Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Society|Mon, Aug. 25 2008 03:01 PM EDT

Democrats Strive to Show They Got Religion Too

By Michelle A. Vu|Christian Post Reporter

The Democratic National Convention looks different this year as Christian and other religious leaders take center stage this week as part of the Democrats’ effort to show a more faith-friendly image to American voters.

  • (Photo: AP/Ted S. Warren)
    Technicians work around the podium during set up at the site of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Sunday, Aug. 24, 2008. The convention starts Monday.

“Democrats have been, are and will continue to be people of faith - and this convention will demonstrate that in an unprecedented way,” Leah Daughtry, CEO of the Democratic National Convention Committee and a Pentecostal pastor, said in a written statement, according to Fox News. “As convention CEO and a pastor myself, I am incredibly proud that so many esteemed leaders from the faith community will be with us to celebrate this historic occasion and honor the diverse faith traditions inside the Democratic party.”

The convention, which officially opens Monday afternoon, will feature its first-ever faith caucus meetings led by prominent leaders to discuss topics important to religious voters.

Faith panel discussions include “Faith in 2009: How an Obama Administration will Engage People of Faith” and “New Faith Voters: What it Means for this Election and the Country.”

Also, every night at the convention there will be an opening invocation and a closing benediction by religious leaders.

In Denver, "there's going to be a lot more" references to faith "than there ever have been," commented Eric Sapp, a consultant who advises the Democrats on reaching religious voters, according to the Wall Street Journal. "As far as the ... Democratic party, this is going to be historic.”

Evangelical megachurch pastor Joel C. Hunter of NorthLand, a Church Distributed near Orlando will deliver the benediction Thursday night when Sen. Barack Obama will accept his party’s nomination to run for president.

Hunter, along with fellow megachurch pastor Bishop Charles E. Blake of West Angeles Church of God in Christ in Los Angeles, are both participating in the convention despite having made clear that they are against abortion, which the Democratic Party supports.

Instead of fighting pro-choice Democrats, the two anti-abortion Christian leaders are seeking to work with them to find ways to reduce the practice.

Other prominent Christians who will be involved in events at the Convention include progressive evangelical leader the Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners and the Rev. Otis Moss Jr. of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

This year, religion is playing such a prominent role at the Democratic Convention largely in part because of Obama’s own emphasis on reaching faith voters.

From Gospel concerts to meetings with some of the nation’s top Christian leaders, the Obama campaign has made connecting with faith voters one of its top priorities.

“People of faith are being engaged in the convention in a new and robust way, and it’s because of Senator Obama’s acknowledgment that people of faith and values have an important place in American public life,” said Joshua DuBois, the Obama campaign’s religious affairs director, according to Fox News.

The Democratic Convention will end on Thursday, and will be followed by the Republican National Convention on Sept. 1-4 in Minneapolis.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    the values party, Im so in!

  • Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    OK...I admit it...I did it...I gave igh the thumbs up. The part that scares me is I was just thinking that song when I brought up the story.

    I'M SCARED NOW!!!

  • Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "My point is that we (evangelicals like myself) are compromising ourselves by inextricably linking ourselves to a political party "

    On that we agree. Maybe we need to form the Values party.

  • igh »
    Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:02 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Gimme that De-mo-crat religion;
    Gimme that De-mo-crat religion;
    Gimme that De-mo-crat religion;
    Its good enough fer me.

    It was good enough for bill,and hillary;
    It was good enough for ted, al, and pelosi;
    It was good enough for white and sharpton;
    So its good enough fer me! :)

    Ye Hah!

  • Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    While I have concerns about her being in the position she could suddenly find herself governing our entire country, I will say that despite McCain's shaky record on the issue, Palin is most likely truly and uncynically pro-life. I don't get the sense that she just says it for votes at all.

  • Tom »
    Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    bob I agree our criteria should be on a persons world view and how they live that out. But as Christian we need to stand up for what is in Gods word and try and elect people that will uphold it. Gods blessing In Christ Tom

  • Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    My point is not that one or the other is better. My point is that we (evangelicals like myself) are compromising ourselves by inextricably linking ourselves to a political party that so often just depends on us as a voting bloc and often cynically uses our issues to garner votes with no follow through.

    If evangelicals had been making the case that the other party was the Christian party, I would be making the same sort of case against that notion. I put my faith in something other than trying to perfect an imperfect world - let's focus on evangelism or convincing people of the beliefs that lead us to our anti-abortion conclusions.

  • Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "A pro-life record in the senate means you checked off your box for us evangelicals who are watching,"

    It was the liberal court for sure that 'legalized' abortion. It is not a law. The court struck down the laws which protected the unborn.

    "And what happened? NOTHING"

    The court can take no actions without a case being brought before it. People like Obama have worked hard to keep any laws from being made. All they have to do is attach something stupid to the bill like $10 billion for bridge construction over the Grand Canyon and the bill would die. They could also kill it in committee. It's just the way our government works (doesn't).

    Still, BobTX, you made is sound like Obama would still make a better President. You've been attacking McCain for a mistake he made a long time ago. The difference is Obama keeps making mistakes today. You don't have to go any further than his voting record.

  • Tom »
    Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Bob that is not true we have for the first time a conservative supreme court and if it was not for the no ethics democrated leaders we would many more conservative judges sitting on the courts. We have a ban on partial birth abortion, (which by the way Obama supports). Plus have many, many new restriction put on abortion and how this murder of the innocent is carried out. Stan to condone abortion—the murder of the most innocent of all humans is to be just as guilty as the one performing the actual murder.
    McCain may not be the best choice in the whole spectrum of issues. And I m not sure I am going to vote for him but, it starts with the protection of the innocent, period. We can argue about the things you accuse the republicans of but I can show you that the democrats are in the same boat in a lot of ways more so and a case can be made that we are at war not started by us or did you forget about 911. The issue is plain are you for life or are you for death. The democratic platform is one of death they do not stand up for anything that is Holy onto God, specially when it pertains to the innocent. Gods Blessing In Christ Tom

  • Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If I honestly believed McCain was going to be an anti-abortion crusader, that would change things. I'm not irrational.

    My issue is that the Republicans had 6 long years in control of every branch of government (at least close on the court - they appointed most of them, but can't control them). And what happened? NOTHING


    A pro-life record in the senate means you checked off your box for us evangelicals who are watching, not that you actually stood up and tried to craft some legislation with a realistic chance of passing and then pushed to get it done. While there are a few very authentic legislators, I think on the whole we have been used for a party to seek power at the expense of our community.

  • Fri Aug 29, 2008 1:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It's different to say in some circumstances a woman should be able to "choose" and actually condoning abortion. Barack and Michelle never aborted a baby of their own as far as I know. Barack confessed to trying drugs as a kid, and knowing his character, he would have confessed to that. I did get a girl pregnant at 15 and we had an abortion. It was before I had a relationship with Jesus Christ, before I read the Bible everyday, and I was suffering from mental health issues at the time. It's something I regret deeply. It's even more important to open up people's minds to the fact that even developing life is precious and when life actually starts is secondary to showing respect to the process of life. The legality of abortion is secondary to opening up people's minds to the harshness of it. To be fair, Senator McCain doesn't condone adultery and neither does Senator Obama condone abortion. That's why he teaches both abstinence and protection as a last resort. But this isn't an issue between abortion and adultery; it's an issue between all the virtues of Christianity you think of vs. all the vices the Lord teaches you to avoid. Some of the vices I see with Republican leaders(not common Republicans) are: looking the other way at torture, rushing to war, greed, lack of mercy and compassion, hateful to others different than them and a tendency to lie to name a few. My mother is Catholic and my dad was Republican his whole life, I'm neither; I think for myself (with Christ's guidance of course).

  • Tom »
    Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    iwill, At least McCain has a voting record that supports his stated postion. Bob why that's just dumb. We are talking about the murder of the innocent not adultry, something McCain has admitted is one of his failings. Your man is PRO DEATH even, even at the moment of birth not to mention silly guy, his stuanch support for darn near everything that is contary to Scripture. So I state once again. If you choose to vote for someone who is PRO DEATH and ANTI family and call yourself a Christian, take another look you are against the heart of God. Gods Blessing In Christ
    Tom

  • Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hey BobTX...the door would have to be closed, right? After all, it's the only thing people have on McCain.

    Now Obama's record is pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-terrorism (we won't stand up to them instead turn tail and run), anti-democracy (leave Iraq to be taken over by thugs from Iran) and the list goes on.

