Posted on 10/19/2012 7:29:26 AM PDT by rhema
Think about this: there have been three presidential/vice-presidential debates thus far, and not one question about Barack Obama's historic advocacy of gay marriage.
That seems a rather curious omission given the gravity of the issue. No other issue among the candidates is as transformative as this one. Name another issue that involves completely redefining something as ancient as the Garden of Eden. You can't.
The question ought to be asked in the next debate, and, even more intriguingly, within the context of how the two presidential candidates' faith relates to their stance-similar to how Martha Raddatz asked Joe Biden and Paul Ryan (two Catholics) about their faith and their positions on abortion.
For Mitt Romney, his answer would be no surprise. The Governor would likely give the standard Christian reply on gay marriage vs. traditional Biblical precepts. As for Barack Obama, however, his answer would be a bit more unconventional, though increasingly common among the Religious Left.
Obama, in fact, cites his faith as instrumental to his support of gay marriage. In his landmark statement advocating gay marriage, Obama, speaking for himself and the first lady, told ABC News: "You know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Rule...treat others the way you would want to be treated. And...that's what motivates me as president."
President Obama had invoked the Golden Rule in support of gay marriage.
As an indication of how he is not alone, consider the thoughts of another liberal Christian, Nancy Pelosi. Congresswoman Pelosi says that her Catholic faith "compels" her to support gay marriage: "My religion has, compels me-and I love it for it-to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination." Pelosi called Obama's endorsement of gay marriage "a great day for America."
There's much that could be said about this, but one thing that jumps out at me is the utter hypocrisy of liberals in reacting to such statements from Pelosi and Obama. Consider:
For eight years, liberals screamed "separation of church and state!" anytime President George W. Bush even dared to mention that he prayed. But now, when Obama and Pelosi invoke their faith on behalf of gay marriage, liberals are fully supportive, applauding loudly and proudly. Instant converts. Secular liberals have gotten religion.
To say this is a double standard is a gigantic understatement. I wrote a book on the faith of George W. Bush. I could rattle off dozens of examples of liberals hammering Bush for the most benign expressions of faith. Here are just a few:
When Bush told reporter Bob Woodward that he had consulted his "higher father" before making a decision to send U.S. troops into combat, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell stated flatly, "He should not be praying." Ralph Nader dubbed Bush a "messianic militarist."
Or consider another example, provided by Maureen Dowd at the New York Times. What set off Dowd was Bush's statement in Des Moines, Iowa, on December 13, 1999. The occasion was a Republican presidential debate. The Texas governor was asked to name his favorite philosopher or thinker. He pointed to Jesus Christ. This was not a surprise to anyone who knew Bush, or knows serious Christians.
As noted by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, "Most evangelicals who heard that question probably thought, 'That's exactly the way I would have answered.'" That was especially true for someone like George W. Bush, whose acceptance of Christ completely changed his life. What Bush said is precisely what I would have immediately expected him to say. It was totally genuine, sincere, and certainly completely acceptable -- except at the New York Times, where Maureen Dowd launched into orbit.
In an op-ed titled, "Playing the Jesus Card," Dowd quoted H.L. Mencken, who wrote that religion "is used as a club and a cloak by both politicians and moralists, all of them lusting for power and most of them palpable frauds." She said that Bush had "finally scored some debate points" by citing Jesus. "This is the era of niche marketing," explained Dowd, "and Jesus is a niche. Why not use the son of God to help the son of Bush appeal to voters? W. is checking Jesus' numbers, and Jesus is polling well in Iowa. Christ, the new wedge issue."
Rather than being sincere about his faith and heart, averred Dowd, Bush had been a scoundrel. "It raises the question," Dowd preached, of whether the Governor wanted Jesus as his "personal Savior or political savior."
Imagine that reaction. And George Bush was merely saying that Jesus changed his life. He wasn't going so far as, say, invoking Jesus for his position on gay marriage.
In fact, imagine if Bush had done that -- that is, point to his faith in support of his opposition to gay marriage. How would liberals have reacted? But when a Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi point to their faith in supporting gay marriage, liberals react quite differently.
