John McCain- Sarah Palin...its over. I know a LOT of conservative folks hoping these two can turn it around. Its too late, the race has broken the other way. This is going to be an Obama landslide. Its a sad note in our nation's history that a massive majority of Americans - including (just incredibly!) many Christians - will vote for the most radically pro-baby killer we've ever seen. What did it?
Carville's dictum: "Its the economy stupid."
FAR MORE Americans are more concerned about the mammon god than they are about pleasing God.
Not only that, the recent 'fiscal crisis' has (oddly enough) driven people to Obama, despite the fact that both McCain and he support the bailout which, evidently, a lot of people strongly oppose. Why hasn't their support of the measure - indeed their open determination to pass the measure - turned voters away from both candidates?
One suggestion: simply put, as long as America is going to go down the big and getting bigger Federal government pathway, most voters must believe that the person to run the new semi- socialist economy would be the candidate of the party most closely aligned with secularist and socialist principles, and that is Barack Obama.
Just imagine for a moment how this would have gone for 'Maverick' McCain if he had suspended his campaign to OPPOSE the bailout! What if he had loosed Palin on the special interest pet causes of the Republicans - as they love to claim they were going to do in DC. That would have set up a HUGE contrast with Obama and made McCain the champion of conservatives, main street, and independents. This was a tragically lost opportunity. McCain was right to note there was a crisis, but he was dead wrong in how he handled it. In the end, it may not have made any difference in this election; we'll never know.
The Republicans are an exhausted party on the national level, desperate for new leadership. This election will punish the party for the way it abandoned its own principles (as McCain readily admits), and for the second Bush term, which has resembled Jimmy Carter's first, right down to the gas shortages.
Now then, can McCain and Palin pull this out? Not on their own. The only way that happens is that events as 'unexpected' as the fiscal crisis itself arise to give voters a reason to vote differently than they currently indicate that they will. That could happen. Some of Obama's arrogance may cause him to slip up in a remaining debate. In other words, John McCain cannot win this election though Barack Obama can still lose it. Pro-life voters will hope for this, but cannot count on it.
I am grateful I will have the opportunity to vote for candidates who are clearly and unapologetically for life and equally unashamed of the Christian faith. The vast majority of this country has turned against ancient Christian Faith and embraced a thoroughly pietistic, overly personalized faith that rejects the dominion of Christ over all of life, a pale impersonation of the robust Faith revealed in Scripture. This privatized faith aids and abets the purveyors of secularist fascism, carried along by a pop culture addicted to amusement, deriving its political judgment from David Letterman and The View.
But let us all remember:
Post Tenebras Lux.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Rev. Cassidy. I am increasingly afraid you are right. It is truly a sad state of affairs.
It's unclear to me how one could be so sure so early and with the polls still so close, the most recent change (yesterday) being in favor of McCain. I was sure the Dems would win this year until they nominated a barely-electable candidate. Still it's a hard-to-lose year for them, but fortunes change quickly. McCain has had a poorly played 10 days, I think, still the confidence Obama garners for the swing vote is anemic; an October surprise or two could mean a lot. Plus I think a bunch of them will just chicken-out when election day comes and vote for Grandpa. It's close, but I still see McCain winning.
A week is an eternity in politics, so yes it can turn around. That's why I am saying Obama can still lose the election, though I am having trouble seeing how McCain wins it by some new strategic development. In other words, Obama somehow blows it, or external factors can transform the race, but McCain appears to be out of gas and struggling for air in states he should have locked down. You have to follow the money and the schedule. Obama has twice the money and McCain is scheduling campaign stops in states he should have already put in the bag. That spells BIG trouble for him, and shows the underlying polls - ones conducted in house and not published for the media - all point Obama's direction. The undecideds are deciding.
I think the Obama campaign is making too much of new and young voter turnout...highly unpredictable. If they have the ground game in place on election day however, and can turn out their new registered voters, it will win the day for them.
Well, we will see if the republican minority can hold off the congress for 2 years in the same way that Newt did from 92-94.
Rev. Cassidy,
To begin: I thought you no longer accepted comments on your political posts.
Second, I have for a long time been enormously offended at the way that you call pro-choice people "pro baby killers." For the record, since I will vote for a pro-choice candidate, I guess that makes me a radical pro baby killer even though I am a Christian who values life every much as bit as an individual who would vote for a pro-choice candidate. Are such people allowed to take communion at RPC? By your posts, it sounds like I'm destined for hell.
