Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jul 2, 2008 in Politics, Religion | 4 comments

Christian Conservatives Unite Behind McCain

Yet another point in Obama’s favor: the Christian Conservatives and evangelicals have decided that McCain is, after all, God’s candidate. That is to say, while many of them feel that McCain was most definitely not God’s first choice, God most definitely prefers him to Barack Obama.

So even though they — meaning the lead mouthpieces of the Christian Right — said they would never, ever do it, Senator McBack ‘n Fill carefully repudiated his every principled stand during the primaries. Besides: he’s incontrovertibly not Obama. They’ve evidently decided on these grounds that they have to support him for not being Obama, whether they like it or not. I get the impression that they don’t much, even now, but are trying to make the best of him. That’s so sweet.

But if I didn’t already know how I am going to vote, I’d take their decision to unite behind McCain as a sign. As a small-C christian small-L liberal of the Quaker, or Friendly, Persuasion — if of any persuasion — I view the stance of the opposite sort of Christian as a fairly reliable indicator of on which side of the line I should not plant my banner.

They may mean well. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I cannot agree with their objectives.

A…person who attended the event, but asked not to be named, said that the group was motivated principally by a desire to defeat Barack Obama. "None of these people want to meet their maker knowing that they didn’t do everything they could to keep Barack Obama from being president," the participant said. "You’ve got these two people running for president. One of them is going to become president. That’s the perspective. That that’s the whole discussion." (Swampland; emphasis added)

Did you get that?  They have reliable information, it appears, that God wants John McCain. 

If I had no other reason to cast my vote for Obama, the following would be sufficient:

In recent weeks, the McCain campaign has been trying to spell out clear policy differences on social issues with the Obama campaign. Lastweek, McCain came out in favor of a constitutional amendment in California to outlaw gay marriage, which was legalized this spring by the state Supreme Court. Though McCain opposes an amendment to the federal constitution to ban gay marriage, he has previously supported similar state constitutional amendments.

More recently, McCain has said he wants to push for a Bush Administration proposal to allow faith-based organizations to make employment decisions based on religion even when using federal funding. Obama has said he supports applying state or local laws that prohibit hiring choices based on sexual orientation (Swampland).

I realize that Obama and I don’t always agree; and I don’t like what I consider to be his bait-and-switch election tactics.  I have said so

But for someone who opposes more erosion of that wall between church and state, there really isn’t a third choice.  McCain intends — or says he does — to pander to these social conservatives, despite his history of repudiating their views.  Though I’m not sure what I think about Obama’s faith-based initiatives plan (I need to know more about it), his explanation of how he’d want to see the plan implemented reflect that he intends to build in safeguards to protect the wall between church and state (Belief.net).

Besides  — in contradiction to the social conservatives listed above — I have reliable information that God wants Obama to become president too.  Besides –to contradict the social conservatives listed above — I have reliable information that God wants Obama to become president. (Kidding. I’m kidding. I don’t know that God has an interest, much less a preference).

Via Crooks and Liars:

[B]ack in 1999, McCain was walking a tightrope by calling himself pro-life on a personal level while at the same time assuring pro-choice voters for pragmatic reasons that “in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.”
"Yet, today, McCain says bluntly right on his website that “John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned.

CROSS-POSTED WITH FURTHER LINKS AT BUCK NAKED POLITICS

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2008 The Moderate Voice
  • kryon77

    The author of the post, Damozel, is a member of the Religious Left, and his convictions – including, of course, his religious convictions – will no doubt lead him to vote for Obama.

    And the author is not averse to imposing his religious values upon others using the force of government. He would, for example, allow a greater level of coercive taxation than many Americans would be comfortable with, in order to fund welfare and re-distributionist plans.
    He would intrude upon private property in the West and elsewhere, and cause economic suffering, in an effort to vigorously enforce the Endangered Species Act and other Environmentalist statutes. He would, in general, support an expanded tax and regulatory structure that punishes businesspeople and all individuals for the sin of being successful.

    And why is Damozel so willing to impose his values upon us, by the force of government? Well, I guess he thinks he has direct access to the mind of God, and God has told Damozel that he wants things that way.

  • DAMOZEL

    I don’t know where you come up with all that — by the way, I’m a woman. I have no ambition to impose my religious views on anyone, anywhere, by any means. In fact, the constitution specifically prohibits the state from implementing my views or anyone else’s. I like it that way.

    There IS a distinction between government action specifically designed to control the moral conduct of others and government action that serves other causes. People are allowed to pursue their own self-interest in trying to get favorable legislation enacted. But the separation of church and state means that the government shouldn’t take a position in strictly moral matters. There’s a difference between issues balancing economic against other important interests and those which strictly involve moral decisions.

    You’re quite right that I support legislation designed to protect the environment from destruction. This isn’t because I’m a Christian but because I see my OWN interests as opposed to those you cite. In other words, like you, I am looking out for number one. I may not own extensive property, but I am stuck on this planet, like the other endangered species, and we have a compelling interest in not seeing it destroyed.

    I mainly find it laughable that you weigh the interests of a few business people and property owners against the current species die-off and the destruction of the earth’s environmental web, and find that those property interests trump everything else. It’s not religion that causes me to oppose that view, but common sense and attention to what’s happening. This isn’t me being a Christian, but me looking out for what’s best for me and my family. Not God, but the natural world, makes the risks clear of finding no compelling interest but the right to property.

    I don’t want to punish anyone for being successful, but I — selfishly rather than christian-ly — don’t care to be punished for anyone else’s success. That’s what happens if they destroy the environment. I didn’t sign up for that.

    Talk about irrational faith…

    So self-interest is the source of my liberalism. My religion requires me to leave other people to work out what they believe on moral subjects.

  • Bravo Damozel! 🙂

  • Manchester2

    It’s very tough applying one’s Christian faith in the political realm, mainly because I find that BOTH of the major parties line-up with my views in some ways, but stray in others. Having lived in a developing country where the government did absolutely nothing about air pollution, I started caring about environmentalism (Dem). On the other hand, I’ve had a visceral reaction against abortion since the time I was young (GOP). While I think going to war against Iran at this time – even through a proxy like Israel – would be a disaster (Dem), I remember the farce that was Jimmy Carter’s attempted rescue of the hostages in ’79 (GOP). So, call me fickle or a man without a party. NEITHER CANDIDATE does it for me at this point.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com