The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article entitled “The Obama Dilemma” by WILFRED M. MCCLAY
McClay notes that Obama supporters are already asserting that an Obama loss on Tuesday will be accounted for by American racism, particularly Evangelical Christian racism.
Slate columnist Jacob Weisberg has already published the indictment pre-emptively, in an Aug. 23 article subtly titled “If Obama Loses, Racism is the Only Reason McCain Might Beat Him.” Nowhere will this charge be made more angrily than against the evangelical Protestant community.
This post is back by popular demand:
A reader of this blog has recently left a comment appealing to the other readers with the following words about single issue voting:
Please, please…don’t let one single issue [abortion] be your deciding factor. I don’t believe in abortion either, but this election is truly about much, much more than that.
I’ve been hearing this a lot from the left. For some reason “single issue” voting is seen as being shallow. Well, let me put it this way: Would it be okay for Germans to vote for Hitler because his “election was truly about much, much more than that” when his platform included the state-supported murder of Jews? Would it be okay to vote against Hitler simply because one objected to killing people based on creed or race? What if you agree with Hitler on national pride, unity, health care, tax structures, schooling, etc. Should one ignore the one important issue and vote for Hitler because “we agree on everything else?”
Barack Obama says it’s okay to kill infants and wants to use my tax money to assist in that diabolical practice. This one issue – the right for a human being to have life – is the one issue that supports all other rights. If a child does not have the right to life, then he or she doesn’t have the right to education, healthcare, etc.
How can any issue in this election be “much more” important than that?
Think about all the babies that have been killed. Can a war in a Iraq, gas prices, health care, or mortgages be more important than a single issue when that issue is the fundamental issue for all human beings?
We’re looking into the eyes of manifest evil. You have a vote. Vote to end the evil.
Warning: gzinflate() [function.gzinflate]: data error in /home/taylor12/public_html/christianandamerican.com/wp-includes/http.php on line 1787
Are you Catholic? Are you voting next week? Then you need to know that your bishops have condemned voting for candidates who support legalized abortion as part of their political platform. Can anyone dare stand against them or defy the living magisterium Catholic Church?
Behold the List of Catholic-Bishops-Against-Pro-Abortion-Candidates:
Cardinal Francis George OMI of Chicago (USCCB president; 15 Oct)
Cardinal Edward Egan of New York (23 Oct)
Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia (USCCB Pro-Life Chair; 23 Oct, 12 Sept)
Archbishop Daniel Buechlein OSB of Indianapolis (3 Oct)
Archbishop Eusebius Beltran of Oklahoma City (5 Oct)
Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe (8 Oct)
Archbishop Charles Chaput OFM Cap. of Denver (18 Oct)
Archbishop Alfred Hughes of New Orleans (11 Oct)
Archbishop Timothy Dolan of Milwaukee (28 Sep)
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas (8 Sept)
Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio (10 Oct)
Archbishop John Nienstedt of Saint Paul and Minneapolis (19 Oct)
Bishop Patrick Zurek of Amarillo (24 Sept)
Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker (16 Oct)
Bishop Robert Baker of Birmingham (20 Oct)
Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport (USCCB Doctrine Chair; 28 Sept)
Bishop Joseph Galante of Camden (6 Oct)
Bishop Peter Jugis of Charlotte (26 Oct)
Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs (17 Oct)
Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas (8 Oct)
Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo (23 Oct; 8 Oct)
Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth (8 Oct)
Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay (17 Oct)
Bishop Larry Silva of Honolulu (20 Oct)
Bishop Jerome Listecki of La Crosse
Bishop William Higi of Lafayette in Indiana (28 Sept)
Bishop Glen John Provost of Lake Charles (7 Oct)
Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing (22 Oct)
Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison (16 Oct)
Bishop Alexander Sample of Marquette (17 Oct)
Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson (15 Oct)
Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix (18 Sept)
Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh (28 Oct)
Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence (29 Oct)
Bishop Michael Burbidge of Raleigh (26 Oct)
Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford (24 Oct)
Bishop Paul Coakley of Salina (17 Oct)
Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton (30 Sept; 19 Oct)
Bishop Walker Nickless of Sioux City (4 Sept; 23 Oct)
Bishop Timothy McDonnell of Springfield in Massachusetts (3 Oct)
Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo (3 Oct)
Bishop J. Vann Johnston of Springfield-Cape Girardeau (3 Oct; 26 Sept)
Bishop Robert Hermann, archdiocesan administrator of St Louis (17 Oct; 24 Oct)
Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St Joseph (17 Oct; 8 Sept)
Bishop Paul Swain of Sioux Falls (2 Oct)
Bishop Gerald Barbarito of Palm Beach (24 Oct)
Bishop Michael Jackels of Wichita (24 Oct)
Bishop Bernard Harrington of Winona (2 Oct)
Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester (24 Oct)
Bishops of Florida (7 diocesans, 2 auxiliaries; 15 Sep)
Bishops of Kansas (4 diocesans; 2006 statement reissued 15 Aug 2008)
Bishops of New York State (8 diocesans, 11 auxiliaries; 1 Oct)
Bishops of Pennsylvania (7 diocesans, 6 auxiliaries; 10 Oct)
Bishops of Virginia (2 diocesans; 1 Oct)
(Source: Whispers in the Loggia.)
