| Subcribe via RSS
“Some people might regard e-mail names such as “freak_a_leak69,” and “2thug4u” as creative and unique expressions of individuality, but in the eyes of potential employers, they might get your resume a one-way ticket to the trash can…” (continue with this article)
In April 2000, singer R. Kelly faced yet another lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct with a minor. There was much talk in the African American community about what would seem to be his ongoing behavioral flaw. Our community seemed to be outraged. Individuals and black radio stations vowed to disassociate themselves from him. We protested radio stations that played his music and stores that sold it.
Seven months later, when R. Kelly dropped his “TP2.com” album, which debuted at No. 1, we seemed to have a change of heart. Suddenly, we were jamming to “I Wish†and grooving in the club to “Feelin On Ya Bootyâ€Â! (continue with this article)
Move over security moms, back off value voters, now it’s time for a new voter category: The “Uncle Tom” voter.
How would I describe these voters? Well, I guess the best description would be that they love white women/white men, live in the suburbs, read only Fortune magazine, listen to only classical music, think that America’s Funniest Videos is actually funny, and most importantly, have a secret desire to be white. Stereotyping? Yes. However, these are the images that many black liberals have of blacks who are not. Actually, I would describe this type of voter as someone who is not afraid to think outside the box, does not always consider themselves Republican, and most importantly, they are black.
For the past few decades, Democrats have come to rely on their “ol reliableâ€Â: The black vote. Democrats have had to do very little beyond the civil rights movement to hold such a prized possession. All they had to do was to make empty promises like make our schools better and “cha-ching†the votes came pouring in. Little did most of us realize is that between 1972 and 1992, funding for the public school system has increased 400%. Despite all of this, we still have black children that are graduating at an 8th grade reading level. This type of spending took place under both Democratic and Republican administrations, so as far as I am concerned, both sides are guilty. However, I must lay most of the blame with the Democrats for not delivering to the black community when they had the opportunity. It is the lack of attention to these issues that has caused many blacks like myself to look elsewhere for political solutions.
Putting politics aside for a little, blacks who consider themselves liberals were faced the opportunity to confront blatant racism weeks after the election that was seen in newspapers all across the country. This same racist attitude could be heard in Madison, Wisconsin via radio where radio host John “Sly” Sylvester called Dr. Rice “Aunt Jemima” and secretary of state Colin Powell “Uncle Tom”.
Some of them dealt with it head on, but many remained silent. Even groups like the NAACP, CBC, and other black social activist groups who typically would have at least called some kind of boycott seemed to almost avoid dealing with the whole issue. Eventually, the NAACP came around to finally condemn these actions.
Black liberals have longed accused blacks who do not vote Democratic to be something less than black…an “Uncle Tom“. Name calling is one thing, but when you question someone’s blackness based on a political preference, that is entirely something different. This is no different than belief that a person’s blackness is based on weather they have lived in “the hood” of not.
I recently visited a blog in which the author of the site was being lectured to by a black liberal who pretty much accused her for being a sell-out as well as being out of touch with other black folks just because she shared views on her website that were different from what you will see in much of black media today. Have we now merged “blackness” with a political persuasion?
Janeane Garofalo — comedienne was also given a pass by black liberals when she called Larry Elder a “house negro“. To my knowledge, the black press totally ignored it. Has racism now become justified just as long as it is targeted towards blacks who see the world differently?
Here is what Gerald Walker, a black teen experienced when he shared his views with some of the people in his church:
“I shared with them my disappointment with the so-called “Black Leaders†of the African – American Community. I shared with them my disapproval of the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Push Coalition, Louis Farrakhan, Barack Obama (voting record), and Al Sharpton. As being a black male, their only conclusion was that I hated black people and was a sellout to my race…..that isn’t true. “
I was just recently involved in a debate/discussion with a fellow black man covering a wide range of issues. Throughout the debate, he kept mentioning that conservatives were wrong to push for legislation that would take a person’s choice away from them (this was in the context of abortion and same-sex marriage). He even went far to say that because God has given us all a free will, He (God) too must be pro-choice. It was at this point I posed the following statement to him:
If God is pro-choice, then that means that based on your logic, although those who took us in as slaves in this country were in the wrong, their right to choose to enslave us was something that should have been protected.
Here was his response:
It depends on whether there was a law in place to protect it or not. At one point in history there was a law, that was enacted by the forefathers that you spoke so eloquently about. At a later point in history, the law changed and it was unlawful. So, in answer to your question it would depend on what the law said. (emphasis are mine)
It depends on the what the law said? Needless to say I had to discontinue our discussion at this point. How could a black man be so reluctant to denounce slavery just because it conflicted with his (common; however not exclusive) liberal view on choice (again, this was in the context of abortion and same-sex marriage)?
Why is it that black liberals have not demanded Planned Parenthood to recant its founder Margaret Sanger’s own statements in her book “What Every Boy and Girl Needs to Know“?:
It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them (full article). (I provide more background on this here)
Liberal groups have always found it easy to force states to remove state flags that contained the symbol of the confederacy (a past historical scourge on blacks in this country). Why is it that scourge of genocide directed towards blacks, Hispanics, and poor whites has not been met with the same tenacity?
These are just some issues that we as blacks are going to have to deal with head on if we are to continue to make progress in this country. In the meantime, we still have to deal with the light-skin versus dark-skin thing.
Until then, just call me “Tom”. “Uncle Tom” I guess (or maybe T for short. At least urbanize it).
About the author: Gerald Walker is 17 year old African American Republican male. Interested in the activity of the black community and the truth of Liberal politicians.
” I shared with them my disappointment with the so-called “Black Leaders†of the African – American Community. I shared with them my disapproval of the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Push Coalition, Louis Farrakhan, Barack Obama (voting record), and Al Sharpton. As being a black male, their only conclusion was that I hated black people and was a sellout to my race…..that isn’t true. “(read more)
The television programme ‘Guinea Pig Kids’ refers to the sickening plight of thousands of innocent African American children in New York, whose only crime is to have contracted the HIV virus. Pharmaceutical companies, including the British based GlaxoSmithKline have been involved in a series of controversial drug trials, testing a deadly cocktail of supposedly anti-AIDS medicines on children, some as young as 3 months old. The problem with these drugs, such as AZT, is they have serious side effects ranging from debilitating skin diseases to muscle wasting, organ failure and even death. As well as the frightening reality of this suffering, there is little if any evidence that the drugs work at all. In fact, when carers stopped giving the children this medication their health improved dramatically. (full article)
This same practice has been done on children in foster care/Children that are under the custody of the state for years in other parts of the country.
It looks like our Brit cousins also deal with the “not black enough” syndrome:
Before the staging of this year MOBO’s, different Black celebrities here in the UK were asked who they would like to host and present the event. Most interviewed surprisingly, at least to me, selected Blu Cantrell and Lil’ Kim, who hosted last year’s show. Some argued that they didn’t like the idea of these two ladies hosting the event as they “weren’t Black enough” or even “British enough” to be the face of this prestigious event. (full article)
I am highlighting this article for a reason. I will be posting an article by yours truly that addresses this whole issue. Please stay tuned!
Q: Can I truly eat large amounts of proteins?
A: No, portion size is important; excess protein is converted into fat and can cause weight gain in some people
Q: What fruit juices are best to drink
A: Those that are unsweetened. Better are those that are freshly squeezed from the whole fruit. Best yes would be to eat the whole fruit itself. Fruit drinks and “sport drinks” are not acceptable as then have excessive amounts of added refined sugar.
Q: Is high-fructose corn syrup OK?
A: No, it is a high-glycemic sweetener (for now, just know that it is bad. Hopefully if I remember tomorrow, I will explain to you what that is.)
Q: What is happening that allows slim, middle-aged people to consume huge quantities of sugar or high-glycemic carbohydrates and not have it deposited as fat?
A: Some individuals have a higher metabolic rate and/or more muscle mass, which utilizes most consumed sugar as an energy source. Therefore, very little sugar remains for conversion to fat
(excerpt from Sugar Busters: Cut Sugar to Trim Fat)
If you or a family member suffers from any type of diabetes, or just love sugary foods, please follow this series. It could very well save your life. Later, I will provide some very good alternatives.
Let’s stop this plague of diabetes that is eating away the health of African-Americans!
From www.healingdaily.com
Insulin, sugar, and glycogen
When your body notices that the sugar level is elevated, it is a sign that you have more sugar than you need right now, your body is not burning it and therefore it is accumulating in your blood. So insulin is released to take that sugar and store it. How does it store it? Glycogen? Your body stores very little glycogen at any one time. All the glycogen stored in your liver and muscles would not last you through 1 active day. Once you have filled up your glycogen stores, that sugar is stored as saturated fat.
So the idea of medical professionals recommending a high complex-carbohydrate, low-saturated-fat diet is absolutely a mistake. A high complex-carbohydrate diet is nothing more than a high-glucose diet, or a high-sugar diet. Your body is just going to store it as saturated fat, and the body makes it into saturated fat quite readily.
Your body’s principal way of getting rid of sugar, because it is toxic, is to burn it. The sugar which your body can’t burn will be rid of by storing it as glycogen, and when those glycogen reserves are full, sugar gets stored as fat. If you eat sugar your body will burn it and you stop burning fat. Another major effect of insulin on fat is it prevents you from burning it. What happens when you are insulin resistant and you have all this insulin floating around all the time? You wake up in the morning with an insulin level of 90.
