Christian Democrats are hypocrites

#1 (**permalink**) 09-24-2005, 03:23 AM

In my opinion, Christians who claim to be Democrats and/or vote for a Democratic candidate are hypocrites. The Bible clearly says that murder is a sin. The hundreds of babies that are killed every year as a result of abortion is murder in the sight of God. For a Christian to vote for a pro-choice candidate that is neutral in regards to their stance on abortion is hypocrisy. If you're a Christian you should stand up against such sin and condone it. Voting for a Democrat is voting for allowing abortion. It's time we overturn the slaughtering of thousands of children in this nation. Half of a generation is gone as a result of abortion being legalized through Roe vs. Wade.

Karried · #2 (**permalink**) 09-24-2005, 10:04 AM

Rev. Bob, with every post you write, I'm becoming more convinced I don't want anything to do with your religion - whatever it is. Jesus would roll over in his tomb upon reading some of your judgemental posts. You've criticized alternative lifestyles, told people if they aren't rich their kids shouldn't attend private school but public schools are in moral decay and you have offered many other offensive posts all in the name of God - now this.

If your intent is to bring people to Christ, you are failing miserably in my opinion. I wouldn't step foot in your church if this is how you minister to people.

I certainly don't think abortion should be used as birth control but I admit that there are circumstances in which an abortion is something a woman has to decide for or against and not be labled a hypocrite and murderer by Rev Bob.

This will surely evoke much discussion. I didn't write it but it is a good defense of people who aren't rigid staunch Rebuplicans with zero tolerance for those who dare to be different. Even though I might not agree with some of this, I thought it was interesting and it certainly applies after reading the above post:

Democrats have Morals Too.
by JonathanDean

It is IMMORAL and UNPATRIOTIC to belittle Democrats---whose only desire is to make America a better place.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to peep into the lives of average Americans unnecessarily.
It is immoral and unpatriotic to unnecessarily censor what average Americans read and write.

It is immoral and upatriotic to leave America's ports and train stations defenseless and her airports weak.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to not make the capture of Osama Bin Ladin a priority.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to not take accountibility and responsibility for not finding WMDs in Iraq.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to demagogue about abortion, but in turn make abortion more dangerous or more difficult.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to tell gay folks that they're less than human and they're going to Hell. Only God can decide where a human soul will spend eternity.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to give aid and preference to the rich man while the poor in this country just get poorer.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to not review the death penalty system for irregularities.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to put children and the mentally handicapped to death.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to allow children to go without health care.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to support foreign companies that only pay their employees 30 cents a day.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to depend almost completely on foreign dictatorships for our energy sources.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to make Democrats look anti-gun when in fact we are against reckless gun use.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to appoint justices that will pursue an activist agenda---whether liberal or conservative.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to define a "corporation" as a person under the 14th amendment.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to give some children world-class educations while other kids struggle to survive their gang-land high schools.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to discriminate.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to fire someone just before they are eligible for retirement.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to mock one geographic part of America and laud another. We are ALL Americans.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to force one's views on someone else. We need a balance of personal freedom and a public realm that is free from coercion.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to tell the terminally ill they cannot use medicinal marijuana to feel better.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to destroy the forests and pollute the air just to make a few extra bucks.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to allow drugs to ruin so many lives without attacking both supply AND demand.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to do nothing while millions die of starvation, genocide, or plague.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to use American troops for nation-building while leaving other resources untapped.

It is immoral and unpatriotic to look at America and turn a blind eye to her problems.

True Patriotism and Morality is a willingness to change America for the better. To empower people. To keep our country safe. To cut the size and scope of the federal government. To promote justice, fairness, and equality.

Being patriotic and moral means having the courage to do what is right, despite the obstacles.

Karried · #3 (**permalink**) 09-24-2005, 11:10 AM

Baptists All Heart - From the Oklahoman:

Condensed... In my opinion, this is what Christianity should be about:

Rudy is all heart. That is the clear and undeniable moral of the story.

