Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Aug 22, 2008 in At TMV, Politics, Religion | 33 comments

A Difficult Voting Decision for Evangelical Christians

ten-commandments.jpeg

Are these two men the best we can come up with for the highest office in the land? The more I find out about Barack Obama and John McCain; the more I want to abolish the two-party system that leaves us with the (lack of) choice we are left with in this presidential election.

As a Christian, both Obama and McCain have flaws that I am not comfortable with. In the case of Obama, it involves an issue of public policy that has moral implications. In the case of McCain, an immoral personal decision that has a connection to the type of policy decisions he may make as President of the United States.

I am not supportive of Obama’s stand on abortion. He has a 100% percent voting record from NARAL and has opposed a ban on partial-birth abortions. I will not go into an argument on when life begins or what the Bible teaches on the subject of abortion. It is interesting to note that the Bible mentions several instances when the Lord called and/or knew biblical personalities while they were still in the womb, including Jeremiah 1:5; John the Baptist (Luke 1:15); and the Apostle Paul (Galatians 1:15).

I understand the reluctance of some evangelical Christians to support Obama’s candidacy. How much of an impact will a policy direction of the Executive Branch have on the spiritual well-being of our country? How does his view on this issue affect other moral issues that he may have to deal with as President? These are important questions to ask and my hope is that better answers will be given to the electorate than Obama’s response at the Saddleback Church, “It is above my pay grade.”

For John McCain, the moral situation is not any better. John McCain was married to Carol Shepp until he participated in an extra-marital affair with Cindy Lou Hensley beginning in April 1979. McCain married Cindy Hensley in May 1980; just one month after securing a no-contest divorce from Carol. The covenant of marriage between two people is a very serious commitment. To keep from being an adulterer was so important to God that He listed it within the first set of instructions of the Mosaic Law directly from God to the children of Israel – The Ten Commandments.

The occasion of a marriage commitment is called a ceremony and so is the swearing-in of the President of the United States. Both events has the person(s) in a public setting verbally declaring their intentions to faithfully fulfill the commitment they are about to accept. Since FDR, every president has added the phrase “So Help Me God” to the constitutionally mandated oath of office. If John McCain could not keep his promise to his wife, how can we expect him to keep his promise to the country?

Abortion or Adultery – for Christians who are serious about their faith choosing between Barack Obama and John McCain is becoming a more difficult decision with every passing day. Abortion is morally wrong; Adultery is against a direct commandment of the Lord…I wonder if it is too late to pick two other people to run for President.

UPDATE

** For the record – I did not give an opinion if abortion should be legal in this country, in fact, if you read carefully I avoided making a pronouncement on the subject. The point of the post was to take a semi-objective look at serious issues with these two candidates from an evangelical perspective…not to make an evaluative judgment on either abortion or adultery.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2008 The Moderate Voice
  • Holly_in_Cincinnati

    Your illustration reminds me that Christians, let alone Christians vs. Jews, cannot agree on the location, wording, numbering and meaning of the 10 “Commandments.”

    For most Jews and many Christians, abortion is not immoral at all whereas an anti-choice stance is both immoral and unethical. The issue is not about abortion itself but whether a woman (with her advisers) chooses it for herself or politicians choose for her.

  • Holly_in_Cincinnati

    Oh, and adultery in the Bible consists of a married (committed) woman having sex with a man to whom she is not married. Divorce is legal and its methodology is spelled out.

  • How much of an impact will a policy direction of the Executive Branch have on the spiritual well-being of our country?

    How much better do you feel about the spiritual well-being of the country after the last 8 years? Seriously.

  • superdestroyer

    Since the Republicans Party is near the end of its death spiral, image the choice for president people will have when the Democratic Primary is the only relevant eleciton. Image what will happen in Iowa when all of the social conservative, former Republicans start showing up to the Democratic caucuses.

    My guess is that the Democratic Leadership will soon force all state parties to hold closed primaries/caucuses to limit the effects of all of the former Republicans.

  • Amanda

    I don’t think it’s a secret around here that I’m fairly liberal, so it won’t come as a shock to you when I say that Obama’s stance on abortion is fine by me, while McCain’s adultery is morally troubling. I do believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and fair (as the tagline goes) because it’s not something that the government, at any level, should be involved in. It’s a medical decision, and a deeply personal one, that can be different for every woman. There’s no way to encompass every “what if” situation. And not only that, it takes away a woman’s right to decide what happens to her own body. I can’t say if it’s right or wrong to have an abortion. But I can say that it’s wrong to let a religious belief prevent a person (who may or may not share that faith) from having a medical procedure done.