This is one of those topics where I personally saw MAJOR improvement to my overall health.
Most of the treats that we consume on a daily basis consist of white sugar. When I reduced the amount of white sugar in my diet, I immediately saw a difference in my body weight. Not only that, I found that I did not catch colds as often. One of the major drawbacks of white, processed sugars is that IT IS PROCESSED!
When digested, white sugar weakens your immune system. Have you ever noticed that in the wintertime, colds are very common? Well, believe it or not, cold weather has very little to with it.
During the winter months, most people increase their consumption of sweets (treats around the office, holidays, etc.). While we are snacking away, are immune system grows weaker and weaker. Here is a list of just some of the negative effects of white sugar:
*Sugar can upset the body’s mineral balance.
*Sugar can contribute to hyperactivity, anxiety, depression, concentration difficulties, and crankiness in children.
*Sugar can contribute to eczema in children.
*Sugar can cause cardiovascular disease.
*Sugar can increase systolic blood pressure.
*Sugar causes food allergies.
*Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.
*Sugar can over stress the pancreas, causing damage.
*Sugar can cause headaches, including migraines.
(more on sugar)
It is believed that refined sugar did not exist anywhere until around A.D. 500. It is about this point where the ill effects of refined sugar were observed. Just think about a society where diabetes did not exist. How about a black community? This was a reality for people prior to 500 A.D.
The pancreas gland was probably not called upon to secret as much insulin in one day of an entire lifetime as it is called upon to secret in nearly every day of a modern post infant lifetime.(excerpt from Sugar Busters: Cut Sugar to Trim Fat)
If you have ever done a study on the various royal families of early Europe, you will find that many of them were overweight, and in some cases contracted diabetes. This was due to the fact that the diet of the privileged in those days included breads that contained refined sugars.
Next: What happens when you eat refined white sugar (in more detail).
Because the sugar topic is so big, I will spend today just talking about sugar.
Thank you for your patience while I completed the second part of my rebuttal to this debate. I hope everybody had a good Thanksgiving.
I welcome any feedback.
This part of Mike’s e-mail takes a series of very interesting turns. On one turn, he asks various questions such as the following:
There are many Christian beliefs that I struggle mightily with, but that I adhere to because I honestly do believe that I am supposed to believe in them as a Christian. I went to a Catholic High School that taught us to take the Bible figuratively and that did make more logical sense to me. But, when I got saved in my 30’s I was taught to take the Bible literally and I now do. There are a few principles that I actually believe in my gut, but have a difficult time being faithful to. Such as, turning the other cheek, loving my enemies, and praying for those who spitefully use me, etc. Then there is one concept that is still hard for me to come to grip with in my gut, but I still try to adhere to because I believe that I am supposed to.
This leaves me with the impression that he is legitimately looking for a better understanding on how the Bible relates to the everyday issues that he talks about in this piece. Then he begins on a very long rampage in essence accusing Conservatives of being hypocrites. Here is an example:
How about just caring about people and not having a personal agenda to benefit from? Isn’t that what Christ teaches all throughout the NT? Be selfless. Love your neighbor as yourself. Don’t do anything for selfish reasons. These are the concepts that Christ taught that the Conservatives have discarded.
One of the biggest mistakes that he makes in his whole presentation is that he equates conservatism with Christianity. There are many conservatives out there that do not consider themselves Christian. After reading this part of his e-mail, you would think that all who are Christians and vote a Republican ticket are hypocrites. This is like the same ideology that blacks have towards other blacks who vote Republican (Uncle Toms).
Questions for Mike:
-Please provide a definition of what a conservative is.
-Please explain the differences between a conservative, ultra-conservative and the religious right. (These are all terms that I have heard liberals use and I am having a hard time figuring out the difference)
-Please explain why racial name calling targeted towards blacks who consider themselves conservatives has been give a free pass by liberals…and most black liberals remain quiet.
He then accuses past Republican administrations for not taking care of certain issues while at the same time giving a pass to the Democratic administrations when faced with the very same issues:
What about the African massacre in Rwanda in the last decade? This is why I say neither Democrats nor Republicans have a lock on Christian morality. Clinton was president when that was going on. If you read his book he says that getting involved with Rwanda was one of the things about his presidency that he would do over if he could. He would have sent troops to Rwanda to stop the bloodshed. I give him credit for at least being man enough to admit he made a mistake. I guess Bush would accuse him of flip-flopping too, huh? But, the fact of the matter is he didn’t send troops either. Do you think if they had found diamonds in Rwanda like that have in Johannesburg, South Africa we may have gone over there on a liberation mission? I believe so. (emphasis are mine)
And then finally, after spending his whole e-mail basically calling Christians who vote a Republican ticket “hypocritesâ€Â, he closes with the following statement:
On these positions, the Conservative Republicans are on the wrong side of the argument and God is not pleased.
So Democrats are on the right side of the issues and God is pleased with them? Hmmmmmmmm. Mike has COMPLETELY contradicted his initial statement:
God is on all of our sides. I believe it is ridiculous for any individual or group of people to assume that God is only on their side.
Another thing before I continue. Mike, can you provide for me the names along with exact quotes of people who said that God is only on the side of conservative Republicans? Thank you.
Before I continue, I must add that I do not consider myself a Republican nor am I registered as one. I have a history of voting both sides of the political spectrum. If you are interested in the label-thing, I consider myself a moderate-conservative.
Even though I disagree with Mike on most of his points, he does represent something that I strongly sympathize with: The inability of the church of today to attract and keep people who tend to think logically. In a future piece, I will go into great detail into this topic, but for now I will just try to summarize what I mean.
Since Mike and I are both men, I want to use the man’s perspective on this issue.
It is very true that much of the Bible is based on faith; however, the Bible tells us in James 2:14-26 that “faith without works is dead.” Here is the rest of that passage:
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,†but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.†Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe; and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.†And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
The church has done a good job teaching us the importance of having faith in God in spite of what is going on around us; however, much the church has dropped the ball when it comes to teaching people how faith and works go together. When men (as well as women) go to a church, they are looking to find out how to apply the Bible to their everyday lives. Sure, the stories of old are always very inspiring; however, most people have not had the experience on staying in the belly of a whale for three days, or being in a lion’s den. What a man needs to see is how Christianianity PRACTICALLY applies to finding a job, raising a family, being an asset to society, and just how to be a better person, period. Telling someone that “God will take care of it” when their rent is due tomorrow is not good enough for most people. Church should be a place where when someone is in a situation such as eviction, the people within that church gather around that individual to help them. This does not mean that money is the only thing that is given. What it could mean is just helping the person to better steward the resources that are already around them. I have found that I was most effective in helping people by just offering to walk them through a situation more than just handing them money.
I think that deep inside most people when they read the news, they want to know what God has to say on the various issues of the day. I know I do.
When a man walks into a typical church, the only opportunities that he is usually presented with are singing in the choir, being a usher/greeter, or being an understudy to the pastor. Men need to know that they can be just as effective in their Christian faith by working as a bus driver, school teacher, engineer, etc. Not all men want to be like the pastor. People in general want to know that it is OK to be the person God created them to be. We may all not have a huge following of people in our lives, but we sure can make a huge difference. We can talk all day about changing our cities, but if we do not have a practical plan on how to accomplish this, most people who are logical in nature will move on to something else. So again, the church needs to show us the balance between using our logic and activating our faith. They both go hand in hand.
The last thing that I would say is that I would advise all people who are not Christians to not judge the Bible based on those who profess to follow it. If you profess to be a Christian, then you must believe this scripture:
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
(2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Based on this scripture, Christians base their belief on this scripture that suggests to us that the Bible is absolute truth. Being the imperfect human beings that we are, many times we may get it wrong. But that still does not change the absolute-ness of the Bible. I personally use the Bible as a guide on how I view the issues of the day and how they affect me. Being a Republican, Democrat, or whatever is not absolute. So please be careful equating Christianity with a political ideology. To put it simply, a Christian strictly has the Bible as the foundation of what they believe. A Republican’s ideology is a mixture of their personal belief system (which could be shaped by a combination of many things–not just the Bible). Politics will change with every issue. God’s word will not:
“…LET GOD BE TRUE, BUT EVERY MAN A LIAR…” -Romans 3:4
“In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;” -Titus 1:2
As you can see, I am not short on words. I could very easily go point to point with you on some of the other issues that you raised such as 9/11, the war in Iraq, etc. After thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that I did not want to get into some contest with you on subjects like that. We are both somewhat savvy when it comes to finding out information on the Internet. Just as you very easily found information that proved going to war in Iraq was wrong, I could find just as many sites that would justify it. Do I think that there is a bottom line truth behind such topics? Yes. However, I do not think that either you, me or anybody that may be reading this can ultimately get to the bottom of it. The only people that are ultimately privy to that type of information are those who are directly involved. You are going to gravitate towards information that fits your ideology and I will do the same. None of us are unbiased.
As I mentioned earlier, I am not convinced that your real motive is to get further explanation on how the Bible relates to the issues that you have raised. Instead, I feel that you wanted to use what you have seen other Christians not do as an indictment against Christianity itself. I hope that I am wrong in my assessment. If I am, please give me a call at the phone number that I have included. If anything else, I can at least be a friend, because truthfully that is what it is going to take if you really want the answer to your questions.
Click here to view part I of the initial statement.
Whose side is God on?
