Any conservative would be flayed in public for a statement like that… why, it’s a violation of the “wall” between church and state!! It’s theocracy! The American version of Sharia law!! Run in circles, scream and shout!!
But when a lib makes noises like that, it shows depth of character, strong convictions.
No theocracy, here. Move along. Oh, but just FYI, opposition to Obama = opposition to the Lord’s Work.
Repent, sinner.
For a foreigner like me it just looks like the poster for The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
Remember Huckabee’s supposed “floating cross” during Christmas? He was crucified for that one, and it was just a book shelf!! I won’t hold my breath waiting for the fallout on this one.
Dag. It does look like a movie poster.
Kinda comes off like cult leader in that photo.
But then, there are people who think he’s the messiah. obamamessiah.blogspot.com
“… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany … and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama” – Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008.
So wait a minute… That’s Faith and Works…
He’s dying to be Catholic. Let’s hope he takes hold of all the teachings, b/c clearly, he’s not doing God’s work by promoting the death of innocents.
Ditto what Pamela said.
Also, I think it’s fitting that they replaced “Charity” with “Change.” A Freudian
slip, no doubt.
Can you feel the audacity?
Also, I think it’s fitting that they replaced “Charity” with “Change.” A Freudian slip, no doubt.
Really? Did this just happen accidentally?
I find it, okay, not exactly hard to believe that this could get past a team of political advisors and managers, but at any rate just as easy to believe that they’re deliberately subverting the better-known trio.
“And now abideth Faith, Hope, Change, these three: But the greatest of these is Change.”
SDG,
I was being sarcastic (trying, anyway). 🙂 “And now abideth Faith, Hope, Change, these three: But the greatest of these is Change.”
LOL! The church of Obama of latter-day states!
I agree he is trying to invent his own form of Christianity, bereft of infants (though full of infants!) in which ‘Hope,’ his motto, is the end goal of all people. Nothing concrete. Just lots of hope for…more hope for… a hopeful…er…change?
I love seeing the libs running circles around logic in their effort to convince themselves this isn’t blatant pandering. Mike H. was destroyed for a book shelf ‘appearing’ like a cross. Obamanation is at a pulpit, with a huge shining, gold, cross (without Jesus) right behind him, while he proclaims that it’s his mission from God to be president!. he’s essentially saying “I wanna be preacher-in-chief.” Unfortunately, this is par for the course for the followers of The Messiah®.
Whatever Obama is made of, it isn’t flammable.
I don’t think doing the Lord’s work would get you a 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
On a related note, Archbishop Chaput’s Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”
For the thinking Christian, Obama really does everything wrong here. He replaces the greatest of all virtues with the novelty of change. Additionally he conjoins prayer and work with a contradiction – but. This will alienate Catholics who know the true answer is both prayer and works. It will also alienate Evangelicals who believe that prayer and personal conversion are much more important than works.
I was being sarcastic (trying, anyway). 🙂
Oh! Sorry. :-7
FWIW, in another forum where I commented on the offensiveness of this slogan (if the 1 Cor 13 allusion was deliberate, or the stupifyingness of it if it wasn’t), another participant asked me why, commenting that it was just a poster slogan and Obama wasn’t rewriting the Bible. Excerpts from my reply:
Obviously, the Bible (and the KJV in particular) has immeasurably shaped our language. Phrases like “the powers that be” and “the ties that bind,” like countless lines that Shakespeare did and didn’t write, have passed into proverb, and we all use them in everyday speech.
On the other hand, I wince when I encounter, say, ad copy co-opting specific biblical sentiments to hawk products, e.g., “The meek may inherit the earth, but…”; “It’s more blessed to give than to receive, especially when…”, etc. I know, I know, most people have no more idea where they come from than “the whole nine yards” or “knowing the ropes.” But still, sacred scripture is, well, sacred, and the closer you get to genuinely religious resonances, the dicier it becomes. Suppose that the poster had actually said “Faith. Hope. Change. The Greatest Is Change.” Or, say, “Obama: The More Excellent Way.”
I don’t mind candidates talking about their faith, particularly if they happen to have any. I’m not going to look askance at general references to hope, or even “faith and hope.” But when you make a faith-oriented flyer, with a big cross in lights and prominently displayed God-talk, and your display copy consists of what looks like a deliberate riff on 1 Corinthians 13 that includes faith, hope, and something else in the place of “the greatest of these,” I find that insensitive and rather sacrilegious.
I noticed this angle on CNN the other day, where the viewer is close and looking up to Obama. I would expect something like this from his own ad, but is it deliberate on the part of CNN? I’ll have to pay attention and see if they do it for anyone else.
Some thoughts by the Archbishop of Denver on Catholics for Obama 08 at First Things
SDG,
AAAAAAAMEN (since BO got us on the church speak thang)!
‘Nuff said! 🙂
Brian Walden,
Well said, my brother!
It would be interesting to find out if these photographs violate IRS code on the use of churches in partisan politics.
Obama, please note, is MORE pro-abortion than NARAL. He opposed the Illinois law about infants born alive after abortions, while NARAL didn’t oppose the federal one.
Isn’t Obama a member of the United Church of Christ (so-called), the congregationlist outfit that a few years ago ran adds attacking Christians for opposing homsexuality, etc.?
It ticks me off when I hear prayer pitted against “doing the Lord’s work” like this. Why not pray a lot, do the Lord’s work a lot, and watch TV less?
Oops – sorry for repeating John’s link to First Things – I didn’t read carefully enough.
The link to Archbishop Chaput’s message is great; thank you for forwarding it. I used to live in his diocese and I have gained a lot of respect for the man.
I hope he doesn’t run into an IRS issues for the diocese as he comes close to saying people should not vote for Obama (he doesn’t; he says he cannot and will not). He, and Bishop Sheridan in Colorado Springs, were targeted by some leftist groups in 2004 for statements that amounted to pointing the congregation away from Kerry. It is a difficult dance, apparently, to profess the faith and remain in the good graces of the IRS.
I do like aspects of Obama’s message but I have always found his statements on faith to be too convenient and scripted, as though knowing he needed to join that local church to be a local advocate and execute the blueprint of his political career.
“…And the greatest of these is Change” (1 Barack 13:13) The Lamb of Chicago has been getting shorn over at my group blog. Maybe you’ve seen the ObamaFish™ that’s been circulating? Anyway, great comments here, as usual. Trading on a scriptural message while at the same time traducing it seems to be what Obama is all about.
I almost never make comments about politics, because it is increasingly rare to find people who have a truly informed opinion on the subject and I include myself in that category.
