Posted by Helen on: 10.30.2008 /
If you thought last week’s video was pushy, what about this?
You cannot be a Christian and vote for Obama
To all those who name the name of Christ who plan to willfully disobey Him by voting for Obama, take warning. Not only is our nation in grave danger, according to the Word of God, so are you.
Comment by: Craig
1 10/30/08 8:44 AM | Comment Link |Oh, I’m scared. I wonder if I can track down my absentee ballot and change it so that I won’t be “in grave danger”. Or maybe God will forgive me for this sin;-)
Someday soon the abortion issue won’t have as much leverage among Christians as it does today and then all of the sudden Christians won’t give a shit about babies anymore, it’ll be about some other random issue…it’s good politics, eliminate all other variables and make it about one thing. Politics suck.
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
2 10/30/08 8:49 AM | Comment Link |How ironic. I keep telling my partner she can’t be a Christian and vote for McCain, what with the slaughter of innocent Iraqi’s, “bomb bomb bomb Iran,” the death penalty, etc.
Comment by: Helen
3 10/30/08 8:50 AM | Comment Link |Craig wrote:
Craig, I think you had better hope your wayward vote is not the unforgivable sin.
It certainly makes things simpler if you reduce everything down to one issue.
Check out comment #12 on Justice and Compassion where a pastor takes Jim to task for his failure to focus on the one issue, abortion.
Comment by: Helen
4 10/30/08 9:44 AM | Comment Link |Doreen, I think a lot of Christians feel like you do in spite of this article.
Comment by: joe
5 10/30/08 10:01 AM | Comment Link |Seeing as we’re collecting fruitcakes, check out this on from the comments of this blog.
That’s right, michelle doesn’t like obama because he she is scared of his middle name and he is ‘really for’ those pesky manorities. Whatever they might be.
Comment by: Helen
6 10/30/08 10:16 AM | Comment Link |Joe, a lot of Americans are scared of his middle name and/or that he is a closet Muslim.
Comment by: no offense
7 10/30/08 5:12 PM | Comment Link |Without a doubt, Obama’s position on abortion is troubling. But so is McCain’s on the death penalty.
I admit, I have a hard time understanding how anyone who believes in a Creator (who actually cares about this world and what we do with it) could be in favor of killing a fetus for any reason short of the life of the mother. But, I also have a hard time understanding how anyone who follows a most unlikely Messiah (who refused the path of the sword unlike all the Messianic claimants before and after him) could be such advocates for war, and the death-penalty.
I wonder how liberals can stomach the thought of what actually takes place during a partial birth abortion (I assume they conveniently don’t think about it). But I also marvel at the ability for conservatives to state their case that the very fetus they want to save from an abortion no longer deserves any legal advocacy (in terms of health care, etc.) after the birth! (I assume they simply avoid ‘those parts of town.’)
I find that whomever is talking (conservative or liberal) I usually am frustrated by the willful ignorance. This woman is a case in point.
Comment by: Jim J
8 10/30/08 9:13 PM | Comment Link |It’s true, period. I already voted for McCain and my conscience is clear.
Comment by: fernando
9 10/30/08 11:39 PM | Comment Link |Am I the only one who finds the clear conscience line deeply disturbing? I’ve heard it quite a few times in recent weeks, this argument from absolute moral certainty in voting for a candidate (usually McCain).
I just can’t see how a Christian can ever have such moral certainty for any candidate. Political support is always about compromise - we choose the candidate that aligns with our morality on the greatest number of key issues.
But, to baptise a candidate not just as the only choice for Christians, but as containing no positions, ideas or history that could cause a Christian to have some concerns seems very, very unwise.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
10 10/31/08 12:49 AM | Comment Link |I read Janet’s post. The passages she has chosen from the bible are all good, and right. Why is it that her post is so unconvincing?