Well, Rudy is not the only one. Oklahoma Baptists are all heart. We gave and sacrificed for the sake of those devastated by Hurricane Katrina. I think of the hundreds who gave up Labor Day weekend to prepare the Falls Creek camp.

I can see the faces of senior adults and many others who stayed through Thursday of that week to finish the preparations for evacuees. My mind races to the 3,278 beds made, warehouses full of supplies given and the myriad other things. All was practice for the time of the real game when the evacuees would arrive. Everything was done from a heart of love.

By now, you know that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has stopped sending evacuees to shelters, and Falls Creek, though ready, will not receive any. The decision was made at the national level.

In the end, we can do nothing about spending a hard week "practicing" and not getting in the game.

But please do not miss the reality. Every act was offered from a heart full of love. The love of Christ motivated us to sacrifice and give. No bed was made without notice by the Father.

Nothing will go to waste. Everything will be used at Camp Gruber or shipped elsewhere to support the ministry to evacuees. I have visited with our disaster relief feeding crews and chain saw crews. They are on the edge of New Orleans. Like Oklahoma Baptists, they are all heart.

I am sad we did not receive evacuees. But I have no regrets that Oklahoma Baptists did everything we did. It was all done because we wanted to touch hurting people. In the end, we had a heart as big as Dallas. More important, we had a heart like Jesus'. We never lose or fail when we act like Jesus.

#4 (**permalink**) 09-24-2005, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

In my opinion, Christians who claim to be Democrats and/or vote for a Democratic candidate are hypocrites. The Bible clearly says that murder is a sin. The hundreds of babies that are killed every year as a result of abortion is murder in the sight of God. For a Christian to vote for a pro-choice candidate that is neutral in regards to their stance on abortion is hypocrisy. If you're a Christian you should stand up against such sin and condone it. Voting for a Democrat is voting for allowing abortion. It's time we overturn the slaughtering of thousands of children in this nation. Half of a generation is gone as a result of abortion being legalized through Roe vs. Wade.

First off, there are plenty of Democrats who are against abortion. There are about 50/50 on the topic within my state house. It is not only NOT the only issue discussed, it's not even among the most important discussed within our legislature.

I want to know how you can say that but NOT say "no Christian can vote for a Republican who opposes more help for the poor"? In our state a Republican governor is kicking hundreds of thousands of people off of Medicade, a horribly unChristian act. They're closing mental hospitals, putting the costs of higher education out of reach of the poor, these are all FAR more important topics for people of faith.

We'd get a tremendous amount of good out of a ban of discussion of abortion. For 12 months, you're not allowed to MENTION THE WORD on the floor of the legislature. Instead of wasting weeks passing bills that are KNOWN to violate the constitution we work on real issues. Great idea, huh?

God doesn't have a voter card, and doesn't belong to one Party or another. Saying He does is offensive and wrong.

#5 (**permalink**) 09-24-2005, 06:18 PM

I know plenty of good Christian Democrats, myself included. I don't care what party it is, there are issues involved swith both parties that are immoral. It isn't like Nixon was exactly ethical in what he did in the Watergate scandal. It isn't like what Bush is doing over in Iraq, stepping into a nation and killing people where he had no busines, ethical. Taking from the poor and giving tax cuts to the rich is not ethical. Must I go on?

PUGalicious · #6 (**permalink**) 09-24-2005, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karried

Jesus would roll over in his tomb upon reading some of your judgemental posts.

Point of clarification, Karried, with all due respect:
Most evangelical Christians, myself included, will tell you that the tomb is empty because Jesus was resurrected.

Nonetheless, I would contend that Jesus would not endorse the view that all Christian Democrats are hypocrites and that all Republican Christians are not.