Here, I completely agree with your point that God is not a Democrat or a Republican. In fact, God is not American. The danger that I see in the conservative movement is that some of the Christians that are involved with it have merged their faith and political persuasion into one belief system. Isaiah 9:6 says “…and the government shall be upon His shoulders…†What this means is that God’s intent is that the foundation of all government should be Christ. So basically, Christ is foundation, not isolated to a political wing.
With that being said, black liberals/Democrats who profess to be Christians are just as guilty. In order for me to support this claim, I must present to you some factual history behind the liberal movement’s involvement with the black church.
For starters, liberalism is a watered-down version of socialism. This is not to say that liberals are socialist (nor am I calling you one) . Instead, if you were to look at the political spectrum with conservatives on one side and liberals on the other, any honest thinking person will see that liberalism favors socialism more than conservatism.
Without getting too technical, the main goal of socialism is to push for a society in which all people are “on the same level†(i.e. a class-less society) . With this class-less society, the citizens are to have “equal share†(for example: instead of government building, you would say “The People’s building†etc.). In theory, this sounds great.
What liberalism has been able to accomplish with the black church is to merge the socialist message that “all people are to be given equal shareâ€Âwith only part the gospel message of Jesus Christ that in essence says “God loves everybodyâ€Â, and “Caring for the least among us“. One thing that the black church is known for is its inspirational messages and the powerful way they are presented. The “love” message of the Bible combined with this skill has proven to be an invaluable tool for the liberal movement.
In addition to serving as a place to gather votes, liberals have used the black church as a point of validation for their cause. People like Bill Clinton and Al Gore have known this truth for a long time. I would dare any liberal to say otherwise. They know themselves that the only way they can effectively communicate their message in a way that it reaches even the common man (because most politicians are rich) is through black folks. It makes me wonder why it took this long for Republicans to figure that out. Kerry kinda got the point as he endured several “we shall overcome” church services being flanked by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, but still appointed only a few blacks to his campaign staff. It also appeared that he would follow the footsteps of Clinton by appointing even fewer to his cabinet if he won.
During the various student movements that took place on the campus of UC Berkley in the 60’s, white liberal groups (whose message was getting lost due to all the other causes on campus) gravitated towards the Black Panther Party mainly because of their sense of structure and unique way of presenting their case. Nothing has changed over the years. To put it bluntly, liberalism would not be where it is today here in America had it not been for blacks and the black church.
Where I believe one of the first contacts between socialism and the black church took place was during the civil rights movement. It is widely known that as a young student, MLK became very interested in the works of socialists like Karl Marx and others. He even studied the Communist Manifesto and Capital (check out The Preacher King: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Word That Moved America by Richard Lischer) Although he denounced the humanistic side of socialism, he embraced the economic side of it. MLK made the following statement to Coretta: “I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic.” (Check out The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., by Clayborne Carson). What MLK saw was a system in this country that mainly used economics to keep blacks on an unequal status. Like any other inquisitive human being, he was looking for a better solution. Now I must say that MLK is one of my all-time heroes. But like all heroes, they make mistakes. I believe that this was a major mistake on his part. There has never been a case in history since the birth of socialism where this ideology was only partially used. Sooner or later, the humanistic part will come into play. This is what we see today in modern liberalism here in America. A prime example of this can be seen with groups like the ACLU (who not only have been on the warpath to remove God from the public square, while at the same time.
is a firm partner of the NAACP).
Since the death of MLK, we have seen the liberal movement in the black community expand its support base to include abortion and gay rights. These two issues were not what thousands of blacks marched for on that faithful day. In fact, you will be very hard-pressed to find in any of MLK’s writings, or from any of his close associates that among the purposes of the movement that he help start was to include specifically abortion and homosexual rights. Today, we also find liberals attempting to put groups like NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) under the same banner that my people marched under. This is a total insult to all black people who had to endure slavery, Jim Crow, and bigotry. In other words, what the liberal movement is telling blacks is that the reason our ancestors endured through things like slavery is to blaze a trail for the rights of pro-abortionist and homosexuals. We might as well defecate on the graves on every slave that lived in this country.
Is God Pro Life or Pro Choice?
You asked the following question:
If someone can provide for me with scripture where God or Jesus teaches specifically about abortion, please forward the chapter and verse. I am not talking about an individual interpretation regarding the value of life. I am talking about scripture that addresses abortion specifically and uses the term “abortion.â€Â
The short answer to this is obviously no; however, let me ask you these questions:
Does the Bible specifically mention or addresses speeding in a residential area? Does the Bible specifically mention that we are not to look at Penthouse magazine?
Again, the short answer of these questions is still no. Let me offer you the following passages for your consideration. Mind you, I pulled this excerpt by doing a quick 10 second search on Google.
When Eve conceived and bare Cain, she considered that conception to be of God (Genesis 4:1). All four sons that Leah bore were looked upon as gifts of God (Genesis 29:31-35). After Boaz married Ruth they entered into the marriage act, and the Scripture says, “The LORD gave her conception†(Ruth 4:13). David wrote by inspiration, “Thou has covered me in my mother’s womb†(Psalm 139:13). God said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations†(Jeremiah 1:5). The Apostle Paul wrote, “It pleased God, Who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace†(Galatians 1:15). (full article)
If you are looking for a list of do’s and don’t in the Bible, then maybe Christianity may not be the thing for you. The very notion that there should be some type of list of do’s and don’ts would violate the whole concept of free will. The Bible does provide us with some general guidelines, but it stays intentionally away from the “thou shalt not eat fried chicken when you are on a diet” commands. At some point, spiritual maturity must kick in. If one truly has the Holy Spirit in their life, they would know those kind of details for their life. For example, it has been a traditional fact among Christians that we are not to drink alcohol; however, I am unable to find a specific verse that supports that. As far as I am concerned, alcohol does just as much damage to your body as soda. On the other hand, the Bible is very clear regarding lust. Pornography would definitely fall into this category. So for areas where the Bible doesn’t clearly specify what is a right or wrong action, many Christians rely on the Holy Spirit. This also applies to issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. The Bible is very clear on when conception takes place as well as the evilness of murdering children without actually mentioning the word “abortion”. The Bible is also very clear on men and women having homosexual relations with each other (without mentioning the words same-sex marriage) AS WELL as having sexual relations outside of marriage. Who brings interpretation to scriptures like these is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will never violate the gist of what scripture already tells us. Here is what the Bible has to say about the role of the Holy Spirit:
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:20-21
You may also want to check out the following site for more information WITH SCRIPTURES on this topic:
How are Believer’s “Guided into all truth”
You are absolutely correct. he does give us free will (Deut. 30:19, Joshua 24:15, Joshua 24:22, and many more references )HOWEVER, with every choice comes an end result. Scripture is filled with examples when someone chose unwisely, there was a negative result. David and Sampson are two people that come to mind.
Let me get a little more specific. The Bible along with history gives us endless examples of nations that have turned away from Him. Who, in essence chose a path that was not sanctioned by Him. [Please note: I do understand your point of being pro-choice, but anti-abortion; however the issue of personal versus national consequence does come into play with your logic. Please consider the following explanation.]
Just as there are consequences on an individual level when a person makes a bad choice (according to the Bible), likewise there are consequences on a national level when a nation endorses this type of behavior. So let’s say if we lived in a country that had a ban on pornography; however, being the resourceful person that I am (not to mention that I am married in this example) has possession of this material in my house. Statistics show that engaging in this type of activity will have a negative effect on not just me, but my relationship with my wife. Nevertheless, this problem (for the most part) would be isolated to my home. Now, let’s blow this example out a little bit, shall we? Today, we live in a country where pornography is a protected right. In essence this means that it is sanctioned by the nation. What we have now is easier access to pornography not to just adults, but teens and younger children. Statistics show us that when kids engage into this type of activity, one of the results is teen pregnancy. This same outbreak of teen pregnancy places a major strain on our tax dollars (national consequence) because now the nation is placed in the position to care for both mother and child. To play this scenario out even further, pornography has been found in many cases to be the major component in the lives of individuals who turn out to be rapists (another national consequence. i.e. more than just one person is affected by this example’s decision to engage into pornography). A well-known example of this could be seen with Ted Bundy. The real examples that one could pull from just pornography are endless. This is not to say that every person that indulges themselves into pornography will become a rapist; however, it does increases those chances the more allow pornography to be easily available.
Next point:
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” ~ISAIAH 9:6
This scripture is was basically a foretelling of the role of Christ when he was to born on the earth. Here is another excerpt for your consideration:
The Declaration of Independence states, “[Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It also states that these rights are “self evident” and that they constitute the “Laws of Nature.” These principles are taken directly from the Bible.
The Law of Nature can be viewed in Romans 2:14-16. That our Creator is the Author of life is seen in Genesis 2:7. That God, not government, grants liberty is seen in Galatians 5:1. The “pursuit of happiness” is found in Ecclesiastes 3:13. (full article)
You see, our forefathers understood the principle behind the following scripture:
Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. (Psalms 33:12)
Now, let’s get into the actual issue of abortion.
Liberals will tell us that they support a woman’s right to choose; however, if you follow their historical stance on this issue, you will find that they have always vehemently fought for a woman’s right to abort a baby. When was the last time you have seen any liberal fight for those who choose to keep their baby? When was the last time have you seen a group like the National Organization of Women support a pro-life venue? Isn’t the choice to keep your baby an actual choice? Even though the pro-life movement only represents one side of the issue, they still represent one of two choices, right? That is why liberals must add to the “pro-choice” tag “pro-choice…to abort”. Of course, that does not sound to good.
