This is just one more reason politics is such a nasty, nasty sport. It makes some folks justify any means to accomplish the political task.
Cal Thomas has written a piece at Baptist Press blasting Obama for not being Christian. Here's a quote:
Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn't meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called "false prophets"
Oh, get real, Cal!
If you want to discredit a guy based on his politics, do so. Blast away. Discredit him all you want. But to criticize a candidate because he is not Christian enough for you is to be un-American. Obama is running for President, not Pastor in Chief. There is a reason why the Constitution has a "no religious test" provision --- to make sure Pharisees don't select our political leaders.
Examining someone's qualifications for pastor or church membership is entirely your right, but that standard should not be applied to our politicians. We want the best qualified & best leader, which may or may not be a Christian. Do we ask the cashiers at the grocery store if they are Christian--- or brand of Christian? If not, it is hypocrisy to apply that standard to Obama. What about the teachers in our schools? If not, it is hypocrisy to apply that standard to Obama. Do we ask about the faith of the people that assembled our Bibles? If not, it is hypocrisy to apply that standard to Obama. What of the policemen or firemen that protect the public safety? If not, it is hypocrisy to apply that standard to Obama.
No, fact is that too many people are using faith as a tool in political manipulation. Which is another thing that should cause us all to pause . . . why is Baptist Press even publishing such an article anyway? Could it be that Baptist Press is using this article to subtly take a swipe at a candidate & manipulate the readers to not vote for the non-Christian? Congregationalists did that in Colonial America, & Baptists were excluded from owning property, voting, employment, etc. Baptists were not allowed to hold public office because their profession wasn't good enough. And now Baptist Press is saying the very same thing about Obama.
Treat others the way you want to be treated. Imagine how it would be if the majority were some other faith --- wonder how my Pharisaical brothers & sisters would like that standard then?
7 comments:
Amen, Brother!!
In addition...does this infer that John McCain is a Christian or is it best not to bring his name up at this time?
Check the Quaker Oats content cover of www.tnr.com for the examination of Obama's rhetoric.
Cal Thomas is out to lunch everyday, with James Dobson.
Gonna be a rocky fall.
Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr: Your link is takingsome heatat baptistlife.com
SFox
Report this postReply with quote Re: The Promise of Obama
by ET on Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:33 pm
Fox, do you just enjoy posting intellectually dishonest propaganda? Or do you just like to stir the pot so much that you have no problem posting lies? Thomas bases his column on an interview Obama gave in 2004.
Thomas writes in the concluding paragraph:
Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn't meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called "false prophets"
Now for the intellectually dishonest part from the blog Fox links:
If you want to discredit a guy based on his politics, do so. Blast away. Discredit him all you want. But to criticize a candidate because he is not Christian enough for you is to be un-American. Obama is running for President, not Pastor in Chief. There is a reason why the Constitution has a "no religious test" provision --- to make sure Pharisees don't select our political leaders.
Thomas stated FACTS about what Obama has claimed are his beliefs - and those beliefs are not those of the historical Christian faith. Either the guy holds to basic tenets of the historical Christian faith or he does not. It's got absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he qualifies for President. Just as Mike Huckabee didn't automatically get my vote because he was a Southern Baptist minister running for President, Obama doesn't get my vote just because so many are tossing the poltical savior mantle upon him.
Thomas makes no implication that Obama's religious beliefs have anything to do with whether or not he qualifies to hold the office of President, but when a political candidate makes a play to court those voters with beliefs that are grounded in historical Christian doctrine and implies that he is one of them, then he is not above having his beliefs examined. Thomas' issue is solely with Obama calling himself Christian and yet believing things that have not been associated with historical Christianity. One only need to read the Thomas article to read the interview excerpts that cause Thomas to question Obama wearing the "Christian" label. At best Obama would be a "cultural Christian" - rooted in its values, but not holding to its core, historical beliefs.
Lastly, please note that the blogger states: "Cal Thomas has written a piece at Baptist Press blasting Obama for not being Christian."
Another falsehood. Cal Thomas didn't write a piece at Baptist Press. Baptist Press picked up the syndicated column. If the blogger had even bothered to make it all the way to the bottom of the piece, he would have noticed the copyright at the bottom:
Cal Thomas is a Tribune Media Services syndicated columnist. Copyright Tribune Media Services.
I originally read the commentary at TownHall.com, so to imply that it was some hit piece by Thomas for Baptist Press is dishonest.
I don't think this is any different than the Senate confirmation hearings. Instead of sticking to a nominee's qualifications for the office, the Democrats and RINO's ALWAYS delve extensively into the individuals personal beliefs. The most intensive attempts at discrediting a nominee always seem to be those who profess to be Christians. With that in mind, I don't think it's inappropriate at all to examine a candidate's personal beliefs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Thanks for reading my journal! I do enjoy our discussions. Have a great Independence Day and weekend!
Dirk
http://journals.aol.com/tsalagiman1/the-first-amendment-not-politi/
Dirk: I certainly agree that beliefs about things of policy are up for discussion. Asking a candidate or nominee about how his faith views taxes or capital punishment or war or social programs, etc --- those are legitimate areas of discussion. Those are beliefs that directly translate to =policy.= But Cal Thomas' article wasn't about those things: the article questioned Obama's beliefs about getting in heaven. That is a huge difference. And the only reason it was even printed at Baptist Press was to give that non-so-subtle hint that voting for a non-believer means God is gonna get you.
Ryan:
Hoping you and your blog viewerswill check my blog for the link to Moby Dick and the magnificent recent essay by Pulitzer novelist EL Doctorow.
One of the strongest things I have read in sometime about the religious right's threat to the Soul of our Country, even though some of the rank and file have the best of intentions.
Great references in there to the Mighty Mark Noll, and one of the finest statements, articulations of the venality of Rove and thelegacy of Lee Atwater with a complicit Richard Land and SBC. For the most part, that is the Great Whale, the Underbelly of the polarization GOP has advanced.
Doctorow is most eloquent in that vein. Check the link and the quotes and discussion at baptistlife.com
sfox
Post a Comment