Can you be a Republican and a homosexual?  Bruce Carroll and Dan Blatt, who contribute to the blog GayPatriot, would say, "Yes", and I would agree.  Now, I believe that homosexual acts are a sin, I believe the Bible says this, and while I know that not everyone necessarily agrees with that assessment, I do.  Does that mean, ergo, that I hate Bruce and Dan?  No, it does not, and I do not. 

But what about Republicans in general?  We all know what Democrats think of social conservatives, so you’d think that venom against the GayPatriot blog would come mostly from the Right.

You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.

Read the rest of this entry

If you’re curious about what Jim Wallis, CEO of the Christian social justice organization Sojouners, thinks about President Obama’s views on abortion, then take a look at the BeliefNet article, Jim Walllis Supports Obama’s Abortion Approach. An excerpt,

In breaking the symbolic cycle, President Obama showed respect for both sides in the historically polarized abortion debate, and called for both a new conversation and a new common ground. I hope that this important gesture signals the beginning of a new approach and a new path toward finding some real solutions to decrease the number of abortions in this country and around the world.

Nonsense.

Let’s take the roof off of this argument by substituting a couple of choice words into the original…

In breaking the symbolic cycle, President Obama showed respect for both sides in the historically polarized slavery debate, and called for both a new conversation and a new common ground. I hope that this important gesture signals the beginning of a new approach and a new path toward finding some real solutions to decrease the number of slaves in this country and around the world.

If you truly care about social justice, Mr. Wallis, then please call a spade a spade; but don’t patronize us with rhetoric which is illogical, at best, and immoral, at worst.

The Young America’s Foundation put together a list of the top 10 abuses by academia in 2008.  From banning conservative speakers, to threatening expulsion for praying (behind closed doors), to banning Thanksgiving, it seems that the more liberal our school become, the less they are the bastions of free speech, debate and tolerance they were intended to be.

I was recently reading about some protesters fasting in order to raise awareness for one cause or another.

It struck me that the secular left and the religious right have very different notions about fasting and its means and purpose. Read the rest of this entry

President-elect Obama has invited Saddleback pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation (i.e. opening prayer) at the inauguration.  While Obama and Warren disagree on some issues, Obama says he wants to "create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable."  In fact, this follows in the footsteps of Bush’s choice in 2004, as the Huffington Post notes.

At his 2005 inaugural, George W. Bush tapped Rev. Dr. Louis Leon to deliver the invocation. Like Obama and Warren, the two shared a commitment to combating AIDS in Africa, as well as a friendship from time spent in each other’s company. But Leon was and is a progressive voice. And his selection in ’04 sparked a lot of interest, though little of the outrage that we see with Warren.

Indeed, the "tolerant" Left side of the blogosphere didn’t seem to get the "disagree without being disagreeable" memo.

Americablog: “Great, then where are the racists, Mr. Obama?"

Markos himself at Daily Kos: “Yeah. Where is David Duke’s invitation? Or as Blue Texan notes, when do Phelps and Hagee get their invitations? Heck, throw up Tom Tancredo up there for good measure, so us Latinos can feel some of the hate!”

Atrios: "Wanker of the Day: Barack Obama."

Firedoglake: "President-elect Obama chose eliminationist hate preacher Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s Inaguration. With this choice, Obama sends three destructive messages. Number one: In Obama’s America, equal rights and reproductive freedom aren’t for everyone. Number two: President-elect Obama likes sharing the national stage with hate. Number three: While Obama enjoys his equality before the law, LGBT Americans can go to Hell. Literally. Gee. Is this change we can believe in?"

Andrew Sullivan: "…pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen."

Think Progress:  "…he laughs off accusations of being ‘homophobic’ because he ‘talks to’ gay people and served protesters water."

(A tip of the hat to Don Surber and John Hawkins, from whom I got much of this list, and who have even more examples.)

Once again, we have examples of liberals, who tout their "tolerance" and "acceptance", being wholly unable to handle any sort of deviation from the orthodoxy.  Additionally, as even the Huffington Post notes, the folks they claim are the intolerant ones actually were more accepting when they were in the same situation. 

Tolerance.  You keep using that word.  I do no think it means what you think it means.

Yes YOU, if you opposed the auto maker bailout, want the economy to fail.  YOU are a reckless ideologue.  YOU don’t want to solve problems.  YOU want the US to suck up a Depression.  YOU are extraordinarily irresponsible.