I have already provided for you some scripture references earlier. Now I shall give you some brief history behind this issue.
Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), was a racist eugenicist. There is a whole lot that I could provide to you regarding her life, but it would be too lengthy for this forum. I suggest you go to http://www.blackgenocide.org to read more about her. I will provide you with the following excerpt:
From the beginning, Sanger advocacy of sex education reflected her interest in population control and birth prevention among the “unfit.” Her first handbook, published for adolescents in 1915 and entitled, What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, featured a jarring afterword:
It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them (full article).
You will also find that throughout the history of Planned Parenthood, they have especially targeted Black, Hispanic, and poor White communities. How can someone who professes to be a Christian, be OK with an organization such as Planned Parenthood who fills our inner-cites with abortion clinics and tell us that if you are poor, unmarried, and pregnant, abortion should be an option? If that is not systematic genocide, then please define it for me. You will even hear some liberals justify abortion by suggesting it incorporates “much needed” population control. Did you know:
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion
and,
On average, 1,452 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. (figure from the Centers for Disease Control)
Groups like the NAACP have always found it easy to shake down a state for having a confederate flag grafted into the state flag charging that it invokes the memories of this country’s racist past (even though I have not met a black person who was brought to tears because they saw a confederate flag). Also, many black liberals are very quick to remind movie producers of their blatant omission of historical facts. With that being said, when was the last time the NAACP or better yet, the ACLU (who recently had the cross taken off of the city of Los Angeles seal because it may offend others. Mind you, the cross was a representation of the monks who helped settle that city) demand that Planned Parenthood recant the racist past of their organization? Margaret Sanger’s own book confirms her racist attitudes, yet liberals have remained silent about this.
If God is pro-choice, then that means that based on your logic, although those who took us in as slaves in the country were in the wrong, their right to choose to enslave us was something that should have been protected. Your logic also means that if a grown man decides to have sex with a under age boy, even if it is consensual, their choice to do so should be protected by law. Where does it end? There has to be some type of moral boundaries incorporated into the law that would prevent such actions.
I also believe that there should not be some type of moral police that goes around door to door seeing what immorality has been committed in your household. In the end, people are going to do what they want to do anyway. We just need to know that there are some limits.
The “What about Murder Debate?†and Where is God on Same Sex Marriages?
I think that I can sum up your next two points on Murder and Same-sex marriage.
In both points you bring up the notion that the laws of this country were created based on a majority made up of various belief systems. Although this may be true in some incidents, it was the majority that agreed on one thing: The bible was to be the source of inspiration. I would encourage you to not only read the founding documents of this nation, but to also read the biographies of the founding fathers who laid the groundwork of this nation. You will see that although they came from different backgrounds, they shared a mutual respect for the bible. So much so, they were inspired by it in many ways. I would also encourage you to visit some of the monuments that can be found in the DC area. You will not find any surahs inscribed on any of them. I would also advise you to please hurry to go visit the various monuments and take plenty of pictures. It will not be too long before the ACLU has them all removed :).
If you look at a Muslim country, for example, you will see that all of their laws are inspired by the Koran. The same applied here in the US as we were founded on Judeo-Christian values. Now granted, they were not always interpreted correctly (such is the case with slavery being justified in the Bible). But it does not change the fact that it is the Bible, not just popular opinion that has played a central role in the laws of our country. Another thing you may want to consider in your argument is that the Bible is historically older than religions such as Islam. So if anything else, Islam got the idea that murder was wrong from the Bible. So no matter how you may look at it, the moral values that were used to draft the foundations of this nation all comes from the Bible.
With that being said, since the Bible was used as the inspiration in the founding of this nation, same-sex marriage is something that was not included in the drafting of the Constitution. With this in mind, we must look to the Bible in order to understand the original intent behind documents such as the Constitution. I will keep this short: Nowhere in the Bible is same-sex marriage sanctioned in any way. As I mentioned earlier, yes, God does give us the power to choose, however God does provide warnings regarding the homosexual lifestyle.
-Genesis 19:1-29
-Deuteronomy 23:17
-1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46
-2 Kings 23:7
Should homosexuals be treated as outcast? No way! They should be treated with the dignity and respect that all men and women deserve. However, this does not mean that we should condone or agree with it.
Question for you: Using your definition of choice, what is your take on how 11 states unanimously voted or chose to oppose gay marriages, yet liberal groups are still fighting to override what the majority had already decided?
This is part 2 of the debate that I posted earlier. You have 2 ways to comment: obviously you can use the comment feature on this website, or you can just e-mail me if you think it is too long, and I will post it.
I will post the first part of my response tomorrow.
Whose Laws Are We Really Following, God’s or mans?
The overriding principle behind all of this philosophy is that these are man made laws that we are talking about enacting. These are not necessarily God’s laws. God’s Laws are in the Bible for Christians, the Koran for Muslims, the Old Testament for Jews, etc. We are talking about man’s laws now. It was man, who decided to separate church from state in the Constitution. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe the Bible says anything about separating Church and State. But, we keep trying to mix up the Constitution and the Bible and it is very difficult to combine the two, because the Bible can’t be amended. It is God’s word and it is not going to change. The only way the founding fathers could have effectively combined the Bible and the Constitution would have been for every word in the Constitution to have been biblically inspired and biblically consistent with doctrine. That was certainly not the case when the Constitution was written.
Let me give you an example? The Constitution stated that Black people were 2/3 of a human being. That wasn’t Jesus saying that. That was the framers of our beloved Constitution. That statement was not biblically inspired or consistent with the New Testament, but it was written because that is what the racist forefathers of our country felt about Blacks at the time. There are several other examples.
Some of the laws in the Constitution may have been Biblically sound and inspired, but many were not. And since the Bible can’t be amended or changed to adapt to the Constitution, the Constitution will have to be changed to fall in line with all of the Biblical tenants if we are to combine the two. I don’t see our government ever doing that because we love man’s rules too much. Incorporating the Bible to make our Constitution consistent with Christian principles would mean giving up some rights that Americans love. For example, it would preclude us declaring pre-emptive and unjust wars on countries because Christ taught us to love our enemies and pray for those who spitefully use us. Americans are too proud for that.
No, the constitution represents man’s rules first, and then it included some of the Biblical laws that were consistent with the agenda of the framers of the Constitution. I don’t believe that God will truly be satisfied with any form of compromised Christianity. Every word of the Constitution would have to be consistent with Christian Doctrine if our constitution is to be in line with the Word of God. So, we can’t easily combine those two and we need to stop the hypocrisy.
That leads me to a very interesting question that I would like to pose that I really don’t have the answer to. There are many Christian beliefs that I struggle mightily with, but that I adhere to because I honestly do believe that I am supposed to believe in them as a Christian. I went to a Catholic High School that taught us to take the Bible figuratively and that did make more logical sense to me. But, when I got saved in my 30’s I was taught to take the Bible literally and I now do. There are a few principles that I actually believe in my gut, but have a difficult time being faithful to. Such as, turning the other cheek, loving my enemies, and praying for those who spitefully use me, etc. Then there is one concept that is still hard for me to come to grip with in my gut, but I still try to adhere to because I believe that I am supposed to.
That concept is the belief that “the only way to get to the father is through ME.†To me, that means that that the only way to get to heaven is to believe in Jesus Christ. That is one of the precepts of Christianity. In effect, what I believe it does is to nullify the validity of all the other religions. If Jesus is saying that He is the “only†way, than that means to me that He believes that the other ways are the wrong “way.†The reason that is so hard for me to come to grips with is because in my gut I believe in religious freedom and I respect other people’s beliefs. I know Muslims that I believe are wonderful spiritual people. I know Jews that I believe are wonderful spiritual people. I am certain that there are wonderful and spiritual people of all religions. In my gut I believe that if Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and the central figures of all the major religions were able to get together that they would be in harmony with one another. I believe they would all get along because I believe that love is at the core of all of the major religions.
That is what my gut tells me. But my Bible tells me that the only way to get through the Father is through Jesus Christ, period. With that being said, I am glad that I am a Christian because if it is true, and I believe it to be true because my Savior said it is true, I am in the right religion. Based on this backdrop the question that I pose to you is this: if our forefathers were Christians and our laws were supposedly based on Christian doctrine, how is it that the forefathers saw fit to go against God and Christ and establish a country that promotes “freedom of religion?â€Â
Do the previous quotes from God and Jesus in the Bible support and encourage freedom of religion? Does the statement, “no man gets to the Father except through Me†support freedom of religion? I don’t think so. Was that not done in direct contradiction to the commandment that said, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me?†This is in my opinion the fundamental reason why the Constitution can never be completely in line with Christian doctrine. One of the Constitutions’ most valued precepts, freedom of religion, appears to be in direct contradiction to one of the most crucial teachings of scripture. What is your take on that?
Personally, I believe in freedom of religion. But in my view, it is the fundamental belief in the freedom of religion that makes it unfair for our government to impose Christian laws on non-Christian people. By our country having true religious freedom, we are bound to respect other people’s religions and we put ourselves in a position where it is unfair to enforce any laws that are based solely in Christian doctrine such as, prayer in schools, bans on abortions, etc. This is a perfect lead into my next section.
