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?

[Vladd44]

You should check out his church's about us page, and then The Black Value System.

If a church had those same statements with the word white instead of black we would all rightfully bemoan those inbred racist crackers.

I would suggest you google a bit and read a bit further about the man Obama sat under for over 20 years. He gave his time, his money, got married there and sat his children in a place to hear this hate. Frank Wright is a spiteful, hatemongering man, but Obama even named his book "Audacity of Hope" after one of his sermons.

There is no way Obama could go to trinity for all those years, befriend his pastor and yet not know where he was. It defies reason to think that he could sit there 20 years unaffected.

[JoeyKnothead]

I just want to comment on the Rev Wright deal and Obama's connections to him.

Rev Wright represents what happens when you oppress a group of people for so long. History is full of tales of one group of oppressed people rising up, gaining power, and creating their own new oppressions. This is why it is so important we act now to stamp out oppression, and work our tails off to ensure everyone is able to live freely. I could expand on this, but I'm trying to be brief.

So with the above in mind I look at the OP:
1- The republicans do seem more vocal in representing 'Christian' values.
2- Since 1, then by default I will say McCain.

The problem though, is that if we allow Christians to keep gaining more and more political power, we risk turning this nation into an overt theocracy. So between the two, I would prefer Obama because he accepts this as a nation of more than just Christians.

[achilles12604]

I just want to comment on the Rev Wright deal and Obama's connections to him.

Rev Wright represents what happens when you oppress a group of people for so long. History is full of tales of one group of oppressed people rising up, gaining power, and creating their own new oppressions. This is why it is so important we act now to stamp out oppression, and work our tails off to ensure everyone is able to live freely. I could expand on this, but I'm trying to be brief.

So with the above in mind I look at the OP:
1- The republicans do seem more vocal in representing 'Christian' values.
2- Since 1, then by default I will say McCain.

The problem though, is that if we allow Christians to keep gaining more and more political power, we risk turning this nation into an overt theocracy. So between the two, I would prefer Obama because he accepts this as a nation of more than just Christians.

Interesting. Could you be more specific about what "Christian" values McCain has been outspoken about?

[Easyrider]

The problem though, is that if we allow Christians to keep gaining more and more political power, we risk turning this nation into an overt theocracy.

I've hung around Christians almost all my life and I've never seen a one of them push for a theocracy. Maybe there's some small splinter group somewhere that wants a theocracy, but Christians just want Christians in government. The "theocracy" argument is just a strawman used to scare others.

[Cathar1950]

The problem though, is that if we allow Christians to keep gaining more and more political power, we risk turning this nation into an overt theocracy.

I've hung around Christians almost all my life and I've never seen a one of them push for a theocracy. Maybe there's some small splinter group somewhere that wants a theocracy, but Christians just want Christians in government. The "theocracy" argument is just a strawman used to scare others.

Are you saying Christians don't want God in charge just Christians in charge?
What do you think a theocracy is anyway?
It sounds like denial on the part of some Christians and not some scare tactic of others.

[JoeyKnothead]

I just want to comment on the Rev Wright deal and Obama's connections to him.

Rev Wright represents what happens when you oppress a group of people for so long. History is full of tales of one group of oppressed people rising up, gaining power, and creating their own new oppressions. This is why it is so important we act now to stamp out oppression, and work our tails off to ensure everyone is able to live freely. I could expand on this, but I'm trying to be brief.

So with the above in mind I look at the OP:
1- The republicans do seem more vocal in representing 'Christian' values.
2- Since 1, then by default I will say McCain.

The problem though, is that if we allow Christians to keep gaining more and more political power, we risk turning this nation into an overt theocracy. So between the two, I would prefer Obama because he accepts this as a nation of more than just Christians.

Interesting. Could you be more specific about what "Christian" values McCain has been outspoken about?

True, McCain doesn't speak so much about 'Christian values', but neither does Obama. In picking McCain, notice I got there by default, do to my opinion, or the outright fact that Republicans tend to espouse the 'Christian values' mantra.

