obama and her entire family is voting for McCain. She is being criticized and attacked by her family for her choice. They are telling her that McCain is the "Christian" choice and since she is voting for Obama she must not be a Christian anymore.

Frankly I am Pissed. But I choose to see past the red at an interesting assumption on the part of her family. Their condemnation is based upon the assumption that Christians would want to vote for the McCain ticket. I question this assumption for the following reasons.

1) McCain/Palin support Christianity in Govt. Palin especially supports the teaching of creationism in school. However, Jesus clearly divides religion and politics.

Matthew 22:20-22
20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

John 18:35-37
35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"

36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

We have many examples, both in history and in today's world, of countries who are run by religion. From modern day Iran, to Spain in 1478, we can see the harm done by religion when mixed with political power.

So I would disagree with McCain and Palin. I do not feel that religion should be mixed with politics and governing bodies. I think Jesus teaches against this idea and history has proven its dangers.



2) Obama wants to talk with our friends and our enemies to try and establish peace.

I think this is a very biblically inspired idea. Jesus teaches

A Brother Who Sins Against You
15"If your brother sins against you,[a] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

Teddy Roosevelt stated "Speak softly and carry a big stick". This is a far cry from the McCain/Palin approach of "Threaten and then hope we have enough troops to back up our roar."

52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Jesus clearly is against violence with the exception of self preservation. So why should we approach other countries with the intention of using violence if we don't get our way? Are we truly safer now that we have invaded and destabalized Iraq? Did that act of aggression and fail diplomacy aid our country at all?

3) McCain and Palin are against gay marriage. They are against allowing couples basic rights simply because of their biological makeup. I defy you to find one place where Jesus decries homosexuality specifically. Where does Jesus judge homosexuals? Why is this "sin" such a sticking point for modern Christians when Jesus spent far more of his time denoucing judgemental religious people?

4) Social programs. The republican party has often been against these programs. Yet Jesus teaches us to give to those who ask us. He teaches us to care for the poor and weak. Obama wants to support these programs.

The common defense here is "I should not have to work so someone with 8 kids can stay home on welfare." I agree with this. However, welfare is not used solely by people taking advantage of it. Whoopie Goldberg was on welfare in her earlier life. She was a "welfare mother". Yet today she is successful and contributes to our system.

So don't feed into generalities especially without evidence. If you want to argue that welfare should be abolished because everyone on it is lazy and doesn't want to work, you should be able to prove that statement first.


There are 4 reasons why I can see that the republican party and the McCain/Palin ticket are LESS "Christian" than Obama.


I offer the following for debate:

1) Which party represents the more "Christian" party and why?

2) Which cantidates represent the better "Christian" ideas and why?

[JoeyKnothead]

On my defaulting to McSame:

It is precisely this default which I am challenging. I do not believe it to be accurate. I believe that the default should be to the Democratic party as this party seems more in line with the teachings of Jesus.

So since you are citing this very default which I am challenging, for what reason should the Republican party be considered the default?

I can agree with what you say here. I read the OP to mean 'which party panders to Christians most'. In light of your post, I can change my position to say, "The Democratic Party better represents the teachings of Jesus".

Having said that, I still say its unconstitutional that folks would 'vote their religion'.

[r~]

They are telling her that McCain is the "Christian" choice and since she is voting for Obama she must not be a Christian anymore.

Please forgive them; they know not what they do.

The serpent is a subtle beast. It will whisper Words that kill, even as it claims them Holy.

Alas, McCain and Palin and her parents are Christian/Patriot in Name only. That is not the same as Christian/Patriot In the Spirit of God and Christ and Liberty.

It is the mark of tyrants and other beasts to judge and condemn the sins of others. Yet even as they wrap themselves in their cloaks of righteousness, they deny the Spirit.


Love your neighbor as yourself.
All exist with full and equal right of peaceful and well-regulated pursuit of happiness.

Forgive the sins of others as you would have your own sins forgiven.
Governments are instituted to secure the inalienable right of liberty for all.

Cast not stony Words at other sinners.
No Law shall be construed to deny or disparage the self-retained right of liberty for any.


I admit that McCain/Palin claim they hold the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all. Unfortunately they Believe only in the right of all to pursue what makes McCain/Palin happy.

Does a consenting adult have the inalienable right to marry the consenting adult of their choice?

Not according to McCain/Palin. You may only marry the gender that makes McCain/Palin happy.

It is not your wife that is not Christian/Patriot ItS.

I am
ItS
r~

I am a minister of the true covenant; not of Word or Law, but of spirit. Words and Law can kill; but only the spirit gives life.

[micatala]

On my defaulting to McSame:

It is precisely this default which I am challenging. I do not believe it to be accurate. I believe that the default should be to the Democratic party as this party seems more in line with the teachings of Jesus.