The Unites States of Christians
Also, at the end of the day we are not the Unites States of Christians. This is the United States of America and we are talking about enacting laws to govern ALL Americans. All Americans are not Christians and don’t believe in Christian values. These beliefs on abortion and gay marriages, etc. are based on Christian Beliefs and values and the only way that it would be fair to enact a ban on abortion and a ban on gay marriages would be if All American citizens were Christians. But there are Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, atheists, agnostics, etc. etc. that make up the American Electorate. How can it possibly be fair to enact Christian laws on non-Christians?
As I said in the previous section, our forefathers instituting a fundamental ideology that included freedom of religion is what has in effect, tied the hands our government with regards to many laws that may actually be good for the country as a whole.
What About the Rest of the Christian Values?
Lastly, at the end of the day it is irresponsible for the conservative religious right republicans to even attempt to believe that they have Christian morality only on their side. As I said, they can attempt to make the case that they are on the right side of the abortion and gay marriage debate, but hopefully I have successfully poked holes in that view in earlier paragraphs. At the end of the day if they want to play the Christian card they have to play with the whole deck. They can’t pull two Christian cards out of the deck and think that is the end of the hand. Even if they do have the Big and Little Joker in their hand, if they don’t have any more trumps to go with them they still lose the game. The Spades and Bid Whist players will like that one. My point is that there are many other Christian values that the conservatives have either obliterated or ignored.
Examples of Conservative Religious Hypocrisy
How about thou shalt not kill? How about love your neighbor as yourself? How about turn the other cheek? Those are also principles that Jesus Christ taught. The conservatives apparently don’t have a problem killing Muslims though. To me, the life of an innocent Iraqi child is just as valuable as an unborn Christian baby. Isn’t the life of an American soldier as valuable as the life of an unborn child? The soldiers were once babies as well and to their parents, they will always be their babies no matter how many years they may or may not see. Look at some of these examples of what I believe is religious hypocrisy:
Desert Storm
Do we really believe that Jesus Christ would have supported us invading Iraq January 17, 1991? The Conservatives may try to justify that Jesus would have supported killing thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children if they believed the lie that we were doing it to save the innocent Kuwaiti people. But, who really believed that was our motive? If helping the Kuwaiti people was our motive, than how come we haven’t heard anything about the Kuwaiti people since the war ended on February 28, 1991′? We haven’t heard a peep about the Kuwaiti people because it wasn’t them that we went there to protect. It was their oil. We couldn’t allow Sadaam Hussein to control 2/3 of the worlds oil supply, plain and simple. Which is what would have happened if we had allowed him to invade and conquer Kuwait. It would have crippled our precious economy. I understand that. But, why couldn’t our government just be honest with us about why we went in the first place?
Unfortunately, most Americans care more about how much we would pay for a gallon of gas than we do about any Kuwaiti citizen. Had the government been honest about why we went, it would have gotten support from the people because at the end of the day Americans care about the all mighty dollar bill. Cash rules everything around us. It just sounds so much better to tell the world that we are going to save innocent people though. It makes us look like we are the compassionate and loving country that serves the role as our brothers’ keeper. It is not always the truth, but it sounds so good. I wonder how the Kuwaiti people are doing now, since we supposedly cared so much about them?
Conservative Republicans may believe that Jesus would have supported the destruction of a sovereign nation that never attacked us and that we had been partnering with for 10 years prior to the attack if we really believed that Sadaam was this evil, murdering dictator that was responsible for killing his own people indiscriminately. He may in fact have been all that and then some. But if so, how can we justify the fact that we supported this “so-called†mad man for 8 years in the Iran/Iraq war with arms, ships, tanks, ammunition, protozoa and fungi to create chemical weapons, etc, etc.? We didn’t mind the fact that he was a murderer when he was helping us defeat the same Ayatollah Khomeni that had held our hostages for 444 days from 79′ to 81.’ How come we never heard about how vicious Sadaam was before 1991 if he was so dangerous to world security?
Had any of you ever even heard of Sadaam Hussein before 1991? I know that I hadn’t. He gassed the Kurds with chemical weapons that we supplied him with back in 1988. How come there was no outcry of how vicious he was in 1988 when he first did it? Did any of you hear anything about Sadaam gassing the Kurds in 1988? We didn’t hear about the gassing of the Kurds until we needed a reason to attack at Desert Storm 3 years later.
Apparently it took us 3 years to have a problem with him using chemical weapons on the Kurds (who by the way have been in conflict with the Iraqi government for decades).
They tell us that he gassed his own people as if they were Iraqi citizens that his government had not had tremendous conflict with for decades. I guess for our hypocritical government, it was okay to gas the Iranians who he was at war with. I mean we did send him the chemical agents to make the gas in the first place. But, when he used them on the Kurds who he was also in conflict with, he is now gassing his own people…. Boy, we sure do know how to craft a story to fit our purposes don’t we. I am sure Jesus was looking down on us with so much pride.
The real truth is that we didn’t care about Sadaam gassing Iranians, Kurds, or anyone else for that matter. When he was about to affect our energy interests in Kuwait then all of a sudden he was so vicious and dangerous. We didn’t think he was dangerous when he was selling oil to us for cheap prices all throughout the 80’s. We were well aware (let me take that back…Our government was well aware) that he had ordered the execution of some of his countrymen via a videotape way back in 1979 when he first came to power.
Our beloved Christian politicians were aware of that videotape. All you have to do is run a google search to find out all of this information. But, Reagan must not have minded those executions when he was supporting him in the Iran/Iraq War. What hypocrites these so called Christian Conservatives are. Oh, and by the way…don’t forget that while our conservative Christian president Reagan was involved in “down low†arms dealing with the dreaded Sadaam, he was also selling arms to Iran on the down low too. Remember the Iran/Contra Hearings and Oliver North? Our government was playing both sides of the fence throughout 6 years of the 8-year war until an Iranian military officer finally exposed us. We were dealing arms to the same Ayatollah that had kept our hostages only 5 years prior. Boy, I bet Jesus was thrilled about that.
The Attack on 9/11
We have all been led to believe that America was an innocent victim in the attacks on 9/11, and there is no question that each and every American that lost their lives was innocent. But, was America really innocent? Why were we put in harms way in the first place? Is it logical that any country would attack the only superpower left on earth with the most powerful military that this world has ever known if they weren’t provoked? If somebody maliciously attempted to destroy my home, I would certainly be interested in finding out what his or her motive was, wouldn’t you? Does the motive that our government gave to us make sense to you? Does it make sense that we were attacked merely because other countries envy us and hate the way that we live? That is why our government said we were attacked. What is it the people in other countries do when they envy the way we live? Don’t most of them get a passport, hop on a plane and come to America to search for a piece of the American Dream? Or do they decide to bomb us?
It never made sense to me that we were attacked for no reason. When I went searching for reasons, I found answers. Let me share some of them. How do you think the entire Muslim world felt about what we did to the Iraqis at Desert Storm? Do you think they viewed our attack as the Christian thing to do? If so, how do you think that makes Christianity look to the rest of the world? Don’t forget that we are talking about a religion that believes in and “eye for and eye.†Are we really that surprised that we got attacked on 9/11? I for one was not. I was saddened and horrified by it. But, I was also saddened when we struck the first blow in 1991 during Desert Storm. I expected that there would be some form of retaliation. That is what happens when you bully people. Sooner or later they decide to get revenge.
The entire Arab World knew what our motive was for invading Iraq and those countries that did not like Sadaam were supportive, while many others were vehemently opposed to the invasion. The retaliation could have come from any one of these Middle Eastern countries that opposed the invasion. But, revenge was the order of the day. I believe that is exactly what Osama Bin Laden enacted, revenge. He took revenge for what he perceived to be an attack on Islam. When you listen to him talk, he tells us why he did what he did. No Muslim wants to see American military bases in their country and particularly not on their Holy Grounds. How would we have felt if Russia would have won the cold war and had military bases all over America?
Our government put us in that vulnerable position by lying to us about their real motive. Had we been told the truth from the beginning we would have been on alert for a possible retaliation. Do you think the drug dealer that attacks a rival doesn’t understand that he will need to bulk up security because retaliation will come in some form or another? Of course he does. Don’t you think we as Americans would have been able to defend ourselves better if we had known the truth and had the opportunity to at least put our guards up? At the very least, even if we couldn’t stop it we wouldn’t have felt so victimized and vulnerable.
We would have understood that our countries actions, which benefited our economy tremendously, also left us susceptible to retribution and we may not have been so bloodthirsty for revenge. We would have realized that there was a potential downside to the invasion. We would have understood that the revenge was being taken on us, and to
some extent, we were now even. Even gangsters know that when the scores have been settled, they are back to square one with their enemies and can breathe a little easier because both parties feel vindicated for at least the time being.
We remain vulnerable to this day because of our greed, our lies, and our actions, contrary to what our president tells us. He can make everyone else out to be the bad guy, but we have blood on our hands and we threw the first punch. We are reaping what we have sown. I wonder what Jesus thought about that.
The War for Iraqi Freedom
The same conservative religious republican hypocrisy can be said about the “War for Iraqi Freedom†that is going on as we speak. Do we really believe that we are there simply to free the Iraqi people and give them democracy? Who said they wanted democracy? Did they ask for it? If they wanted it so bad, why aren’t they thanking our troops everyday for rescuing them? In America, when blacks were being segregated against, lynched, murdered, etc., our brothers and sisters stood up and fought for our freedom. If the Iraqis believed that Democracy was so great and their lives were so terrible, why didn’t they fight for their own freedom like others have done all throughout history when they have been oppressed?