So says Harry Reid and the Left side of the blogosphere.  If you want fiscal responsibility out of our government, you’re irresponsible. 

And in January, this line of thinking will hold even more sway in Washington, DC.  Hold on to your wallets, ladies and gentlemen.  It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Well, I just started reading Mr Rawl’s Political Liberalism … just starting to break into the introduction. And so far, I’m unimpressed. His writing is sloppy and careless, not that I really should complain, but this is a book by an Academic philosopher who should be more careful than an amateur blogger. However, of interest (for tonight) is this following excerpt quoted as the beliefs belonging to “comprehensive” as opposed to “political” liberalism. Three tenents are given, the second of each is the “liberal” tenet.

Is the knowledge or awareness of how we are to act directly accessible only to some, or to a few (the clergy, say), or is it accessible to every person who is normally reasonable and conscientious?

Again, it the moral order required of us derived from an external source, say from an order of values in God’s intellect, or does it arise in some way from human nature itself (either from reason or feeling or from a union of both), together with the requirements of our living together in society?

Finally, must we be persuaded or compelled to bring ourselves in line with the requirements of our duties and obligations by some external motivation, say by divine sanctions or by those of the state; or are we to constituted that we have in our nature sufficient motives to lead us to act as we ought without the need of external threats inducements?

It seems, I am not a “comprehensive” liberal because I view the latter in all of cases as fatally flawed. Let’s consider this case by case.

1. Is the upper floor of a house available to all or only to those who climb the stairs. Knowledge and awareness on a more than passing level is only available to those who practice and engage in self-examination and introspective thought on ethics and morals. That is not easy. It is not available to everyone for it is not reasonable to expect any more than a distinct minority to be conscientious. Thinking otherwise is hopelessly Utopian.
2. Well, my answer to this is a little more confused. Our moral sense and the “moral order required of us” is derived from external source (God), but alas, God (and our connection to Him, e.g., “made in His image”) is in fact human nature.
3. Well, as avidly and emphatically demonstrated by Charles Taylor in his book A Secular Age, one of the major pushes by Church, State, and Academia for the last 500 years has been to civilize and make polite society. 500 years ago, the medieval Emily Posts of the Europe were encouraging the masses not to take a dump in the living room. We’ve come a long way, baby … but it hasn’t been easy or a fast road. The idea that politeness and reasonableness is “in our nature” is to deny and ignore so so so much of our history (ancient and modern) it isn’t funny.

NewsBusters is getting the word out, even before Obama is inaugurated, that his choice for Veterans Affairs was not thrown under the bus by the Bush administration.  The myth, which lingered for years, is being given new life, most recently by the Associated Press "news" organization.

Obama also spoke about his latest Cabinet selection, retired Gen. Eric Shinseki to head the Veterans Affairs Department. Shinseki was forced into retirement by the Bush administration after he said the original invasion plan for Iraq did not include enough troops.

His retirement had been announced nearly a year before his testimony.  They also note that FactCheck.org debunked this when it started making the rounds over 4 years ago.

The "narrative" or the news?  The AP has decided which side to err on.

In what’s sure to be a common theme in the mainstream media in the coming months, the LA Times is just now really investigating Barack Obama’s background.  In this article, it notices that his resume is quite thin.

In his books, speeches and campaign commercials, Sen. Barack Obama has harked back to his days as a civil-rights attorney.

It is fundamental to his autobiography and was displayed on his campaign Web site and woven into his appeals for votes. In one of his television ads leading up to the South Carolina primary, Obama recalled "working as a civil-rights attorney to make sure that everybody’s vote counted."

Senior attorneys at the small firm where he worked say he was a strong writer and researcher, but was involved in relatively few cases before entering politics.

Hat tip: NewsBusters.

Of course, this information was available for the past 2 years, and yet only today does it get reported.  How…interesting.

Short answer:  Not very well, and it doesn’t appear they care.