    Obama supporting choice doesn’t necessarily mean he thinks that abortion is a positive option. All it means is that he believes women, their families, and their doctors, should be able to make the decision without government interference. McCain’s treatment of his first wife, on the other hand, is an example of his blatant disregard for another person. It makes me wonder if he would be so callous with the American people if he became President. After all, this was a woman that I presume he loved and respected at one point, and he then cheated on her, left her, and married his mistress a month later. And we all know he’s referred to Cindy as the “C” word. I don’t know if this is just some out-dated occasional misogyny rearing its ugly head, if he truly thinks women are expendable on some level, or if he’s just that big a jerk to everyone. It doesn’t matter though – none of those characteristics should be appealing in a President.

    • timr

      Excellent post! For most of the years between 1970 and 1998 I lived in countries in Asia. The vast majorities of people there believe the same as you and I. Abortion is a medical procedure and the only people who should be involved in that decision are the woman and her doctor. Those who profess to be christians and desire to prohibit women from doing this are in reality saying that they-have you ever noticed how many men are in this vs how many women-want to control the womans body. Having come to know several of these extreme christians I can say that this is only part of what they believe. Their belief is that the wife belongs to her husband, just like a piece of property, and that the wife must obey the husband in all things, she must turn over all money to her husband. What it boils down to is that these christians want to keep their wives nekked,barefooot, preggers, and in the kitchen. McCain wants to keep the same people that bush has had over the last 8 years. I can in no way understand why at least 20% of those women who voted for HRC flatly refuse to vote for Obama-who BTW has all of the same policy positions as HRC-in favor of McCain, who would turn the rights of women back 80 years. Talk about voting against your own self interest. Please tell me why anyone could possibly do this.

  • pacatrue

    I’m not sure I want to choose a President based upon his moral worth. Instead I want to choose one that I think will make the best policy decisions for the American government. We aren’t electing a Pope, but a President.

  • Holly_in_Cincinnati

    Of course, I don’t support Obama even with his pro-choice stance because there are many other important issues.

  • DLS

    “Republicans Party is near the end of its death spiral”

    Premature, but amusing: “Vote for one Democrat below.” “Vote for any Democrat below.” …

  • DLS

    There is no absolute right to abortion. More to the point, while it’s fine to want no government to prohibit or restrict it, there is no “right” to it, least of all for it to be provided by the federal government. And it’s okay for those with moral objections to refuse to provide it — and for that matter, even providing contraceptives to underage or unmarried people. If you dislike that, you fail morally but have legal recourse if you can get this kind of refusal legally classified as a form of (illegal) discrimination.

    Between the two of them, as people, Obama looks cleaner than McCain to me.

  • DougL

    You were expecting perfection?
    From politicians?!

  • and for that matter, even providing contraceptives to underage or unmarried people.

    That would be fine a country that didn’t regulate who is allowed to provide those contraceptives.

  • superdestroyer

    DLS ,

    The recent Congressional electionin Memphis will be a model for the future. The Democratic primary was the actual election. The same happened in Prince Georges County, Maryland in February. The incumbent lost in the Democratic Priamry and the victor started her transition since there is no credible Republican candidate. The incubment resigned instead of hanging around 11 months as a lame duck.

  • jchem

    “McCain’s treatment of his first wife, on the other hand, is an example of his blatant disregard for another person.”

    Pardon me for being nit-picky here Amanda, but some on the pro life side of things would say the same thing about a woman having an abortion.

    “Image what will happen in Iowa when all of the social conservative, former Republicans start showing up to the Democratic caucuses.”

    Having spent the past 6 years in Iowa SD, I can assure you that the “social conservatives” in Iowa would just assume not vote at all rather than vote for a democrat. They went to the caucuses this season because they could–the vast majority of them however will not vote democratic in the general election.

    • Amanda

      “some on the pro life side of things would say the same thing about a woman having an abortion”

      And I would say that the pro-life crowd is disregarding the woman who’s seeking an abortion. I guess it depends on who you value more – the woman or the fetus. If I were pregnant I would at least like to be respected enough to be able to make the choice for myself. After all, it’s not as if legalizing abortion ever made it a substantially more popular procedure. It’s a serious decision, not one to be taken lightly. But it is nobody’s business but mine, my doctor’s, and the potential father’s as to what happens to any egg we happen to fertilize.