PUGalicious · #7 (**permalink**) 09-24-2005, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

In my opinion, Christians who claim to be Democrats and/or vote for a Democratic candidate are hypocrites. The Bible clearly says that murder is a sin. The hundreds of babies that are killed every year as a result of abortion is murder in the sight of God. For a Christian to vote for a pro-choice candidate that is neutral in regards to their stance on abortion is hypocrisy. If you're a Christian you should stand up against such sin and condone it. Voting for a Democrat is voting for allowing abortion. It's time we overturn the slaughtering of thousands of children in this nation. Half of a generation is gone as a result of abortion being legalized through Roe vs. Wade.

First, my disclaimer: I am not a Democrat. I am a former Republican who is now registered as an Independent.

I couldn't disagree more with Rev. Bob. Rather than trying to spell out at length why this is so, I'm going to let the words of another more eloquent person say it for me. (Thanks to Didaskalos for posting this earlier on another thread. I borrow it, with apologies to those who have already seen it, so that Rev. Bob is at least exposed to another viewpoint).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didaskalos

I have recently read and thoroughly enjoyed Jim Wallis’ book – “God’s Politics”. I highly encourage Christians interested in politics read the book and consider his challenges. Below is an excerpt from the first chapter of his book. The question for Christians should be not whether their beliefs line up with Conservative or Liberal philosophy but rather whether they line up with Christ's teachings. Sadly, many Christians use scripture to find support for their political philosopy rather than using scripture to guide their political philosophy.

Quote:

Many of us feel that our faith has been stolen, and it's time to take it back.
...
Of course, nobody can steal your personal faith; that's between you and God. The problem is in the political arena, where strident voices claim to represent Christians when they clearly don't speak for most of us. It's time to take back our faith in the public square, especially in a time when a more authentic social witness is desperately needed.

The religious and political Right gets the public meaning of religion mostly wrong -- preferring to focus only on sexual and cultural issues while ignoring the weightier matters of justice. And the secular Left doesn't seem to get the meaning and promise of faith for politics at all-mistakenly dismissing spirituality as irrelevant to social change. I actually happen to be conservative on issues of personal responsibility, the sacredness of human life, the reality of evil in our world, and the critical importance of individual character, parenting, and strong "family values." But the popular presentations of religion in our time (especially in the media) almost completely ignore the biblical vision of social justice and, even worse, dismiss such concerns as merely "left wing."
….
It's time to reassert and reclaim the gospel faith -- especially in our public life. When we do, we discover that faith challenges the powers that be to do justice for the poor, instead of preaching a "prosperity gospel" and supporting politicians who further enrich the wealthy.

The media like to say, "Oh, then you must be the religious Left?" No, not at all, and the very question is the problem. Just because a religious Right has fashioned itself for political power in one utterly predictable ideological guise does not mean that those who question this political seduction must be their opposite political counterpart. The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan. To always raise the moral issues of human rights, for example, will challenge both left and right-wing governments that put power above principles. Religious action is rooted in a much deeper place than "rights" -- that place being the image of God in every human being.
Similarly, when the poor are defended on moral or religious grounds, it is certainly not "class warfare," as the rich often charge, but rather a direct response to the overwhelming focus on the poor in the Scriptures, which claim they are regularly neglected, exploited, and oppressed by wealthy elites, political rulers, and indifferent affluent populations. Those Scriptures don't simply endorse the social programs of the liberals or the conservatives, but they make it clear that poverty is indeed a religious issue, and the failure of political leaders to help uplift the poor will be judged a moral failing.
…
Prophetic religion always presses the question of the common good. Indeed, the question, "Whatever became of the common good?" must be a constant religious refrain directed to political partisans whose relentless quest for power and wealth makes them forget the "commonwealth" again and again. That common good should always be constructed from the deepest wells of our personal and social responsibility and the absolute insistence to never separate the two.

