Presidential candidate Barack Obama has stronger support among less religious Americans than rival John McCain, a survey revealed.
-
(Photo: AP/Jae C. Hong)Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, left, shakes hands with supporters at a town hall style meeting in Powder Springs, Ga., Tuesday, July 8, 2008.
The survey, conducted by The Gallup Poll and released Tuesday, found 55 percent of Americans who say religion is not important in their life backed Obama, compared to 36 percent for McCain. The reverse was true for Americans who said religion was important in their life, with 50 percent to 40 percent preferring McCain over Obama.
This correlation is most clearly seen in the segment of Americans who are white and identify themselves as either Protestant or some other non-Catholic Christian tradition. Among these believers, McCain beats Obama by a 36-point margin, 63 percent to 27 percent. The two candidates were essentially tied among those in this group who say religion is not important in their life, with McCain at 46 percent and 45 percent for Obama.
But exceptions to the correlation between religiosity and support for Republican McCain occur among Hispanic Catholics and black non-Catholic Christians. Among white Hispanic Catholics, Obama beat McCain by a large margin even among those who said religion is important in their life.
Obama received 57 percent support among religious Hispanic Catholics, compared to McCain’s 31 percent. The Illinois senator, who is vying to be the first black U.S. president, won by an even larger margin among those that said religion is not important in their life, 63 percent to 30 percent.
Preference for Obama over McCain was even more dramatic among black non-Catholic Christians. Ninety percent of this group’s religious voters supported Obama, versus 4 percent for McCain. The number was slightly raised among the group’s non-religious voters, with 92 percent for Obama and four percent supporting McCain.
The finding that religious voters prefer a Republican candidate is not new. Evangelical Christians, who are viewed as highly religious, have traditionally been stalwart voters of the Republican Party – although that idea is being challenged this election year.
Younger and moderate evangelicals have been more open to Obama’s candidacy than in past elections towards a Democratic contender. Many find his emphasis on social justice issues such as poverty and Darfur appealing. The Obama campaign has also aggressively courted religious voters with initiatives explaining how Obama plans to put his faith into action.
Experts have predicted that Obama could gain as much as 30 to 40 percent of the evangelical vote this fall.
The Gallup poll for this survey questioned 95,000 registered voters from March through June of this year.
RSS
hlerwin- It sounds like he was writing about Hitler.
Still, what is obnoxious depends on the person drawing the conclusion. To the religious leaders Jesus was quite obnoxious when in fact they were the ones who were. The question would then be...who does God view as obnoxious?
In the spirit of full disclosure, jester and others, I need to post something else Walker Percy wrote:
"Question: Who is the most obnoxious, Protestants, Catholics or Jews? Answer: It depends on where you are and who you are talking to - though it is hard to conceive any one of the three consistently outdoing the other two in obnoxiousness. Yet, as obnoxious as are all three, none is as murderous as the autonomous self who, believing in nothing, can fall prey to ideology and kill millions of people - unwanted people, old people, sick people, useless people, unborn people, enemies of the state - and do so reasonably, without passion, even decently, certainly without the least obnoxiousness."
That part of Percy is true, as well.
Barack has been talkng about his faith much more so than Senator McCain. Senator McCain didn't show up for the faith forum in PA, but Senator Clinton and Obama did. One thing that is striking about the Lord from reading the Bible is that He doesn't give weight to one sin over another except for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is when God intervenes directly in the life of people in the form of a miracle and someone tries to define the miracle as a Satanic occurrence. The Pharisees tried to do this to Jesus, and that is where you have the famous " a house divided against itself cannot stand." Matt 12:25 The Lord does give greater weight to a Christian virtue over all others and that is Love. Remember Luke 7:45-48 The women who wiped Christ's feet with her hair, Christ said " For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much." 1 Peter 4:8 says " Above all keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins." 1 John 4:8 " He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love."
So, the less religious are less concerned about religion, including Obama's wavering faith.
itsallaboutjesusnotme.blogspot.com
Sounds like this individual has some very real issues. One can hope they get the help they need.
ccccc (as known by numerous other aliases as well) is flagging me in retaliation for flagging him. He was posting comments that were inflammatory and using language that was not acceptable. So I flagged him, and contacted CP to inform them of his behavior. Apparently, they booted him, but he seems to be back under anothr alias.
I told him that he could get his message across without using the remarks that he was, and all I wanted him to do was tone it down, but he continued on and even got worse.
Daniel Paul
The CP technical staff has known of this person for some time now. The introduction of his massive flagging came in the early part of March 08 where he went and flagged every comment on every page that appeared on the CP home page. He went by the names danny2, danny, first. They barred these three names and restored all comments and deleted all comments made by him. He continues to change his name. He has gone by dddd, cccccccc, God, xxxx, yyyy, Dwen, Howard, oldguy, asdfg, GeorgeXX, GeorgeX, ERVs, Jerry2, Jerry, danny2, danny, first, BobC, BobCu, and a bunch of other names that I don't remember right off hand. He is forever changing his name. CP apparently isn't queing off the right information to know that it is the same person. When you can register with CP they ask for a lot of personal information. All this can be falsified. You have to give an email address. You cannot use one that is already registered with CP. So giving a fake email addresses is the key. CP doesn't verify the email address and they let you sign on with the ID you want to use. Perhaps CP aught to first verify the email address before allowing someone to post.