Don’t forget, this is an Islamic country that believes in an “eye for an eye.†They believe in Holy Wars. They call them Islamic Jihad’s. This is the same country and the same religion where they have no problem strapping a bomb to their back and walking into a restaurant to kill hundreds of people. They believe they are martyrs for doing this and will be going to meet Allah because of their heroics.
Are we naive enough to believe that if the majority of them felt as though they were so depraved by Sadaam Hussein that “somebody†wouldn’t have been willing to strap on a bomb and find a way to get into Baghdad? They don’t seem to have a problem fighting and killing thousands of American soldiers and other innocent civilians on a daily basis for their beliefs. But, I guess they really did need the benevolent America to come in and “bless them with democracy.†Please.
Let’s take a quick look at the realities: First, there was the obvious factor of Iraq’s vast oil reserves (the second largest in the world) and while one does not have to accept the argument that the war was fought exclusively for oil, it is stretching common sense to the limit to believe that, for a nation which appears to view cheap oil as an entitlement rather than a privilege, that the oil reserves were not factored into the policy debate over Iraq at some level.
The least convincing of the official explanations (lies) was the much-repeated claim that Saddam’s regime constituted a “clear and present danger†to the US and was a “threat to world peaceâ€Â. Are we naïve enough to buy the argument that we went to war with Iraq to keep the world safe from the Dangerous Sadaam Hussein and his lethal arsenal? We all know better than that now, don’t we? No WMD’s. No ability to produce any weapons for that matter. There never were. The sanctions were working.
The contention that a country which had been labouring under crippling economic sanctions for twelve years and which had a decimated military capability–one unable to put a single plane into the skies during hostilities and whose capital city would fall in less than three weeks–posed a genuine security threat to the most technically advanced military power in history is too absurd to merit serious discussion.
At the end of the day, we went to the Iraqi war for a variety of reasons that would take me much too much time to get into right now. The piece would be another 10 pages long, but far more informed political strategists than my self have compiled all of the information that you need if you want to know the truth about Iraq.
If you are interested in the real story as to why we went there please click on this link www.informationclearinghouse.info and prepare to have your eyes opened and your mind blown. Click on these 3 links: “The president’s real goal in Iraq: The official story on Iraq has never made sense. †Next go to “Bush Planned Iraq ‘Regime Change’ Before Becoming President: ‘This is a blueprint for US world domination.’
Lastly and most importantly, make sure to this website, “The Project for the New American Century. In it, you will be exposed to the long-term global strategies of our so-called Conservative Christian Republican Administration. After reading it, please tell me how these people can call themselves Christians with a straight face.
These are not left wing extremists groups that have an ax to grind against America. As a matter of fact, I say that the last link is the most important because it takes you directly to the website of which Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheyney, Jeb Bush, Woofowitz, etc. are members of. That website has letters that have been written as far back as 1997 explaining exactly what the plans of the neo conservatives have been for our foreign policy. In that website, you will find a letter from the “Project†sent to President Clinton in 1998, expressing the dire need for a regime change in Iraq. They asked Clinton to declare war on Iraq in 98’ to go and remove Sadaam from power. It is not surprising that Bush was so intent on finding a link between Sadaam and Osama after the 9/11 attacks because he desperately wanted a reason to declare take Sadaam out, for a variety of reasons. With, revenge for the attempted assassination of his father, the opportunity to secure our oil interests, and our opportunity to appease our allies in Israel not being the only ones.
The saddest part of all of the war though was the support that the American public gave for it. I believe that we did so because we were lied to about 9/11 and we perceived ourselves as innocent victims. I believe that had we been exposed to America’s true agenda in Desert Storm, we would have expected some sort of retaliation from the Arab world because we would have realized that we were the instigators. But, even with that being said, I was still disappointed that the so-called Christians of the world were so bloodthirsty for revenge, when our Savior is so much against it. We have the audacity to talk so negatively about the Islamic religion, but look at us. Look how many of us wanted revenge?
I can understand Muslims wanting and taking revenge when they feel as though they have been wronged. Their religion teaches peace first, but if someone attacks you, you have the God given right to attack back. They are supposed to be the ones who believe in an eye for an eye, not us. But, all I heard my Conservative Christian President and Liberal Christian Challenger say during the debates was, “We are going to hunt down the terrorists and KILL THEM.†Pretty Christian of them, huh? We as American people aren’t any better though, we voted for both of them and we supported the war and continue to support the war. We must have missed Bible study on the day Jesus preached, “turn the other cheek†and “love your enemies.â€Â
Biblical Hypocrisy with regards to War
The Republican Christian Conservatives must remember that we are Christians, which means we follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. We believe in and serve God, but the reason that we are called Christians is because our beliefs were developed during the 3 years of Christ’s ministry and “after†Christ died. Earthly time is divided between B.C and A.D. That is how important Jesus Christ was to this world. He was so important that time stood still, ended, and began again. The reason that is important to remember is because too many Christians want to jump back and forth from the Old Testament to the New Testament when it fits their war arguments. Yes, there were wars in the Old Testament. Obviously, at some point God was not totally against war. We need to remember that, but that was a different time. It was before Christ came to the world.
The fact of the matter is that there were no Christians in the Old Testament. So will the conservatives Christians please stop running back to the Old Testament to talk to us about God not being against war? It is crucial for us as Christians to study the entire Bible. What I have been taught is that the OT represents the Law and the Prophecy, while the New Testament represents the fulfillment of prophecy and the model for Christian behavior. Please correct me if I am wrong. The Christian philosophy was developed during the three years of Jesus’ ministry and after his death, not before. Although we need to concentrate on following the entire Bible, as Christians I believe that we need to particularly focus our present behavior on Jesus’ ministry and A.D., not B.C. because “there was no Christianity in B.C.†Hence, the term B.C. Which means Before Christ.
I believe that we need to move into the New Testament and understand the new way that God was operating and why He sent His son to us. He sent his Son to us with a different message of Love, not War. He sent a message of peace and acceptance, not hate and strife. Although the Old and New Testament do not contradict each other, there are certain concepts that evolved and war was one of them. I believe we need to use the lessons of war from the OT to learn from the past, but we need to follow the example of Jesus in the NT when it comes to dealing with war in the present. The message was very different in the New Testament regarding war and violence and Jesus represents the new way of doing things. Our present day actions are supposed to be based on what Jesus preached and how Jesus lived his life, period and end of story.
If there is one Christian Conservative Republican who can stand up and defend the actions of our country based on what Jesus Christ preached, let him or her please stand up and attempt do so. In doing so though, you must be able to refute the points that I have raised in this document and use the New Testament as your source of justification.
Bottom Line
Not everybody in the world loves American hypocrisy…. I mean American Democracy. They don’t all love capitalism. Some people see the fact that within capitalism there is an inherent need to capitalize off of the ignorance and pain of other people while the rich get richer. Remember what Jesus said about how difficult it was for a rich man to get into heaven and why?
Death Penalty Hypocrisy
The hypocritical conservatives seem to care so much about innocent babies being killed, but they have no problem with the death penalty. Personally, I have no problem with the death penalty either, but what does our Savior say about killing? God told Moses, “Thou shalt not kill”, period. He did not say Thou shalt not kill, unless…. Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord. What about that Christians? Jesus teaches to love your enemies. It is a tough lesson, I would agree. But, nonetheless that is what Christians are supposed to do. Not kill.
The critics of this will say that we have the right to kill in self-defense and I do agree. But, when we have criminals behind bars for the rest of their lives, they no longer present a clear and imminent threat to anyone; therefore the death penalty is purely punitive by nature. The death penalty debate is another one of those issues that I told you I struggle with before. My gut tells me that the death penalty is fair and just, and it may in fact be. But, according to our Savior, it is wrong to kill.
There is a scripture that was sent to me that attempted to contradict that statement. It was Luke 22:36 which says, “But now, he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.†That scripture clearly states that at that point in time, Jesus felt the need for his followers to be prepared to use their swords.
I like that scripture because for me it justifies the right to have a sword and I would even go so far as to say that we could use that scripture to justify the right to bear arms. But, does that scripture give us the right to attack, be violent, or punitive? I don’t believe so. Let’s look at the context of the scripture. Back in Luke 22:35 Jesus says, “When I sent you without a purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?†At that previous point in time Jesus was saying that they had no need for those things, including a sword. What was the difference in the two points in time? At the previous point, Jesus knew that he would be with them, so they had nothing to fear and no need for a weapon to defend themselves.
At the latter point Jesus knew that He was about to leave them to be crucified and they wouldn’t be under His protection. He knew that people would come after his disciples just as they were coming for him. This was at the same time the he said that Peter would disown him. The difference was that Jesus knew what would happen to them and He would not be there to protect them. So, my interpretation is that He was granting them the right to protect themselves. I see no way that scripture can be used to justify violence, pre-emptive attacks, or punitive actions. Do you?
Assault Weapon Hypocrisy
How would Jesus feel about Conservative Christians banning abortion, but refusing to ban assault rifles? I would like to find some conservatives to justify that one. I don’t personally have a problem if someone wants to keep a gun in their house to protect themselves. Luke 22:36 does justify that position.
But, I can’t possibly see why we need access to AK47’s, 9mm semiautomatics and Uzi’s. These are military style weapons and they don’t need to be in the hands of civilians. But, the conservatives don’t seem to have a problem when the gun manufacturers with the deep pockets control the decisions of their elected officials. What religious hypocrites.