My apologies to everyone, but I can bearly control my anger in this matter. Change, change, change…I lived outside of D.C. for a while and most people in the country do not understand just how difficult it is to change things from the, “Washington Way”. Does Obama think he can do that? I strongly doubt it, but he is playing to a largely ignorant country who gets their impressions of D.C. from the nightly news.
I hate to say it, being an academic, but the young, elite, and educated (the large majority of Obama supporters) are, generally, the most gullible. That is one reason why the political philosopher, Eric Hoffer, once remarked that it is only the poor who are really immune from political persuasion – because they have other things (like finding money for food) to concern themselves with and can’t get caught up in someone else’s “dream” (or delusion) of a better future. Interestingly, the poor and the old (and aparently, more liberal Catholics) seem to be voting for Clinton.
With regards to theology, this poster is not only wrong and pandering, it is downright insulting. Would Obama know the Lord’s will if it hit him over the head? What part of the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” does he not understand? From what I have read (correct me, if I am wrong) the only reason he has a NARAL rating of 100% is because the scale will not go any higher. I am being a bit sarcastic, my apologies to Obama, but his stance on life issues really makes me mad. I realize that he may have fallen under the pro-choice mentality, but at some point even he must find a line in life issues he will not cross. Has he publically stated one (can anyone let me know)?
I have no party preferences. I will not be voting for either Obama or Clinton. Still, the sociological aspects of this election are very telling and hint at a great divide emerging in the U.S. in the next decade. Make no mistake – this election is not Black vs. White or Male vs. Female (and didn’t Scripture have something to say about that), but about Young vs. Old or Change for Change Sake vs. Experienced Jaded Wisdom.
I don’t begrudge the young making their mark, but when they throw aside the wisdom of the old, then they become dangerous.
The Chicken
One of my neighbors has an Obama bumper sticker that reads “Got Hope?” with Obama’s name underneath. Every time I walk by that car, I think “Yep, but mine’s in that Christ guy. He seems like a better bet.”
“I don’t begrudge the young making their mark, but when they throw aside the wisdom of the old, then they become dangerous.”
Being under 30, I guess I qualify as young for voting purposes at least. I can’t really say my generation has thrown aside the wisdom of our parents – we really haven’t inherited much from them.
t would be interesting to find out if these photographs violate IRS code on the use of churches in partisan politics.
Not necessarily–it could just be a set on a stage somewhere. At least I hope there aren’t any actual churches that have 16 or so globe-shaped light bulbs screwed into the front of their cross ‘illuminating’ it. UGH!
While She-who-must-not-be-named is running for White Witch, Obama is running for Antichrist. Is McCain running for his gold watch?
Ha! Too true, too true.
I’m thinking of voting for Mickey Mouse…>:-(
My faith teaches me that being pro-infanticide is against God’s will. His faith must teach that being pro-infanticide is OK, as he boldly with the audacity of Mirrorism, marches forward.
Change? Isn’t that about what is left after your paycheck after he gets through taxing you with his tax policies?
Graphically controversial, yet daring and truthful. Best way to generate comments
Truthful?
Doing the “Lords Work” means protecting Americans from the Unborn Menace?
Dear Brian,
You wrote: Being under 30, I guess I qualify as young for voting purposes at least. I can’t really say my generation has thrown aside the wisdom of our parents – we really haven’t inherited much from them.
I don’t know that this is really true. Have you every really observed older people? I did not mention parents, per se in my original post – few children ever learn from their parents until they become one and then suffer the same from their own children. Wise people (not necessarily old, but more often) are worth learning from. Unfortunately, I am seeing in my own experience that the patience needed to learn from the prior generation is somehow less present in today’s youth.
In my day [ah, here comes the “speech”], I was privileged to study with some really famous people and some really good teachers. We sat at their feet, so to speak. In a recent reunion for one of them, the sense of thanksgiving was almost touchable. Old people do not generate as many new ideas, but they preserve the best of the old ones. Not every new idea is good and not every old idea should be ignored.
It may seem that the baby-boom generation is short on wisdom, but remember that even though this is the generation of Woodstock, it is also the generation that fought in Vietnam. Do you really want to argue that they have no experience. Perhaps they have too much experience. What they do not have is enough gratitude from a younger generation.
You claim not to inherited much from your parent’s generation. I suspect you might not have been there when they read the will. I had a chance to briefly talk to that aged mentor when I got to the head of the receiving line for him and I said, “It’s really hard trying to teach today’s youth – they are so different.” He replied, “They are different, but you have to try.” So, I try.
I do not claim to be old (I will not give many hints at my age – I am, after all, the Masked Chicken), but I still love to sit at the feet of the old and learn. If I ever see a candidate sitting there with me, that will be the one I will probably vote for.
The Chicken
The Chicken, thank you for your response. I am certainly grateful for what my parents generation has to offer and especially for my parents in particular. As I get older I realize how much I am in debt to them for the sure foundation they’ve given me to build my life on.
I made reply that I did from the perspective of faith. The one area where my parents did not pass on valuable lessons was faith. It wasn’t their fault, they weren’t capable of passing it on to me even if they wanted to – their inheritance had been robbed when they were too young to even know what had happened. For the most part my generation has been taught nothing of faith and morals, truth and beauty. I think a lot of people have a subconscious realization of this, an emptiness in their lives – but most of us don’t know where to turn to fix it. This vacuum is what has allowed Obama to sweep in like the Music Man.
I still love to sit at the feet of the old and learn
At my age, I find most everyone to be young. Good that I love to to sit at the feet of the young. What they do not have is enough gratitude from a younger generation.
At my age, I can’t thank the “younger generation” enough for all it does for me. If I ever see a candidate sitting there with me, that will be the one I will probably vote for.
If I see a candidate sitting at my feet, chances are he’s not there to learn but looking for money, votes and a photo op.
One of the greatest problems with the poster is not so much for those of us who recognize the twist on scripture, but for those who won’t. There are large numbers of “nominals” both Catholic and Protestant who are semi-literate in their faith, who often will recognize scriptural snippets but would not be able to source them or recognize whether they are out of context.
How often do we hear that one, “judge not” or “judge not lest ye be judged” (the King James English lends it some credibility as well).
I fear that there are many who won’t even see what has been done here with St. Paul’s three virtues.
While I wish that the next Supreme Court nominee would be Janice Rogers Brown, I’m not sure that’d be at all more likely with a President McCain than a President Obama. A few months ago – before being chastened – McCain annouced his (true) intent not to nominate any mouth-breathers of the far right (my verbal formulation here). Seems to me he’s strongly hinted that we’d get more David Souters or Anthony Kennedys and NOT Scalias or Thomases. We know McCain thinks the conservative justices were wrong in overturning big swaths of his McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform” (free-speech-squashing) legislation.