So since you are citing this very default which I am challenging, for what reason should the Republican party be considered the default?

I can agree with what you say here. I read the OP to mean 'which party panders to Christians most'. In light of your post, I can change my position to say, "The Democratic Party better represents the teachings of Jesus".

Having said that, I still say its unconstitutional that folks would 'vote their religion'.

?????

I assume (hope!??) you are speaking with your tongue firmly in cheek.

[Vladd44]

I guess I can see where you are coming from. However, I have never heard Obama express his own agreement with any kind of 'black racism.' I do not impute Wright's statements to Obama. You seem to be assuming that if Obama attended Wright's church, he must therefore have some agreement with anything Wright says. Given Obama's and Wright's views and statements have changed some over time, I can understand why Obama might have simply ignored those teachings of Wright he didn't agree with, without breaking his relationship with him.

Given that the church definition as a "Afro-Centric church" supporting black theology it is a bit unrealistic to think that this is not a central focus of the church.

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

The basis for this doctrine is far to rooted in hate and divisiveness for it not to pervade every aspect of their cause.

Once again, if a white candidate went to a church that supported white liberation theology. Which it's founder espoused the above view (with white and black reversed) they could not win an election of dog catcher. And rightfully so.

I believe the problem is that most of the people have accepted the Frank Wright is like an old uncle BS line of Obama. But the truth is that Wright is a man who fully embraces hatred. A diet that his followers chose to dine on weekly.

Would you refuse to vote for a Catholic candidate based on what the Pope or the candidate's bishop said? Would you refuse to vote for McCain or Palin based on what their church-leaders said, even if they explicitly said they didn't agree with the church-leader's statement?

If there was an established pattern of record that the candidate had his own viewpoints and was not a pope clone (most of them are not), then it would be no issue. On the other hand, a newbie candidate would have some serious clarification on their position on a variety of issues (birth control, religious autonomy, gay rights to name a few) before I could even consider being comfortable with voting for them.

In Obama's race speech, he made it about America's issues, not his. He bemoaned the fact that sunday mornings are the most segregated time in the us, while he supported a "black church". WTF, what a hypocrite.

When I was a Christian, I spent the overwhelming majority of time in integrated churches. It is not like they are hard to find.

If Obama had discussed the differences between black liberation viewpoints in which his church or pastor supported that he disagreed with, he may have kept me positive towards him, but he did not.

[Vladd44]

Hello achilles12604,

For those of you who have known me for the last 3 years, you may have noticed some changes about myself, my faith and my view of the world.

I would say this forum is one place where some of those changes could be easily documented.

Now, if they started speaking like rev wright, would you link me to those ideas given what you know of me and the changes in my perceptions on both religion and the world over the last 3 years?

I certainly hope not.

So why should Obama be linked to his pastor in the same way?

You miss a few important points.

1. Frank Wright did not wake up in January and become a black liberationists.
2. Black Liberation did not change it's meaning over the past year either.
3. Barack has not condemned the "Black Liberation" perspective.
4. To my knowledge, Barack has not condemned a specific thing that Wright said, just a general rebuke. So there is NO clarity of what exactly he was disagreeing with.
5. Barack on multiple occasions refused to repudiate Frank Wright, it wasn't until Wright attacked him that he repudiated his former mentor.

Now let's discuss achilles12604.

I think you have just on this forum laid out some clear diversions between you and the beliefs of others you know and even respect. Is it not fair to expect Obama to do the same?

As I said before, a white candidate with this baggage would never be elected to the lowest position, why should a black racist get a free pass?

[JoeyKnothead]

On my defaulting to McSame:

It is precisely this default which I am challenging. I do not believe it to be accurate. I believe that the default should be to the Democratic party as this party seems more in line with the teachings of Jesus.

So since you are citing this very default which I am challenging, for what reason should the Republican party be considered the default?

I can agree with what you say here. I read the OP to mean 'which party panders to Christians most'. In light of your post, I can change my position to say, "The Democratic Party better represents the teachings of Jesus".

Having said that, I still say its unconstitutional that folks would 'vote their religion'.

?????

I assume (hope!??) you are speaking with your tongue firmly in cheek.

Being as the Constitution says there is no religious test for public office, I refer to people who might say "He's X, that's my brand, I'm voting for him even though he's not the best candidate".

[achilles12604]

Now, if they started speaking like rev wright, would you link me to those ideas given what you know of me and the changes in my perceptions on both religion and the world over the last 3 years?

I certainly hope not.

So why should Obama be linked to his pastor in the same way?

You miss a few important points.