We need to start practicing for the future of our country…
Here is a creative approach to redistribution of wealth as offered in a local newspaper…
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read ‘Vote Obama, I need the money.’ I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a ‘Obama 08′ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed to be more in need–the homeless guy outside.
The server angrily stormed out from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was very grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
Christian and American Contributor David Stotts recently put together a video on ministry to the poor with the Acton Institute. Here’s David’s intro to the video. If you scroll down you can watch the embedded video:
We all fall for slick packaging. I do it on a regular basis. And as the father of 3 kids, I routinely find myself throwing boatloads of fancy boxes away after a birthday party – the contents of which looked far better (and way more fun) inside the box.
It reminds me of Barack Obama. His packaging is slick. His rhetoric is beguiling. And thousands of my fellow Christians are buying it.
For months now I’ve marveled at how Obama’s ad execs in the mainstream news media have lost all shame in their relentless effort to find fresh new ways to make him appear moderate. But it’s not just the MSM. Obama himself is supremely skilled at packaging himself, especially on economic issues, only rarely letting down his guard like he did recently in Ohio with Joe the Plumber. Subsequently, he has doubled down on his “spread the wealth” comment almost as if he knows now is the time America might finally be willing to swallow the bitter pill of socialist economic policies. Hey, we let Congress do it, why not our President?
Americans are a compassionate people and by far the most generous in the world measured by charitable giving as a percentage of our GDP. Our giving, 1.67% of the country’s GDP, is twice that of the next most charitable country, the UK. Along comes Obama and the Democrats who know their audience and are far more skilled than anyone on the Republican side at convincing voters that theirs are the most compassionate, most generous economic policies. And thousands of Christians, be they mushy Emergent types or even traditional Christians who simply want to vote for the guy most like Jesus, are being seduced – even to the extent they’re willing to wink at the most radical abortion policies any American Presidential candidate has ever espoused.
It’s time conservatives learn how to reframe the debate on economic policy. We need to learn the right way to expose the contents of the Left’s “economic policy” packaging as simply band-aids at best…and at worst, destructive policies that actually destroy families.
This video is a starting point in learning how to do that. It is intended to challenge the assumptions of good, honest Christian voters who are intending to vote for Obama on the basis that his economic policies are more compassionate. Shouldn’t our goal be not simply to feel compassionate, but instead actually be more effective in assisting the poor?
Press play to watch video:
What do you think? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.
Lately, many have compared Barack Obama’s tax plans to the political philosophy of Karl Marx, the father of the atheistic communism. Below is an interest quote as it speaks to taxation.
“Take from each, according to his ability. Give to each, according to his need.”
- Karl Marx
Here are some extra quotes from Marx for good measure:
“Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.”
“Religion is the opium of the masses.”
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
- Karl Marx
An interesting juxtaposition emerged this week from the statements of two African American bishops on the abortion issue. First, Bishop Martin Holley, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Washington, released a statement last week responding to a Guttmacher Institute (named for Alan Guttmacher, former president of Planned Parenthood and former vice-president of the American Eugenics Society) survey which found black women in the U.S. abort pregnancies at a rate five times that of white women.
Bishop Holley, who is chair of the African American Subcommittee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), wrote,
As an African American, I am saddened by evidence that Black women continue to be targeted by the abortion industry. The loss of any child from abortion is a tragedy, but we must ask: Why are minority children being aborted at such disproportionate rates?