Long answer:

The adulation given to Barack Obama was far more than can be accounted for by his historic run for the Presidency.  It got so bad before the election that Michael S. Malone, a tech journalist for ABC News, got to the point he was "deeply ashamed to be called a ‘journalist’".  Michael explained, back in late October:

For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions.  But I always wrote it off as bad judgment, and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy.  Sure, being a child of the ‘60s I saw a lot of subjective “New” Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from ‘real’ reporting, and at least in mainstream media, usually was.  The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth.  I’d spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else’s work – not out any native honesty, but out of fear: I’d always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense . . .indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

[…]

But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign.  Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates.  But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass – no, make that shameless support – they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press.  I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather – not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake – but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

[…]

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.  Middle America, even when they didn’t agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a Presidential candidate.  So much for the Standing Up for the Little Man, so much for Speaking Truth to Power, so much for Comforting the Afflicted and Afflicting the Comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

Read the whole thing(tm).  Malone is more certainly not against reporters digging for the dirt (he supported the "reportorial SWAT teams" sent to Alaska to see what they could find about Gov. Palin).  What he is aghast at, however, was how utterly unbalanced this hardball treatment was. 

Aside from the viciousness given mostly to Republicans and their supporters, the Pew Research Center found that McCain’s news coverage was incredibly lopsided.

Slightly fewer than a third of the stories about Obama were negative, whereas more than a third were positive and about the same number were neutral or mixed. More than half of the stories about McCain cast him in a negative light, whereas fewer than 2 in 10 were positive, according to Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The study suggests that advancement in the polls does translate into more positive coverage, but with the polls so tight this season, bouncing around in the high 40s & low 50s for so long, that explanation doesn’t really fit.

The Washington Post ombudsman, Deborah Howell, also says that her paper tilted towards Obama and didn’t really cover the issues well.  The big question is, will this translate into better coverage?  With the media still in the tank for Democrats after decades of being that way, it doesn’t seem likely.

Just ask Chris Matthews:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that —

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

The phrase "speaking the truth to power" is about to drop quickly out of fashion in national media circles.

I was on the road again this week, so not much time for a post-election wrap-up from me.  But now that the dust has settled, let me knock out a few thoughts.

1.  Exit polls indicate that the number of self-described liberals in this country and the number of self-described conservatives hasn’t changed hardly at all since the last election, and conservatives hold a 12 percentage point lead (34 to 22).  This is still a center-right country.  Obama would do well to remember that.

2.  You win with your base, and McCain took too long to pick it up.  Now, I know that others (our own contributor, Jim, being one) have said that the base took too long to converge around the candidate, but I have to respectfully disagree; I think that’s entirely backwards.  Conservatives in the Republican party have always looked at McCain with a cocked eye, and they — or, to be honestly inclusive, we — had a tough time with many of his positions.  Our minds weren’t going to be changed overnight because he won the nomination.  That’s not principled.

Conversely, McCain did, in fact, make moves to the right that eventually won over the base, but I don’t think he did it quickly enough.  However, if you win with (or lose without) your base, what about the highly-touted independents that were supposed to make McCain so popular?  The answer is…

3.  …they largely split between the two candidates, which throws out all the conventional wisdom on how to win elections.  It’s been all about the "bell curve", that huge group of voters in the center; neither Left or Right.  In a race between a center-Right candidate and a hard-Left one, the conventional wisdom was that the more centrist candidate would pull in the middle in droves.  That didn’t happen.  Karl Rove, love ‘im or hate ‘im, was right, as Dan McLaughlin noted on Redstate:

Karl Rove’s theory – one he perhaps never explicitly articulated, but which was evident in the approach to multiple elections, votes in Congress, and even international coalitions run by his boss, George W. Bush – was, essentially, that you win with your base. You start with the base, you expand it as much as possible by increasing turnout, and then you work outward until you get past 50% – but you don’t compromise more than necessary to get to that goal.

Standing in opposition to the Rove theory was what one might call the Beltway Pundit theory, since that’s who were the chief proponents of the theory. The Beltway Pundit theory was, in essence, that America has a great untapped middle, a center that resists ideology and partisanship and would respond to a candidate who could present himself as having a base in the middle of the electorate.

Tonight, we had a classic test of those theories. Barack Obama is nothing if not the pure incarnation on the left of the Rovian theory. He ran in the Democratic primaries as the candidate of the ‘Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.’ His record was pure left-wing all the way. He seems to have brought out a large number of new base voters, in particular African-Americans responding to his racial appeals and voting straight-ticket D. As I’ll discuss in a subsequent post, the process of getting to 50.1% for a figure of the left is more complex and involves more concerted efforts at concealment and dissimulation, but the basic elements of the Rovian strategy are all there.

