Despite Barack Obama's recent derision of people who "cling to guns or religion," The Christian Post reports Obama now says he wants to expand President Bush's faith based initiative which provide government money to faith-based community service programs.
Obama might actually carry out some of these intentions. But the traditional hostility of the Democrat Party toward Biblical Christianity aside, already I see serious conflicts in Obama's proposals.
For instance, this article says he would "some ability to hire and fire based on faith." Yet on his campaign website, Obama says he "believes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity." Since politically correct pro-homosexual law and lawsuits are already being used to harass religious institutions and Christian businesses, we can only expect that this trend would kick into overdrive under an Obama administration.
And if you consider Obama's longstanding commitment to homosexual activism, and his recent and shallow efforts to pander to Biblical Christians, which one do you think will win out? I don't think you need a PhD to figure that one out.
If such funding of faith-based community service programs does survive the conflict, it is sure to become the Trojan horse some have already feared such funding would create. In other words, if you're getting money from the government for a community program, the government may require you to worship at the altar of homosexual celebration.
I had initially supported President Bush's faith-based initiatives, not as a permanent institution but as a bridge which could provide a transition back to the constitutional way charity was handled in the United States until about 60 years ago: the private sector.
However, there's been little progress to indicate this program will or even can accomplish that. What's more, those Trojan horse fears have always been legitimate. I considered them worth the risk under the Bush administration, and again with the goal of eventually crossing the bridge and ending them. And under an Obama administration, I wouldn't take a dime for fear that I'd have to sell my integrity down the river.
Obama also says he doesn't like the idea of such faith-based programs "proselytizing," which is a simply a word for "sharing the faith" that carries a negative connotation. For their to be true change for the better in many people's lives, nothing short of a born-again life change from Jesus Christ will enable them to overcome the self-destructive habits and lifestyle they've become trapped in. And such a change is what Obama has specifically said he will not allow faith-based groups to offer.
So essentially the program will rob faith-based programs of their greatest ability to affect change for the better.
No, in the end, even if Obama isn't pandering (which I'm 99% sure he is), faith based initiative money would be poison to any Biblically Christian ministry under his watch.
Featured Article
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Obama Pandering to Christians
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Is it really news-worthy when we find out a politician has been pandering to voters? Talk about a no-brainer.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your dream candidate is (was) Mike Huckabee. He's conservative, anti-gay, pro-life, pro-gun rights, and a former Christian minister. Do you think he didn't pander? Do you think he really cares about gay marriage and faith-based initiatives?
It all comes down to getting votes. Politicians, no matter how good they seem, only care about power. They pander to everyone, conservative and liberal, religious and non-religious. Christians are not special. Get over it.
I understand why you made that guess, Anonymous, but you'd be wrong. Because you're right about one thing: he was a panderer, too.
Many of his values were genuine; he was a genuine pro-lifer, and I appreciate that. But he was a big-time panderer on immigration and border control, crime, and maybe to a minor extent in the area of homosexual "marriage" (he once told an interviewer he'd basically be okay with it as long as they didn't call it "marriage").
His record was liberal in many areas, though once he hit the campaign trail, for the most part he tried to paint himself as Mr. Conservative.
In short, Huckabee was a pro-life liberal.
But as big a panderer as Huckabee was, Obama makes him look like a piker.
The Republican Party doesnt' have a monopoly on pandering to Christians, so I don't see what's wrong with Obama doing it.
Wow, Bob, it seems that no politician can ever meet your standards of conservatism. I take it you're supporting John McCain, since he's the "lesser of two evils" compared to Obama, but why vote for him either?
There were a few good ones in the race, but the establishment and the "he-can't-win" attitude among too many in the base kept them locked out. Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson were solid conservatives.
And yes, I'm supporting (as best as I can bring myself to) McCain. As poor a Republican choice as he is, he's WAY LESS of an evil than Obama.
Why support McCain at all? If you are that uncomfortable with certain of his positions, why give him power? Why not cast your vote for Hunter, Tancredo, or Thompson? They have no chance of winning, but at least you'll have kept to your principles. Supporting "the lesser evil" by default makes no sense.
I stood for principle first, in the primary. Principle failed, and with no viable alternative, my fallback position is pragmatic.
There's still a chance McCain can beat Obama, and if he does, that will prevent a world of hurt on the country.
No viable alternative? Please. You still have the choice to vote for any of the three you mentioned earlier.
The other three are not viable. They have practically zero chance of winning. While the primary was still open, there remained opportunity, but that has been decided. At this point it's Obama, McCain, or a wasted vote. And even if I didn't consider the vote a waste because they have no chance, my vote might mitigate evil if it can help elect McCain and thus prevent an Obama election.
Post a Comment