Here is what I think happened:
The implication is
1. that a Christian must vote for McCain (she does not say this)
2. that if you do vote for McCain, you will be meeting the minimum standards set by the selected passages (false, I think)
3a. that the passages refer only to abortion (they do not), or
3b. that abortion, for Christians is more important than other murders or evils. This may be, but she needs to claim it and say why. Perhaps abortion is aggravated genocide?
4. that abortion *is* murder. I assume she means ‘from conception’, but she should say so and defend it. The OT seems to draw back from that, as a civil offense. Until science found DNA, an argument that abortion was murder from conception could be hard to defend, and was not historically. If she means ‘late-term’, many pro-choicers also claim this, but you have to press them before they will say it.
She does not consider that:
1. One may vote against a law prohibiting immorality, on the grounds that the moral laws and the civil laws serve different purposes.
2. One may vote for a candidate for president even if that candidate favors an immoral law, since the president does not make the laws.
3. (re: the election is about obeying God) All of our actions are about obeying God, but this can leave a good deal of latitude.
4. The track record of “speakers for God” has been mixed
5. (re: our country will collapse) It does not take a prophet to predict a collapse
6. (re: YouTube clip) She thinks Obama wants to use the courts, to redistribute wealth, whereas Obama says, specifically, that the courts would not be a practical way to do it.
7. (re: YouTube clip) And how does this fit in with ‘abortion’? Answer: it is a non sequitur. It makes one think she is incoherent.
One does not need address, then, her request that people stop calling themselves Christians if they vote for Obama. As a request, we can safely deny it. But I don’t like that she wants to slam the door on being called a “bad” christian.
Comment by: Tyler Mahoney
11 10/31/08 2:02 AM | Comment Link |If this is true then I’m losing my salvation.
Comment by: Helen
12 10/31/08 6:10 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comments, everyone.
Tyler, you and lots of other people!
Comment by: Elaine
13 10/31/08 8:49 AM | Comment Link |this woman’s blog sooo fits with Kinnaman’s research on why people think badly of Christians.
How interested do you think God really is in our politics - so, if as many people believed in last election - God really picked George W. Bush - what does that say?
Regarding abortion - My husband mentioned that Judaism takes a different view of abortion…
I read several sites and they all seem to say very similar things…the Jews have a very interesting and what seems to me - more holistic approach to abortion. The fetus is viewed as a potential life - and not a life until the head has emerged from the woman’s body. The decision for abortion is made in consultation with all family members and the rabbi.
As a woman who has had 4 pregnancies - let me say abortion is not right for me. I cannot make that judgement for you.
Does anyone know if Christian views on abortion came from Catholicism? If so, what does that mean?
Is there anyone on this blog who could respond to other non-Christian views of abortion?
Comment by: David H
14 10/31/08 12:04 PM | Comment Link |McCain’s view on abortion and its ancilary issues is pretty extreme. Here is a quote from an NPR story outlining his positions.
One of the hallmarks of recent U.S. politics seems to be the abandonment of rational consideration in favor of single issues that trump everything else. In the past two elections my brother voted for George W. Bush because he was “the most moral candidate.” I didn’t agree in 2000, but I found his view inexplicable in 2004 when the Bush administration had clearly lied, spied and caused the death of many innocents by pursuing an illegal and unintelligent war in Iraq.
That last point struck me strongly when Janet Porter used passages from Proverbs to convict those followers of Jesus who disagree with her that they are only pretending to not know what they should do.
Maybe it’s just me, but these seemed at least as pertinent to the ongoing wars in Iraq (heck, much of American foreign policy in the last several decades) as they are to the issue of abortion.
Just as a moral exercise, I thought my way through the rest of the 10 commandments (those stone tablets, by the way, have become a convenient way for “Christians” to love the law and hate the law-breakers).
1. Love God above all things — Where does that leave the United States? If I choose my country over God by doing something like accepting the murder of innocents (collateral damage) or stealing from neighbors (American interests).
2. Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain — using God to defend the pursuit of American or self interests should qualify as violating this commandment.