John McCain, by contrast, was the Platonic ideal Beltway Pundit-style candidate, and his defeat by Obama ensures that his like will not win a national nomination any time soon, in either party. McCain spent many years establishing himself as a pragmatic moderate, dissenting ad nauseum and without a consistent unifying principle from GOP orthodoxy; McCain had veered to the center simply whenever he felt that the Republican position was too far. McCain held enough positions that were in synch with the conservative base to make him minimally acceptable, but nobody ever regarded him as a candidate to excite the conservative base.

Yes, this is essentially a restatement of point 2, but where as #2 is looking from the Right, #3 is looking from the center. 

Also keep in mind that the center is where most undecided voters live, some of whom don’t decide who to vote for until they in the voting booth.  Reagan won by sticking to his conservative principles and Obama won on his liberal credentials (spreading the wealth around, socializing health care, anti-war).  It wasn’t the blowout it should have been, given the perfect storm of an unpopular President, and unpopular war and a tanking economy, but a win is a win.

UPDATE:  John Hawkins concurs:  Top 7 Reasons Why the GOP Can’t Build a Political Party Around Moderates.

4.  McCain was hoist on his own petard; McCain/Feingold.  On election night, you could almost hear, in the back of your head, a voice-over saying, "This election brought to you by…campaign finance reform."  Another element of the perfect storm for Obama was the fact that he reneged on his promise to stick to public financing and hugely outspent McCain (yet still only managed an average victory).  This unconstitutional (in my humble opinion) program restricts free political speech, arguably what the First Amendment is precisely about.  McCain/Feingold is dead, for all intents and purposes.  At least it’s now irrelevant. 

I still respect McCain as a politician and a bridge-builder, and I believe he would have made a far better President than the one we’re going to get.  But cheer up, Republicans.  At least Obama is going to pay for your gas and your mortgage.

The California Marriage Protection Act, aka Proposition 8, was passed by popular vote on Tuesday, November 4th. The proposal was to add the following 14 words to the California constitution:

As of Wednesday, November 5th, lawsuits have been filed by Gay Rights backers to challenge the will of the people, and protests against the Proposition were occurring in the predominantly gay city of West Hollywood.

Lest anyone think that rights have been eliminated, by the passage of Proposition 8, one should read the already existing California Family Code 297.5. An excerpt:

Bottomline: Proposition 8 it isn’t about hate, inequality or discrimination; it’s about protecting marriage between a man and a woman.

Note: as an aside, check this “No on 8” ad which displays blatant hatred towards Mormons.

Senator Barack Obama has won the election for President of the United States and, essentially, the leader of the free world.

God, help us.

In 1 Timothy, Paul stated,

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

– 1 Timothy 2:1-4 ESV

Yes, Christians… God. Help. Us. As Christians, we have been admonished to not only submit to our earthly authorities, but to pray for them as well.

In Romans, Paul stated,

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

– Romans 13:1-5 ESV

God, help us.

Help us to pray for our leaders, despite the fact that we may not only disagree with them, but that they may be hostile to us and our beliefs. Help us to submit to our leaders, thereby demonstrating that we are not a subversive element, but are to be trusted as exemplary citizens.

While I believe Senator Barack Obama to be, among other things:

• dangerously naive with regards to his vision of hope,
• blatantly socialist with regards to his economic policies,
• and, most distressingly, no friend of the unborn;

I know that my Christian duty is to extend prayers for him, his cabinet, as well as other federal, state, and local authorities.

Despite the general conservative contention that having a President Obama will bring a sorry state of affairs to our country, it would do us well to put our situation in perspective, with regards to the context of history at the time of the writing of many New Testament epistles.