Thirdly, where you do get off calling Barack Obama -- a professing Christian -- a secularist and a radical pro-baby killer, more than any other Democratic candidate that has come in years past and even as recently as the 08 Democratic primaries?
In my opinion, you are doing the body of Christ at RPC an enormous disservice by continuing to write along these hateful lines, which in my view are nothing but dismissive. You, as a pastor, are the shepherd to ALL of your congregants. Not just those who agree with you.
I feel upon reading your blog here today that I have zero place at your church.
Thanks,
Suzanne
Suzanne - a few answers.
I stopped publishing posts because I was getting a lot from far and wide looking to turn it into a debate site. That's not what its for. I am more than happy to publish now local comments that aren't trying to start debates with other posters (note to all!).
Being pro-life is the correct position for Christians, as you note. One cannot be *consistently* Christian and advocate abortion on demand (though one might be truly Christian and greatly mistaken on the issue).
Elected officials are 'ministers' of God (Romans 13), and thus their opinion on such matters is of crucial significance - they are accountable for leading the civil order, and when they advocate policies that are contrary to God's moral law they must be told straight up that they are wrong. In America we have the incredible privilege of voting for these office-holders, and I have never hesitated to call out candidates and office holders on issues of God's moral law. I would be an unfaithful minister if I was silent on that.
The same thing goes with the homosexual political agenda, which Obama also eagerly supports.
I agree with you on the other Democrat candidates - they were for the most part just as in the pro-baby killing crowd as Obama (I call it that because that's what it is - abortion kills human babies; politicians who support that should be defeated; judges who advocate it will I hope lose their office). But Obama is the nominee of his party, and has the support of the other candidates, including his running mate Joe Biden. I would say exactly the same thing about any candidate from any party, any time.
I am not writing anything hateful, but truthful. Christians who vote for Obama are not voting consistently with what they claim to believe Scriptures says about murdering people. What else am I supposed to say? That its OK to promote people who think killing babies is part of a just and free society?
There are plenty of people I know - many at RPC - who will vote for Obama, so you should not feel displaced at all. What I hope you will feel is compelled to think deeply about a position that is irreconcilable with Christian Faith.
Obama professes to be a Christian - that's fine, so did Bill Clinton. I don't base my votes on a person's profession, but on their policies. His policies are contrary to the moral law of God, so I cannot and must not support him, Christian or otherwise.
And Suzanne, that doesn't mean you have to vote Republican either. As you know, I am independent of party affiliation and will support pro-life Democrats too - and have done so. I urge you to work for pro-life policies within the Democrat party, if that is your preferred affiliation. I also beg you to understand that I cannot and will not ever cease speaking on the issue of abortion and its advocates in the clearest possible terms. That isn't hatred; its submission to the truth, something which as a minister I have taken vows to do.
With much affection and prayer,
DC
Rev. Cassidy,
Thank you for your response. As is typical, your response to reader comments are much more level and distant than your initial posts, which I think are incredibly and outrageously inflammatory on the whole.
It is clear that you are passionate about the abortion issue. But if you are really trying to change someone's mind, I offer that you might find a different (read: more civil!!) way to communicate your arguments against a candidate who is pro choice rather than pulling out all the stops, forfeiting gracious discourse, and generally stereotyping people and positions, and using hyperbole. Just curious: Would you vote for Mussolini if he were running for office in our day and country? He was pro-life. And that seems to be your only criteria for voting for someone into public office.
As for your statement that I cannot be consistently pro-life if I vote for a pro-choice candidate: I disagree. For me, as a Christian, there are other issues that play into my decision concerning who I vote for that are also reflective of God's values. If the conservative party in America were truly concerned about stopping abortions, I would think that they could start today by implementing policies that would reduce the number of abortions and then work to overturn Roe v. Wad. As is, it's all or nothing and so it's all just put on the level of a culture war. More than half of women choose abortion due to economic reasons. But I guess helping them is un-biblical, too, since you claim that is mere socialism. And socialism, you've made clear, is also of the devil.
Mostly, I wish you'd find a different tone for communicating your beliefs about politics and the related issues. Where I wrote "dismissive" I meant to write that your posts are divisive. If you think that it's okay to essentially pit one group of your congregation against another, then I guess there's no room for change.
Thanks,
Suzanne
Suze,
We obviously haven't had a discussion about my involvement with pro-life work, including helping to start a crisis pregnancy center to help women in exactly the situations you describe, not only during the pregnancy but with after care, clothing, food, and so on.
