Posted on 08/15/2008 6:59:45 AM PDT by Schnucki
John McCain and Barack Obama each has a problem with religion. Who will the faithful follow?
IN 2007 James Dobson, who heads Focus on the Family, a powerful Christian group, said that he “would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances.” Mr Dobson said he was worried that the Republican was “not in favour of traditional marriage, and I pray that we won't get stuck with him.” But now Mr Dobson is reconsidering. It is a strange year for religious voters trying to decide between candidates who, on Saturday August 16th, will air their views on matters spiritual and earthly by talking in turn to Rick Warren, a megachurch pastor in California.
In 2000 and again in 2004 the choice was easy: George Bush wore his religion on his sleeve, declared that Jesus was his favourite philosopher and staunchly promoted religious-conservative positions. This year things are rather different. Mr McCain is an infrequent churchgoer and he hardly mentions his faith. When asked about it, he often speaks not of himself but of one of his North Vietnamese captors, a Christian who treated him kindly. He made enemies on the religious right in 2000 by saying that Jerry Falwell, a televangelist, was among harmful “agents of intolerance”.
He has since been trying to make up ground. He boasts a strong anti-abortion voting record in the Senate and this year he backed a gay-marriage ban in his home state (although he opposed a federal constitutional amendment on it). He has even spoken at Rev Falwell’s university. Still, Karl Rove, who successfully made religious conservatives into effective shock-troops for Mr Bush in the past two presidential elections, thinks that Mr McCain needs to talk more about his personal faith. Mr Warren’s church may give him the opportunity.
Mr Obama has a different set of problems. He has been a Christian since early adulthood. He talks in detail about his faith, and in speeches can cite the books of Micah and Isaiah, or how Leviticus and Deuteronomy cannot be applied letter-for-letter to the modern world. His youthful community-organising fits well with his notion of the “social gospel”. Whatever the numbers of ill-informed (about 10% think he is a Muslim), Mr Obama’s faith is genuine.
But his inflammatory former preacher, who made paranoid and angry anti-American statements from his pulpit, almost derailed Mr Obama’s quest for the Democratic nomination. Mr Obama may want to use his time with Mr Warren to explain to white, middle-American Christians what he saw in the feisty black church he has left. Mr Obama’s church might not be such a big issue if his politics were different. Many Christians, Mr Warren included, are starting to expand their political concerns to include poverty and climate change. But “sin issues”, abortion and homosexuality chief among them, continue to motivate better than anything. Mr Obama is staunchly pro-choice and gay-friendly.
White, evangelical Protestants favour Mr McCain heavily. A survey in June suggested that 61% of them back the Republican, with just 25% for Mr Obama. But it is not all gloom for the Democrat. Barna, a Christian pollster, suggests that Mr Obama is widely liked by Christians of different stripes. Earlier in the year religious leaders, even conservative ones, who participated in an off-the-record conversation with Mr Obama reportedly came away impressed. Thus, despite their traditional party-line positions on social issues, Mr Obama’s comfort with religion and Mr McCain’s distance from it have clearly shaken up religious politics in 2008.
One group of religious voters is particularly intriguing: evangelicals. Mr Obama is unlikely to win among them, but it would help him if he could avoid losing by huge margins, as John Kerry and Al Gore did. But as attention to the race heats up, his record on abortion in particular will be held up to intense scrutiny. As an Illinois legislator he voted against a bill that would have required doctors to treat babies born alive during abortions. He explains that language in the bill would have undermined Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision that guarantees abortion rights. In the Senate he voted for a similar bill which did not contain the anti-Roe language. But Christian conservatives may be swayed by his Illinois vote and find themselves, along with Mr Dobson, giving Mr McCain another look.
“Mr Obama is widely liked by Christians of different stripes.”
By those who have fallen away or who are CINOs.
Because Dobson, like far too many Americans, including conservatives, have become accustomed to looking to the Supreme Court and the Fed. gov't to make the rules.
McC is FOR traditional marriage, had said so _ BUT, he is a strict Constitutionalist.
He believes that most issues, such as this one, is a STATES RIGHTS issue - that should be decided by the individual states. He believes that the SCOTUS should only get involved if the federal gov't tries to override a states decision.
THAT, my lassies and laddies, is TRUE Conservatism - something, it appears, a lot of pat-on-the-back conservatives, even in FR, do not understand.
He has since been trying to make up ground. He boasts a strong anti-abortion voting record in the Senate and this year he backed a gay-marriage ban in his home state (although he opposed a federal constitutional amendment on it).
A 'little' editorializing here: "He has since been trying ... he boasts a strong anti=abortion"
He doesn't need to make up ground - people need to understand the Constitution. And he doesn't need to "boast' a strong anti-abortion' stance. He has the record to prove it.
And yes, he "opposed a federal constitutional amendment" re gay-marriage - for he same States Rights CONSTITUTIONAL reasons.
Here we have a man who wants to allow the people of the individual states to have their Constitutional Rights, and we slam him for it.
I think these men need to revisit history of western civilization and the things that made the “west” successful.
They have to ask why are we different?
I do not know why they find this ... tough.
The G7 are the successful, “western industrialized nations”.
What is the common philosophical thread that made them successful?
Democracy augmented with Christianity. I would argue the single largest contributing force to democracy is Christianity. Its that package of rights, freedoms and laws that define us.
Conversely, generally where Islam prevails, you have the opposite. No rights, no freedom, highest illiteracy, highest unemployment and greatest social turmoil.
Tough to understand, isn’t it?
So, tell me where does God fit into this?
You can't move the country back in the right direction by choosing to move in the wrong direction at a slower pace (i.e., the Republicans, as opposed to the Democrats).
And all of that works up to the point where States start legalizing Homosexual Marriage and then Other States have to honor those contracts (I believe this falls under the 14th amendment, but don’t quote me because I am definitely not a constitutional scholar).
This and his refusal to back a Human Life Amendment to the constitution were the only two things I had against Fred Thompson, however, they are both wrong on these issues and their refusal to look at the reality of this scenario and blather on about States Rights as some sort of honorable cover is nauseating.
And you sure as heck can't help by voting in a way that ensures victory to the WORST of the candidates!!
Like it or not, your third party vote is a vote for obama!
There is no way I will vote for that nincompoop.
Wrong question!
Will the Christian voters vote for John McCain or stay home?
That is the question.
Anyone who calls themselves a Christian and can vote Democratic is deluding themselves. They might be religious but they are not portraying Christ attitudes.
So we want strict Consitutionists - and States Rights per the Constitution - except in certain cases. i.e, pick and choose when to negate States Rights.
I believe McC stated that States Rights on these issues should come first - and that their decisions should not be encroached upon by any other states - and if so, THEN he'd support taking it to the SCOTUS to protect the sovereignty of the individual states.
Wow, that's a concept = Constitutional law.
'seems too many generations of gov't schools brainwashing has produced too many people now who have very little, if any, real understanding of the Constitution and it's protections against rule from the top/
The Saddleback Church website is going to offer live streaming for their forum with Obama and McCain tomorrow night.
http://saddlebackcivilforum.com/index.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.