  • I always find it more than a bit puzzling that Rightwingers spend so much time worrying about abortion, and spend such little time worrying about those killed because of…
    1) Our wars of choice
    2) Our poor health care system
    3) Poor quality control on imported food

  • DLS

    Chris, you’re being illogical again. [sigh] Make the practice illegal if you dislike it — you know, because you find such refusal to provide X or Y to be Wrong.

    * * *

    “Having spent the past 6 years in Iowa”

    I spent two. J. Chem is accurate in his description. Those Iowan Republicans who don’t happen to be Religious Right (a significant number are) are instead similar in nature to Republicans in nearby agricultural states on the Great Plains. Kids in the college towns and adults of a similar nature in the cities are where you find Democrats.

  • First, thank GOD we are not a theocracy. I want the secular traits of honesty, accountability and responsibility in a president. If anyone thinks GW Bush has shown such qualities because he’s an anti-choice Christian, that one is a fool. I’m not voting for a messiah or a holy man here, a spiritual leader or guide or even–primarily–a commander in chief. I want a CEO for our country who works for US. On our behalf, in our interest and by our consent.

    Now as to the tiresome abortion debate. Technically there is no “right” to any medical procedure, except as embodied in the fundamental right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. However, if you want the federal government deciding what procedures are acceptable, watch out. A fetus is not a person. There are hundreds of things that can go wrong, right up to the moment of birth that can cause that fetus not to be born alive. Legislating away the rights of an American citizen in deference to a potential person is just wrong.

    But let’s follow that logic. If the fetus is more important than the mother, she should be compelled to stop taking any medication that crosses the placenta. If she is on chemotherapy and becomes pregnant by accident, she must sacrifice her life for the fetus. For that matter, why not make YOU, Tony, give up a kidney? If you don’t, someone will die as a direct result of YOUR medical decision. I do hope you’ve donated one already, as a good Christian.

    As a man without daughters, I don’t really have a horse in this race, but the first step down the road of denying a woman’s right to make a medical decision with her doctor is a very dangerous step indeed.

  • JSpencer

    If men were capable of becoming pregnant, there would be no question of the nation being pro-choice, since men as a rule would never let anyone tell them what to do with their own bodies. In otherwords, it would be a non-issue. If we are going to discuss comparative morality when it comes to Obama and McCain in any well-informed, objective way, then I don’t see how McCain can possibly reach the higher ground. Think of his involvement, personally and governmentally in the prosecution of immoral and unnecessary wars. If morality is to be a factor, this choice should be a no-brainer. I say that with full realization of just how easily confused our “modern” and “challenged” electorate is in these “non-rigorous” times we live in.

  • jchem

    Amanda,

    I’m not saying I agree with what they would say, I’m merely just pointing it out. After all, most on the pro-life end believe life begins at conception. As a guy, I don’t feel that I have much say in this conversation, unless as you pointed out, I’m the father.

  • DLS

    Insofar as the federal government is concerned, resolution is easy if we (surprising as this may now be) honor constitutional federalism. Strictly speaking (pun intended), it’s not a federal issue (not mentioned in any reasonable way in the document in association with any power granted to the federal government) and so is reserved for the states and localities to government as they see fit.

    A less “pure” and easy, but modern-day-compatible, resolution is to admit the legitimacy of interventionism on behalf of (federal, i.e., US) citizens, but to insist on neutrality, the correct goal of government (not any kind of parent, but only an umpire or judge that intervenes only when absolutely necessary), and insist that in practice the federal government not intervene here — which means in addition to no prohibition or restriction on abortion*, not providing it or promoting it, either, the minimalist (libertarianism-oriented) approach. There is no “right” to government provided health care in this country. The phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is no basis for such a fictious “right.” (I have seen this claimed to be the basis for a “right” to a federally provided guaranteed minimum income, which is nonsense.)

    If we use the modern and “positivist” (activist) view of this nation in place of constitutional federalism (the practice of the Left for decades) and assume the feds may intervene and even _should_ intervene, we say that Uncle Sam may restrict or prohibit, and may also even provide abortion. This, of course, I anticipate as an object of controversy and no small contest when federal provision of health care is extended to females of child-bearing age. (The same is true to a lesser degree with contraceptives.)