Its a common charge by the pro-abortion crowd that pro-life people don't get it on the compassion front. That simply isn't so, and there is ample evidence that such is the case. But the height of compassion deficit would have to be killing a baby, as I am sure you would agree.
Helping the poor is not socialism by the way. Socialism crushes the poor as any visit to Cuba or what used to be Eastern Europe will show. I saw East Germany when it was under such a regime - a de-personalizing, anti-Christian, statist tyranny that repressed creativity, prosperity, and faith. Socialism, the government ownership of the means of production and property, is indeed demonic. I saw it, my wife's family was vicitmized by it in Cuba, and with John Paul II (no less) I joyously stand against it in all its form. If you think I am a little strong on it, read his encyclicals - these from a man who struggled under both Nazi and Socialist tyrannies.
I've been working since the mid-70s to overturn Roe vs. Wade. How will that be done? First by persuading people that pre-born infants are people, not some extra baggage to be discarded; second, by showing that Biblically and historically the Christian faith has unapologetically defended the protection and care of childreb, born and pre-born; thirdly, because Roe vs. Wade overturned every state law in America limiting and/or prohibiting abortion by judicial fiat (by finding in the Constitution a mythical right to such a practice), we have to have candidates elected who will make certain that Federal Judges will not support that monstrous decision. I don't care if they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents. Above all else, we must pray and worship, calling down the blessing of the Lord on his Church, and seeking by the preaching of the Gospel to see hearts changed so that the weakest members of our society are protected, and the tremendous guilt our nation has already brought on itself through the murder of over 1 million children a year can be forgiven and national repentance be found.
Mussolini?
One doesn't vote for a candidate *merely* because he claims to be pro-life - what's pro-life about nazi-fascism? Nothing. As I've said before in another post, where a candidate stands on the issue of abortion is not my sole issue, but it is my supreme isssue.
A better question would be whether or not I would vote for Bob Casey in Pennsylvania. I might. I have voted for other democrats, and will again (I hope).
Is what I am saying 'divisive'? It might be. As I am sure you will understand, this is not a party-polltical division, but a moral and spiritual division. I am an equal-opportunity divider and uniter. Part of my task is to be Gospel truth-teller, even if the Scriptures fly all over the opinions of a congregation or a single member. I bless no one by hiding the truth. It is not always pretty or palatable. It is seldom politically acceptable. It always necessary. I am not pitting any section of RPC against another; on the contrary, I am calling every member to pray for all the candidates, to weigh carefully where those candidates stand on the supreme moral issues of our time, and then to vote their conscience as it is shaped and informed by Scripture.
I doubt if I'll preach an election sermon, but that is an old tradiiton in America. I mention this to note in passing that preachers have always called upon their congregations to pray, study, and vote as best they can see that God would direct for his glory and their neighbor's good.
To put this in a different context, would you want me to be silent if the year was 1860 and the issue was slavery?
Might I be accused of being divisive because I exhorted the congregation with every tool at my disposal to see all people as persons in God's image? Some would say so.
I walked with my mom in civil rights marches in the 60s when I was a small child. I was the first white man to speak at an all black Baptist church back in Kentucky (and treasure my friendship with the minister there to this day). I took heat for that - and so did he.
Sometimes the implications of the Scriptures mean we have to take unpopular stands. I've been pro-life all my life, and will be until I die. And I will fight to see Roe v Wade overturned - and oppose every single politician who supports it - as long as God gives me breath. I don't care if that means some people think I am just another Republican (I am not), or that some people can't see why I think this is the supreme issue (rather than the economy, or Putin, or Iran, or Israel, or whatever). As a matter of political fact, I think energy independence and national securtiy are intertwined issues of the greatest significance in this election, apart from abortion.
And as I have said throughout, if Barack Obama is elected he will have my prayers, and he will have my support in every area in which I can agree with him.
This has been a very interesting discussion. I wonder if some of the divide is that all Christians are not sure about when a fetus is a human person? Perhaps there needs to be some more work done on this issue?
There is another issue along these lines that probably touches even the most conservative congregations, and many don't even know it. I am not even sure about it, but took action based on what I read (may be wrong). That is that some contend that some birth control pills can cause an abortion.
This issue as well as other issues on "when life begins" should be at the forefront of the debate.
While I almost never agree with Pat Buchanan, he said that if he were President, he would call for a congressional hearing on abortion so that he could change the hearts and minds of the American People. That is what the next President should insist on.