1. Frank Wright did not wake up in January and become a black liberationists.
2. Black Liberation did not change it's meaning over the past year either.
3. Barack has not condemned the "Black Liberation" perspective.
4. To my knowledge, Barack has not condemned a specific thing that Wright said, just a general rebuke. So there is NO clarity of what exactly he was disagreeing with.
5. Barack on multiple occasions refused to repudiate Frank Wright, it wasn't until Wright attacked him that he repudiated his former mentor.

Hello Vladd,

I am open to discuss the points you claim I missed.

1) 1. Frank Wright did not wake up in January and become a black liberationists.

I shall assume by Frank Wright, you are actually referring to JEREMIAH WRIGHT. Frank Wright was an American Architect of Welsh decent.

Now as for your point. . . perhaps. As none of us know Wright, or his history, or the vast majority of his sermons, or really anything about him, I don't think any of us are really in a position to make ANY claims about when he did what. We are even less qualified to know when he BELIEVED what.

However here are some points to consider.

A) Wright was born 9-22-41. This means that he grew up before the civil rights movement and was a teen/young twenties during the civil rights movement. He als grew up in Philadelphia. I think it is fair to say that this would indeed strongly impact a person's perspective on the world. I as a white, middle class, ex-military, police officer, am even willing to take this into consideration when hearing him vent his anger and frustration. Do I agree with the few quotes we have heard? Absolutly not. But I do understand them.

Theodore Roosevelt, on of the most admired presidents in American history, also held violently racist views based on his history. Here are a few quotes from a man most Americans hold in high regard:

[center]"Roosevelt argued the frontier conditions created a new race: the American people that replaced the "scattered savage tribes, whose life was but a few degrees less meaningless, squalid, and ferocious than that of the wild beasts with whom they held joint ownership."

"The settler and pioneer have at bottom had justice on their side; this great continent could not have been kept as nothing but a game preserve for squalid savages."

"The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages."

"American and Indian, Boer and Zulu, Cossack and Tartar, New Zealander and Maori, — in each case the victor, horrible though many of his deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people."

"..it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races."

"The world would have halted had it not been for the Teutonic conquests in alien lands; but the victories of Moslem over Christian have always proved a curse in the end. Nothing but sheer evil has come from the victories of Turk and Tartar."[/center]

These words are just as hateful as Wrights. But Roosevelt went a step farther and took action with these words. By todays standards we would arrest Roosevelt for ratially motivated crimes.

So to condemn Wright simply for being angry, while ignoring his history and what he encountered while growing up, in my opinion is unfair and close minded.



Now let us compare Wright's history with Obama's.

Obama was born August 4, 1961. This makes him 20 years younger than Wright. H doesn't even remember the civil right's movement. He did not have these experiences to shade his perspective on the world. In addition to this he was raised by his white mother from Kansas. I am not sure how much more of a NON BLACK LIBERTARIAN model you can have than a white mother from Kansas unless it was his mother's parents who then took him from the age of 10 until he graduated high school in Hawaii.

This background is almost the polar opposite from Wright's.



One other small point to consider is just how much of Wright's words we have heard and in what context we heard them. The "God damn America" speech is taken out of context and usually lumped in with another speech given 6 months later. Consider than out of 30 years in the pulpit the media and the Republican party was able to identify and pull out less than 30 seconds of inflamatory comments.

That is less than .000001% of what Wright said. I certainly hope I am not judged by cherry picking .000001 % of my words or I will certainly be accused of hatred of mankind.



So going back to your first point, while we are not sure of the exact beliefs and experiences of Wright, I feel that when applying his "Change to Black Libertarianism overnight" in comparison to Obama, we need to consider the backgrounds of both men. As you can see, it is highly unlikely that Obama's background would allow him to feel or experience the same things which you claim caused Wright to become a Black Libertarian.

2. Black Liberation did not change it's meaning over the past year either.

Ok then.

3. Barack has not condemned the "Black Liberation" perspective.
4. To my knowledge, Barack has not condemned a specific thing that Wright said, just a general rebuke. So there is NO clarity of what exactly he was disagreeing with.

These two are linked. And it is apparent to me that you have not investigated Obama's comments on this subject. I would suspect that you made your decision about him before giving him a fair hearing. Allow me to rectify this by presenting several of Obama's comments on these subjects.




Obviously Obama has rejected what was said as well as the Black Libertarian movement. Here is his speech on unifying race and political sides in this country.



I seriously doubt that Obama supports the anger, hatred and division purported by the Black Liberation Movement.

5. Barack on multiple occasions refused to repudiate Frank Wright, it wasn't until Wright attacked him that he repudiated his former mentor.

I don't remember Wright ever attacking Obama. Unless you can find a quote where Wright attacked Obama, I think this point is fully incorrect. But just for the record this is why Obama rejected Wright.







