Young evangelical: We need more than just pro-life policies from the GOP

posted at 5:13 pm on December 29, 2008 by Allahpundit

In which I once again try to liven up a slow year-end news day with a religion post. As I’ve said before, I’ve always thought Christianity was more lefty than righty in orientation. So does this guy, evidently, as his choice of priorities between repealing Roe and, say, organizing a congressional bailout of the world’s poor would seem to be different than our readership’s. Scoff and call him a paper tiger if you like, but The One did make inroads with young white evangelicals this year, as this NYT graphic illustrates. The question is whether they broke for Obama because he appeals to them or because leftism does — or, alternatively, because they were turned off by McCain being less ostentatious in his faith than Dubya. Pew’s poll of party ID from September 2007 suggests a trend away from the GOP beginning in 2005, which suggests a fourth possibility: It has nothing to do with Obama, McCain, or leftism, but rather with the same disaffection with Bush that the public generally has felt for the last three years. Whatever the answer, The One knows a paradigm-shifting opportunity when he sees it. If you’ve been wondering why he’s so adamant about having Rick Warren at the inauguration, wonder no longer.

Exit question: Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected? Might he be less devout than advertised? Second look at Obama!

Tags: , ,

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Your collie doesn’t like to post over at Barber’s?

BadgerHawk on December 29, 2008 at 6:24 PM

Not all bloggers are as “liberal” as AllahPundit.

My collie says:

Some of the more “conservative” sites have rules against talking dogs, ya’ know.

Truth be told, I’m not sure what LaShawn’s stance is on canine liberation theology.

CyberCipher on December 29, 2008 at 6:39 PM

hoover.org

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 6:39 PM

Any Obama press conference is essentially a worship service.

Kensington on December 29, 2008 at 6:42 PM

It all comes to this… It is not what you do but why you do it… We were created for one reason … That reason is to have a personal relation with God and when we do we will know and do his will. We will not be driven by works but by Charity (love) for His sake. Much is made about what Jesus didn’t say. What has been written about Jesus would make a good pamphlet but… Jesus has said much more that we aren’t privy to. Christianity today is more like a cafiteria. I’ll take a little of this but I don’t care for any of that… Sorry folks you have to take it all. Many people say they don’t understand parts of the Bible… Well may be you should study it a bit more.

This is an exciting time. There once a time I belived in spite of science… now my faith soars because of science latest discoveries…

This young fellow isn’t recovering he is running from the truth…

vulcannomad on December 29, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 6:39 PM

I think the difference is that most Christians give to their church, not necessarily to help poor people.

So while Christians give more overall, it’s possible that Christians don’t give more charity to the poor.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:46 PM

dakine on December 29, 2008 at 6:33 PM

Oh look what was just posted:

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 6:39 PM

dakine, that has gotta hurt…more likely to donate money and more likely to give time…how many hospitals has the secular non-government people built?

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 6:46 PM

It has nothing to do with Obama, McCain, or leftism, but rather with the same disaffection with Bush that the public generally has felt for the last three years. Whatever the answer, The One knows a paradigm-shifting opportunity when he sees it…

“It’s the economy, stupid” ~ ~ Carville

The Congress and the media made sure they timed it to perfection, no matter who created the disasters, and for sure they all did, the politicians, that is.

Exit question: Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected? Might he be less devout than advertised? Second look at Obama!

Because he’s a secularist and fooled the lambs on yet another topic.

Entelechy on December 29, 2008 at 6:46 PM

dakine, just for you.

Entelechy on December 29, 2008 at 6:49 PM

I’m really suspicious of this,like the callers to talk
radio,where they claim,

you know,my entire family,going back hundreds of years,
voted straight Republican,but you know,for the first
time,I seen something in the ‘ONE’ that compelled me to
vote Liberal,for Hopey/Changey!!

This guy is probably legit,but it looks like an ‘operative
for the Liberal Socialist Democrat Party’ to play games
and confuse Conservatives!(Sarc!).

And yes,I know it sounds like crazy talk!!!

canopfor on December 29, 2008 at 6:50 PM

So while Christians give more overall, it’s possible that Christians don’t give more charity to the poor.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:46 PM

He covered that in the study too…

Some people might object to my conflation here of religious and nonreligious charity. One might argue, for example, that religious charity is more likely to take place for non-altruistic reasons than is nonreligious giving and volunteering: Religious people might give because of social pressure, for personal gain (such as stashing away rewards in Heaven), or to finance the services that they themselves consume, such as sacramental activities. Therefore, disparities in charity might disappear when we only consider explicitly nonreligious giving and volunteering. The sccbs data do not support this hypothesis, however: Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity.

Now it’s just one study. I’m sure Dakine will be back with some numbers of his own.

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Scoff and call him a paper tiger if you like, but The One did make inroads with young white evangelicals this year, as this NYT graphic illustrates.

Oh, puleez! Even young white evangelicals are not immune to new shiny objects.

Blake on December 29, 2008 at 6:55 PM

I think the difference is that most Christians give to their church, not necessarily to help poor people.

So while Christians give more overall, it’s possible that Christians don’t give more charity to the poor.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:46 PM

We need to change this. I give roughly 5% of my gross income directly to overseas missionaries working to feed, cloth, and shelter homeless children. I told my pastor this. He (predictably) objected — and told me that ALL of my tithe should be received by the local church. I told him “No. I am going to KEEP my commitment to these people.” (and not much else). He didn’t press me.

My collie says:

Maybe he didn’t force the issue because he knows that you are right, and that he is wrong.

For whatever reason, I think he KNOWS better than to force the issue.