Perhaps it's time to let the webmaster know and that person can be blocked by IP address.
it looks like cccccccc (now dddd) is making good on his threat to delete all of star2's and Prophet's posts.
Whose the immature child who keeps flagging Prophet? Grow up!
walker percy didnt sound like he cared about anyone.
looks like flagging wars have begun again.
about an hour before you SUPPOSE to go to bed...yah!
i know! thats the best time to drink it!
yeah yeah yeah yeah
jester, a mountain dew man and a krispy kreme man all in one, you are truly a man of God, I keep trying to tell my wife that real Christian men only drink dew, but she tells me only if they stop drinking it before 6:00PM! I don't get what she means?
who was supposed to bring the donuts and why arent they here? i need my maple covered donut with little sprinkles on top. and a bottle of mountain dew to wash it down
i dont think there is a point.
maybe that's the point.
i think its time for a Bhudie call...
Then what point are you trying to get across?
Ok.
Besides, it's Percy's quote, not mine.
Not at all, Prophet. Walker Percy was a Christian.
Then, on the other hand, I could use a Krispy Kreme about now.
So, are you insulting dumb people, smart people, or everyone that considers themself a Christian?
You, jester, and some others in these CP posts keep reminding me of Walker Percy, who grew up agnostic but died a Christian. When he pondered about "modern people" and their inability to accept God, he wrote:
"It is theoretically possible, if practically extremely difficult, to...become an intact self through the...mode Kierkegaard described when he noted that 'the self can only become itself if it does so transparently before God.' This is in fact, according to both Kierkegaard and Pascal, the only viable mode [to completeness], the others being snares and delusions. There are at least two reasons, having to do with the nature of the age, why this option is so difficult. One is that from the abstracted perspective of the sciences and arts - an attitude of self-effacing objectivity which through the spectacular triumph of science has become the natural stance of the educated man - God, if he is taken to exist at all, is perforce understood as simply another item in the world which one duly observes, takes note of, and stands over against. The other reason is that the God-party, at least those who say 'Lord Lord' most often, are so ignorant and obnoxious that most educated people want no part of them. If they're for it then I can't go far wrong in being against it. It is true that both St. Paul and God are on record as preferring simple folk to the overeducated, especially philosophers. But media preachers have little reason to take comfort. Being uneducated is no guarantee against being obnoxious."
Wow, jester, you're everywhere tonight.
i don't put much thought into my responses when it comes to you. i dont want to waste the effort
I'm pro-Krispy Kreme Doughnuts! that's what i am.
I just wanted to say the word "Bhudies". i like the way it rolls of my tongue. almost sacrilegious since it sound like "bootie" lol...
jester, does that mean you are pro-torture and pro-murder? I'm not sure what you are cheering for exactly.
Thoughtful response, jester.....
yay Bhudies!
Check out the Buddhists who were martyred during Mao Zedong's great Cultural Revolution. Astounding!
igh,
I understand, and agree with you. But Paul exhorts us in Romans 13 to be subject unto the government. But if you read my post at 1:37 am, you will see that I believe that if the government goes against the Word of God, then we, as Christians, are compelled to hold true to Him and Him alone....even to death.
History shows the number of martyrs there are who stood firm in their faith in the midst of evil governments and their edicts.
Yes, we must be careful to not relequinsh God-given freedoms. Even the smallest. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. You give up a small freedom here for "tolerance" sake, and another somewhere else, and another small freedom over here. Even the smallest surrenders add up, and before you know it, you are bound and gagged and being dragged to be martyred.
igh, I am not trying to lead anyone anywhere. You can go wherever you want. Just let me go wherever I want, too. Still, I never want to live in a country where there are no rights, as you see them. You can ask the people who lived under the Taliban how they liked it.
and, Daniel, "Our country was founded starting with the Declaration of Independence. It defined rights as being endowed by our creator. Thus, the creator being the one who endowes determines what is a right and what is not."
European culture was "Christian" at the time of our founding. Only a few people were "Christians" of your narrow persuasion. Many were diests, Unitarians and casual Episcopalians. Everybody paid lip service to "God." Don't read too much into that phrase "endowed by our creator."
i dont believe in rights. i do Believe in Christ. you make a good point , to uphold all God has given us an be good stewards in all things.
But the things of this world is what i was pointing to, i put no faith in them, mankind manipulates corrupts everything. I will not elevate them above my Lord. i.e. the constitution, court judgements, legislatures. Hlerwin is trying to lead many astray by saying we have rights of this and that so have to give gays what they want. Some fall into this trap and give up freedoms God has given us. Because they put Faith in the things that are soon to pass away above God's will. read his 9:36 a.m. post.