I am always amazed at the debate about poverty, with one side citing the need for changes in personal behaviors and the other for better social programs, as if the two were mutually exclusive. Obviously, both personal and social responsibility are necessary for overcoming poverty. When this absurd bifurcation is offered by ideological partisans on either side, I am quickly convinced that both sides must never have lived or worked anywhere near poverty or poor people. That there are behaviors that further entrench and even cause poverty is indisputable, as is the undeniable power of systems and structures to institutionalize injustice and oppression. Together, personal and social responsibility creates the common good. Because we know these realities as religious facts, taught to us by our sacred Scriptures, religious communities can teach them to those still searching more for blame than solutions to pressing social problems.
...
there were two issues in the 2004 election year that most tugged at my heart, worry my Christian conscience, and compel me to faithful citizenship and discipleship. The first is poverty, the second is war.

As the Bush administration began, I joined a small group of religious leaders to meet with the president-elect in Austin, Texas. To his credit, George W. Bush invited both those who had voted for him and against him. We encouraged him to commit himself to a concrete and measurable goal in the battle against poverty—such as cutting child poverty by half in ten years, as the British Labour government under Tony Blair had pledged. I thought a Republican president, in the name of compassionate conservatism, could make new progress on the critical issue of poverty, much like Nixon's going to China. I told him he should surprise everybody with an aggressive antipoverty agenda. I supported the president's faith-based initiative, much to the chagrin of Democratic friends, but from the beginning of the Bush presidency many of us have had a very consistent message: significant resources must be committed to serious poverty reduction, not just in a faith-based initiative but especially in budget decisions, tax policies, and spending priorities.

Two years later, a statement organized by Call to Renewal and signed by thirty-four Christian leaders across the theological and political spectrum concluded, sadly, that the president had failed the test of resources and priorities, which made our continuing support for his faith-based initiative increasingly untenable. Without the resources and policies to seriously reduce poverty, the faith-based initiative became words without backing, faith without works. A faith-based initiative could have been done differently, with the resources and policies to back it up, but this one has turned out to be a big disappointment, with policy failures such as the denial of child tax credits to low-income families that would have brought the biblical prophets to the White House lawn.

Other priorities were just more important to the Bush administration than poverty reduction. Tax cuts that mostly benefited the wealthy were more important, the war in Iraq was more important, and homeland security was more important—all without the key recognition of how poverty, despair, family instability, and social disintegration undermine our national security. A budget based on a windfall of benefits for the wealthy and harsh cuts for poor families and children is an unbiblical budget. The good people who have run the White House faith-based office were clearly not the ones making policy and budget decisions for the Bush administration. One result of the lack of White House leadership has been the steady rise in the number of people, families, and children living in poverty in each of the last three years, according to the 2003 U.S. Census report. And that is a religious issue.

In his speech to the 2004 Republican Convention, the president spoke about many important issues—education reform and opportunity, health care security, job training, support for low-income families and neighborhoods. There were new and promising directions in his notion of "an ownership society," which focuses on things such as tax credits, educational equality, and home ownership for lower-income families as an alternative to relying on only entitlement programs.
In an August 2004 article in the New York Times Magazine, conservative writer David Brooks laid out a vision for "progressive Republicanism" that has a clear role for the positive action of government to make work actually work for low-income families, with a whole range of wage supplements and wealth creation for poor working families.2 There were signs of such a vision in the Bush speech. But the president failed to deal with how his central domestic priority, making permanent his tax cuts that most benefit the wealthy, will simply not allow such positive government initiatives—because of a lack of resources. The Brooks vision will never be possible if Republicans stick to their characteristic anti-government ideology that is so reluctant to spend money to reduce poverty. George W. Bush has not changed that mentality, but rather submitted to it. Until it changes, the poor will continue to suffer.