    I’m not rigidly anti-abortion, but I know there’s no absolute right to abortion and one only needs to engage in the at-birth, then-what-about-a-minute-earlier, then-what-about-a-minute-earlier-than-that, etc. elementary analytical technique (a form of argument, too) to see that one is destroying, eliminating, killing, choose your word, one’s son or daughter when one aborts a pregnancy. The only real question is that of comparative values and at what point it really does become murder. (Most of us say that it at least is murder when the fetus would be viable outside the uterus, and the point of viability is the classic compromise position on this issue, though not necessarily the only one or the best one.)

    * That’s in a direct, honest manner, not through sneaky means such as beginning to form the legal basis of defining or conferring citizenship on the fetus without being honest and open about why this is being done.

  • DLS

    “If men were capable of becoming pregnant”

    Those of us who are well-grounded on this issue are dispassionate and link this issue to contraception not on silly or worse activist grounds, but simply on the fundamental facts here: Contraception and abortion have been sought as long as women have been capable of becoming pregnant and the pregnancy is unwanted.

    You don’t need to be female to be qualified to analyze or decide on thesethings; you just have to have a functioning mind. [grin — inverting:] Men are [gasp] people!

  • You don’t need to be female to be qualified to analyze or decide on thesethings

    No, but you’re more or less immunized from the consequences. That’s the point.

  • Diane

    Too bad that abortion seems to be the litmus test here for the Presidency of our country.
    Most Americans (over 50% in any given poll) favor having abortion legal. Most would like to see the NEED for abortion vanish. That means better, more affordable and easily accessed birth control in some cases. The Religious right ahas advocated that most forms, except abstinence, of birth control are murder and have succeeded in restricting access. This is downright scary and offensive to me as a women and wife, trying to plan my family so we could take care of our children.
    Enough said about abortion.
    John McCain has a lot to answer for and no one is questioning his role in the Keating 5.
    This was, at the time, the biggest banking loss and scandal. Google it to find out and make your own mind up about McCain’s character.
    His memory lapses and inability to keep facts straight is troubling also to me. If the strain of campaigning is too much, what happens if we have a major crisis?
    We do not need another President who vacations while 2 states are ravaged by a hurricane or sets the record for vacationing.

    John Mc Cai

  • DLS

    The point, Chris, is that males as well as females can understand issues like these.

    M. Gardener: Abortion isn’t the litmus test here for the Presidency; it is simply of interest to a number of us, and to many like me, far from being the topic of the most or a great deal of interest ordinarily.

    At issue here is morality and as I said already, to me Obama is cleaner than McCain.

    Plenty of us know about McCain, the Keating Five, and the old lady shouting at Charles Keating — “Where is my money?”

  • StockBoySF

    I don’t think the government has a say in matters of abortion, or many of the other issues that the religious right supports.

    I’ve said on here before that I’m personally against abortion. I don’t much care for guns. But these are my personal opinions and I would never support anyone who wanted to shove their personal views onto others. So I support pro-choice candidates (after all Obama is not telling anyone that they need to have an abortion) and on the issue of guns, I understand where gun owners are coming from, but guns are lethal weapons and we need to have a conversation about some regulation and some licensing. After all we do require people who want to drive a car to have a license. We want to make sure they can operate the vehicle safely and not harm either themselves or others. I don’t know why we can’t have the same conversation about lethal weapons such as guns.

    I disagree with Tony because I think a president needs to allow people to make their own decisions about their lives, whether I agree with such decisions or not. Tony seems to accept McCain’s views on abortion (that it should be illegal), but there are many legitimate reasons why a woman might get an abortion. At least now she has that choice. Tony would rather support a candidate who takes that individual choice away from people whose situations he doesn’t even know.

    DLS is absolutely correct- women throughout time have sought out abortions, whether legal, illegal and regardless of how their own faith views abortions. When abortions are illegal, women will go to other countries to have them done. If they can not afford to go to other countries, they will have them performed in backroom places, probably by unqualified people (or the woman may even use the old coat hanger). The only thing illegal abortions cause is an increase in the death rate of women, since many women die from these dangerous procedures.

    Tony (like so many of the evangelicals and Christians across the country) completely downplay the most important part (in my opinion) of what Obama said about abortion. Obama said that we should be developing policies which will allow women to make pro-life decisions…. Obama understands that many women may really want to keep their unborn child, but because of poverty, because of a lack of healthcare, because of the lack of daycare, because of the environment in their own homes, (or whatever reason) sometimes the only choice available is to have an abortion.