So if we can’t count on McCain to nominate justices who think Roe was wrongly decided (and who are willing to overturn it, stare decisis notwithstanding), what other compelling virtues does McCain have, aside from his willingness to leave US troops in Iraq for 100 years and his predisposition to “bomb, bomb, bomb – bomb, bomb Iran”?
I have a truly dumb question 🙂
If no one showed up to vote for president on election day, who would win? Does it get tossed over to the senate on the grounds that there was a “tie”?
The Chicken
That should be;
Does it get tossed over to the senate on the grounds that there were a “tie”?
The Chicken
To the Chicken,
The Constitution of the United States requires that the President and Vice-President be elected by the Electoral College. The Electoral College votes based on however they choose to divide the votes in the state. Currently each state is giving whichever candidate won in the state all the votes for that state (does that make sense?) So it is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote, but not the election. Because the Electoral College has 538 members, a majority would equal 270. However, it is possible to have a 269-269 tie. In the case of a “tie” the vote is passed on to the House of Representatives. The House then votes the break the tie, and whoever wins there gets the election. If there is also a tie in the House then they just keep voting till someone wins.
Thanks, Rachel.
If no one voted, how could one assign the votes for the electoral college? In my fantasy world, where no one voted for any of the candidates (to send a message?), what would happen?
The Chicken
To the poster who mentioned that it looks like a movie ad…
That is because the Obama poster uses the “movie font,” Trajan. Any time you see that font you automatically think “movie.”
You can watch a quick funny video on how Trajan has become synonymous with “movie” just through it’s repetitive use in movie advertising. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t87QKdOJNv8
Oh….he’s doing the Lords work…not his own for the Lord. That indeed is a “Change”. Not sure really the Lord needs Mr. Obama’s advocacy from that angle.
-D
Dear Patrick
Thank you very much for the video. When I made my comment, I didn’t notice the title of the post, and didn’t understand its subject. I said that exactly because I realized it was the same font used in various movie posters, including The Exorcism of Emily Rose, but also the photo seemed to be like one from a movie poster. Perhaps I thought about the fact that Obama is the favorite for the presidency who has told so many lies thus far and is also an abortion defender, that I immediately thought of a horror movie.
Interesting that they used a font called “Trajan” for the poster. Wasn’t the emperor Trajan one of the worst Christian persecuters of the Roman Empire?
Chicken,
The states send delegates to the Electoral College. If no one voted (which is kind of a pointless hypothetical), the states would still send the delegates. Likely the state legislatures would approve the delegates as was the case in the early decades of the country.
I think that we are slowly starting to resemble pagan Rome. Obama, as far as I’m concerned is the world’s whipping boy. I say we destroy the IRS and get rid of it. We don’t need the IRS.
Are you’all fer shure that Mr. Obama authorized the format of this ‘web poster’. I seriously doubt that. Where or what is the web address at the bottom…something to do with Kaintucky? Hmmm. Did Obama win big there? Hmmm. I guess if there is the dimmest possibility that he had a hand in devising the poster that he could well afford a li’l ol’ joke, Kaintucky style.
Are you’all fer shure that Mr. Obama authorized the format of this ‘web poster’. I seriously doubt that. Where or what is the web address at the bottom…something to do with Kaintucky?
It’s not a joke. (And it’s not a “web poster,” but a paper flyer.)
Obamamessiah is backed by the deep, deep pockets of Oprah, Planned Parenthood, one of the big unions (need to check), probably Tim Gill who is spending huge amounts of money to promote the homosexual agend and possibly CAIR (again need to check).
Obama wrote as a child that he wanted to be President (discussed on another site in terms of his biological and stepfather abandoning him and family).
Presto, a Teflon-coated empty suit front for the above organizations that oppose Christian values.
The thought of Obamamessiah as POTUS scares me stiff. Lots of prayer needed for this election.
Not to mention the MSM, who are not exactly known for accurate portrayal of Christian values. And yes, I know lots of grammar and syntax that could be picked apart in that post, written in haste.
I just noticed something kind of interesting in the text box about what his faith teaches him.
Ever self reference “I” is just a couple of points bigger than all of the rest of the font. It isn’t a question of the font just upsizing the letter i because in the word faith it is just the same size. Instead it is an ever so subtle point that in the end it’s all about Obama. Not his faith, or what change he is going to make… it’s all about the “I”
Great catch, mary martha!
Ever self reference “I” is just a couple of points bigger than all of the rest of the font.
Well, in fairness, from a type design perspective, that’s because the whole block of text is styled in “small caps.” This means that letters that would ordinarily be lowercase are in uppercase, but smaller than the properly capitalized letters. Besides the “I,” cf. the “M” in “My” in the first word of the sentence, the “B” “O” in “Barack Obama” — and, most notably, the “G” in “God.”
ky.barackobama.com
I’m biting my tongue, trying not to make jokes about the first 2 letters of that URL.
BTW, for many people, charity IS change – the spare change in their pockets (as opposed to a well-thought out amount that they are tithing).
Hmmm….sounds like he professes “Good Works” and not just faith alone.
Boy, plagiarizing the Catholic Church! Will he do nothing to get elected?
“That site is not approved by Senator Obama!!!!”
Hip- Hop, go back to the Nazi party where you belong.
I don’t know, something feels wrong. Faith and Hope meant absolutely nothing without that third thing. I think I prefer Charity over Change. Ah, now I know why those websites seemed so strange.
Obama says nothing as beautifully as I have ever heard nothing said.
I really don’t think a Roman Catholic is allowed to vote for a pro – abortion candidate for president. Obama is pro – abortion. Therefor, Roman Catholics can’t vote for him.
Nathan,
Your comments converge with the truth, but a complete statement of the truth is a little more complicated.
The end-times fundamentalist wackos will look at this as the Man of Sin, the Desolation of Abomination, the Lawless One, and they’ll be gittin’ ready for the rapture.
If you get raptured, can I have your stuff?
^ I would like a bumper sticker that says that.
“The end-times fundamentalist wackos will look at this as the Man of Sin, the Desolation of Abomination”
Should that be The Desolation of Obama-nation?
Ironically appropriate title. There’s a dearth of charity to be found on this one apparently.
The context here is that Obama has been the subject of whispering campaign alleging that he is a Muslim. I take this piece to be saying primarily — and quite helpfully for those who care about such things — that he is a Christian.