"One more thing the children of God dont believe in 'rights' "
Actually we do. In fact, we have the responsibility to be good stewards of our rights given by our Creator. We are responsible for everything we have in stewardship.
hlerwin dont you know we are in a Spiritual war, good against evil even.
the decisions show there willingness to serve God or rebel against him. all courts base decisions on what God says, either they agree with God or deny him. just that simple. I follow the Spirit and he is always true. One more thing the children of God dont believe in 'rights'
Daniel,
Amen! You are right on! People don't want to know the truth, they want to hear something that makes them feel good and that they are good people. Hence, the problem with the gay rights agenda.
I was speaking on another article about who the real Church is. The Catholics believe that if you are simply a member of their church then you are automatically part of the Church spoken of by Jesus to Peter. But notice He said that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. So far the Catholics have had a bad showing in that area.
No, the Church is not a denomination. It's not a particular assembly in a certain town/city. It's a group of true Christians, worldwide, that will stand up for what is true and righteous. They will not bow to the idol of selfishness or religiousness. They bear no name or title other than Body of Christ. They will come from different denominations, but they will be wise in His ways and powerful through His Spirit. They will stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against them.
There will be many who say "We are the Church", who fall by the wayside and drown in false teachings and the doctrines of devils. Many are called, but few are chosen.
The Church will prove it's anointing, not by saying it is the Church, but by storming the gates of hell and being victorious.
Note that gates do not move. They are defensive structures. That means in order for them to not prevail against the Church, the Church must be coming against it. Who is brave enough to face the gates of hell? Who is bold enough, through the power of His Spirit, to storm the very kingdom of hell and set the captives free? Who will be the Church?
"When will CHRISTIANS wake-up and smell the coffee!!??
Obama is baaad news!"
As 'christians' want teachers who 'tickle their ears' they also want a President who does the same thing. Obama looks good and sounds good. That's what they want.
However, Christians (note the difference in capitalization) want someone with correct Biblical morals and values which are clear in the Bible. Our courts had people who twist the Constitution to fit what they want. The liberals want the same in the White House.
"including me, pushing for full rights for every citizen."
Our country was founded starting with the Declaration of Independence. It defined rights as being endowed by our creator. Thus, the creator being the one who endowes determines what is a right and what is not.
Being gay is not a right anymore than the abuse of alchohol or drugs.
"Our constitution is not based on the Bible."
Well... yes and no. I post based on what the Bible says because I am a Christian even if I do not quote chapter and verse. Most who wrote the Constitution were Christians who knew and believed the Bible. Therefore, Biblical principle is written in throughout the document. The Declaration of Independence even talks about rights "endowed by their creator".
True. And the American government will fail us one day, and the United States will fall. But God will never leave us or forsake us.
Prophet, what you say ("If the higher power comes against the Word of God, or tries to force us to do something that is against the will of God, it is our responsiblity to obey God instead of man.") is also, true. You have every right, as a Bible-believing person, to operate in the maner you say. Many other Americans, however, cannot let any religious text trump our constitution. One recent issue comes to mind: the California supreme court ruling on marriage. I think many of the Republican appointees on the court probably are personally opposed to same-sex marriage. Still, when they look at the issue of civil rights, they voted NOT to deny fellow citizens any of the rights that heterosexual couples have. On the other hand, I was personally very sorry about the U.S. supreme courts decision on guns. But that decision came down the only way it could have. Our constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. The conservatives get upset over one ruling; the liberals over another. Both sides scream, "Activist judges!" But, in fact, the courts are just doing their job as they see they must.
Holito,
That is true. But let it be tempered with common sense. If the higher power comes against the Word of God, or tries to force us to do something that is against the will of God, it is our responsiblity to obey God instead of man.
(That is for whoever flagged my last post)
holito,
Amen.
But remember to temper that with common sense. If the higher power is forcing us to go against the Word of God, then we need to submit to God...not the government.
Our constitution is not based on the Bible. Sometimes it might be better if it were. But it's not.
This shows you have a lack to bibical understanding.
Romans 13
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
One of the best aspects of the presidential election this year is that the Republicans do not HATE Obama, and the Democrats do not HATE McCain.
hlerwin,
I admit I was intrigued when Obama came on the national scene - someone who campaigned against all the stupidity, arrogance, and bureaucracy in Washington. Since then he has shown he's pretty much cut from the same cloth, ready to say whatever has to be said to get elected. Talk far left in the primaries, then jump to the center for the national election, and with such speed to give one whiplash.
One of my problems is the other things Obama is against: banning the inhumane procedure called partial birth abortion. Another is rendering care to any baby who happens to survive an abortion. It is unconscionable to put such a baby on a shelf until it dies, but that is what Obama voted for.
Sorry....I have neither the time nor the patience to go through and "correct" all the little boxes that were (mostly, I think) quotation marks in the original. For those of you who will even bother to peruse at "NY Times" article, my apologies......
Part 2, Collins
A year and a half of campaigning and we still haven’t heard Obama’s penguins, either. It’s not his fault that we missed the message â۠although to be fair, he did make it sound as if getting rid of the “old politics†involved driving out the oil and pharmaceutical lobbyists rather than splitting the difference on federal wiretapping legislation. But if you look at the political fights he’s picked throughout his political career, the main theme is not any ideology. It’s that he hates stupidity. “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war,†he said in 2002 in his big speech against the invasion of Iraq. He did not, you will notice, say he was against unilateral military action or pre-emptive attacks or nation-building. He was antidumb.