    Obama has no redeeming qualities as a politician unless you have no Christian values. Even in the Christian arena he is reactive instead of proactive. Still, we must overlook all the problems of Obama because of a mistake McCain made years ago.

    Obama is a drunk pot-head by BobTXs way of thinking and I'm not voting for a drunk pot-head.

  • Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    bobtx, so what would McCain need to do to put this adultery thing behind him or is the door already shut on this issue?

  • igh »
    Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    or is that instigater? o im so language challenged. :P

  • igh »
    Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    whats wrong with smoking a cigar? is that a sin?
    this aughta be good discussion , im such a instigator. :D
    and i dont know how to spell aughta :P

  • Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So, Tom, are you going to vote Pro Adultery?

    I think that endorsement of McCain's entire political career having been founded on the windfall of his continued adulterous relationship is every bit as much of an issue as his tepid "Pro-life" label. He said it strong recently, but not so much before he wanted our votes as a bloc like 2000 and 2004.

  • Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Abortion is sin and is a spiritual issue not a political one!"

    Render onto Ceasar that which is Ceasars. In our democracy, each person has a responsibility to be involved in the governing of its people. We have been given, in stewardship, the right to vote and be involved in the political process. It is a sin to not be involved in the process and have our government reflect the majority of people in this country which are Christian in one form or another.

    The rest of the world looks at our country for an example of what being a 'Christian nation' is. How the church has allowed our nation to become so sinful in the name of 'righteousness' is a sin in and of itself. The slackness of the church has caused the gospel to get a black eye in the eyes of the world.

  • Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    To WBMOORE: Careful let us not boast

    Isaiah 41:17 When the poor and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongue failed for thirst, I the LORD will hear them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them

    God claims to be the defender of the poor! Politicians cannot take the credit!

    Habakkuk 3:14 Thou didst strike through with his staves the head of his villages: they came out as a whirlwind to scatter me: their rejoicing was as to devour the poor secretly.

    Man by his sinful nature does not long help the poor!

    Paul addressing the portion of missionaries that traveled with him who did not pull there load, said if any man does not work he shouldn’t eat. This was not an indictment to license the Church to target the poor as to say that they are lazy and don’t want to work.

    For these very reasons politics should not dominate the Church and overshadow the teaching of God’s word!
    Thus any politician or Drunken sailor is in right standing with God because he claims to support the unborn ? God Forbid!

  • Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    To Tom: Just because a man claims to support pro-life doesn't mean that he does. It is the Church's job to peach against sin not the government. if some churches teach salvation and abstinence and not the pursuit of money and politics there would be less abortions.
    Abortion is sin and is a spiritual issue not a political one!

    Some self proclaimed Christians even support hate mongrels for politics sake:

    What ever happen to winning the lost with love? and not politics!

    I John 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

    I John 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

    I John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

    I John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

  • igh »
    Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Jesus Jesus Jesus!

  • Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:19 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    God's people left grain and grapes in the fields for the poor and widows who were not taken care of by their family to work to gather and process for food. It was not simply given them with no expectation of them working for it (except those who had no ability to work in any way). The people were expected to take care of their family, even distant family (see the concept of kinsman redeemer in the book of Ruth). We should help our family. We should help the needy. They should work for what they get.

    Saying you are for helping the poor does not make you a Christian anymore than saying you are against immoral sex or abortion. Only faith in the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ for our sins does that.

  • Tom »
    Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    to iwill---I am going to be bold here. If you say you are a Christian and you allow yourself to vote for a pro-death anti family candidate or a certain party that support a pro-death anti family postiton I would suggest you revisit you belief system. Personally I dont care who you vote for as long as the person you are voting for supports life. specially the most innocent of all the unborn. WHo God knew as He formed us in the womb. This may be hard for you and others but pro-death anti family is not Gods idea of a righteous life. Gods Blessing in Christ Tom

  • Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Saying that you are against Abortion does not make you a Christian. Many a blaspheming Cigar smoking wicked claim as much. Being that eternity is too long to get it Wrong. Make sure you are serving Christ and not some man made ideology!

  • Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Iam a Christian and a Democrat.
    Is Christianity now based on Party affiliation in America?
    In the rest of the world it is still based on individual faith in Jesus. I think that many of you will be surprised when politics will not get you into the pearly gates.
    I think that some groups express more politics than righteousness.

    The Nation of Israel let a portion of the fields for the poor. Leviticus 19:9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.
    Leviticus 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God. I would be eternally careful labeling others non-christianswho do not share your politics.

  • Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "People of faith are being engaged in the convention "

    Everyone has faith. Evolutionists have faith their data is correct. I'm not a person of faith. I'm a Christian. I'm bought with a price. They can have all the religion they want. It doesn't mean they have Christ.

    Yep...that goes for us Republicans too...

  • Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:33 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Chicago

    About killing innocent civilians and Just War Theory. You are confusing two separate issues. Just War Theory is concerned with when a country is justified in declaring war and how that war should be conducted. The killing of innocent civilians (ie collateral damage) is a fact of every war, regardless of why it was started or what ethical principles guide your strategy. The sad but unavoidable fact that civilians are killed is not an argument against any of conflicts that the US has engaged in to date unless you can prove that it was part of our ROE to target and eliminate civilian targets. It's not, BTW. In fact, our current enemies know we are concerned with killing civilians and believe it to be a weakness. This is why they embed themsleves in the civilian population, refuse to don military uniforms and (I have personally witnessed this) will even take women and kids with them to offensive positions so we won't bomb them. Funny, the jihadis seem to know our ROE better than you do.

    The battlefield is a messy place. This is not to say that when I have kids come in all blown to smithereens I just say, 'Oh well'. But it is to say that I understand that whenever you are going to engage in any kind of war, especially a low-intensity insurgency like we are involved in now, innocent people are going to die.

    I would also add that of all the nations involved in the current engagements, we do more to help the local population than any other country. The socialist nations you seem to love so much do NOTHING for the local nationals unless it can be proved that their injuries were specifically caused by their troops.

    This is not to say that I agree with every conflict the US has engaged in. It's just to say that you have yet to make a coherent argument to support what you are saying.

    About the Republicans being 'warmongers'. Really? I served as an infantryman under Bill Clinton for his entire term and deployed twice under him. Clinton had us deployed all over the world throughout his entire administration. We waged a massive air campaign in Kosovo (killing civilians), a complete debacle in Somalia (killing civilians), and were engaged in numerous places all over the world. In fact, if you remember, Sudan offered to turn OBL over to the Clinton administration after the bombing of the USS Cole and the World Trade Center and he refused. Think of all the lives he could have saved, but he didn't. I know you'd love to blame all of the bloodshed in the past 100 years or so on the Republican party, but things are a bit more complicated than that, Chicago. The Dems have plenty of blood on their hands as well.

    I'd write more, but this is already a book. Needless to say, I find your support of socialism to be not only naive, but completely unbiblical. But perhaps we can interact elsewhere.

  • Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I agree with drillman about the Republican party being ready to abandon principles. They have used us Christians for votes promising action on abortion, but look at how little they've done with control of the whole federal government for years.

    And don't look now, but they want us to vote for a repeated adulterer who is now married to one of his rich mistresses who also gave him his political start.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Most kids dont value money because they dont have to buy their own food or clothes, or pay for their own home. When we subsidize, people devalue what they get more and more.

  • igh »
    Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    well chicago24 i will write you in for president lets see how well you do.

    Hmm ok you start by making this a Socialist Nation.
    Then you 'share the wealth' by taking from the rich and giving to you errr i mean to the poor.
    Then you create jobs by umm, errm, ok next, lets skip that one.
    Then you make peace with all the nations who dont like us. (long list)
    Then you take out osama bin laben and his hoards of terrorists and make peace in the middle east.
    There happy happy joy joy. all better now.
    gee that was simple.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    chicago, my family and I lived in Holland in the late 70s and early 80s, they had universal healthcare and the taxes were not high they were through the ceiling in order to pay for universal healthcare and guess who bore the brunt of the taxes, the working class. And they taxed everything one can imagine. How many TVs you owned and even how many radios you owned. Our only saving grace was because we were part of NATO we were exempt from a majority of the taxes.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Wbmoore writes: "Down the road of universal healthcare is socialism."

    Good! Believe it or not, many people are all for a socialist economy.
    Look at the Scandinavian countries - - they have the highest standard of living in the world. All socialist. High taxes? You bet! As it should be.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I would distinguish between basic healthcare to prevent the extremes, as we have basic clean water, but not everything can be covered. There is no end to the things people would like to have done medically.
    The biggest problem with medicine is lawsuits which drive up the costs. Millions of dollars go to malpractice lawyers. Every doctor I know says the costs are around $100,000 per year per doctor for malpractice insurance-- and all that cash goes to the hands of lawyers ultimately. Why does no one protest that? And guess which party is in the pocket of rich lawyers? Why is that better than helping doctors and businessmen, who at least produce something of value to people?

