Posted on 08/02/2007 9:24:34 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
For the past several months, the media have been full of stories about outreach efforts to evangelical voters by candidates from the major political parties. The candidates have had faith forums, websites, as well as simply talking a lot about God.
There’s a place for religion in the public square, and any effort to make that bipartisan is welcome from me. But if Democrats ¾ or Republicans ¾ think that wooing evangelical voters is about “God talk,” they are mistaken.
At a recent event sponsored by Sojourners magazine, the Democratic presidential candidates described what the New York Times called their “journeys of faith.” They answered questions about “the biggest sin you’ve ever committed” and how their own faith has sustained them in difficult times. Questions I consider somewhat irrelevant to a political campaign, but clearly aimed at wooing faith voters.
In addition, in a much-commented-upon New York Times interview, Senator Clinton talked about the importance of forgiveness and how her faith was “crucial to the challenges [she] faced.”
Similar things have been said by and written about senators Obama and Edwards, as well as the major Republican candidates.
I appreciate that the candidates are taking a risk when they talk about their faith: As the Times noted, there are “liberals who object to any injection of religion into politics,” and they are part of the Democratic Party’s base. As for Republicans, when they do it, it gives the media a clear shot to label them as right wing extremists.
The problem is that all of this “God talk” misses the point: what Christians want ¾ or should want ¾ is a candidate who shares their moral and cultural concerns, not just their religious vocabulary. A candidate may address a Hispanic audience in Spanish, but that says nothing about where he aligns with them on issues.
An example of this missing the point is a recent story in the Chicago Tribune, whose headline read “Democrats Pledge Support for Wide Access to Abortion.”
The very same candidates who had been appealing to evangelical voters a few days before went before Planned Parenthood and promised to appoint judges that would uphold Roe vs. Wade and promised to mandate public financing in their universal health care plans.
It’s difficult to imagine positions more at odds with the motivations of the very evangelical voters they’re trying to court. Protecting the lives of unborn children has been the cornerstone of politically active Christians for the past thirty years.
It’s hard to know which is worse: that candidates think that talking about religion will make evangelical Christians forget why they care about politics—or that they might be right.
Democrats and Republicans are suggesting that Christians set aside their concerns about the sanctity of life and preservation of the family. Indeed, the same period that saw all the stories about Democrats and religion saw stories about a “maturing” of the evangelical vote on the Republican side.
By “maturing,” the commentators meant that Christians are willing to overlook where GOP hopefuls stand on abortion and same-sex marriage.
But if we do that, we will have forgotten why we got involved in the first place. Like the candidates, we’ll be missing the point. As the country song says, “How about a little less talk, and a lot more action?”
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
“The problem is that all of this “God talk” misses the point: what Christians want ... is a candidate who shares their moral and cultural concerns, not just their religious vocabulary.” The DNC brings their politicians into a ‘think tank’ meeting to figure out how to sound religious. Yes, they actually have done this! God? What do they need of Him when they can sound religious and get the votes? Pfffft! Being instead of just mouthing is for those religious fanatics. This is just another issue over which the DNC must figure the best way to manipulate the stupid voters. Abortion? Who care if God sees it as evil, it empowers democrats to support and defend the evil. ... Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!
Anyone who advocates killing an innocent child is a murderer, it’s that simple.
Well, no it’s not that simple, because right away, with “innocent child”, you are embroiled in semantics. Why not say, “anyone who advocates destroying human embryos is a murderer”? Presumably, this is what you mean. Why would you hesitate to pronounce this judgment, then?
You are the one playing with words and I won't play. Abortion is murder. Argue with yourself.
Well then, why didn’t you say “Abortion is murder” in the first place? Why the rhetorical flourish?
“God talk” with a socialist bent doesn’t impress me, but it can deceive a few out there.
The right to life must be highlighted in dramatic ways that take the “faith” issue away from the two-faced double-talking politicians.
Christians and the world around them need committed leaders and followers who will speak without compromise in the politicians faces.
Characters like Hillary Rodham need to get it like this:
When her kind speaks of abortion being “safe, legal and rare” lets respond.
“Abortion is safe when its illegal, not rare.”
“Abortion gets rarer when its not legal.”
Etc., etc.
Liberals attempting to hijack Christ’s message of redemption for their own ideological purposes...
I remember how in the late sixties campus radicals tried to characterize Jesus as a bearded sandal-wearing antiestablishment revolutionary who loved the poor (i.e., just like them), ergo, you must embrace their `progressive agenda’ in order to be a true Christian.
Same-o, same-o, these people never change.
I prefer, in all but technical-medical discussions, to use the more common words (newborn vs neonate, mother vs female parental unit, whatever) because the common terms more accurately connote membership in my family, the human family.
Hence, child rather than embryo.
Anyone who uses the term “rhetorical flourish”, is the person who is using rhetorical flourish.
Some try to impress others with their vocabulary, even when it means moving away from the subject at hand. I’ve learned to ignore them and even better, not even acknowledge their existence.
They are as bad, if not worse than the grammar or spelling police on this forum.
Very well said, my friend. I know we are talking about the evangelical Christians here but the problem is much broader than the feminization of the church. It is also the feminization of a large numbers of American men, Christians or not, and the surrender of the leadership role that God ordained for them. I hope I don’t offend anyone but the term I use is “the p*ssification of the American male.”
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.