Most of the things Obama’s taken heat for saying this summer fall into these two familiar patterns â۠attempts to find a rational common ground on controversial issues and dumb-avoidance.
On the common-ground front, he’s called for giving more federal money to religious groups that run social programs, but only if the services they offer are secular. People can have guns for hunting and protection, but we should crack down on unscrupulous gun sellers. Putting some restrictions on the government’s ability to wiretap is better than nothing, even though he would rather have gone further.
Dumb-avoidance would include his opposing the gas-tax holiday, backtracking on the anti-Nafta pandering he did during the primary and acknowledging that if one is planning to go all the way to Iraq to talk to the generals, one should actually pay attention to what the generals say.
Touching both bases are Obama’s positions that 1) if people are going to ask him every day why he’s not wearing a flag pin, it’s easier to just wear the pin, for heaven’s sake, and 2) there’s nothing to be gained by getting into a fight over whether the death penalty can be imposed on child rapists.
His decision to ditch public campaign financing, on the other hand, was nothing but a complete, total, purebred flip-flop. If you are a person who feels campaign finance reform is the most important issue facing America right now, you should either vote for John McCain or go home and put a pillow over your head. However, I believe I have met every single person in the country for whom campaign finance reform is the tiptop priority, and their numbers are not legion.
Meanwhile, Obama has made it clear what issues he thinks all this cleverness and compromising are supposed to serve: national health care, a smart energy policy and getting American troops out of Iraq. He has tons of other concerns, but those seem to be the top three. There’s definitely a penguin in there somewhere.
Admittedly, this "NY Times" columnist was writing for a "liberal" readership. Still, her ideas bear posting here.
The Audacity of Listening
By Gail Collins
July 10, 2008
We have to have a talk about Barack Obama.
I know, I know. You’re upset. You think the guy you fell in love with last spring is spending the summer flip-flopping his way to the right. Drifting to the center. Going all moderate on you. So you’re withholding the love. Also possibly the money.
I feel your pain. I just don’t know what candidate you’re talking about.
Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical â۠except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked â۠and talked and talked â۠about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats.
Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field?
When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,†he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way.
Here’s a helpful story: Once upon a time, there was a woman searching for a guy who was ready to commit. One day, she met an attractive young man.
“My name is Chuck,†he said, grinning an infectious grin. “I’m planning to devote my entire life to saving endangered wildlife in the Antarctic. In five weeks I leave for the South Pole, where I will live alone in a tent, trying to convince the penguins that I am part of their flock. In the meantime, would you like to go out?â€Â
“I have just met the man I’m going to marry,†she told her friends. She had been betrayed by poor listening skills, which skipped right over the South Pole and the tent. Of course, after five weeks of heavy dating, Chuck flew away and was never heard from again.
See Part 2, above.)
You certainly have the right to oppose any laws that you believe sanction any positions which violate your religious scripture. And anyone who tries to keep you out of that political debate does not know how the United States government should operate. I will oppose that person, too, in your behalf. But again, don't complain when the people of California do not vote in the "marriage protection" amendment. That's the way it works. Americans rarely vote to DECREASE citizens' rights. One example of that, though, was prohibition. Look what that brought us.
hlerwin, I can't speak for others but for me personally that is all I'm saying even though others may not agree with our biblical views we as Americans should still be afforded the right to oppose the passage of any laws that we believe would violate biblical principles. But as I've shared before, we need to do this in a way that does not belittle or ridicule those who do not agree with us in these matters.
Of course, believer, you have every right (and duty) to oppose such laws in the political forum. But others are out there, including me, pushing for full rights for every citizen.
Yes, believer. Our constitution is not based on the Bible. Sometimes it might be better if it were. But it's not.
hlerwin, so we should pass these laws in order to meet the self-centered and self-serving desires of people who are willfully living in sin. Christians are to totally disregard the Word of God in order to appease a lifestyle that is totally contrary to the Word of God? Your asking su to condone their sin which in essence makes us guilty as well.
Beside, (although I greatly admire Jimmy Carter) I think the two worst presidents in my lifetime have been Carter and George W. Bush. Both say they are evangelical Christians. Maybe evangelical Christians are unsuited to the job of being U. S. president. I almost think so.
ronwilson4u, the U. S. and the rest of the world is beginning to catch on to the inhuman treatment Palestinians receive as non-citizens of Israel. The Jews treat the Palestinians the way we treated Indians: vermin to be exterminated. God is watching this.
There's an interesting op-ed piece in the "NY Times" today by Gail Collins called "The Audacity of Listening." Her blurb say it all: "If you look at the political fights Barack Obama's picked throughout his political career, the main theme is not any ideology. It's that he hates stupidity."
Amen
believer, you asked:
"hlerwin, other than being acknowledged as a legitmate lifestyle and getting various benefits and tax breaks what are the merits of allowing the passage of laws that allow for same-sex marriages/unions? All the merits are purely self-serving and self-centered for those in the homosexual community."