From what I have seen and heard of George W. Bush (including in small meetings and personal conversations I've had with the president) I believe his faith to be both personal and real. And I also believe that he has a heart genuinely concerned for poor people. But I think the president is often guilty of bad theology. On the issue of poverty, George Bush believes in a God of charity, but not a God of justice.
…
That's the problem with the economic and political agenda of the religious Right—most people know what Jesus said about these things, whether they are Christians or not. And the conformity of many conservative evangelical leaders to the political Right and its agenda that favors the wealthy over the poor and middle class just doesn't make any sense to them. They know that Jesus was not pro-rich, pro-war, and only pro-American, as we described at the beginning of this chapter. So why are so many conservative evangelicals oblivious to the teaching of Jesus, they wonder. Why do "family values" groups support the Republican right-wing economic agenda when it hurts so many low-income families? And how can some even claim that God is pro-war? Most people just don't get it, because they know that Jesus was on the side of the poor and the cause of peace. The politics of Jesus is a problem for the religious Right.

Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor," and opened up his own ministry by proclaiming, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (which was a direct biblical reference to the Jubilee Year in the Hebrew Scriptures where, periodically, the debts of the poor were cancelled, slaves were set free, and land was redistributed for the sake of equity). People such as U2's lead singer, Bono, see the contemporary relevance of such Scripture for issues such as global poverty and the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa, and so do many of his young fans—so why don't others see it? In Matthew's twenty-fifth chapter, Jesus speaks of the hungry, the homeless, the stranger, prisoners, and the sick and promises he will challenge all his followers on the judgment day with these words, "As you have done to the least of these, you have done to me." James Forbes, the pastor of Riverside Church in New York City, concludes from that text that, "Nobody gets to heaven without a letter of reference from the poor!" How many of America's most famous television preachers could produce the letter?
…
This examination among evangelicals became clear in the 2004 Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility, an unprecedented call to social action from the National Association of Evangelicals. In contrast to the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson era, evangelicals are now showing moral leadership in the fight against global poverty, HIV/AIDS, human trafficking, and sustainability of God's earth.

These changes represent both a reaction against overt partisanship and a desire to apply Christian ethics to a broader set of issues. Many people of faith have grown weary of the religious Right's attempts to narrow the moral litmus test to abortion and gay marriage. For example, when likely voters were asked in a 2004 poll whether they would rather hear a candidate's position on poverty or on gay marriage, 75 percent chose poverty. Only 17 percent chose gay marriage.3 Any serious reading of the Bible points toward poverty as a religious issue, and candidates should always be asked by Christian voters how they will treat "the least of these." Stewardship of God's earth is clearly a question of Christian ethics. Truth telling is also a religious issue that should be applied to a candidate's rationales for war, tax cuts, or any other policy, as is humility in avoiding the language of "righteous empire," which too easily confuses the roles of God, church, and nation.
…
The religious Right's grip on public debates about values has been driven in part by a media that continues to give airtime to the loudest religious voices, rather than the most representative, leaving millions of Christians and other people of faith without a say in the values debate. But this is starting to change as progressive and prophetic faith voices are speaking out with a confidence and moral urgency not seen for twenty-five years. Mobilized by human suffering in many places, groups motivated by religious social conscience (including many evangelicals not defined by the religious Right) have hit a new stride in efforts to combat poverty, destructive wars, human rights violations, pandemics like HIV/AIDS, and genocide in places like Sudan.

In politics, the best interest of the country is served when the prophetic voice of religion is heard—challenging both Right and Left from consistent moral ground. The evangelical Christians of the nineteenth century combined revivalism with social reform and helped lead movements for abolition and women's suffrage—not to mention the faith-based movement that directly preceded the rise of the religious Right, namely the American civil rights movement led by the black churches.

The truth is that most of the important movements for social change in America have been fueled by religion—progressive religion. The stark moral challenges of our time have once again begun to awaken this prophetic tradition. As the religious Right loses influence, nothing could be better for the health of both church and society than a return of the moral center that anchors our nation in a common humanity. If you listen, these voices can be heard rising again.

Karried · #8 (**permalink**) 09-24-2005, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Point of clarification, Karried, with all due respect:
Most evangelical Christians, myself included, will tell you that the tomb is empty because Jesus was resurrected.