In 1 Peter, Peter stated,

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

–1 Peter 2:13-15 ESV

Through his teaching, my pastor, Dr. David Thomas, has greatly helped me in keeping such a perspective clearly in view. This has especially been revealed in some recent lectures he gave on 1 Peter (see mp3 files here). In the 26 March 2008 session, he pointed out that:

• Peter and Paul have made an assertion that all human authority proceeds from God;
• To respect and submit to human authority is to respect and submit to God;
• Such a respect and submission has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with that authority;

And, with regards to the moral and ethical conditions of the leaders we pray for, he gave this comparison as context for the first century church,

• Of the first 12 emperors (Julius Caesar through Domitian), only one was heterosexual, the rest were either bisexual or homosexual;
• Nero, to whom Paul appealed (in the book of Acts), and the one who was Caesar when Paul wrote the book of Romans, married a 13 year-old boy;
• Nero kicked his wife in the stomach until she miscarried;

In the same message, he stated,

Christians recognize authority as invested in mortal, fallen and, sometimes, unbelieving and cruel individuals… as being a reflection of the authority of God. …What they’re [Peter and Paul] saying is, have respect for the authority that’s invested in these mortal men, out of reverence for God.

Now, more than ever, we Christians must pray for our leaders, including President Obama.

North? South?

Left? Right?

– image © 2008 A. R. Lopez

As I noted in this post at my New Covenant blog, Princeton bioethicist Robert George, in his article Obama’s Abortion Extremism, stated,

That post, and the follow-up A Comprehensive argument against Barack Obama, were intended to expose Obama’s truly pro-abortion position, for any non-Christians that may have stumbled upon this site. Imagine my surprise when, the very week after I posted, I found myself in an argument with a Christian friend who adamantly considers Obama to have a distinctly pro-choice position.

I was astounded to hear my friend, a professor with probably close to 40 years in academia, make (what I consider) arguments typically promulgated by liberals and liberals within academia. Perhaps, in retrospect, given the fact that my friend has spent so much time within academia, regardless of whether or not it was secular academia, I should not have been surprised to hear liberal arguments.

Initially, I was informed that Obama was pro-choice and not pro-abortion. Upon my asking what the difference was I was given the argument that Obama is “personally opposed to abortion, but…”. I was about to offer the suggestion that one take that same personally opposed statement and substitute the word “slavery” or “rape” for “abortion”, and then see how absurd it sounds, but I was immediately informed that Obama has said he would sign on to a ban of partial birth abortions would they only offer an exception for cases of rape or incest. (note: Robert George’s article shreds such claims. More on that later.) I was then told that it was essentially not pro-life to allow a woman with an ectopic pregnancy to die rather than remove (abort) the “fetus”.

Do you see the problem with these arguments? They play with words (e.g., “personally opposed”). They use the exception as determiner of the rule (e.g., cases of rape or incest). They ignore the humanity of the unborn (e.g., referring to the unborn child as a “fetus”).

In further conversation with my friend, attempts were made to compare the devastation of the war in Iraq as not indicative of the Republicans truly having a pro-life position. Of course this is nothing more than diversion. Even if such a claim were true, how does that, I wonder, have anything to do with the devastating fact that 4,000 unborn children are aborted every day?

I was given this website to refer to as, supposedly, an objective basis for determining the position of Obama. I noted, to no response, that the website makes multiple references to Obama supporting a “woman’s right to choose”, yet never completes the statement (i.e., a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn child).

I offered the article by Robert George, an article by Steve Wagner (Stand to Reason), as well as the National Right to Life Committee’s recent interaction with Barack Obama, as information outlets to help one understand Obama’s actions with regards to the abortion issue. Unfortunately, my friend considers third-party sources to be hopelessly biased and, as a result, would not even reference my recommendations, preferring to simply listen to what each candidate states themselves.

Are there other Christians who have turned a blind eye to the actions of Barack Obama with regards to the abortion issue? Are there other Christians who don’t view the issue of abortion as a major concern?

Greg Koukl, in his Oct. 20th weekly radio show, recently stated (28:30 into the program),

It seems to me, based on what Robert George has written, the lesson is this: If you are radically pro-choice, Obama is your man. But, if you think that abortion in all its forms, the garden variety of abortion, plus partial birth abortion, plus large scale production and destruction of embryos for embryonic stem cell research, plus allowing babies who survive abortion to die, plus having the government pay for all of this with your tax dollars – If you think this is wrong, because of the wanton destruction of defenseless human life. Then it seems to me you better invest your vote elsewhere. And if you believe God cares about these things, I don’t know how you can vote for Obama, and then stand before God and say, “I made the good, right, moral choice…”

If you are not aware of the candidate Barack Obama’s actions, with regards to abortion, I invite you to take a look at the data presented by Robert P. George, and see how it squares up with the statements made by the candidate Obama. It should be (painfully) clear that Obama is no friend of the unborn.