Are the merits for those of us in the heterosexual community not "self-serving" and "self-centered," too? Don't most of us operate out of enlightened self-interest? We can all try to look after others, but we need to speak up for ourselves sometimes, too. The U. S. Constitution protects each citizen's "self-centered" (for lack of a better word) rights.
igh, I appreciate your earnest post. I know that you try to be accepting, where you can, and that this topic (gays) is a painful one for you. But I just can't agree with you about it.
I was not really re-posting Chino Blanco because of the gay topic, though. Rather, I was "pushing" this idea: "...[you ought to] feel obliged, as Americans, to give them [any American] enough benefit of the doubt, when they say they feel they're being treated unfairly by our government, to get off your high horse for a second and consider whether there might not be some merit to their claims."
hlerwin, other than being acknowledged as a legitmate lifestyle and getting various benefits and tax breaks what are the merits of allowing the passage of laws that allow for same-sex marriages/unions? All the merits are purely self-serving and self-centered for those in the homosexual community.
And one man's "refreshing voice" is another man's false prophet.
Do not be deceived; God will not be mocked. Whatever a man sows is what he will reap.
hlerwin, by telling them the Truth (gays) they are receiving what God wants them to see and hear, his Love. And it isnt something we can understand without him teaching us and showing us. That is why Jesus came to earth! He showed us the Father completely there cant be any misunderstanding who God is and why Jesus had to pay for all our sins on the Cross. Jesus had to die for us.
I dont believe in 'rights' or constitutions or mans laws. I put Faith in God alone on what is good and what is evil.
God is doing the best for the gays if he stands against them, and so many are blind to this, they and all unbelievers can have so much in Jesus, what a wonderful life and then eternal life that must be so wonderful and filled with Joy it is indescribable.
By letting gays have what ever they want will indeed bring this nation and world to its knees in darkness and perversion, the longer man strays from God the deeper he falls in satans snares and rebellion toward God. He builds evil act upon evil act till he is such a repulsive beast not even God can stand to look upon him. i.e. the flood of the ancient world, sodom gomorrah for examples. God will execute Judgement for that rebellion. Its coming at the appointed time and who will escape it?
2Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Please pardon my impulse to ditto what Chino Blanco posted on another site. What he wrote just seems to apply to so many topics on CP. (I think it's a "he." Wouldn't a female be "China Blanca?") Here is his post:
"You know, one person's "ewwww" or "ick" is another person's 'soulmate', 'partner', or (gasp) even 'spouse.'.
Go ahead and boycott McDonald's. While you're at it, why not boycott Hollywood? Because your "ewwwws" and your "icks" have more to do with what you've grown up seeing on the TV and in the movies than it does with anything that Jesus taught.
Or, you could take a deep breath, decide to stop believing all the scare tactics, and allow the state to grant equality before the law to folks who never bothered you at all.
Whatever "agenda" you fear is in the works, I can tell you I already don't like the current agenda where it's acceptable for folks to hold up their religious beliefs as reason for making my gay friends feel like second-class citizens. You don't have to make them welcome in your churches, you don't have to condone their choices, you can carry on with whatever you think is gonna make the world a better place, but by God, you oughta feel obliged, as Americans, to give them enough benefit of the doubt, when they say they feel they're being treated unfairly by our government, to get off your high horse for a second and consider whether there might not be some merit to their claims."
Lord, who is this refreshing voice on the CP posts?
Let us not be igorant of the Old Testament. God did not include it to waste time.
"We are electing a president not a preacher!!! "
God took care to give us at least 4 but there are more book on corrupt kings. God gave us Kings 1, Kings 2, Chronicles 1 and Chronicles 2. There are enough kings who are not prophets or priest, but they are given credit for allowing God people to go astray. Why? They have influence and power as a leader. Remember the priest delivered the word, but the king (president) has the power to make it law. Jesus is both Priest and King. Kings are also suppose to guard God people. Remember Saul failed to defend God's people against Goliath. He was replaced. Do you think God wants someone lukewarm to rule over His people?
What I do find kind of interesting is how CP has an article suggesting he is backed by religious folks and this one saying he's backed by non-religious people.
Why is this suprising? There are muslims, hindu, buddist,and etc. All these groups are considered by the world to be religious groups. Now Christians and Jews fall into another category.
When will CHRISTIANS wake-up and smell the coffee!!??
Obama is baaad news!
"Obama Backed by Less Religious Americans"
While this should be no surprise, what I do find kind of interesting is how CP has an article suggesting he is backed by religious folks and this one saying he's backed by non-religious people.
AFA, CWA, NARTH all play equally vital roles in advocating for pro-family policies. One cannot compare one organization with another organization when each may serve varying functions. One also cannot overestimate the significant role these groups have played in restraining evil in culture by standing for truth with love despite all the hate poured out on them. How ironic! "Anti-gay bigotry" in the eyes of pro-homosexual activists may be a loving and compassionate stance of truth in the eyes of another.