Rev. Cassidy,
Well, it looks like that settles it. There is indeed no room for change. But if you ever decide you'd like to consider that perhaps the way you go about posting and writing on such issues may not actually be "Gospel truth-telling" but something that is based on un-truth, let me know. I'd be happy to cite specific examples.
Suzanne
Brett,
That would certainly be an interesting congressional hearing! The medical evidence is not in dispute. The only issue is actually whether or not the Constitution gives us the right to terminate the life of the unborn. Roe v Wade the Supreme Court says it does. I beg to differ with the honorable court.
Suzanne,
Please don't hesitate. I wouldn;t want anyone thinking that what I was writing was based on an un-truth.
Do you think the Scriptures are not clear on this matter? I don't think you do. Indeed, my guess is that you are in fact pro-life.
The Church's teaching is clear - see my additional post on the issue. And on that point, that's the Church whose doctrine I am sworn to uphold and all her members are urged to study and adopt.
Obama views babies in unplanned, unwanted pregnancies as, what did he say, 'burdens', 'penalties' - something to that effect. We regard *every* baby as a blessing from God. He said he couldn't say when life began - that such a matter was above his paygrade. That is a perfectly clear statement to me that he as a Christian he has little regard for or is simply ill-informed about what the Scriptures teach on this issue. lets give the Senator the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter. He needs to be instructed. All pro-life Democrats should send him the appropriate information that may assist him in coming to a conclusion more in keeping with biological reality, the Faith he claims, and God's moral law.
Now I am not surprised that pro-life Dems support Obama - Bob Casey in Penn is a case in point. Yet it saddens me. That said, the Dem platform, like the Rep platform, is clear on these issues, so Casey is the one out of step with his party on the point. He pretty much HAS to privatize his view and go with the party leader/nominee, or simply pack his bags.
Look, put any other moral/law issue in the slot and see how it sounds:
I am personally opposed to slavery, but don't want plantation owners to lose their right to choose.
I am personally opposed to killing three year olds, but that is a decision for the parents and their doctors.
(and in this case, the difference in the cases is only age and geography)
I am personally opposed to car theft, but the Supreme Court has ruled that car thieves have a right to cars and we cannot repress their right to choose to steal.
Now abortion on demand is either murder on demand or it isn't. If it isn't *before God* (it clearly isn't in American Law), then I can change my position and say 'abort away'. But if it is forbidden by God then I MUST obey him and call others to do the same. Right?
Let me mention one last thing. You wrote movingly about poverty being a source of people having abortions. I am sure there are rare cases where this in fact is the motivation - though it is as unacceptable and sinful a motivation as any other. Yet the VAST MAJORITY of abortions are performed not for the poor but for the middle and upper class in this country who view babies as burdens and obstacles to career ascendency and social standing. Poverty should be combatted by all Christians, and historically the Church has ALWAYS done this, and will continue to do so. That includes your congregation as well. Tragically, as much as HALF of the women who have abortions self-identify as evangelicals. That means we have a lot of work to do on this issue.
Now then, if you think my position on abortion is based on un-truth, and I claim Scripture as my sole ultimate authority, please show me where I am wrong. If the Scriptures are clear - and PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read the PCA position paper on the issue - then I would BEG you to go with a pro-life position and indeed to labor mightily for the overturning of Roe v Wade.
With much affection and prayer,
DC
Suze,
One additional comment I forgot to mention last night: what hyperbole?
You know, its fascinating to me that in my post I let McCain have it, said the Bush administration was a failure, and that Obama was the candidate likely to win - and my friend who supports Obama was upset.
Sorry that this is the case.
For the Faith,
DC
Rev. Cassidy,
I will happily read the Presbyterian document on abortion, and to Brett R. -- I am not confused about when life begins: it has to begin at conception. No question there.
But, Rev., you continue to miss my larger point that the WAY in which you write about these issues is disrespectful of others; your statements are in general hyperbolic, and they tend to make slanderous, unfactual characterizations of people (namely: Barack Obama) rather than tackle the substance of civil discourse and argument. That is where i have a problem. You could be right in everything you say -- but at what price? You claim and justify yourself up and down about what you're writing here, but you fail to see that how you say what you say has a tremendous impact on individuals. You advertise this blog in a church newsletter, our church newsletter, and you take political positions and make statements that are divisive whether you can see that they are or not. I'm not advocating that you not instruct your congregation on issues and the morality of God. I'm advocating that you watch your political discourse because your current way of approaching these issues is downright ugly. Not to mention anything about upholding divisions of church/state as part of a non-profit, faith-based organization. Don't worry, I am not of a mind to call the Texas Ethics Commission.