3. Keep the Sabbath — I’d love to see modern American Christians strictly following this rule. I think it prohibits watching and playing professional football. Fortunately, Penn State remains holy on the gridiron.
4. Honor your father and mother — Does that have more to do with respect or slavishly accepting their view of the world? Just wondering.
5. Don’t commit murder — According to Wikipedia: The Bible treats the case of accidental homicide with much severity. The term “murder” (רצח) is even used in the case of an accidental killing (Num 35:22-23). In this case, however, there were appointed cities where the accused could go and await a trial (Num 35:24). If the death was found to be indeed accidental, he was allowed to live in “exile” in the city of refuge until the death of the current High Priest (Num 35:25).
The Talmud indicates that the severity of punishment for an accidental homicide is due to the assumption that the killer FAILED IN HIS DUTY OF CARE while performing a dangerous action. If this was not the case, the killer is not subject to punishment.
Does this include collateral damage in war? What about executed criminals later found to be not guilty? Does this only include the person who flipped the switch and/or pulled the trigger; or might it also include any endorsing those actions. Ms. Porter, like myself, seems to believe that if you allow it, you are as guilty as if you endorse it.
6. Adultery — Not to point fingers (three back at me after-all), but how does McCain’s position on abortion trump his violation of this law?
7. Don’t steal — To all the native peoples of this country, and the slaves brought with approval of US laws (not to mention the countries still exploited by US firms and interests), sorry. That’s a violation of God’s laws.
8. Don’t bear false witness — hmm, weapons of mass destruction anyone?
9. Don’t covet your neighbor’s house — how about his oil fields?
10. Don’t covet your neighbor’s wife — hey, maybe we’re safe on this one.
2-10 summary: Love your neighbor as yourself — That would seem to preclude willfully harming another unless you have a masochistic bent yourself. I think the repudiated Rev. Jeremiah Wright spoke forcefully on how the rest of the world perceives America’s keeping of this encompassing commandment.
The issue with the commandments is that they don’t each stand alone. They are part and parcel to each other. Break one, you break them all. And we all have broken at least one. So, either we discard the commandments, allow them to condemn us one and all, or we accept that GRACE is the single issue (if there can be only one) that Christians should live by.
Any thoughts on which candidate is dictated by Grace?
Comment by: Pseudonym
15 10/31/08 6:17 PM | Comment Link |What would Jesus Do?
Obviously: He’d drill, baby, drill!
Comment by: Eliza
16 10/31/08 9:53 PM | Comment Link |Ugh. Ms. Porter seems certain that she knows God’s mind. IMO she’s falling into the old trap of picking out quotes which support her views, maybe missing the big picture, the biblical forest, as David H so nicely discussed above, for those few conservative Christianist trees which really push her buttons.
It’s ironic that she uses Mark 10:7 to emphasize the special status of heterosexual marriage, contrasting it in her essay to (same-sex) “partnerships” - when the actual context, Mark 10:1-12, is Jesus teaching that remarriage after divorce is adultery. It’s not the only place in the Bible in which adultery & divorce are called sins. Now, which one of the presidential candidates is divorced & remarried - and committed adultery even by modern terms in the process? And why wouldn’t that issue be part of the consideration if one is using teachings from the Bible to decide between candidates? (Disclaimer: I bring this up as a counterexample & for discussion, not because that’s the issue upon which I’ve based my decision.)
Ironic, too, because immediately following is the story of the rich man in Mark 10:17-24, in which Jesus says “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me” - but the rich man goes away saddened, apparently because he can’t fathom doing that.
Who’s the Redistributor-in-Chief in this story? Who is showing “socialist” tendencies?
And, remind me….which presidential ticket is it whose members & followers object so strongly to Any Hint of “spreading the wealth” like Jesus said should be done???
And yet she feels she can say with certainty that to vote for Obama is to “willfully disobey [Christ].”
…It feels so much like she is referring to someone other than Jesus.