Many African Americans are not aware that since the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, the number one cause of death in the African American community has been abortion. We have lost over 13 million lives. To put that in perspective, it is one third of our present Black population. Since 1973, twice as many Black Americans have died from abortion than from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.
These fact are particularly alarming given the roots of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s number one abortion provider, which sprung from the American Eugenics Movement in the early 20th Century. Eugenicists, like the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, sought to prevent the procreation of “unfit” and “undesirable” elements of society, which for these racists, included African Americans and immigrants.
Although most Americans have forgotten the sinister aims of the birth control and abortion movements, the Guttmacher study – the research arm of Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood – reveals they are succeeding in their mission of “racial betterment.”
Counseling the African American community, Bishop Holley writes further, “our legitimate commitment to other social concerns must not push the primary moral issue of abortion onto the back burner. It clearly must be at the heart and center of our discussion of the survival of African American people.
Compare this very clear statement about the urgency with which Catholics must address the issue of legalized abortion in the United States with remarks made by Bishop Terry Steib of Memphis, who stated “we [Catholics] cannot be a one issue people.” This statement was heralded by the liberal newspaper the National Catholic Reporter as a rejection of the teaching promoted by many American bishops that faithful Catholics must not vote for pro-abortion candidates.
However, a careful reading of Bishop Steib’s remarks reveals his point is more nuanced than the Reporter and other liberal Catholic groups would like. One might interpret his statement is intended to counsel black Catholics against voting for Sen. Barack Obama simply because he is black. For example, Bishop Steib writes,
“according to our Holy Father, we disciples of Jesus cannot remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice; this means that we must be part of the game. However, politics is not just a game; it is instead a part of the commonwealth of our lives…But if we are to be involved in the political process by voting, then we must have formed our consciences well.”
Bishop Steib further cautions that “it is much easier to choose because of personality rather than the content of character. It is easier to say ‘I just like him or her; he or she is one of us’ rather than to ponder, reflect, and pray for our choice prudently.”
Quoting the USCCB’s Faithful Citizenship document, he advises the faithful that
There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
Catholics believe abortion to be a fundamental moral evil and Sen. Obama has promised to make abortion a civil right, if elected, and expand access to abortions. Is Sen. McCain completely in line with all Church teachings? Clearly not, but he does support the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy in all 50 states.
Eric writes a column for the Washington, D.C. version of Examiner.com to read his other writing, visit http://www.examiner.com/x-970-DC-Catholic-Examiner.
Another Catholic bishop has spoken out against Catholics voting for pro-abortion candidates, this time its a cardinal!
The Catholic hierarchy is teaching with a united voice that faithful Catholics cannot and must not vote for “pro-choice” candidates for political office. The Pope has stated it and the American bishops are repeating it. To vote for a “pro-choice” candidate is to deny the fundamental doctrine of Catholicism: that man is made in the image of God and as such has a right to life from the moment of conception.
Justin Cardinal Rigali is the Archbishop Emeritus of Philadelphia. You can read his full statement here: Faithful Citizenship and Respect for Life.
At this moment in our country’s history, defense of innocent human life is a moral responsibility for all of us. The same God who thundered from Mount Sinai: “Thou shalt not kill,” thunders still. When life in the womb is destroyed, God thunders: “This is a child!” When by the most barbaric means, unworthy of any civilized people, the brain of a child is sucked out of his or her head by a vacuum, God thunders: “This is a child!” When a baby is left to die of exposure on a shelf because of a failed abortion, and this is considered a “right” by any leader, God, the Source of all law and authority, thunders: “This is a child!” When we are faced with every modern means of education and communication, in addition to the law placed in our hearts at creation, no one, and most especially, no Catholic, can ever say: “I did not know.”
Hat tip: Clint Rain
Christian Americans of every stripe should write a thank you note to Katherine Kersten. As you may know, Al Franken (aka Stuart Smalley of Saturday Night Live fame) is running for Senate. The man is Anti-Christian in the worst way. Ms. Kersten has done an excellent job highlighting Franken’s immature and offensive comments against Christ and Christians.
If you live in Minnesota, you’ve got two weeks to prevent his election to the US Senate. Get to work.
The original article appeared in the Star Tribune:
Vulgar mockery of Christians: Is this what we want in a U.S. senator?