The Faith, Hope, Change thing is simply juxtaposing this “faith” message with his campaign themes of “hope” and “change,” while making a play on the well-known set phrase. No sinister interpretation required. Occam’s razor, etc.
The Faith, Hope, Change thing is simply juxtaposing this “faith” message with his campaign themes of “hope” and “change,” while making a play on the well-known set phrase. No sinister interpretation required.
FWIW, my point doesn’t turn on any “sinister interpretation.” It simply observes that not all “well-known set phrases” can with all due respect and good taste be coopted for political sloganeering, or for that matter for other forms of marketing. To recap what I wrote above:
I wince when I encounter, say, ad copy co-opting specific biblical sentiments to hawk products, e.g., “The meek may inherit the earth, but…”; “It’s more blessed to give than to receive, especially when…”, etc. I know, I know, most people have no more idea where they come from than “the whole nine yards” or “knowing the ropes.” But still, sacred scripture is, well, sacred, and the closer you get to genuinely religious resonances, the dicier it becomes. Suppose that the poster had actually said “Faith. Hope. Change. The Greatest Is Change.” Or, say, “Obama: The More Excellent Way.”
I don’t mind candidates talking about their faith, particularly if they happen to have any. I’m not going to look askance at general references to hope, or even “faith and hope.” But when you make a faith-oriented flyer, with a big cross in lights and prominently displayed God-talk, and your display copy consists of what looks like a deliberate riff on 1 Corinthians 13 that includes faith, hope, and something else in the place of “the greatest of these,” I find that insensitive and rather sacrilegious.
“Faith. Hope. [Your buzzword here].” That’s not showing God’s word the respect that is its due.
Margarita,
No one of credible influence is calling B.O. a Muslim. This is just the continuation of The Democats Anioted One’s gospel.
Don’t Believe me? http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
“dearth of charity”?
F’rinstance?
“F’rinstance”: … Kinda comes off like cult leader in that photo.
… I think it’s fitting that they replaced “Charity” with “Change.” A Freudian slip, no doubt.
… easy to believe that they’re deliberately subverting the better-known trio.
… he is trying to invent his own form of Christianity, … in which ‘Hope,’ his motto, is the end goal of all people.
… he proclaims that it’s his mission from God to be president!
… While She-who-must-not-be-named is running for White Witch, Obama is running for Antichrist. [!]
… it is an ever so subtle point that in the end it’s all about Obama. Not his faith, or what change he is going to make… it’s all about the “I”
You have to admit, deliberately subverting faith, hope, and charity could be construed as a somewhat sinister interpretation. I just think that the simple explanation is the most likely — a lot of people have been convinced that Obama is a Muslim, and he needs to address that. I do take the point that playing on a Biblical reference will rankle some if it’s perceived to be done in a cynical or disrespectful way. That’s certainly a fair point. This instance doesn’t cross the line for me personally, but I can see where it would for some, especially for those who are convinced that Obama affirmatively wants to kill as many babies as possible. I don’t see that myself and don’t take it to be a particularly charitable view.
Does “dearth of charity” mean=”People disagree with me”?
No. I didn’t refer above to any comments that merely disagreed with or lamented Obama’s politics, as opposed to those ascribing to him bad-faith or sinister motives based on the flyer.
You have to admit, deliberately subverting faith, hope, and charity could be construed as a somewhat sinister interpretation.
Well, “subverting” is my word; by “deliberate” I didn’t mean to imply that the Obama campaign thought of themselves as “subverting” anything, only that that’s my take on their deliberate appropriation of the theological virtues.
I think it’s fair to say that some of the harshness in this thread has been unwarranted. I think it’s still pretty restrained compared to the way lots of Obama’s supporters talk about Bush. Then again, Obama hasn’t actually done much of anything yet, so that’s apples and oranges. I’m just saying.
I think it’s fair to say that some of the harshness in this thread has been unwarranted.
Just to clarify, no one appointed me thread cop. I just thought the irony was too good to pass up.
For what it’s worth, I would agree that Obama’s flyer is ham-handed and generally unappealing — just not a calculated assault on Christianity.
Cheers.
Margarita,
How are my posts uncharitable? There are hard on BO, but I think they are warranted. Just anger is just. BO is inventing his own form of false Christianity, where ‘hope’ and ‘change’ are the chief virtues. Behaviors which the First person of the Blessed Trinity condemned through Moses and the Prophets and which were not condoned by Christ are guarded jealously by Obama. He seems to want to bring the Church into the State, and have it informed and ‘sanctified’ by the State. This is inventing a Church, and subverting true Christianity.
If you disagree, fine. But my disagreeing with BO isn’t uncharitable. It is simply strongly disagreeing with what I know to be sinful. I’m not about to sit back and watch a guy lead my country to someplace far away from God.
BTW,
SDG, I’d really like to know if you were referring to my posts as “harshness in this thread [that was] unwarranted.” ‘Cause I don’t mean anger to be felt through the posts, and that isn’t my intention.
David B,
I shouldn’t have written that. Perhaps I should have said “Maybe some of the harshness has been unwarranted.” It isn’t my intention to judge anyone in this thread, including you. At any rate, anger and harshness are two different things, and either can be warranted or unwarranted, as can strong disagreement.
I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Obama is “inventing a Church” or “subverting true Christianity.” I do find the particular form of religiosity associated with his candidacy troubling. Of course the same could be said of the religiosity of the Bush administration. (I’m afraid you’ll find me maddeningly noncommittal and equivocal on the subject of partisan politics.)
SDG, I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Obama is “inventing a Church” or “subverting true Christianity.”
Fair enough. Here’s what I mean to say:
Obama ‘requires’ allegiance to political ideals which his rhetoric suggests he believes are supremely and incontrovertibly central to Christianity. These include socialists policies and unmitigated protection of access to abortion. This is foreign to Christianity as you and I know it. He hides the fact that he is a cut and dried far-left pro-abort under amorphous slogans and feel-good fuzziness which mean little grammatically and nothing philosophically when read in dispassionate PDF format. 🙂 This is why I think Barack Obama is attempting to foist his politics down the throat of Faith. I do find the particular form of religiosity associated with his candidacy troubling. Of course the same could be said of the religiosity of the Bush administration.
Interesting comparison. I think the difference is that GWB hopes to give his politics the stamp of faith, while Barack Obama seems to follow the reverse path. It’s all a little vain, no? 🙂 (I’m afraid you’ll find me maddeningly noncommittal and equivocal on the subject of partisan politics.)