And now, imagine how liberals would react if this issue is raised in the next Obama-Romney debate, as it should be. They will deem it a bloody outrage if Mitt Romney cites his faith against gay marriage, but if Barack Obama invokes Jesus for gay marriage? Well, that will be just fine.
Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and author of the new book, The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor.
To liberals “faith” is just a pretext or a ruse to hide their real love of all-mighty government.
Or love of self
Liberalism is their religion. I have never met a group of people so easily indoctrinated as Liberals. They don’t seem to look beyond what’s popular. Liberalism is a cult (”a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.”).
To wit: A Liberal who invokes his religious faith to promote a Liberal position is not attacked by fellow Liberals. But when a Conservative invokes his faith to promote a Conservative stance, he is vehemently attacked - on religious grounds (i.e. not respecting the seperation of Church and State. Further, when a Conservative even only mentions his faith in a neutral fashion (e.g., Bush's reference to his admiration for Jesus Christ, or to praying before reaching important decisions), he's attacked - again on religious grounds.
Regards,
I never thought of it that way, but by Jove you may have hit the nail on the head!
Liberals are indeed obsessed with being popular, with being "hip," "with it," and belonging to the "in" group.
Regards,
Were there ever a society to have endorsed homosexual marriage one would think it would have been the ancient Greeks who already had an accepted social system based on the “mentoring” of pubescent and adolescent boys by men. Carried into the military ranks, these often centered on lifelong relationships.
Yet the Greeks never advanced this concept into marriage, I think it can be argued, because they saw how it would have undermined the patrilineal and parental aspects of their society leading to the breakdown of the family structure.
In other words, they weren’t suicidal as American life has become today in this and in so many other respects.
Personally I would want Mitt to reply that he would have justice defend DOMA in court and give a well articulated coherent reason why. That would be all I want to hear. I dont want him saying its his job to tell the states what to do, that would be a disaster.
Romney knows that the number one issue in this election is the economy (#2 is the embassy attack) and it is Dems bringing up distraction after distraction to it, the war on wimmin, gays, illegals, ....Romney's taxes.
Liberals have had “religion” for a looooong time.
The atheistic “freedom from religion” garbage in relatively recent legacy from Communism, and took hold in the 1960s.
Before that, a lot of “Liberalism” and “Progressivism” was actually driven by a perverse form of Christianity.
That's because the DIMS set the debate parameters.
You got it. It’s not love of government that drives a liberal/sheeperal, it’s love of self, and the desire to be one’s own god (Gen 3).
There’s been a recent development with a liberal in my life. Approaching her mid 60’s, she has finally stopped trying to reconcile her liberal worldview with her parents’ Christian belief system. She has stopped saying she’s a Christian, and has openly rejected Christianity.
Contrary to first brush, I see this as a positive development. It was impossible to contrast what God says with what the world says with someone that tried to reconcile the two. Now, we can show the contrast, show the lie that humanism/liberalism is, and present a clear choice.
and like Clinton, they only act if focus groups tell them to. Obama would lose a significant part of the religious black vote by coming out hard in favor of Gay marriage so publicly before the election... and losing black votes is one slippery slope he does NOT want to explore!
The ultimate totalitarian goal remains until power is accumulated and individual liberty is no longer a roadblock.
Fool the people by whatever means, tactics, and semantics are available, even the use of distortion of religious teachings, as long as it serves their purpose.
"Fair share," "health care," "gay marriage,"reproductive rights," "racial justice," "social justice"--all are simple tools in the kit of an ideology which seeks to elevate government power seekers.
"Health care" was a Trojan Horse for a power grab, just as "gay marriage" is the formation of another entitlement group of voters.
"Fair share" is just "slavery" by another name. Government "masters" buy votes in exchange for retaining their "master redistributionist" status, while their "voters" yield up freedom for themselves and future generations.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis
All who doubt the wisdom of Lewis might watch the video of the President's recent remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. There, Obama arrogantly misappropriated Jesus's spiritual challenge to individuals, claiming those words as validating and authorizing abusive use of coercive power by himself and his cronies to "take" from some in order to buy votes and accumulate more power to themselves--all in the name of "helping" the beneficiaries of such unconstitutional "takings." Jesus never advised "community organizing" to force individual action. His appeal was, as Jefferson put it, "laid hold of actions only. . . ." "He [Jesus] pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head."