LOL, I meant before he came out for Sunday brunch....... just trying to interject a bit of levity into an otherwise really sad original post.

PUGalicious · #9 (**permalink**) 09-25-2005, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karried

LOL, I meant before he came out for Sunday brunch....... just trying to interject a bit of levity into an otherwise really sad original post.

Thanks for the clarification, and thanks for trying. Sometimes ignorance numbs my funny bone. Sorry that I didn't recognize the levity and challenged your comment. (It's been a long, exhausting weekend.)

karlanee · #10 (**permalink**) 09-25-2005, 11:11 PM

Rev. Bob,

I'm reminded, while reading your post, of the words of Paul in Romans 2:1-3 which says:

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

#11 (**permalink**) 09-26-2005, 02:25 PM

Who said anything about judging? I'm simply saying if you're really a Christian you need to prove it by voting for someone with Christian morals and ethics. If you won't condone the killing of innocent babies, you're not standing by your faith. I'm calling real men to stand up in the country for their faith. That's not to say that we're not all sinners. All have sinned. But, by the same token, we should try to follow Jesus daily, and keep our fellow brother from stumbling.

Karried · #12 (**permalink**) 09-26-2005, 02:28 PM

I briefly passed over the pictures but that is reprehensible and sick that you posted those.
I hope the moderators remove them.

Quote:

In my opinion, Christians who claim to be Democrats and/or vote for a Democratic candidate are hypocrites.

If that's not judging someone, I don't know what is.

Quote:

I'm calling real men to stand up in the country for their faith.

Do the women not count? The women who have to make the horrific choice regarding abortion?

mranderson · #13 (**permalink**) 09-26-2005, 02:38 PM

"I briefly passed over the pictures but that is reprehensible and sick that you posted those.
I hope the moderators remove them."

I actually hope they keep them. People need to learn what a murdered baby looks like.

#14 (**permalink**) 09-26-2005, 02:43 PM

Well, the pics don't really violate the TOS, but they are quite graphic. The mods have decided to delete the pics.

Rev. Bob, I don't mind if you oppose abortion, but please let's try to keep other people in mind when posting pics.

karlanee · #15 (**permalink**) 09-26-2005, 02:47 PM

I'm well aware of the facts on abortion.

First of all, I know many Democrats who are vehemently opposed to abortion and are Christians, by the way. I'm very curious as to how you determined who is a Democrat and who is Republican here. I only know of a few folks on the boards who have actually stated their affiliation. I don't recall any requirements for us to post our registration cards here.

Second, I see it as judging - simply because I could show you many many more verses about the poor and how we are to treat them, but Republican policy does not seem to care about the poor as much as the rich.

I will not be questioned on my faith. And real men? "Real men", as you call them, do not lump every person into a category based on the policies of SOME who happen to be name the political affiliation as others who are for abortion rights.

Stop pointing fingers and start having as much compassion for the living - those who are poor, etc. Yes, I agree that abortion is wrong. However, I also realize that I cannot make a person stop having an abortion. I can pray for them, support them, etc. But I CAN feed a hungry person, clothe a naked person and be Jesus with skin on to everyone around me.

If you think you are going to call out the "real men" with your current logic and rhetoric, I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. You are only serving to criticize, humiliate and alienate those you are trying to speak to.

By the way - God is not a Republican - or a Democrat.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Christian leader calls for assassination	PUGalicious	Faith & Values Open Discussion	2	09-27-2005 03:13 PM
Charlie Christian International Jazz Festival	floater	OKC Metro Area Talk	0	05-25-2005 05:17 PM
Morality-based legislation	Patrick	Political Arena	5	04-11-2005 11:21 PM
Will Bush nominate Democrats to his cabinet?	Patrick	The Poll Vault	2	11-10-2004 03:15 PM
Contemporary Christian Music..88.9 FM K-Love	Keith	Art/Books/Film/TV/Radio	1	08-03-2004 02:54 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)