I don’t know about the ‘maddening’ part. I don’t mind it when someone is wise enough to avoid politics as much as I mind it when someone is silly enough to think it’s always obligatory. 🙂
opps.
SDG,
P.S. I was asking you about the ‘harshness’ thing to find out whether you thought my post was indeed harsh. I don’t mean it to be taken as a challenge for evidence, or an emblem of an offense received. I’d just like to know if one reader (representing many) found my comments jerky.
Obama affirmatively wants to kill as many babies as possible
I don’t think anyone has ever made that claim. Obama wants the abortion license to be as widespread and open as possible, even to the point of letting babies who have the audacity to survive abortion attempts die of neglect, which is bad enough. But no one ever said he wanted to kill babies that a woman decides to keep. At least I haven’t heard him say that yet.
Any conservative would be flayed in public for a statement like that… why, it’s a violation of the “wall” between church and state!! It’s theocracy! The American version of Sharia law!! Run in circles, scream and shout!!
But when a lib makes noises like that, it shows depth of character, strong convictions.
No theocracy, here. Move along. Oh, but just FYI, opposition to Obama = opposition to the Lord’s Work.
Repent, sinner.
For a foreigner like me it just looks like the poster for The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
Remember Huckabee’s supposed “floating cross” during Christmas? He was crucified for that one, and it was just a book shelf!! I won’t hold my breath waiting for the fallout on this one.
Dag. It does look like a movie poster.
Kinda comes off like cult leader in that photo.
But then, there are people who think he’s the messiah. obamamessiah.blogspot.com
“… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany … and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama” – Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008.
So wait a minute… That’s Faith and Works…
He’s dying to be Catholic. Let’s hope he takes hold of all the teachings, b/c clearly, he’s not doing God’s work by promoting the death of innocents.
Ditto what Pamela said.
Also, I think it’s fitting that they replaced “Charity” with “Change.” A Freudian
slip, no doubt.
Can you feel the audacity?
Really? Did this just happen accidentally?
I find it, okay, not exactly hard to believe that this could get past a team of political advisors and managers, but at any rate just as easy to believe that they’re deliberately subverting the better-known trio.
“And now abideth Faith, Hope, Change, these three: But the greatest of these is Change.”
SDG,
I was being sarcastic (trying, anyway). 🙂
“And now abideth Faith, Hope, Change, these three: But the greatest of these is Change.”
LOL! The church of Obama of latter-day states!
I agree he is trying to invent his own form of Christianity, bereft of infants (though full of infants!) in which ‘Hope,’ his motto, is the end goal of all people. Nothing concrete. Just lots of hope for…more hope for… a hopeful…er…change?
I love seeing the libs running circles around logic in their effort to convince themselves this isn’t blatant pandering. Mike H. was destroyed for a book shelf ‘appearing’ like a cross. Obamanation is at a pulpit, with a huge shining, gold, cross (without Jesus) right behind him, while he proclaims that it’s his mission from God to be president!. he’s essentially saying “I wanna be preacher-in-chief.” Unfortunately, this is par for the course for the followers of The Messiah®.
Whatever Obama is made of, it isn’t flammable.
I don’t think doing the Lord’s work would get you a 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
On a related note, Archbishop Chaput’s Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”
For the thinking Christian, Obama really does everything wrong here. He replaces the greatest of all virtues with the novelty of change. Additionally he conjoins prayer and work with a contradiction – but. This will alienate Catholics who know the true answer is both prayer and works. It will also alienate Evangelicals who believe that prayer and personal conversion are much more important than works.
Oh! Sorry. :-7
FWIW, in another forum where I commented on the offensiveness of this slogan (if the 1 Cor 13 allusion was deliberate, or the stupifyingness of it if it wasn’t), another participant asked me why, commenting that it was just a poster slogan and Obama wasn’t rewriting the Bible. Excerpts from my reply:
Obviously, the Bible (and the KJV in particular) has immeasurably shaped our language. Phrases like “the powers that be” and “the ties that bind,” like countless lines that Shakespeare did and didn’t write, have passed into proverb, and we all use them in everyday speech.
On the other hand, I wince when I encounter, say, ad copy co-opting specific biblical sentiments to hawk products, e.g., “The meek may inherit the earth, but…”; “It’s more blessed to give than to receive, especially when…”, etc. I know, I know, most people have no more idea where they come from than “the whole nine yards” or “knowing the ropes.” But still, sacred scripture is, well, sacred, and the closer you get to genuinely religious resonances, the dicier it becomes. Suppose that the poster had actually said “Faith. Hope. Change. The Greatest Is Change.” Or, say, “Obama: The More Excellent Way.”
I don’t mind candidates talking about their faith, particularly if they happen to have any. I’m not going to look askance at general references to hope, or even “faith and hope.” But when you make a faith-oriented flyer, with a big cross in lights and prominently displayed God-talk, and your display copy consists of what looks like a deliberate riff on 1 Corinthians 13 that includes faith, hope, and something else in the place of “the greatest of these,” I find that insensitive and rather sacrilegious.
I noticed this angle on CNN the other day, where the viewer is close and looking up to Obama. I would expect something like this from his own ad, but is it deliberate on the part of CNN? I’ll have to pay attention and see if they do it for anyone else.
Some thoughts by the Archbishop of Denver on Catholics for Obama 08 at First Things
SDG,
AAAAAAAMEN (since BO got us on the church speak thang)!
‘Nuff said! 🙂
Brian Walden,
Well said, my brother!
It would be interesting to find out if these photographs violate IRS code on the use of churches in partisan politics.
Obama, please note, is MORE pro-abortion than NARAL. He opposed the Illinois law about infants born alive after abortions, while NARAL didn’t oppose the federal one.
Isn’t Obama a member of the United Church of Christ (so-called), the congregationlist outfit that a few years ago ran adds attacking Christians for opposing homsexuality, etc.?
It ticks me off when I hear prayer pitted against “doing the Lord’s work” like this. Why not pray a lot, do the Lord’s work a lot, and watch TV less?
Oops – sorry for repeating John’s link to First Things – I didn’t read carefully enough.
The link to Archbishop Chaput’s message is great; thank you for forwarding it. I used to live in his diocese and I have gained a lot of respect for the man.
I hope he doesn’t run into an IRS issues for the diocese as he comes close to saying people should not vote for Obama (he doesn’t; he says he cannot and will not). He, and Bishop Sheridan in Colorado Springs, were targeted by some leftist groups in 2004 for statements that amounted to pointing the congregation away from Kerry. It is a difficult dance, apparently, to profess the faith and remain in the good graces of the IRS.