The more violent the hate poured out in a response, the more indicative of the reality of the hurt that a person's heart has experienced. That's why I have personally experienced some of the strongest hate from activists who disagree with my principled beliefs in advocating a biblical worldview.
On another topic, part of good biblical stewardship includes not only how much one gives to the poor and charity but also to which groups one gives to. Groups like World Vision, Compassion International, CareNet, Food for the Hungry, Bethany Christian Services, International Justice Mission, Focus on the Family & many other such groups all do tremendous work in ministering to the vulnerable, poor, innocent, needy & hurting by standing for biblical truth with love and compassion.
Some atheists may disagree with the views of such organizations, which is fine. At the end of our lives, we shall eventually meet our Maker face to face. God will hold each of us accountable for how we have lived our lives whether we realize it now, later, or never.
May Christ's love pierce through the hearts of those who reject Him in anger and hurt. Peace & Grace.
lina said:
<It would be interesting to see what types of "charities" the religous right support. Perhaps it is the rabidly anti-gay organizations like the AFA, CWA, or NARTH. Or maybe the anti-feminist Southern Baptist Convention. It's not just how much is given, but to whom. Would you say that the AFA has a more vital role to play than the secular Medecins san Frontiers; doctors who selflessly provide free services to the needy vs. an orgnization defined by its highly undereducated and needlessly harfmul anti-gay bigotries?>
"Iraq has been a problem for 40+ years which ment it was a problem LONG before 9/11."
Yes, it was a problem for many years, with Saddam murdering people, supporting terrorism, using chemical weapons on civilians and Iran, and creating and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction which the UN spent the 1990's working to locate and destroy or remove while Iraq hid as much as possible, and firing on our pilots. Add to that the now recognized inaccurate intelligence that indicated Iraq had WMD.
Interestingly, it was discovered after the Iraq war that Iraq was actively converting SA-2 Surface-to-Air Missiles into ballistic missiles (and was not revealed to the UN). The US removed 2 tons of ow-enriched uranium from Iraq (sufficient raw material for a single nuclear weapon that would have been converted to weapons grade), with the planned restoration of Iraq's nuclear program had the sanctions in place before the war been lifted, as well as 50 metric tons of natural uranium (this was sold this year to a uranium processing company only this year). There were over 500 bombs discovered with a degraded blister agent, possibly left over from the war with Iran.
prophet, hope your visits went well and know I prayed for you and your brother friends.
Prophet, I did.
Daniel Paul, you can mouse over the 'delete' for your posts and click on it (even though it does not show like its a link, it is). This will delete your post. No one else can delete your posts.
Flagged myself...got a war wrong!
"After all, was it not the religious right which allies itself with the party of war, environmental degradation, divise anti-immigrant plicies, and unbridled profiteering? Yes or no?"
Woodrow Wilson (Dem) got us into WWI.
Frankin D. Roosevelt (Dem) got us into WWII.
Harry S. Truman (Dem) got us into Korea.
John F. Kennedy (Dem) 'bay of pigs'.
Lyndon B. Johnson (Dem) got us into Vietnam.
Republicans are PRO-immagration. Republicans are against those who do not want immagration but want to sneak into the country.
As for the environment. We have some of the best and safest techology on the planet to protect nature when it comes to oil drilling. But, the dems don't want us drilling so China is drilling off the coast of Florida with methods that are a disaster waiting to happen! We won't do it and risk the envorionment...we'll let someone else do it and take no responsibility when oil kills off tourism in the Gulf region.
So, the answer to your question lina is no. We are not the ones...it's the liberals liers who have started most of the wars and then blame the Republicans for it. :-)
AS for unbridled profitering...that's been an equal opportunity on both sides for a couple hundred years now. Who do you think is making the profits from the liberal media?
rolln4him,
I respect you too. Love ya bro. We just need to keep it a wee bit nicer on these boards.
I'm gonna go visit a couple Brothers who are having some physical problems. Be praying for them. One of them had an accident a few years back and has had constant nerve pain. They've done what they can, but they can't make the pain stop. They've done a number of surgeries. It's keeping him from being able to work or anything.
My other Brother just had emergency surgery to have some prostate cancer removed. And he has to have some kind of chemo or radiation therapy.
I would appreciate all your prayers for our brothers.
"IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, EVEN BUSH ADMITS THAT! WHATS YOUR NEXT QUESTION??????????"
No it didn't, Iraq has been a problem for 40+ years which ment it was a problem LONG before 9/11. Thanks though!
"We are electing a president not a preacher!!! "
So, why is he spending so much time in the pulpit?
"many conservatives would rather believe it and twist his words than take him at face value. "
Which face? Obama's shown so many.
--rolln4him--play nice. I haven't flagged anyone yet but there's always a first. Prophets right.
jester has a sying,
"don't argue with an atheist, they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with stupidity."
rollin,
I love you too, brother. I didn't mean for you to run off. Just take it down a notch. lol. I love reading what you have to say, but once in a while you cross that line into the dark side.
Stay away from the dark side!
rollin......I am your faaaahhthuh......
Much respect to you, too ...igh!