Comment by: benjamin ady
17 11/2/08 3:00 PM | Comment Link |Guess I’m okay with that, personally, since I’m not a “Christian” by this writer’s definition. And glad of it =)
Comment by: Martin Gugino
18 11/2/08 6:08 PM | Comment Link |One of my ‘favorite’ verses.
Comment by: marion
19 11/3/08 2:18 AM | Comment Link |it’s so frustrating that so many mislead about Obama’s position on abortion and his beliefs on this.
It is very hard, it seems, for some to understand how someone can be ‘pro-choice’ [for others, possibly not themselves], but NOT pro-abortion.
I’ve been thinking about the lack of reading skills and comprehension skills amongst the American and the British public.
Not that I’m an academic, or find it easy to understand some things, but I stretch and exercise my mind with reading and have actually grown in reading comprehension even in my 40’s.
I think many could.
Of course Barack Obama is an intellectual [a Harvard Law graduate would be], so some things he says and writes are not always understood correctly.
That he speaks with depth does not have to be a bad thing.
So many want to drag him and others down [calling them 'elitist']…but do we really want a U.S. President that speaks in the so-called ‘ordinary’ language of ‘gotcha’ and ‘you bet’ and unthinking cliches?
The better way, surely, is that others rise up in understanding [and that is one of the things he wants to encourage]…instead of wanting to drag him and others down to their chosen level.
Anyway - this gives his true belief on abortion etc…
I hope some readers who have expressed a concern would take the time and trouble to try to grasp what is meant…
Put Away Falsehood
http://www.matthew25.org/paf/index.htm
Comment by: Craig
20 11/3/08 12:43 PM | Comment Link |I received an e-mail this morning from a friend of mine who mistakenly took me to be pro-McCain. The e-mail, which was sent to a number of people, urged people to vote no matter how grim it looked for McCain and to pray for his victory. My first inclination was to discard the e-mail and ignore it, but after some thought I decided to respond to let my friend know how her e-mail made me feel as an Obama supporter. Essentially I told her that it made me feel as though she was judging my Christianity based on voting preference. She responded very kindly and we are now in dialogue about it. Thanks Helen for helping me make that step to open up a discussion rather than steering away from difference. You do a great job of modeling friendly dialogue on this blog…it is motivating.
Comment by: Helen
21 11/3/08 1:00 PM | Comment Link |Thanks Craig! I’m glad you were able to initiate a respectful discussion with your friend.
Comment by: Helen
22 11/3/08 1:00 PM | Comment Link |marion thanks for the Matthew 25 link. As you say it’s frustrating hearing people misrepresent Obama’s position on abortion.
Comment by: Peter Walker
23 11/5/08 12:15 PM | Comment Link |I’ve been getting a lot of that rhetoric at my blog: http://www.EmergingChristian.com. I wrote a post in response to my mom a few days ago…
—————————
“I LOVE ABORTION”
Just kidding. I really don’t.
And I don’t find it funny to joke about. Except that Christians have been sold a lie that the only issue that matters is the “Right to Life.” But evangelicals don’t really care about the rights to life for everyone. They care about the rights of the unborn. Once you’re born - OOPS! Too bad. There’s no healthcare or welfare, shelter, advocacy or education for you. That’s the American Dream: pull your own bootstraps.
I probably got myself into trouble today. My mom told me that she respected my views, but that she couldn’t vote for Obama because she’s Pro-Life.
I e-mailed her in response:
I hope she (Mom) isn’t too mad at me. But until we begin living a consistent ethic for human life (read: Jim Wallis) and take Jesus’ Beatitudes seriously, “pro-life” is a distracting, deceptive, even meaningless term to be using, because it’s not honest.
I cannot, and will not, consider myself “pro-life” until genuine meaning is restored to those words.
Comment by: Helen
24 11/6/08 2:20 PM | Comment Link |Peter, I agree - belief systems which focus more on the unborn than already born make no sense to me.