I do like aspects of Obama’s message but I have always found his statements on faith to be too convenient and scripted, as though knowing he needed to join that local church to be a local advocate and execute the blueprint of his political career.
“…And the greatest of these is Change” (1 Barack 13:13) The Lamb of Chicago has been getting shorn over at my group blog. Maybe you’ve seen the ObamaFish™ that’s been circulating? Anyway, great comments here, as usual. Trading on a scriptural message while at the same time traducing it seems to be what Obama is all about.
I almost never make comments about politics, because it is increasingly rare to find people who have a truly informed opinion on the subject and I include myself in that category.
My apologies to everyone, but I can bearly control my anger in this matter. Change, change, change…I lived outside of D.C. for a while and most people in the country do not understand just how difficult it is to change things from the, “Washington Way”. Does Obama think he can do that? I strongly doubt it, but he is playing to a largely ignorant country who gets their impressions of D.C. from the nightly news.
I hate to say it, being an academic, but the young, elite, and educated (the large majority of Obama supporters) are, generally, the most gullible. That is one reason why the political philosopher, Eric Hoffer, once remarked that it is only the poor who are really immune from political persuasion – because they have other things (like finding money for food) to concern themselves with and can’t get caught up in someone else’s “dream” (or delusion) of a better future. Interestingly, the poor and the old (and aparently, more liberal Catholics) seem to be voting for Clinton.
With regards to theology, this poster is not only wrong and pandering, it is downright insulting. Would Obama know the Lord’s will if it hit him over the head? What part of the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” does he not understand? From what I have read (correct me, if I am wrong) the only reason he has a NARAL rating of 100% is because the scale will not go any higher. I am being a bit sarcastic, my apologies to Obama, but his stance on life issues really makes me mad. I realize that he may have fallen under the pro-choice mentality, but at some point even he must find a line in life issues he will not cross. Has he publically stated one (can anyone let me know)?
I have no party preferences. I will not be voting for either Obama or Clinton. Still, the sociological aspects of this election are very telling and hint at a great divide emerging in the U.S. in the next decade. Make no mistake – this election is not Black vs. White or Male vs. Female (and didn’t Scripture have something to say about that), but about Young vs. Old or Change for Change Sake vs. Experienced Jaded Wisdom.
I don’t begrudge the young making their mark, but when they throw aside the wisdom of the old, then they become dangerous.
The Chicken
One of my neighbors has an Obama bumper sticker that reads “Got Hope?” with Obama’s name underneath. Every time I walk by that car, I think “Yep, but mine’s in that Christ guy. He seems like a better bet.”
“I don’t begrudge the young making their mark, but when they throw aside the wisdom of the old, then they become dangerous.”
Being under 30, I guess I qualify as young for voting purposes at least. I can’t really say my generation has thrown aside the wisdom of our parents – we really haven’t inherited much from them.
t would be interesting to find out if these photographs violate IRS code on the use of churches in partisan politics.
Not necessarily–it could just be a set on a stage somewhere. At least I hope there aren’t any actual churches that have 16 or so globe-shaped light bulbs screwed into the front of their cross ‘illuminating’ it. UGH!
While She-who-must-not-be-named is running for White Witch, Obama is running for Antichrist. Is McCain running for his gold watch?
Ha! Too true, too true.
I’m thinking of voting for Mickey Mouse…>:-(
My faith teaches me that being pro-infanticide is against God’s will. His faith must teach that being pro-infanticide is OK, as he boldly with the audacity of Mirrorism, marches forward.
Change? Isn’t that about what is left after your paycheck after he gets through taxing you with his tax policies?
Graphically controversial, yet daring and truthful. Best way to generate comments
Truthful?
Doing the “Lords Work” means protecting Americans from the Unborn Menace?
Dear Brian,
You wrote:
Being under 30, I guess I qualify as young for voting purposes at least. I can’t really say my generation has thrown aside the wisdom of our parents – we really haven’t inherited much from them.
I don’t know that this is really true. Have you every really observed older people? I did not mention parents, per se in my original post – few children ever learn from their parents until they become one and then suffer the same from their own children. Wise people (not necessarily old, but more often) are worth learning from. Unfortunately, I am seeing in my own experience that the patience needed to learn from the prior generation is somehow less present in today’s youth.
In my day [ah, here comes the “speech”], I was privileged to study with some really famous people and some really good teachers. We sat at their feet, so to speak. In a recent reunion for one of them, the sense of thanksgiving was almost touchable. Old people do not generate as many new ideas, but they preserve the best of the old ones. Not every new idea is good and not every old idea should be ignored.
It may seem that the baby-boom generation is short on wisdom, but remember that even though this is the generation of Woodstock, it is also the generation that fought in Vietnam. Do you really want to argue that they have no experience. Perhaps they have too much experience. What they do not have is enough gratitude from a younger generation.
You claim not to inherited much from your parent’s generation. I suspect you might not have been there when they read the will. I had a chance to briefly talk to that aged mentor when I got to the head of the receiving line for him and I said, “It’s really hard trying to teach today’s youth – they are so different.” He replied, “They are different, but you have to try.” So, I try.
I do not claim to be old (I will not give many hints at my age – I am, after all, the Masked Chicken), but I still love to sit at the feet of the old and learn. If I ever see a candidate sitting there with me, that will be the one I will probably vote for.
The Chicken
The Chicken, thank you for your response. I am certainly grateful for what my parents generation has to offer and especially for my parents in particular. As I get older I realize how much I am in debt to them for the sure foundation they’ve given me to build my life on.
I made reply that I did from the perspective of faith. The one area where my parents did not pass on valuable lessons was faith. It wasn’t their fault, they weren’t capable of passing it on to me even if they wanted to – their inheritance had been robbed when they were too young to even know what had happened. For the most part my generation has been taught nothing of faith and morals, truth and beauty. I think a lot of people have a subconscious realization of this, an emptiness in their lives – but most of us don’t know where to turn to fix it. This vacuum is what has allowed Obama to sweep in like the Music Man.
I still love to sit at the feet of the old and learn
At my age, I find most everyone to be young. Good that I love to to sit at the feet of the young.
What they do not have is enough gratitude from a younger generation.
At my age, I can’t thank the “younger generation” enough for all it does for me.
If I ever see a candidate sitting there with me, that will be the one I will probably vote for.
If I see a candidate sitting at my feet, chances are he’s not there to learn but looking for money, votes and a photo op.
One of the greatest problems with the poster is not so much for those of us who recognize the twist on scripture, but for those who won’t. There are large numbers of “nominals” both Catholic and Protestant who are semi-literate in their faith, who often will recognize scriptural snippets but would not be able to source them or recognize whether they are out of context.