Ok, then... I'm taken my saber, armor, shield and other toys, now:(
Rolln go home, now:(
My bad:(
I love you, Prophet and WBM!
My deepest respects go to you guys.
rolln4him , dont let the unsaved bring you into there thinking, you are just playing there game which is satans. A contentious spirit likes a fight, arguing and even pride over witnessing humbly Christs love.
Proverbs 26:21 "As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife."
Romans 2:7 "To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:"
Be an example of Christ :
1Timothy 4:12 "Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity."
1Peter 1:13 "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
1Peter 1:14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
1Peter 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
1Peter 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy."
rollin,
I flagged ccccc for posting comments like yours. If you don't clean it up some, I will do the same with you, brother. It's not personal, it's just that inflammatory remarks, like the one you posted at 5:38 and 6:26. Those were uncalled for. Thanks rollin. I know you mean well, but tone it down a bit please.
Ah, wbm;
Sit your pompous pious hiney down and start throwing some mud. Those heathens know we love 'em. We just like to play with them a bit.
Lina, however, has her studded leather neckbrace on backwards -making her a bit more crabby...... but other than that, we still love her. Here... watch... I'll give her a hug.
There! Does that make wbm feel a little better
This bunch is harsh. If atheists are supposed to be better than religious people, please act like it. If Christians or religious people are supposed to be better or loving or kind, please act like it.
Both sides need to be respectful and stop the calling people names.
You should be ashamed of poor behavior, not vindictive.
But hey, whatever country you want. Who knows, I may just buy your ticket (one way of course) as a going away present. LOL
Israel? Atheistic? LOL! Not only are you a weed smok'n, environmental, hairy pitted lesbian, but you've got to be a blonde!
Thanks for the chuckle.
lina, on my way out the door to Prayer Meeting, but I left a post for you on the most recent article about the California Marriage deal, hopefully you'll check it out and let me know your response, thanks believer. PS: still being new to blogging I don't know how to move my posts from one site to another.
Oh TP - as if we need the Good Book lest we resign ourselves to anything imagineable. Primitive thinking for primitive minds....
You mean like Sweden, France, Israel, Australia, Japan, and Denmark? Yeah, they are awful places to live. Rolln4him - you need to do some serious book-learnin'
tp-
Great point. I always wondered why atheist don't just party hardy. Hey, I'd be doing all the sleeping around possible if it weren't for the convictions as a Christian. Nothing to account for: just me. ME! ME! ME!!!!
I'd like to know where lina gets her "moral" position from? What standard of right and wrong is she able to base her standards on? If she's an atheist, then she and I and everyone else are nothing more than time + chance; nothing but random atoms pieced together by chance. When we die it's over and done with.
why then the "concern" then over Iraq, elections and Christians??? You're doomed to the dust anyway.
Perhaps she's borrowing from the Christian world view (that there is value to life) to debunk it!
All the atheistic based countries I know of have far better records than Americas in human rights. Look at Russian, China, Vietnam and North Korea. No atrocities ever happened there. So I say, run to mama, those countries are eager to cater to your ideals.
Linaaaa!
Now, now! Being a good atheist (make up about 6% of Americans) if you don't like what America is - which is Christian, then why don't you move. There's some atheistic based countries out there that would love to have you?
I'm not talking about Islamic radicals, am I? As an atheist, you don't think I find their ideologies as absurb and dagnerous as those of Christianity? I hope they go their own reformation as well; the sooner the better. I care more about my own country. And its getting stunk up by white Christian trash who are driving its reputation into the dirt.
I don't think you weed smoken; environmental; anti-war wackos get it. Islamic radicals HATE AMERICA. They don't care if you're environmentalist, lesbian, gay, straight, non-religious, high or whatever, they want you dead - unless you convert to their ideology (ex. become a Muslim). So, as they fervently work to get WMDs you need to get off your weed and wake up.
By the way, Lina, how do the radical Islamic's treat those that are gay; how do they treat women. I think the world's closing in on you. Repent and be baptized - know what true freedom is all about.
I know legals that are irate about the illegals because they worked hard to do it the legal way and here they are draining the system money, healthcare and other benefits.
I'm all for the legals coming in because we're the best country in the world. But the illegals are simply criminals. PERIOD.
Lina-
Shave your armpits would you. You're stinking up the place.
rolln4him
[I don't know, but whatever the correlation, it's sure working well. I say we keep them dogs busy over there. And let's show Iran a thing or two as well.]
REPLY:Does this mean your going to suit up and go to Iran, instead of sending someone else's kid?
rolln4him
Get rid of the illegals? If we did that you cheap tight wade SOB's would not have your cheap labor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm pretty sure rolln4him is a white supremacist. And by default, Christian.
jhs-
I don't know, but whatever the correlation, it's sure working well. I say we keep them dogs busy over there. And let's show Iran a thing or two as well.
lina
LOL haaaaaa hahahahah... you got that right, I live in the old oil capital of the world, and you got right...Some one needs to say it.
I say let's nail Iran, drill for oil until America looks like swiss cheese, kick out the illegals, and get to making some real money - Who has a problem with that except for the studded leather strapped lesbians with combat boots. Take a hike Lina and find your own island of disassociated reality!