I can't help but think that you are missing an enormous opportunity to truly engage those of us who do not see things as you do by the way that you use inflammatory language and all.
But it seems futile that you may ever see this much less consider it. So I've nothing left to say.
Thanks, though, for reading.
Suzanne
To your question: What hyperbole?
Read your past posts. You have a very unique way of characterizing Obama as "radical," "far left," "socialist messiah," "arrogant," and the list goes on.
In my book those are not Gospel truths but judgements and characterizations that do nothing to advance one's thinking about issues that relate to God and God's kingdom.
But, again, you're unlikely to see things from my point of view.
Suzanne
Suzanne,
I feel a bit unclear here, and I think you for provoking me to consider the possibility that what I have written here is needlessly provocative. I will go back and re-read the posts, especially on Obama and Biden. having said that, I agree with you that I don't think what I am writing is inappropriate. I don't. As for church-state separation (a phrase from the old dead constitution of the former Soviet Union), I accept without hesitation the separation of the two as institutions under God, ministers in different realms. But I unequivically deny the separation of religion and state. All Law is moral in nature, and morality is inescapably religious. This is a major problem in our country - many people want a religion free - 'naked' - public square, making religion a private matter that cannot speak to wider cultural issues. Christianity will not square with such a view, unless one wishes to advocate private, individual spirituality as 'Christianity' - which is the state of modern evangelicalism but is not even close to historic Christian faith. The election commission would find that this Pastor has endorsed no candidate, but he has said that some of the policies of candidates are Biblically immoral, and that he won't vote for candidates who support those policies. There's no violation there.
You know, in Canada ministers have been JAILED for preaching that homosexual acts are sinful - they violated hate speech laws. Is that where this country is heading? I wonder. The day such legislation passes the police will be VERY BUSY the following Sunday.
Why even mention this? Because what I say Scripture teaches will be provocative, sometimes offensive, and hopefully spot on.
You know me - I am happy culture warrior! Joy in the Lord is how I like to approach this and all other matters. That doesn't mean I'd flinch in saying what the Scriptures say and urging all our members to embrace the Lordship of Christ in all of life - including the political sphere.
With thanks and prayers,
DC
Suzanne,
I can't find the 'socialist messiah' comment.
That aside, to your thoughts on this.
Let us distinguish please between my being able to see things from your point of view and agreeing with your point of view. It is possible that I could do the former even if I cannot do the latter.
I understand that you perceive my remarks about Obama to be overly antagonistic (my words). You believe that referring to him in the ways you mention does not further understanding. OK.
I get it, and I do disagree. Here's why. i think the way I am referring to his views and his potential presidency actually clears the air and clarifies the scene for debate. As I see it, he wants all of us to believe he's just like all the rest of us, and is not a radical or a 'leftist'. I think those terms - among many - are apt when it comes to summarizing his influences, his record, and his stated agenda. May I commend to you Stephen Mansfield's book 'The Faith of Barack Obama' for some insight on this.
Let me approach this from the other side of the yard -
Suppose Obama (or Biden, Clinton, name your typical pro-abortion democrat) was summarizing *me and my view* - how would that go? My guess is that they would conclude that on this issue at least I am a radical anti-abortionist who wants abortion outlawed, and longs to see the so-called 'freedoms' won for women (except for in-utero females) in Roe v Wade reversed. They would call me a fundamentalist because I base my case on Scripture, though the case from nature and reason are potent as well. If I was running for office (never, never, never), the press would have a field day with my religiously based convictions, because my faith is most assuredly not private and is very public.
Now then, I will withdraw and apologize for one thing I have written and wont go there again - I wrote that he was 'arrogant'.
So am I. Humility is a hard virtue to win, and who am I to cast that stone, right? to clarify, his bearing and his actions (like that presidential seal that made a brief appearance) struck me as arrogant and cocky. Hubris is not helpful, and is faux confidence. Perhaps I have misjudged him on this score. I hope so. When it comes to that issue, I will in the future say something more like 'This strikes me as arrogant...', etc.
I will not surrender the baby-killing designation. he supports this, to his shame, and I hope in time he will be persuaded of the injustice it represents, and - being a man committed to social justice - he will seek to stand up for those who are the vicitms of Roe v Wade.
With much affection and prayers,
DC
Post a Comment