Making a Mockery of Jesus’ main message
Not only killing and supporting assault weapons though, what about the major thing that Jesus preaches from day one, helping the poor! Helping your neighbor. That is one of the main things that Jesus talked about. Loving people. He went to the poor and helped them. He healed the sick and shut out. He spent time ministering to prostitutes and sinners. He didn’t look down his nose at them. His whole ministry was devoted to helping people in need. He never said, “Leave the needy to help themselves!” He never said, “I got mine so let them get there’s.” That is in essence what the so-called conservative Christian republicans are saying when they try to cut all of the social programs created by the New Deal and the Civil Rights era. They believe that the poor need to fend for themselves, as if the legacy of 300 plus years of slavery, oppression, segregation, and racism played no part in the plight of many of the poor.
How about just caring about people and not having a personal agenda to benefit from? Isn’t that what Christ teaches all throughout the NT? Be selfless. Love your neighbor as yourself. Don’t do anything for selfish reasons. These are the concepts that Christ taught that the Conservatives have discarded. These represent the rest of the cards in the deck that I referred to earlier.
Hypocrisy in Other Countries
Our government told us that we went to Kuwait to help the people and we went to Iraq to “liberate†the people (funny how the conservatives like the term “liberateâ€Â, which is derived from “liberal†when it fits their purposes. But, they try to equate the term liberal with the Devil when applying it to Democrats). But, why do we only seem to be willing to liberate people that live in oil rich countries? We weren’t interested in “liberating†the Haitians that were trying to sail over here on rickety boats several years ago. We sent our coast guard out into the Atlantic Ocean to force them to go back to Haiti. They were in the middle of shark-infested waters trying to escape to freedom and be “liberated†by America. To me, they were showing that they truly wanted our American democracy, not like the Iraqis. These people were willing to risk their lives for their liberation. Why didn’t we liberate them if we cared so much about people? What would Jesus have done? I bet you if they had some oil in Haiti it would have been a different story. I wonder what became of those Haitians…
What about the African massacre in Rwanda in the last decade? This is why I say neither Democrats nor Republicans have a lock on Christian morality. Clinton was president when that was going on. If you read his book he says that getting involved with Rwanda was one of the things about his presidency that he would do over if he could. He would have sent troops to Rwanda to stop the bloodshed. I give him credit for at least being man enough to admit he made a mistake. I guess Bush would accuse him of flip-flopping too, huh? But, the fact of the matter is he didn’t send troops either. Do you think if they had found diamonds in Rwanda like that have in Johannesburg, South Africa we may have gone over there on a liberation mission? I believe so.
What about right now? You heard Colin Powell go on TV a couple of months ago to speak about the atrocities and slaughter in the Sudan, right? Why don’t we go over there and liberate those people? Do you think our Christian Conservative Republican decision makers ever will? I doubt it. You may notice that Colin Powell resigned recently citing tension and conflicts with the Bush Administration over the years and all of the battles that he had lost with Cheyney, Rusmsfeld, and Bush over their foreign policy. What do you think about that? If you want to know what the source of the tensions and battles were between Powell, Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld, all you have to do is click on the Links that I gave you earlier. Just make sure to be sitting down when you open them and make sure you don’t have a full stomach.
Maybe Colin wanted to do something to actually help some people in need just because it was the right thing to do. Crazy thought, huh? Anyway, don’t hold your breath on the Sudan thing. It’s not going to happen unless we find some oil or some diamonds, trust me. I wonder if that policy makes our Lord and Savior proud?
Hypocrisy at Home
Why would we think that our government would really care about people in other countries needing help? We don’t care about the suffering going on in our inner cities right here. They don’t care about Head Start Programs anymore. They want to repeal affirmative action programs after only 30 years, when America benefited for 300 years from the legacy and financial benefits of the slave trade and Jim Crow. They want to tie all the money up into defense spending, and tax cuts for the wealthy, when it was Jesus who said it would be easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than to reach the Kingdom of God. I didn’t say that, Christ said that.
He said it not because it was impossible to be wealthy and care about the poor and needy, but He knew how improbable it was for people to be selfless with their wealth and care about others. Look at the wealthy today. In the richest country in the world, to have the poverty that we have is a sin. But, I guess the rich must have that third yacht and those two summer homes. The 5 Mercedes Benz in the driveway is just too hard to pass up. “Let them get their own the way I got mine.” Yeah, that is a real Christian approach.
I guess it is un-Christian like to want to have Healthcare for every American, to have loopholes closed that allow jobs to be outsourced overseas, to have social security be there in the future for the people to survive on when they are old, to have decent schools where kids can get an education, to attempt to put a dent in poverty, to continue to provide opportunities to minorities in an economy that can still be racist and sexist, etc. etc.
In Summation
These are moral issues as well that the Conservative Christian Republicans constantly overlook. These are also cards in the deck of Christian Morality. Poverty is a moral issue. Homelessness is a moral issue. Healthcare is a moral issue. Employment is a moral issue. Creating a deficit so deep that the country will be locked into it for decades is a moral issue. Civil Rights are a moral issue. Affirmative Action is a moral issue. Minority set asides are a moral issue. These are all moral issues that Jesus has a position on. On these positions, the Conservative Republicans are on the wrong side of the argument and God is not pleased.
Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.
God Bless,
Mike
The number one complaint that we hear throughout the black community regarding the condition of our schools is that most of them are underfunded. As I illustrated in the last posting regarding teachers unions, roughly 80% of what a school district brings in as income (this was in the case of Washington state schools; however, this same pattern is seen in many other school districts across the US) is diverted to “administrative cost”. Most of these “administrative costs” actually goes to the teachers unions. That leaves about 20% for the school district to work with.
While the Los Angeles Unified School District spends $3.9 billion a year, only about one-third of this budget actually supports teacher salaries, textbooks and supplies. The other two thirds of the budget goes to pay for such things as inflated salaries to the incredibly large number of administrators in the system. In 1990-91, for example, the superintendent of the school district earned more than $160,000. Almost one third of the district’s entire budget supports administrative costs in the headquarters and regional offices. A small army of non-teaching bureaucrats (called “administrators”) earned 1990-91 salaries in excess of $100,000 a year. While only 44% of the Los Angeles’ districts’ total number of employees are teachers, 86% of California’s private school employees are teachers.
In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, only about 25% of the school budget actually goes to pay for such educational expenses as teacher salaries, textbooks, and furniture. The remaining 75% goes to pay for “administration” costs. The Milwaukee public school with the highest per-pupil funding is also the high school with the lowest student grade point averages in the city. The deplorable facts about Los Angeles and Milwaukee are representative of conditions across the nation. In America’s larger urban school districts, the percentage of government school budgets allocated to actual teaching expenses is typically around 33%. (full article)
Here is a fact for you to think about: Did you know that we spend more on the educational system in this country more than our military?
The total annual public school budget in the U.S. exceeds $300 billion in goods and services. This is more than our nation’s military budget. Six million people work for public schools, a figure that represents about 30% of all civilian government employees. (full article)
Politicians are great at giving stats and figures to the people; however, many of them dare not make this comparison because it would expose the monopoly that teacher’s unions have on the school system. Money equals power…power to intimidate politicians not to give us the facts regarding public school finance.
Here is something else to consider:
An important corollary of the government school monopoly is the huge amount of money government schools spend to achieve the non-education of American children. During the 20 years between 1972 and 1992, public school spending in the U.S. increased by 400% while actual enrollment declined by 7%. However the number of public school teachers jumped dramatically from 1.4 million in 1960 to 2.4 million in 1991. Between 1960 and 1991, teachers’ salaries adjusted for inflation increased 45% from $24,229 to $35,243. During the same three decades, expenditures per pupil, adjusted for inflation, increased by more than 100%, from $2147 to $5872. (full article)
400%? And we still have kids graduating on a 8th grade level. This point right here dispels the whole myth that throwing money to the public school system HAS NOT AND DOES NOT WORK!
As you may notice, all of the excerpts that I used in this piece came from one source. I can only assure you that I found this same information on other websites/books. I used this particular site because it was the only source I could find that had all of the information regarding school finance all on one page. Again, this is not an indictment against public school teachers, instead it is against the system that treat many of these good-intentioned people like pawns.
Stay tuned for more on this series on public schools.
Here are some of the other posts that are part of this series:
The School System: A National Lab Project
How to Make Boys Docile: Ritalin
How to Make Boys Docile: Ritalin Pt. 2
Teacher Unions
Somehow, the “I’m lovin’ it” jingle doesn’t come to mind when I read this:
McDonald’s CEO Resigns to Fight Cancer
McDonald’s has taken yet another body blow to its battered but resilient executive suite. The fast-food giant’s cancer-plagued CEO stepped down Monday, less than one year after the previous CEO was killed by a heart attack.
Chief Executive Charlie Bell, 44, resigned to focus on his battle with cancer and was replaced by Jim Skinner, 60, who had been vice chairman. Skinner began his career at McDonald’s 33 years ago as a restaurant trainee. (full article)
Check out my series on fast food restaurants in the black community.
***UPDATE: I decided to split this piece into two pieces. It just occurred to me just how long this piece is (sorry about that guys!). So what we will do is on Tuesday and Wednesday, I will post his piece. Thursday and Friday I will post my feedback.
Again, I apologize for not catching this earlier!
Duane
——————————————————
Yesterday, I received the following forwarded e-mail from a friend of mine. After I read it, I found it very intriguing because I feel that the viewpoint reflects what I believe many Blacks who voted for Kerry. I also feel that the author addresses some issues that I believe the black community (which a good percentage claims to be Christian) need to face in the days ahead.
