The title of this post is sure to rankle a few. I mean, how dare anyone question the faith of another, right? Well, it's not such a dangerous dare to which anyone should step up, particularly when deciding for whom one should cast a vote. Inspired by this AmericanThinker.com article, I find it laughable, as well as pathetic, that Dem candidates now seek to promote themselves as people of faith. This is in response to the success the GOP has had in attracting the religious voter to their ranks. That it is an obvious ploy to win an election is not lost on those of us on the right. That some on the left pretend it's sincere is no surprise.
Let's be honest, here. The possibility that the Republicans have used faith for the exact same purpose is not unthinkable, nor can we assume it's improbable. Political strategists would shape their strategies to appeal to toe-nail chewers if they thought they formed a big enough voting block.
But personally, I can't say as I feel a ton of sincerity coming from the Dems as this type of pronouncement only came about since George W. Bush spoke of Christ as his favorite philosopher. Until then, the Christian voter was looked down upon. They were backward, superstitious knuckle-draggers with whom the average American held nothing in common. When it became apparent that they were the average American, the Dems scrambled to find ways of attracting them, of acting as if they were the same as them and speak the same language. The only one who actually kinda got away with this ploy was Jimma Carter. But he IS a moron, so he doesn't count.
Now the fun part is to put Barry and Hillary to the test and see how they can reconcile their positions with their supposed great faith. With Barry, we already have problems with his alleged faith. He not only is a member of one of the most liberal denominations around, a denomination with a very questionable interpretation of Scripture, but a member of a very Afro-centric congregation, one that puts allegiance to Africa above allegiance to the USA, and one that has an equally befuddled interpretation of Scripture if playing the victimhood game is any indication.
Anyway, as the linked article shows, they have both failed to reconcile their position on abortion with their faith. They barely acknowledge that the question is ever asked. Unless...unless one remembers that with the left, there are no absolutes, their is no knowledge of truth since it's in the eyes of the beholder, apparently, and that like the US Constitution, Scripture is a living, breathing and easily changable text where words have no specific meaning, and entire books within it are questioned for accuracy, infallibility or authority.
By the way, can we question how their religion will be forced down our throats as Bush was questioned himself? Will the White House be dictating according to their religion as it was feared of Bush? Oh yeah. I forgot. Only the left is capable of separating faith from public life. Yeah. Right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
They try to wiggle out of their pro-legalized abortion position by pretending to be ignorant of science. Consult the embrylogy textbooks, folks: After conception you have a unique human being. It is at the right stage and development for its age, just as human fetuses, human babies, human adolescents, etc. are for their ages.
And even if they were right and we weren't sure when life began, wouldn't the prudent thing be to err on the side of life?
But they want the money and the votes, so they stay in the abortion camp.
I question the faith of a lot of people. And I get chewed for it. But that don't mean I intend to stop. There are those who profess the genuine, and then there are those who HAVE the genuine......
Re, "like the US Constitution, Scripture is a living, breathing and easily changable text where words have no specific meaning, and entire books within it are questioned for accuracy, infallibility or authority."
YES! Exactly. Think on this, and you might get a hint of what it is to think, as regards faith, as well as regards the law.
Absolutes? Sure there are. But the thing is, really, that we don't think we can find the truth dead-on because we're flawed human beings, and we for damn sure don't think y'all can.
And yes, we really do prefer muddling through to y'alls' false confidence.
I have indeed thought on it, ER. I find the notion that the writers of either the Constitution or the 66 books of the Bible wallowed in ambiguity to be nonsensical. Rather, I believe that they intended to be as specific as they possibly could. I believe that reading between the lines in either case is futile since there is only empty space, the message being plainly expressed in the text.
I object to the charge of false confidence, since I'm only confident in that which is plainly expressed. I don't claim to be perfect (merely the closest possible representation--tee hee), but that's not required to understand the truth we were meant to understand. In fact, I find such truths to be far more clear than your perspective on Grace being the alpha and omega of your Christian understanding. I don't mean this as a shot (very much), but simply that I still don't getcha.
Could it be that you are simply so afraid of believing something that isn't true that you refuse to commit? If we assume that I believe far too much, my risk is in not abiding that which I profess to be true. I can't think where to find it in the Good Book, but I believe that if I add to it, I'll be judged by it. So as long as I abide what I believe to be true, I'm cool, even if I'm wrong. That is, I can't say that X is true and not live accordingly any more than if I said that murder is wrong but earned my living as a hit man. I think you attach more mystery to the Bible than was ever there to begin with.
I can't say as I feel a ton of sincerity coming from the Dems as this type of pronouncement only came about since George W. Bush spoke of Christ as his favorite philosopher. Until then, the Christian voter was looked down upon. They were backward, superstitious knuckle-draggers with whom the average American held nothing in common.
You'll recall, I'm sure, that long before W assumed a supposed Christian stance for public consumption, there was an humble Baptist Sunday School teacher from Georgia who made it clear he was a President of Faith.
He has been mostly crucified by the religious right, at least the noisy ones. (I suspect that most Christians out there recognize Jimmy Carter as one of our most devout Christians in the last century, whatever they thought of his policies.)
I find it amusing that the Dems who've run for President have tended to actually attend church, whereas the Reagans and Bushi are more about talking about their faith than actually attending.
Post a Comment