    Unfortunately when Obama wants to have a discussion based on reality the Christian right (and others) are only too happy to dismiss Obama’s views as being unacceptable. At Saddleback Obama even went so far as to say “On this we can find some common ground” (or something similar) with the understanding that in order to have a civl discourse between two adults with equally important views that a give and take is necessary. Most of the uncivil discourse in this country is caused by folks like McCain who only see one side of an issue and refuse to give an inch. (and this happens on both the left and right). Unfortunately the religious right only wants things done their way. I can see why McCain “won” the forum when he thundered, “I’m going to be a pro-life president”. But that completely dismisses a huge percentage of the population (including many evangelicals) who have had abortions or when push comes to shove would like to have that option (whether they or not they ultimately go through with it or not).

    Both God and Christ understand that humans are not perfect, many Christians believe we are born into sin and Christ dies for our sins. Obama understands that we are not born into perfection and part of being human is that we strive to be better human beings. Part of our growth is making mistakes or dumb decisions (who among us is perfect) and learning from them (and our ability to forgive others when they make mistakes). The Christian right somehow believe that if we don’t talk about our mistakes and if we only insist on perfection, and laws that require perfection, then we will be perfect.

    All I can say to the Christian right (and any other group who wants to force their beliefs on others) is to grow up. This is a big world with different viewpoints and if you are so locked into a bubble that you can’t play well with others (and if your faith is so weak that you feel threatened if someone differnt comes along) then you won’t succeed in this world. And if that’s the approach that the US as a country takes and fosters in its citizens, then we can not advance and grow. The US only has 5% of the world’s population. The most successful country will be able to change and adapt. We need to accept other ideas and be open to other beliefs. Otherwise we will just go back to the dark ages.

    Personally I find that my faith grounds me and provides an excellent framework with which to approach other people. “Thou shall not lie, steal, cheat, commit adultery, etc.” are all basic beliefs that many faiths share. Whereas I may not be perfect (far from it), at least I know how to act and I can forgive others in their failings.

    My purpose in life isn’t to cast stones at others and say that they are sinners. Rather my purpose is to lead the best life I can and when I fail, to pick myself up and try again. There are too many other folks in the world for me to worry about the relationship each one has with his or her own God (or however they define their own belief). So I really get irritated when people meddle with my life and force me to accept their way.

  • lurxst

    Everytime abortion gets mentioned as relevant to the campaign for president, Karl Rove feels a little tickle in his happy place.

    People just don’t know that they have been forced into these illogical frames. How does a candidate’s abortion stance have any real bearing on his qualifications for office? The issue is perpetuated simply because it fires up the base, who will vote themselves into hunger and poverty, abandon their children’s futures to unregulated oil speculators and surrender their liberty and privacy as long as they think they are doing “good” by following their interpretation of the bible.

  • I am a evangelical Christian who is pro-life and pro-traditional family and yet support the Democratic Party. Why have I remained a Democrat ? I also believe in active role by government and a strong safety net to provide for the less fortunate.

    Christians and other social conservatives have put their faith in the Republican Party over the last twenty five years in hopes of reversing America’s moral decline. It simply hasn’t worked. The religious conservatives have failed to look at the role of economics in creating a stable, family-friendly society. It is difficulty to have traditional values without paying family wages. A society that provides an adequate safety net will have a lower abortion rate.

    Both parties have used the divisive social issues to manipulate blocks of voters. I am hopeful that my party will become more inclusive of social traditionalists and allow a greater diversity of opinion on issues like abortion. Many religious voters support the Democratic positions on economic matters and would favor the party if sent a clear signal that their values will be respected.

  • JSpencer

    More good comments. One additional note: Prior to abortion becoming legal, botched abortions were one of the leading causes of death among women. What pray tell was so “pro-life” about that?

    You’re right Chris, men have much greater immunity from the consequences of abortion, so it is much easier for them to be judgemental about it, regardless of how much angst they can generate about it.

    Yes lurxst, Karl Rove has to just love this issue, polarization is his bread and butter.