Undoubtedly, the black church has played a very pivotal role in American politics in the last few decades. During this time, the church has never been united when it comes to the issues that we face in this generation. Today, you will find pastors that are pro-abortion and anti-abortion…and they teach from the same book! It is time for that to end if the church is to mean anything in this generation.
I have never met Mike (the author of this e-mail), but from our e-mail correspondence he seems like a very sincere man who has an opinion (just like the rest of us). Although I may disagree with him on some points, I believe he did a very good job expressing his point. That is why I chose to bring his e-mail to this forum for debate/discussion.
As the reader, you are more than welcome to add your comments, in fact I encourage you to do so. I already told Mike that I will need about a day to respond so that I can have all of my facts together.
Here is his view:
———————————————–
To Whom It May Concern:
I have written an opinion piece that was prompted by an email that I received from an AOL Buddy not long after Presidential election in November 2004. The email reads as follows:
Many Christian fundamentalists have gone into ecstasy over George Bush’s election.
One of the most fervent effusions has come from Bob Jones III, President of Bob Jones University in South Carolina, a copy of which follows.
(Actual Letter)
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
November 3, 2004
Dear Mr. President:
The media tells us that you have received the largest number of popular votes of any president in America’s history. Congratulations!
In your re-election, God has graciously granted America–though she doesn’t deserve it–a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly.
Don’t equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.
Had your opponent won, I would have still given thanks, because the Bible says I must (I Thessalonians 5:18). It would have been hard, but because the Lord lifts up whom He will and pulls down whom He will, I would have done it. It is easy to rejoice today, because Christ has allowed you to be His servant in this nation for another presidential term.
Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and limited government. You have four years–a brief time only–to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the blessings of Almighty God.
Christ said, “If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my father honor” (John 12:26).
The student body, faculty, and staff at Bob Jones University commit ourselves to pray for you–that you would do right and honor the Savior. Pull out all the stops and make a difference. If you have weaklings around you who do not share your biblical values, shed yourself of them. Conservative Americans would love to see one president who doesn’t care whether he is liked, but cares infinitely that he does right.
Best wishes.
Sincerely your friend,
Bob Jones III
President
(End)
Preface: Insight into Me, the author of the following response.
Before I even begin, let me give you some insight into me as a person. I am a person that is appreciative of the intelligence that I have been blessed with. I am appreciative of the anointing on my life, particularly with my ability to look at things logically. With that being said, I realize that I am only 37 years old and I don’t have all the answers. I make mistakes just like everyone else, and I don’t have a monopoly on knowledge. I certainly don’t know everything and don’t pretend to. I am on a constant hunt for knowledge though.
What I am about to share with you are merely my beliefs. Although I feel strongly about my beliefs, I am not in love with my beliefs per se. I just believe what I believe based on the experiences that I have been blessed to have, the education that I have attained, the facts that I have, and the logical reasoning that I apply. I say that I am not in love with them because if new facts come to light and a higher level of reasoning can be applied, I am not wedded to any belief that I have. If I can’t refute a rebuttal with facts and logic than I am more than happy to change course. I am trying to “be right”, but that doesn’t mean I “am right.” If I am proven to be wrong I have no problem shifting gears and revising my opinion because it then allows me to be back on the side of right.
With that as the backdrop I want to share with you my thoughts on my perception of a document that I call:
Right Wing Christian Morality
Purpose for this Piece
In my opinion, it is very sad and disappointing that the right wing conservatives appear to believe, based on their rhetoric, that the Republican Party has a virtual “lock” on Christian morality and values. I certainly do not believe that to be the case. I don’t believe either party can claim to be completely on the side of Christian Values. Christian morality does not end with abortion and homosexuality. Those are only two issues of many that God has a position on. God cares about poverty, unemployment, social programs, education, the value of life, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on.
I believe that Republicans and Democrats are on the right side of some of the values, and on the wrong side of others. But, I also believe that “you can’t be a little bit pregnant.†In my opinion when it comes to claiming “moral authorityâ€Â, politicians and political parties should either be “all the way in†or they shouldn’t claim it at all. If either party can’t justify through scripture that it is “all the way in†with regards to Christian morality, then it should leave Christianity out of their political debates. No one should ever keep religion out of their individual decisions because God gives us the best guidance that we could ever have, but I firmly believe that they should keep religion out of their politics if they are not committed to being “all the way in.†If not, they run the risk of becoming spiritual hypocrites, which I believe many Conservative Republicans have become.
What is even worse than becoming an individual spiritual hypocrite though, is that they make the Christian Religion and Jesus Christ look hypocritical to anybody who has common sense and can read. Since one of God’s main objectives is the Salvation of all of his people and he is depending on Christians, as His representatives, to spread the message with our words and make God look attractive to non believers with our deeds, anything that we may do or say that makes us look like liars is defeating God’s purpose and not pleasing him. Would you agree?
If the Democrats were claiming to represent the religious right, I would call us hypocrites as well. Fortunately, Democrats don’t claim that distinction. Since the Republicans are claiming it, the critical portions of this opinion are primarily for them. While the empowering and educational portions of this opinion, are designed to give liberal Christian Democrats some logical ammunition that can be used during these types of debates.
Since our leaders have undoubtedly allowed conservatives to define us inappropriately and our leaders have been unable to logically counteract the distortions in an effective way, I have to assume that they don’t see the argument from all of the necessary and appropriate angles to be effective enough to break down the hypocrisy during debates.
Therefore, they haven’t been able to arm the people with the appropriate ammunition to defend ourselves, and too many of us have been left with the stereotype that being a liberal is something to be ashamed of and is inconsistent with Christian values. This document is intended to dispel that myth and arm us with Bible based arguments that can’t easily be refuted, and expose the hypocrisy that is in our faces everyday.
Keep in mind; I don’t have a problem with people having different beliefs. That is one of the things that make America great. My issue is not with conservative Republicans for believing what they believe. Although I do disagree with them on most issues, I respect their right to have their opinions, and I understand many of their motives for their perspectives.
What I have an issue with is them claiming that their positions and motives are totally line with Christian values and that they believe that they have the “lock†on morals. I also vehemently disagree with their position that liberals are totally out of line with God’s laws. Neither one of the parties is “all the way†in line with Christian doctrine and therefore, neither of them have a right to claim the moral high ground in my opinion.
Republican Conservatives have claimed the high ground and that is the reason for this opinion piece. Their PR departments have done a marvelous job of convincing the American people that their positions are in line with Christianity, while the Liberal Democrats are out of line. These untrue and baseless positions have been so heavily promoted by the media and by the religious right, that too many Americans have accepted the lie as the truth. I am committed to exposing the lie for what I believe it is, false propaganda.
The bottom line for me is that you can’t be a little bit pregnant and you are either all the way in, or you are not in. Anything less than being all the way in with regards to Christianity is in my opinion compromising the Christian Doctrine. I believe that unfortunately we have a high level of Compromised Christianity in our country and it has infiltrated our government.
With that said, keep in mind as you read this opinion that although I disagree with the conservatives on many of their positions, “I am not criticizing them for having them and taking them.†I am merely criticizing them for taking many of their positions and claiming that they are consistent with Christian values. Many of them are consistent, but many aren’t. And since I believe that you are either all the way in or not, they need to separate their politics from their spirituality, because they are making Jesus look bad to many Americans, as well as the rest of the world.
Whose side is God on?
The conservatives appear to believe, based on their rhetoric, that God is on their side in the abortion and gay marriage debate. I disagree wholeheartedly. In the first place, God is on all of our sides. I believe it is ridiculous for any individual or group of people to assume that God is only on their side. To be totally honest, it is not even about God being on any of our sides, it is supposed to be about US being on God’s side, period. God sets the agenda and we are to follow it, not the other way around.
That argument that God is on the side of the conservatives is almost as silly as a football team believing that God was on their side in a Super Bowl victory. There are Christians on both opposing teams and how egotistical one must be to assume that God chose them over His other children. He obviously loves us all, including the good ones and the bad ones, the believers and the non-believers, the criminals and the law abiding, etc. Doesn’t our Bible teach us that Jesus was sent to us for the very purpose of Saving ALL of us, whether we are on the right side of an argument, or the wrong side?
Is God Pro Life or Pro Choice?
Here is the controversial section of this piece. I expect to get some calls and some emails over this theory but I feel compelled to put it out there and get your feedback. Even without considering the theological inaccuracy of the conservative’s belief regarding God being on their side in the abortion and gay marriage debate, when I take a much closer look at the plain logic of the concept, I see hypocrisy riddled throughout. Consider this controversial theory:
First of all, I am a liberal Christian and proud of it. I don’t believe in all of the things that liberals believe, but most of their philosophies are more closely aligned with my beliefs than the conservative philosophies are (Civil Rights, affirmative action, anti war, anti gun, etc). I wouldn’t consider myself a left wing liberal by any stretch of the imagination. As a matter of fact I have many conservative beliefs, particularly with regards to religion and behavior.
Let me first say that I am 100% against abortion. I am also 100% against lying, but I don’t believe there should be a law against it. I am 100% against adultery, but I don’t believe we should put people in jail for it. I am 100% against using the Lord’s name in vain, but I don’t believe you should do time for it. I believe that God is against abortion as well, even though I don’t believe the doctrine on aborti