So let us discuss why Obama should not be linked with Jeramiah Wright.

1) He had a much different upbringing in a much different time in a much different place than Wright. This certainly will caused him to have a different outlook on life than Wright.

2) He has a history of being a uniter, not a divider. He has worked with whites, blacks, browns, and everyone to promote the goodness that society can offer to each other.

3) Obama denounced the remarks made by Wright and ultimately denounced his friend and pastor. If you watch the speech made by Obama you can clearly see the anger Obama held for his former friend because of what he said.

4) Obama has no history that I am aware of of division, or promoting anger or hatred.

5) He has shown a genuine love for his fellow man (black and white) and has done a great deal of work in aiding in protecting and supporting those he could help.

Now let's discuss achilles12604.

I think you have just on this forum laid out some clear diversions between you and the beliefs of others you know and even respect. Is it not fair to expect Obama to do the same?

As I said before, a white candidate with this baggage would never be elected to the lowest position, why should a black racist get a free pass?

Tell me . . . if someone was outspoken against a particular religion, do you think that person would be elected? How about a certain race?

I suggest you research Winston Churchhill and how he viewed Ghandi and the entire Indian race and then tell me a white man with extreme racism can't be elected.

[micatala]

On my defaulting to McSame:

It is precisely this default which I am challenging. I do not believe it to be accurate. I believe that the default should be to the Democratic party as this party seems more in line with the teachings of Jesus.

So since you are citing this very default which I am challenging, for what reason should the Republican party be considered the default?

I can agree with what you say here. I read the OP to mean 'which party panders to Christians most'. In light of your post, I can change my position to say, "The Democratic Party better represents the teachings of Jesus".

Having said that, I still say its unconstitutional that folks would 'vote their religion'.

?????

I assume (hope!??) you are speaking with your tongue firmly in cheek.

Being as the Constitution says there is no religious test for public office, I refer to people who might say "He's X, that's my brand, I'm voting for him even though he's not the best candidate".

Correct me if I am wrong, but the religious test applies to the government. The government can not prevent people from being candidates or taking office based on their religious beliefs. It says nothing about how voters go about making their decisions. I would challenge you to make the case that a voter who says "I am voting for A because they agree with my religious beliefs" would be susceptible to action against him or her on the part of the government or a private citizen for acting "unconstitutionally."

[JoeyKnothead]

On my defaulting to McSame:

It is precisely this default which I am challenging. I do not believe it to be accurate. I believe that the default should be to the Democratic party as this party seems more in line with the teachings of Jesus.

So since you are citing this very default which I am challenging, for what reason should the Republican party be considered the default?

I can agree with what you say here. I read the OP to mean 'which party panders to Christians most'. In light of your post, I can change my position to say, "The Democratic Party better represents the teachings of Jesus".

Having said that, I still say its unconstitutional that folks would 'vote their religion'.

?????

I assume (hope!??) you are speaking with your tongue firmly in cheek.

Being as the Constitution says there is no religious test for public office, I refer to people who might say "He's X, that's my brand, I'm voting for him even though he's not the best candidate".

Correct me if I am wrong, but the religious test applies to the government. The government can not prevent people from being candidates or taking office based on their religious beliefs. It says nothing about how voters go about making their decisions. I would challenge you to make the case that a voter who says "I am voting for A because they agree with my religious beliefs" would be susceptible to action against him or her on the part of the government or a private citizen for acting "unconstitutionally."

You're right about the government's deal.
You're right about no action taken against a voter who does so.
I'm right about someone picking a lesser candidate based solely on religious beliefs as being wrong, insofar as they are picking a candidate they know is the lesser choice. And as they are making this decision based on religion, and not qualifications, then they are indeed going against the Constitution.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

On my defaulting to McSame:

It is precisely this default which I am challenging. I do not believe it to be accurate. I believe that the default should be to the Democratic party as this party seems more in line with the teachings of Jesus.

So since you are citing this very default which I am challenging, for what reason should the Republican party be considered the default?

I can agree with what you say here. I read the OP to mean 'which party panders to Christians most'. In light of your post, I can change my position to say, "The Democratic Party better represents the teachings of Jesus".

Having said that, I still say its unconstitutional that folks would 'vote their religion'.

?????

I assume (hope!??) you are speaking with your tongue firmly in cheek.

Being as the Constitution says there is no religious test for public office, I refer to people who might say "He's X, that's my brand, I'm voting for him even though he's not the best candidate".

It is unamerican, perhaps to vote based on a candidate's religion, but not unconstitutional. A voter can use whatever criteria they want to choose a candidate. The only thing that no religious test for public office guarantees is that no one is denied the right to run for public office based upon their religion.