How often do we hear that one, “judge not” or “judge not lest ye be judged” (the King James English lends it some credibility as well).
I fear that there are many who won’t even see what has been done here with St. Paul’s three virtues.
While I wish that the next Supreme Court nominee would be Janice Rogers Brown, I’m not sure that’d be at all more likely with a President McCain than a President Obama. A few months ago – before being chastened – McCain annouced his (true) intent not to nominate any mouth-breathers of the far right (my verbal formulation here). Seems to me he’s strongly hinted that we’d get more David Souters or Anthony Kennedys and NOT Scalias or Thomases. We know McCain thinks the conservative justices were wrong in overturning big swaths of his McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform” (free-speech-squashing) legislation.
So if we can’t count on McCain to nominate justices who think Roe was wrongly decided (and who are willing to overturn it, stare decisis notwithstanding), what other compelling virtues does McCain have, aside from his willingness to leave US troops in Iraq for 100 years and his predisposition to “bomb, bomb, bomb – bomb, bomb Iran”?
I have a truly dumb question 🙂
If no one showed up to vote for president on election day, who would win? Does it get tossed over to the senate on the grounds that there was a “tie”?
The Chicken
That should be;
Does it get tossed over to the senate on the grounds that there were a “tie”?
The Chicken
To the Chicken,
The Constitution of the United States requires that the President and Vice-President be elected by the Electoral College. The Electoral College votes based on however they choose to divide the votes in the state. Currently each state is giving whichever candidate won in the state all the votes for that state (does that make sense?) So it is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote, but not the election. Because the Electoral College has 538 members, a majority would equal 270. However, it is possible to have a 269-269 tie. In the case of a “tie” the vote is passed on to the House of Representatives. The House then votes the break the tie, and whoever wins there gets the election. If there is also a tie in the House then they just keep voting till someone wins.
Thanks, Rachel.
If no one voted, how could one assign the votes for the electoral college? In my fantasy world, where no one voted for any of the candidates (to send a message?), what would happen?
The Chicken
To the poster who mentioned that it looks like a movie ad…
That is because the Obama poster uses the “movie font,” Trajan. Any time you see that font you automatically think “movie.”
You can watch a quick funny video on how Trajan has become synonymous with “movie” just through it’s repetitive use in movie advertising.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t87QKdOJNv8
Oh….he’s doing the Lords work…not his own for the Lord. That indeed is a “Change”. Not sure really the Lord needs Mr. Obama’s advocacy from that angle.
-D
Dear Patrick
Thank you very much for the video. When I made my comment, I didn’t notice the title of the post, and didn’t understand its subject. I said that exactly because I realized it was the same font used in various movie posters, including The Exorcism of Emily Rose, but also the photo seemed to be like one from a movie poster. Perhaps I thought about the fact that Obama is the favorite for the presidency who has told so many lies thus far and is also an abortion defender, that I immediately thought of a horror movie.
Interesting that they used a font called “Trajan” for the poster. Wasn’t the emperor Trajan one of the worst Christian persecuters of the Roman Empire?
Chicken,
The states send delegates to the Electoral College. If no one voted (which is kind of a pointless hypothetical), the states would still send the delegates. Likely the state legislatures would approve the delegates as was the case in the early decades of the country.
I think that we are slowly starting to resemble pagan Rome. Obama, as far as I’m concerned is the world’s whipping boy. I say we destroy the IRS and get rid of it. We don’t need the IRS.
Are you’all fer shure that Mr. Obama authorized the format of this ‘web poster’. I seriously doubt that. Where or what is the web address at the bottom…something to do with Kaintucky? Hmmm. Did Obama win big there? Hmmm. I guess if there is the dimmest possibility that he had a hand in devising the poster that he could well afford a li’l ol’ joke, Kaintucky style.
It’s not a joke. (And it’s not a “web poster,” but a paper flyer.)
Obamamessiah is backed by the deep, deep pockets of Oprah, Planned Parenthood, one of the big unions (need to check), probably Tim Gill who is spending huge amounts of money to promote the homosexual agend and possibly CAIR (again need to check).
Obama wrote as a child that he wanted to be President (discussed on another site in terms of his biological and stepfather abandoning him and family).
Presto, a Teflon-coated empty suit front for the above organizations that oppose Christian values.
The thought of Obamamessiah as POTUS scares me stiff. Lots of prayer needed for this election.
Not to mention the MSM, who are not exactly known for accurate portrayal of Christian values. And yes, I know lots of grammar and syntax that could be picked apart in that post, written in haste.
I fixed Obama’s sign!!
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/4156/blowbamatg3.jpg
That site is not approved by Senator Obama!!!!
That site is not approved by Senator Obama!!!!
I just noticed something kind of interesting in the text box about what his faith teaches him.
Ever self reference “I” is just a couple of points bigger than all of the rest of the font. It isn’t a question of the font just upsizing the letter i because in the word faith it is just the same size. Instead it is an ever so subtle point that in the end it’s all about Obama. Not his faith, or what change he is going to make… it’s all about the “I”
Great catch, mary martha!
Well, in fairness, from a type design perspective, that’s because the whole block of text is styled in “small caps.” This means that letters that would ordinarily be lowercase are in uppercase, but smaller than the properly capitalized letters. Besides the “I,” cf. the “M” in “My” in the first word of the sentence, the “B” “O” in “Barack Obama” — and, most notably, the “G” in “God.”
ky.barackobama.com
I’m biting my tongue, trying not to make jokes about the first 2 letters of that URL.
BTW, for many people, charity IS change – the spare change in their pockets (as opposed to a well-thought out amount that they are tithing).
Hmmm….sounds like he professes “Good Works” and not just faith alone.
Boy, plagiarizing the Catholic Church! Will he do nothing to get elected?
“That site is not approved by Senator Obama!!!!”
Hip- Hop, go back to the Nazi party where you belong.
I don’t know, something feels wrong. Faith and Hope meant absolutely nothing without that third thing. I think I prefer Charity over Change. Ah, now I know why those websites seemed so strange.
Obama says nothing as beautifully as I have ever heard nothing said.
I really don’t think a Roman Catholic is allowed to vote for a pro – abortion candidate for president. Obama is pro – abortion. Therefor, Roman Catholics can’t vote for him.
Nathan,
Your comments converge with the truth, but a complete statement of the truth is a little more complicated.
The end-times fundamentalist wackos will look at this as the Man of Sin, the Desolation of Abomination, the Lawless One, and they’ll be gittin’ ready for the rapture.