  • Ricorun

    It is difficult for me to weigh in on this issue because, well, first, I’d have to write a book in order for my opinion to be clear — assuming that would even work. But the short version is this:

    1. Whose moral authority should we place in preeminence on the subject of abortion?

    2. Assuming we can come to a conclusion on (1), what is the reality and/or the tradition of that moral authority?

    3. Assuming we can’t come to terms on both (1) and (2) — and even if we could — what LEGAL authority is there?

    Some or the comments have already touched on these questions, and I don’t mean to step on anyone’s toes. But if you read the Roe v Wade decision it was primarily based on (3), in light of the fact that (1) and (2) could not, at least at the time, provide much guidance on the issue. Be that as it may, the fundamental constitutional issue was incorporated predominantly in the first amendment. That amendment clearly states (at least as clearly as the second amendment did) that abridged rights, as they apply to individual citizens, must be clearly stated. Period.

    So the question I have is, what has changed? Science is one thing. Science has made it increasingly possible for an extremely premature infant to actually live independently of their mother. Be that as it may, there are responsibilities which may be necessary to perpetuate that life. Okay fine. But I have to say, conservatives in particular, and Republicans in general, don’t seem to be very concerned about that question. The attitude seems to be that the right to life, in their eyes, pretty much ends at birth, even though ALL rights apply before then. After that, you’re on your own. And that’s so profoundly absurd, ridiculous, and corrosive that I have a hard time putting it into words without succombing to something resembing anorexia. Pardon me while I puke in my mouth more than a little.

    That (pre-birth vs post-birth), to me, is the fundamental disconnect with the whole GOP argument. The other is… what’s the father’s responsibility? If the mom gives birth she’s pretty much consigned to taking care of the kid for at least another generation. But what about the dad?

  • Ricorun

    Let me also apologize to Tony. I don’t know you very well Tony, but I can appreciate your dilemma. Perhaps you could say I’ m more of a follower of Matthew’s interpretation of Jesus’s message. But at the same time I am so sick and tired of being misconstrued because what I try to say is pr is not consistent with one cartoon version of reality or the other.

  • StockBoySF

    Tony, with your update I stand corrected concerning your views on abortion and the legality. Though I based my comments on the fact that you were opposed to Obama’s stand and stayed silent on McCain’s stand, which I took to mean that you agreed with it and McCain’s position would make abortion illegal. I apologize for my assumption.

    With regards to this, “I understand the reluctance of some evangelical Christians to support Obama’s candidacy. How much of an impact will a policy direction of the Executive Branch have on the spiritual well-being of our country? ….. These are important questions to ask and my hope is that better answers will be given to the electorate than Obama’s response at the Saddleback Church, “It is above my pay grade.”

    I didn’t know we were electing a minister, I thought we were electing a president of a democracy. I don’t want McCain telling me that he knows all the answers (such as life begins at conception) and that he will turn those personal beliefs into public policy (and in the case of abortion he’ll a pro-life president and make abortion illegal) without discussion. I think Obama has it right and to claim that Obama took a cop-out on the issue by saying it’s above his pay grade is to totally disregard the rest of Obama’s answer, which is that abortion should be left to the woman, her pastor, doctor, family, etc., and that we should work together to make sure that woman can make a pro-life decision. McCain’s forcing his religious views onto other people would only sour the nation’s spiritual health, because religion and spirituality are personal and should not be dictated by the government.

    If McCain knows the theological answers, then let him run as Christ’s replacement.

  • StockBoySF

    Ricorun, with regards to the father’s responsibility towards the raising of a child…. I think the responsibility of raising a child is that of both parents (and Obama recently said that many fathers who are absent should take responsibility for their actions). I like this message from Obama and it shows that he believes in a strong family. It’s onr thing to say that one supports family values but it’s another thing to actually have positions and make statements (including statements that some people don’t want to hear) which will support family values. I also can’t help but think of all those religious right folks who howl about family values, but they have no qualms about kicking their own child out of the house and onto the street if that kid is gay.

    It seems to me that the Democratic Party is the party which would appeal to evangelicals. After all the Dems believe in inclusion, social programs to help those who need help (and with regards to welfare, I think we should have programs to get people off of welfare as soon as possible- welfare should not be meant as a permanent situation, except in certain limited cases, such as when someone can not take care of themselves, whether it’s a medical condition or mental retardation), etc.

    Yet what I see the Christian right wanting these days is a theocracy which will support their views, fight senseless wars (given the anti-Muslim sentiment in this country and the support for the Iraq war by those with anti-Muslim sentiments it seems that the Iraq war is more of a religious war than anything else), separate people within their own community as “us versus them”, etc.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com