I get it — Al Franken is a serious senatorial candidate despite his penchant for the pornographic. Franken’s one-liners about rape and oral sex and his leering fantasies about big-busted women were just for yucks, right?
Last June, DFL bigwigs chose to forget about their man’s decades-long record of sexual crudity after he hooked the endorsement by putting on a serious face and saying “sorry” at the party’s convention.
But Franken didn’t apologize for another aspect of his trash-talking shtick. He’s aimed some of his most offensive material at religious believers, particularly Christians.
Why hasn’t this been aired in public? We in the press are too busy searching through Sarah Palin’s junior high yearbooks and tracking down the filing dates of Joe the Plumber’s tax returns.
Meanwhile, Franken gets a pass for making a joke of the life and death of Jesus Christ.
Franken finds Christ’s crucifixion to be a barrel of laughs. For example, in his 1999 book, “Why Not Me?” he wrote about his discovery — as a fictional former president — of “the complete skeleton of Jesus Christ still nailed to the cross” during an archeological dig. At the Franken Presidential Library gift shop, visitors can buy “small pieces of Jesus’ skeleton.”
“We would like to display Jesus’ skeleton at some future point,” Franken went on. “It’s merely a matter of designing and building an exhibition space … . Until then he’s very comfortable in a box down in our basement near the geothermal power station.”
Very funny. Anybody want to try a joke like that about Mohammed?
Franken also wrote a Saturday Night Live monologue for Jesus Christ that appeared in a magazine. After poking fun at Christians’ belief that Jesus was both God and man, he had Christ speculate on having the hots for Mary Magdalene:
“If Mary Magdalene looked like Barbara Hershey, I might have thought twice about this celibacy thing. I mean, the real Mary Magdalene was about four foot two, 135 pounds. And with bad teeth yet.”
In Franken’s world, God has a mouth as foul as Franken’s. In one book, he has God refer to books about liberal media bias as “total bullsh*t.” Later, he describes God as having his head “up his a**.”
But Franken saves his sharpest barbs for those weirdos, Catholics.
In 2006, he and a guest on his Air America radio show joked about Eucharistic communion wafers — sacred to Catholics as the body of Christ — and compared them to chips and guacamole. In “Dog Confessional,” a proposed sketch for Saturday Night Live, Franken depicted “a series of dogs, played by cast members, confessing to a priest,” according to the Washington Post. NBC refused to air it.
In another book, Franken described greeting a New York audience with the words, “Isn’t Cardinal O’Connor an a**hole?”
Franken’s campaign did not return a phone call seeking comment.
If a 12-year-old kid spouted this stuff in a schoolyard, he’d be hauled to the principal’s office and told to grow up. But in today’s surreal political climate, a guy who lobs insults like these has a shot at one the highest political offices in the land.
We’re used to slanderers of Christianity getting government arts grants. But Franken wants more. He’s asking us to send him to what’s been called “the most exclusive club in the world” — and to serve us there until 2014.
Our nation’s founders wanted the Senate — as Congress’ upper house — to balance with a sober, long-term perspective the much more numerous House of Representatives, whose members serve only two-year terms and are supposed to reflect the people’s shifting sentiments. Senators serve six-year terms, and were intended to be the nation’s wisest councilors — equipped to discern and protect the country’s broad, enduring interests.
“The use of the Senate,” explained James Madison in 1787, “is to consist in proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.”
For this reason, the Constitution entrusts the Senate with unique powers — its members conduct impeachment trials, make treaties, and give the president advice and consent on important appointments, including Cabinet secretaries, ambassadors and federal judicial nominees with lifetime tenure.
A Minnesota senator represents the whole state, not a smaller, relatively homogeneous congressional district, as House members do.
If Franken is elected, can he represent all the people of Minnesota — including Christians — for whom he has repeatedly shown disdain?
The original article appeared in the Star Tribune:
Vulgar mockery of Christians: Is this what we want in a U.S. senator?
There I are few US Senators that I respect, but I do respect Tom Coburn. Read his “Why I voted for the bailout” at Forbes.
One of the challenges of dealing with an economic crisis during campaign season is that when politicians and commentators use hyperbole and politically expedient rhetoric to bash “unregulated markets” and “Wall Street greed” they end up undermining not just confidence in George Bush’s policies or the Reagan legacy, but the fundamentals of our free market system. Campaigns, after all, don’t do subtlety. If one side can find an advantage, it’s easier to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.