God, it's great to be an American!
rolln4him
"Iraq or whoever; you still haven't told me how many terrorist attacks we've had on American soil - probably can't count that far."
Well yes, I can count that far. 9/11!!! what does that have to do with Iraq??????????
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About
Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C.
Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more
charitable than secular liberals, and that those who
support the idea that government should redistribute
income are among the least likely to dig into their own
wallets to help others.
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Motives for giving were not mentioned in my post; just reporting the results of the study. Since you make so much more money than many poor Christians, how about a friendly nice challenge to give more of your own money to charity? (In addition to all the additional taxes you voluntarily want to give to support more governmental programs.) No one ever stops you from contributing more of your income as taxes to the government.
Uncomplicated talking points on Obama and Born Alive.
Here they are:
The federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and overwhelmingly in the U.S. House. Sens. Kennedy and Boxer even spoke in support on the Senate floor. NARAL expressed neutrality.
Obama actively opposed nearly identical legislation in Illinois, the sole state senator to speak against Illinois' Born Alive two years in a row.
In 2003, Obama single-handedly stopped identical legislation to the federal Born Alive Act from being introduced in the Illinois Senate as chairman of the committee vetting the bill.
That legislation finally passed in 2005 – the year after Obama left the Illinois Senate – refuting his claim it was unnecessary.
Overarching talking point:
Barack Obama is so radically pro-abortion he supports infanticide, as evidenced by his active opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This makes him further left than any U.S. senator and even NARAL. --Jill Stanek
jhs-
HOW DID YOU KNOW-most people have know idea I'm playing solitaire with myself on the computer.
By the way, I think you keep hitting that cap lock button by mistake. It's the one just to the left - not like your political views - those are way out there in left field.
Iraq or whoever; you still haven't told me how many terrorist attacks we've had on American soil - probably can't count that far.
Secular liberals want to give other people's money to help the poor while Christian conservatives give of their own money to help the poor.
Follow the money... so much for charity.
lina
"I'm definitely for higher taxes on the rich. And we in Blue State America usually pay them to help subsidize the poorer, dumber, Christian areas of America."
LOL LOL, YOUR SO RIGHT, and you probably sent more people into orbit with that statement than anything I have read!!!!!!!!!! But right now the three time married pill popping Rush Limbaugh is on, so they are sitting around clapping like seals at everything he says.
tpique1: do you exercise your right to vote? While its great that you're such soldier for God, we also do have a government, something which Jesus backs (Give to Caesar what is Caesar's...) We do need some divine help to change things, but people also have free will, and God uses people to change things. I believe God could use Obama in wonderous ways. He does have many new ideas. Read the Audacity of Hope cover to cover, there are many thoughts and ideas I have never heard a politician express before. I truly pray he will be the one who breaks the mold, because I don't think we've seen a good president in the White House in quite a few terms.
rolln4him
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, EVEN BUSH ADMITS THAT! WHATS YOUR NEXT QUESTION??????????
oh, yeah - see me cleaning my cuticles while I listen to you and your democraps belly aching all the time.
jhs
I'll give you one big cyber yawn on that one.
While I'm doing that, would you mind telling me how many terrorists attacks have we had since 9/11 ?
rolln4him
Iraq WAS THE DUMBEST THING WE HAVE EVER DONE. Now Iraq is even demanding time tables, either you right wing neo cons are so in denial about the situation or you don't have a clue!!
Mike2685,
He has no new ideas, and in 4 years after he's elected you'll still be as disenfranchised as you are now about the state of our country and the world.
Why? because our nation's problems aren't political - no politician can right a nation - they are spiritual/moral in nature. "We" are the problem; each of us, not "them". Changing politicians is like changing a diaper. Pretty soon you're going to have the same mess as before just a different rear end.
There is a sin problem that fuels every decision human beings make. Change a man's heart from evil to good and everything else is pie. And only God is big enough to change a man's heart from what he does.
mike- I'll give you an ol' cyber pat on the hiney for that one... just don't be taken it wrong.
"Obama Backed by Less Religious Americans"
I think this expresses it all....
LOL!
I think Obama is going to make a fine president. I don't think he's flip flopping on issues, I think there is a horrific mud slinging campaign going on, and unfortunately, many conservatives would rather believe it and twist his words than take him at face value. Obama is a very good man and very intelligent. Our country needs a change, and I think McCain, while smart, is just too old and tired to get the job done. We need someone with energy and new ideas, and Obama will listen to everyone's ideas...even if they come from Roll'n :)
JHS-
Get a clue. He ain't no president material. He's already flip-flopped on enough issues already to make the Clinton's look like statues.
Whatever happened to his pulling out the troops in 16 months bit?
We are electing a president not a preacher!!!
That would make sense: less religious voters don't care as much about the morality of abortion or homosexuality. So Obama's anti-biblical positions would not bother them. Just follow the money trail & count the number of truly authentic believers with biblical viewpoint as supporters. Only those with flawed theological beliefs are able to justify their support of Obama.