If you get raptured, can I have your stuff?
^ I would like a bumper sticker that says that.
“The end-times fundamentalist wackos will look at this as the Man of Sin, the Desolation of Abomination”
Should that be The Desolation of Obama-nation?
Ironically appropriate title. There’s a dearth of charity to be found on this one apparently.
The context here is that Obama has been the subject of whispering campaign alleging that he is a Muslim. I take this piece to be saying primarily — and quite helpfully for those who care about such things — that he is a Christian.
The Faith, Hope, Change thing is simply juxtaposing this “faith” message with his campaign themes of “hope” and “change,” while making a play on the well-known set phrase. No sinister interpretation required. Occam’s razor, etc.
FWIW, my point doesn’t turn on any “sinister interpretation.” It simply observes that not all “well-known set phrases” can with all due respect and good taste be coopted for political sloganeering, or for that matter for other forms of marketing. To recap what I wrote above:
“Faith. Hope. [Your buzzword here].” That’s not showing God’s word the respect that is its due.
Margarita,
No one of credible influence is calling B.O. a Muslim. This is just the continuation of The Democats Anioted One’s gospel.
Don’t Believe me?
http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
“dearth of charity”?
F’rinstance?
“F’rinstance”:
… Kinda comes off like cult leader in that photo.
… I think it’s fitting that they replaced “Charity” with “Change.” A Freudian slip, no doubt.
… easy to believe that they’re deliberately subverting the better-known trio.
… he is trying to invent his own form of Christianity, … in which ‘Hope,’ his motto, is the end goal of all people.
… he proclaims that it’s his mission from God to be president!
… While She-who-must-not-be-named is running for White Witch, Obama is running for Antichrist. [!]
… it is an ever so subtle point that in the end it’s all about Obama. Not his faith, or what change he is going to make… it’s all about the “I”
You have to admit, deliberately subverting faith, hope, and charity could be construed as a somewhat sinister interpretation. I just think that the simple explanation is the most likely — a lot of people have been convinced that Obama is a Muslim, and he needs to address that. I do take the point that playing on a Biblical reference will rankle some if it’s perceived to be done in a cynical or disrespectful way. That’s certainly a fair point. This instance doesn’t cross the line for me personally, but I can see where it would for some, especially for those who are convinced that Obama affirmatively wants to kill as many babies as possible. I don’t see that myself and don’t take it to be a particularly charitable view.
Does “dearth of charity” mean=”People disagree with me”?
No. I didn’t refer above to any comments that merely disagreed with or lamented Obama’s politics, as opposed to those ascribing to him bad-faith or sinister motives based on the flyer.
Well, “subverting” is my word; by “deliberate” I didn’t mean to imply that the Obama campaign thought of themselves as “subverting” anything, only that that’s my take on their deliberate appropriation of the theological virtues.
I think it’s fair to say that some of the harshness in this thread has been unwarranted. I think it’s still pretty restrained compared to the way lots of Obama’s supporters talk about Bush. Then again, Obama hasn’t actually done much of anything yet, so that’s apples and oranges. I’m just saying.
I think it’s fair to say that some of the harshness in this thread has been unwarranted.
Just to clarify, no one appointed me thread cop. I just thought the irony was too good to pass up.
For what it’s worth, I would agree that Obama’s flyer is ham-handed and generally unappealing — just not a calculated assault on Christianity.
Cheers.
Margarita,
How are my posts uncharitable? There are hard on BO, but I think they are warranted. Just anger is just. BO is inventing his own form of false Christianity, where ‘hope’ and ‘change’ are the chief virtues. Behaviors which the First person of the Blessed Trinity condemned through Moses and the Prophets and which were not condoned by Christ are guarded jealously by Obama. He seems to want to bring the Church into the State, and have it informed and ‘sanctified’ by the State. This is inventing a Church, and subverting true Christianity.
If you disagree, fine. But my disagreeing with BO isn’t uncharitable. It is simply strongly disagreeing with what I know to be sinful. I’m not about to sit back and watch a guy lead my country to someplace far away from God.
BTW,
SDG, I’d really like to know if you were referring to my posts as “harshness in this thread [that was] unwarranted.” ‘Cause I don’t mean anger to be felt through the posts, and that isn’t my intention.
David B,
I shouldn’t have written that. Perhaps I should have said “Maybe some of the harshness has been unwarranted.” It isn’t my intention to judge anyone in this thread, including you. At any rate, anger and harshness are two different things, and either can be warranted or unwarranted, as can strong disagreement.
I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Obama is “inventing a Church” or “subverting true Christianity.” I do find the particular form of religiosity associated with his candidacy troubling. Of course the same could be said of the religiosity of the Bush administration. (I’m afraid you’ll find me maddeningly noncommittal and equivocal on the subject of partisan politics.)
SDG,
I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Obama is “inventing a Church” or “subverting true Christianity.”
Fair enough. Here’s what I mean to say:
Obama ‘requires’ allegiance to political ideals which his rhetoric suggests he believes are supremely and incontrovertibly central to Christianity. These include socialists policies and unmitigated protection of access to abortion. This is foreign to Christianity as you and I know it. He hides the fact that he is a cut and dried far-left pro-abort under amorphous slogans and feel-good fuzziness which mean little grammatically and nothing philosophically when read in dispassionate PDF format. 🙂 This is why I think Barack Obama is attempting to foist his politics down the throat of Faith.
I do find the particular form of religiosity associated with his candidacy troubling. Of course the same could be said of the religiosity of the Bush administration.
Interesting comparison. I think the difference is that GWB hopes to give his politics the stamp of faith, while Barack Obama seems to follow the reverse path. It’s all a little vain, no? 🙂
(I’m afraid you’ll find me maddeningly noncommittal and equivocal on the subject of partisan politics.)
I don’t know about the ‘maddening’ part. I don’t mind it when someone is wise enough to avoid politics as much as I mind it when someone is silly enough to think it’s always obligatory. 🙂
opps.
SDG,
P.S. I was asking you about the ‘harshness’ thing to find out whether you thought my post was indeed harsh. I don’t mean it to be taken as a challenge for evidence, or an emblem of an offense received. I’d just like to know if one reader (representing many) found my comments jerky.
Obama affirmatively wants to kill as many babies as possible
I don’t think anyone has ever made that claim. Obama wants the abortion license to be as widespread and open as possible, even to the point of letting babies who have the audacity to survive abortion attempts die of neglect, which is bad enough. But no one ever said he wanted to kill babies that a woman decides to keep. At least I haven’t heard him say that yet.