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Down the road of universal healthcare is socialism. Nothing should be provided for free.

    Pay for it, get it, dont pay for it, dont get it. This country is rich, yes - so why put disincentives for people to work? Even the poor are richer than many middle class folks in other countries. Even the poor get better healthcare than people in many countries.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:51 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Regarding parties, I don't believe in saying a party is God's party. But I do believe that some parties get it mostly wrong some times, such as the Bolsheviks, the National Socialists, and the pro-slavery Democrat party in the South before the Civil War, and the church should be unashamed to not treat them the same. If you can't vote for either, fine. But how can you vote for a party that has banned and pro-life speakers from its convention for the past 20 years?

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Here is another thing: no one in America is poor the way people in much of the rest of the world are poor. If you say otherwise you either have never been there, or you are a whiner. So it terms of priorities, stopping killing of babies, and helping the poor overseas have to be the top. How do we help the poor overseas? The main reason they suffer is oppressive and corrupt governments-- it is not money, as we give them cash every year and the governments steal it. How to we stop that? Stop supporting the UN which props up these fascists with moral authority, and have a foreign policy with teeth to confront dictators. Yet Obama is totally pro-UN and wants to legitimize dictators by having talks with them forever.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore: I also believe everyone should work, but in a country as wealthy as the U.S., it is an abomination that we don't have universal healthcare.
    I think everyone who opposes it should have to spend eight hours in a public hospital waiting room while they have a child with a fever of 103.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Drillman: Specifically, the children of gay couples are denied Social Security death benefits of both couples as well as health insurance that each couple could provide. Inheritance can only be given to the children if wills are set up ahead of time.
    All these benefits are provided to children of heterosexual married couples, but denied to children of gay couples.
    I lived in Canada for three years and would move back there in a heartbeat and gladly give up my U.S. citizenship. However, I have close family and friends here in Chicago that I'm not willing to part with.

    I'm not just referring to Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. military has a long history of killing innocent civilians. These cases never come anywhere near close to being justified when put to the test of the Just War Theory; a Christian ethical position I might add.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Helping the poor is important, but there is a huge debate about that. If you look at how socialist policies have worked in other countries they have led to self-destruction, either under communism, or in Europe today, where no one can afford to have kids and they are going to die off in a generation. (And that was with Europe spending not a dime on its own defense.) On the other hand hard working capitalist countries produce jobs and wealth. So just well-meaning words about helping the poor aren't enough.
    But even if you think socialism is the way to go, how can you put economics ahead of killing a whole population? Hitler helped the economy of Germany. Just look the other way about that "divisive" issue of killing Jews!
    Here is the other thing: I am an academic at a secular university, and I can tell you that academics like Obama hate free speech and want to work to shut down Christian churches that preach against homosexuality, abortion, etc. Obama is not a Muslim, he is an academic leftist pure through. Check out the speech codes on campuses if you want to see what they would like to do with freedom of speech and religion in society in general.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I believe people need to take care of themselves if at all possible (Pro 6:6; 2 Thes 3:10). But at the same time, people should care for the aliens, poor, widows and orphans (Lev 23:22; James 1:27), but I also think Scripture is clear as to which widows the church is to care for (1 Tim 5). Scripture is also clear that people should work for their food (Lev 23:22; 2 Thes 3:10).

    I see nothing in scripture that says the government should pay for people to not work. If we are going to provide food, housing, and medical support, the people should work for that support in any way possible. If the only thing they can do is lick stamps, they should do that. If the only thing they can do is push a broom, they should do that. If all they can do is talk, then we should provide ways for them to work by talking in order to garner the support they need. No one who can do any sort of work should get free support for very long. If they have no training, we can give them on the job training while they work for the support they are getting. There's nothing wrong with putting people in the military or conservation corp or something to make them work for the support they want.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    What I find fascinating in this whole debate is that these parties believe that people are so naive. And they are right. I am so sick of so called "Christian" leaders who claim to speak for me, whether to the right or left. There is nothing wrong with being involved in politics but anytime that people vote for a party instead of a particular person then they are being naive. One of the worst things evangelicals did was to align themselves with the Republican party and now the same goes for evangelicals who align themselves with the Democrat party. Politics never can save a country. Christians should be willing to work with Christians of any stripe or color for social justice for we are called to be ambassadors or reconciliation. But when are we going to wake up and realize that a Presidential candidate and/or party will pander to get your vote and will say anything to get your vote and will do anything to get your vote. Wake up and stop being so naive, whether you describe yourself as a Republican or a Democrat. Seek the only one that matters, Jesus.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sorry, my computer just did something weird. My point is on that, don't be too quick to throw that around unless you know more than what the media paint for you on CNN. Talk to those of us who've been there a few times and then you can speak intelligently on the subject.