Hear Samuel Adams:
"Is it now high time for the people of this country to explicitly declare whether they will be free men or slaves. It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in this event. For wherever tyranny is established, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent, it is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice.” - Samuel Adams
And:
“The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional.” - Samuel Adams
Using a commonly friendly word like "shared" to describe a government policy of force and coercion is despicable on its face. Then, again, isn't that descriptive of how all totalitarian regimes initially present themselves in order to gain power?
In the course of his research for "Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile" (Harper Collins), Joseph Pearch traveled to Moscow to interview the writer. The excerpt below is from that interview:
Solzhenitsyn: "In different places over the years I have had to prove that socialism, which to many western thinkers is a sort of kingdom of justice, was in fact full of coercion, of bureaucratic greed and corruption and avarice, and consistent within itself that socialism cannot be implemented without the aid of coercion. Communist propaganda would sometimes include statements such as "we include almost all the commandments of the Gospel in our ideology". The difference is that the Gospel asks all this to be achieved through love, through self-limitation, but socialism only uses coercion." Solzhenitsyn
Well stated.
Bob Beckel says he’s a “born-again Christian”. Ahem. Doubtful.
I am reposting this gem you wrote, in hopes that a few more people read it. It is suitable for framing. One of the best I have ever read.
Great job!
Tyrannical despots may disguise their desire for power under many guises.
The ultimate totalitarian goal remains until power is accumulated and individual liberty is no longer a roadblock.
Fool the people by whatever means, tactics, and semantics are available, even the use of distortion of religious teachings, as long as it serves their purpose.
“Fair share,” “health care,” “gay marriage,”reproductive rights,” “racial justice,” “social justice”—all are simple tools in the kit of an ideology which seeks to elevate government power seekers.
“Health care” was a Trojan Horse for a power grab, just as “gay marriage” is the formation of another entitlement group of voters.
“Fair share” is just “slavery” by another name. Government “masters” buy votes in exchange for retaining their “master redistributionist” status, while their “voters” yield up freedom for themselves and future generations.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - C. S. Lewis
All who doubt the wisdom of Lewis might watch the video of the President’s recent remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. There, Obama arrogantly misappropriated Jesus’s spiritual challenge to individuals, claiming those words as validating and authorizing abusive use of coercive power by himself and his cronies to “take” from some in order to buy votes and accumulate more power to themselves—all in the name of “helping” the beneficiaries of such unconstitutional “takings.” Jesus never advised “community organizing” to force individual action. His appeal was, as Jefferson put it, “laid hold of actions only. . . .” “He [Jesus] pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.”
Hear Samuel Adams:
“Is it now high time for the people of this country to explicitly declare whether they will be free men or slaves. It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in this event. For wherever tyranny is established, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent, it is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice.” - Samuel Adams
And:
“The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional.” - Samuel Adams
Using a commonly friendly word like “shared” to describe a government policy of force and coercion is despicable on its face. Then, again, isn’t that descriptive of how all totalitarian regimes initially present themselves in order to gain power?
In the course of his research for “Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile” (Harper Collins), Joseph Pearch traveled to Moscow to interview the writer. The excerpt below is from that interview:
Solzhenitsyn: “In different places over the years I have had to prove that socialism, which to many western thinkers is a sort of kingdom of justice, was in fact full of coercion, of bureaucratic greed and corruption and avarice, and consistent within itself that socialism cannot be implemented without the aid of coercion. Communist propaganda would sometimes include statements such as “we include almost all the commandments of the Gospel in our ideology”. The difference is that the Gospel asks all this to be achieved through love, through self-limitation, but socialism only uses coercion.” Solzhenitsyn
Yes. The Puritans became the Congregationalists, later the Unitarians. Transcendentalism was an off-shoot of this line. What they all have in common, despite the changes in doctrine and concepts of morality, is that they have all felt a smug superiority of self-righteousness and a demand that everyone conform to their “morality” (though these days that morality has morphed into political correctness). This group had the first public schools in America, which on its face is laudable, but it was also another tool in indoctrinating everyone into their personal vision of morality. That’s one thing which has certainly not changed. It’s notable that these denominations come mainly out of New England, which has also been a breeding ground for various political correctness movements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.