McCain has changed his previous positions to be more in line with what could be considered traditional 'Christian values' issues. Thus I see no problem with my defaulting to McCain.

[micatala]

You should check out his church's about us page, and then The Black Value System.

If a church had those same statements with the word white instead of black we would all rightfully bemoan those inbred racist crackers.

I would suggest you google a bit and read a bit further about the man Obama sat under for over 20 years. He gave his time, his money, got married there and sat his children in a place to hear this hate. Frank Wright is a spiteful, hatemongering man, but Obama even named his book "Audacity of Hope" after one of his sermons.

There is no way Obama could go to trinity for all those years, befriend his pastor and yet not know where he was. It defies reason to think that he could sit there 20 years unaffected.

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.

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?

[achilles12604]

I just want to comment on the Rev Wright deal and Obama's connections to him.

Rev Wright represents what happens when you oppress a group of people for so long. History is full of tales of one group of oppressed people rising up, gaining power, and creating their own new oppressions. This is why it is so important we act now to stamp out oppression, and work our tails off to ensure everyone is able to live freely. I could expand on this, but I'm trying to be brief.

So with the above in mind I look at the OP:
1- The republicans do seem more vocal in representing 'Christian' values.
2- Since 1, then by default I will say McCain.

The problem though, is that if we allow Christians to keep gaining more and more political power, we risk turning this nation into an overt theocracy. So between the two, I would prefer Obama because he accepts this as a nation of more than just Christians.

Interesting. Could you be more specific about what "Christian" values McCain has been outspoken about?

True, McCain doesn't speak so much about 'Christian values', but neither does Obama. In picking McCain, notice I got there by default, do to my opinion, or the outright fact that Republicans tend to espouse the 'Christian values' mantra.

McCain has changed his previous positions to be more in line with what could be considered traditional 'Christian values' issues. Thus I see no problem with my defaulting to McCain.

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?

[Goat]

I just want to comment on the Rev Wright deal and Obama's connections to him.

Rev Wright represents what happens when you oppress a group of people for so long. History is full of tales of one group of oppressed people rising up, gaining power, and creating their own new oppressions. This is why it is so important we act now to stamp out oppression, and work our tails off to ensure everyone is able to live freely. I could expand on this, but I'm trying to be brief.

So with the above in mind I look at the OP:
1- The republicans do seem more vocal in representing 'Christian' values.
2- Since 1, then by default I will say McCain.

The problem though, is that if we allow Christians to keep gaining more and more political power, we risk turning this nation into an overt theocracy. So between the two, I would prefer Obama because he accepts this as a nation of more than just Christians.

Interesting. Could you be more specific about what "Christian" values McCain has been outspoken about?

True, McCain doesn't speak so much about 'Christian values', but neither does Obama. In picking McCain, notice I got there by default, do to my opinion, or the outright fact that Republicans tend to espouse the 'Christian values' mantra.

McCain has changed his previous positions to be more in line with what could be considered traditional 'Christian values' issues. Thus I see no problem with my defaulting to McCain.

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?

Well, the ones that are very vocal and demanding tend to be Republican. They are also the self righteous and the inflexible.

I think that the ones I view to be the vocal ones are the ones that quote Paul, rather than quote the words attributed to Jesus.

[achilles12604]

You should check out his church's about us page, and then The Black Value System.

If a church had those same statements with the word white instead of black we would all rightfully bemoan those inbred racist crackers.

I would suggest you google a bit and read a bit further about the man Obama sat under for over 20 years. He gave his time, his money, got married there and sat his children in a place to hear this hate. Frank Wright is a spiteful, hatemongering man, but Obama even named his book "Audacity of Hope" after one of his sermons.

There is no way Obama could go to trinity for all those years, befriend his pastor and yet not know where he was. It defies reason to think that he could sit there 20 years unaffected.

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.

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?

Let us put it this way . . .

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 attended the same church from when I was 2. I still get together with my pastor and my stevens minister from that church.

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?