    About wealth in the hands of the rich...I don't know. I started out in a dirt poor and by joining the military, taking the GI college fund and taking advantage of the numerous opportunities already available, wound up eventually getting a doctorate. My point? The principle of personal fiscal responsibility is something I happen to agree with. Look at Proverbs, it is enshrined there in the illustration of the ant. This is not to say I don't agree with the what the Gospels teach about giving to the poor, because I do agree and practice it. What I question is whether these directives given to believers are rightly ripped out of their original context and then applied to the government of the United States in order to justify a socialist agenda. That is a tactic of liberalism that I disagree with.

    And what of the children of gay couples? Or more specifically, gay marriage in general. I personally do not think the republican platform on this issue is unified or strong enough. We all know it is not acceptable to say that homosexuality is wrong. It is political suicide. Republicans are politicians, not a Christian ticket. In the last eight years, they have proven themselves to be willing to abandon their professed core values to try to woo voters on the other side of the aisle. They will test the waters and do what they think they need to do in order to get elected. But let me ask you one question, what, specifically, are you referring to? What social benefits are the children of gay couples currently being denied? This is not a rhetorical question.

    As I said, I think it is a mistake to identify a party with your religion, and I resent it when political parties try to support their platform by prostituting Scripture in order to sway Christians. Read your Bible and vote for 1) who you think best lines up with your values (which as a Christian, should be informed by Scripture) and 2) who will protect your and your families' right to practice your religion. If you don't think liberalism can and will try to stomp out Christianity in America, look at Canada and think again.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chicago wrote:
    "The Republicans have proven to be war-mongers, freely justifying the killing of innocent civilians in other countries."

    Really? Have you been to Iraq and Afghanistan?

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Both parties can have all the religion they want. Christianity is not a religion, it's a Person and that Person is the Second Person of the Trinity, our Lord, Jesus Christ.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    My morals and Christian principles make it impossible for me, in good conscience, vote for any Republican.

    What about supporting "women and orphans?" The Republican platform keeps all the wealth in the hands of the rich.

    What about being pro-life? The Republicans have proven to be war-mongers, freely justifying the killing of innocent civilians in other countries.

    What about being pro-family? The Republican platform advocates keeping the children of gay couples from having any social benefits.

    Pro life? Pro family? Pro marriage? The Republicans are none of these.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    What saddens me is that Christians are so desperate for any kind of recognition or approval from the world that this strategy will probably work: singing a few Gospel songs, having a megachurch pastor praying next to a Buddhist and a Muslim, will mean that some Christians will be so excited they will vote Democrat even though Obama and the party is committed to letting people kill babies all the way up to after they are born, not to mention all the other policies that will not change one bit.
    Plus, Obama is promising a cash handout to faith-based ministries. Who can turn down that! Just as the government in the last century started handing out cash to local schools which turned into taking them over.
    Why oh why do people think we have to be neutral about parties? If we lived in Europe in 1920 would we have to be neutral about the Nazi and Communist parties?

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Now now. The Republican party is no better.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well put, JC! You nailed it!

  • JC »
    Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The title of the article says it all: "Democrats Strive to Show They Got Religion Too".

    That's the problem, they're full of religion, like the Pharisees. Only now in the 21st century, they are now encompassing all religions instead of just Judaism. For it would seem that these are seeking the approval of humans rather than God.

    "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:20)

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I find it hard to believe anyone who loves God and is not dumb, deaf, and blind would not be able to see certain of the liberal policies of the democrats are of satan.

    Its hard to believe there are christians who value socialism so much they would vote in a party that continues to drag down the morals of this country.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links