CyberCipher on December 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM

And yes,I know it sounds like crazy talk!!!

canopfor on December 29, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Uh, you think?

klickink.wordpress.com on December 29, 2008 at 6:59 PM

So while Christians give more overall, it’s possible that Christians don’t give more charity to the poor.

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:46 PM

Don’t be ridiculous…
When you give to a church, you know the various missions.
Who do you think feed the hungry every night, take in the displaced families, the abused women?
On Thanksgiving, and on Christmas, who really fed the majority of the least among us.
Ever see this headline:
“Secular group, feeds the homeless on Thanksgiving”
“Atheists fed over 3,000 meals to the homeless on Thanksgiving”
I didn’t think so. Here is one for you…

November 24, 2008 by Tim Saunders

Kirk Douglas will host his annual Thanksgiving Meal for the Homeless on Wednesday, November 26.

Along with his wife, Anne Douglas, and a host of celebrities that will be announced just before the event, the 91-year-old actor will be dishing out meals at the Los Angeles Mission on the corner of Wall Street at 11am.

For over 50 years, the Los Angeles Mission has served the people of Hope Central (known as Skid Row), providing emergency services such as shelter, food, clothing, as well as professional medical and dental services. In addition, the Los Angeles Mission also offers long-term residential rehabilitation programs including education, job training/placement, transitional housing and counseling.

Celebrity guests in the past have included Harrison Ford, Calista Flockhart, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Melissa Gilbert, Michael Douglas Minnie Driver, Leeza Gibbons, Sally Kirkland, and Kevin Nealon, all of whom have helped prepare, serve and clear plates. Last year, more than 3,000 people were fed a full course Thanksgiving dinner with all the trimmings.

50 years of serving literally millions of homeless, this one mission has done more, just this one, then I would venture all of the atheists and agnostics combined.
And BTW, this is the big day, but they do this every day, everyone should see “skid row” and what this pastor has done to help the least among us.
Here is the website.
Secular should be embarrassed even to attempt to compare what they do, in comparison what just this one great organization has done for decades.
And yes, I am proud to have “flipped” a few pancakes for the mayor’s event for several years.

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 7:00 PM

How does that square with the pursuit of hefty profits and private property?

beatcanvas on December 29, 2008 at 5:36 PM

“The love of money is the root of all evil.”
“Thou shalt not steal.”

They freely gave what they owned. It was not taken from them involuntarily and given to others. There is a huge difference.

dominigan on December 29, 2008 at 7:05 PM

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 6:31 PM

Your words and only in Your world. Not mine.

bridgetown on December 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Uh,you think?

klickink.wordpress.com on Dec 29,2008 at 6:59PM.

kliickink.wordpress.com: Ya,maybe your right,the Liberals
just might be content so far,after
winning this election!

But you know,Liberals were never
happy with the Christian Right!

canopfor on December 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Exit question: Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected? Might he be less devout than advertised? Second look at Obama!

Not even on Christmas day? Seriously?
I would have thought that would be a no-brainer.

Count to 10 on December 29, 2008 at 7:10 PM

I’ve always thought Christianity was more lefty than righty in orientation.

Classical left-wing ideology pushes reason and humanity over faith…

…thus Christianity by definition is right-wing in orientation.

That said, there are strong left-wing ideas in Christianity (caring for the poor, love of money root of all evil, communal nature of the church)…

…and there are strong right-wing ideas (ultimate truth, personal responsibility, judgment, hard line on sin).

Exit question: Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected? Might he be less devout than advertised?

Obama is all things to all people, yet nothing in and of himself.

I believe Obama is all shell and nothing underneath.

Hence, he is only “religious” in the sense that it can get him what he wants.

And since he has already won the presidential campaign…

…there is no longer any reason for him to pretend that he is religious.

Religious_Zealot on December 29, 2008 at 7:14 PM

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 6:31 PM

Your words and only in Your world. Not mine.

bridgetown on December 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

No, your world, you have set your own standards of faith, held accountable by whom? Yourself, by your words.

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 7:15 PM

According to Jill Stanek this dude is a democrat, a “special assistant” to BO supporter Jim Wallace.
Sort of like the same mold of Doug Kmiec, Pepperdine law prof who says minimizing abortion is better than stopping it.

rmonde on December 29, 2008 at 7:17 PM

According to Jill Stanek this dude is a democrat, a “special assistant” to BO supporter Jim Wallace.
Sort of like the same mold of Doug Kmiec, Pepperdine law prof who says minimizing abortion is better than stopping it.

rmonde on December 29, 2008 at 7:17 PM

Research, yes!!! Thanks!!!

Like we had any doubt. I’d also like you to check his voting records, verify he’s ALWAYS voted Republican, while you’re at it.

;-)

klickink.wordpress.com on December 29, 2008 at 7:22 PM

Exit Question:

So far Obama’s is following in Bill Clintons mold,
photo-ops,like Bill getting caught laughing it up
outside the church of Ron Browns funeral!

I wonder,after 25 years,do Rev.Wright and Obama
still talk,oh thats right,I guess Hopey is still
looking for another church!!

canopfor on December 29, 2008 at 7:23 PM

But you know,Liberals were never
happy with the Christian Right!

canopfor on December 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Tha’s before they figured out, like this guy and AP, they can just hijack it instead! Just convince all those silly idol-worshiping nitwits they so despise that Jesus was really a liberal and all will be well.

After all, their “Jesus was a communist” argument didn’t pan out too well!!!!!

klickink.wordpress.com on December 29, 2008 at 7:24 PM

I reamed this little a-hole last night…

D2Boston on December 29, 2008 at 5:40 PM

TMI

eh on December 29, 2008 at 7:25 PM

According to Jill Stanek this dude is a democrat,

rmonde on Dec 29,2008 at 7:17PM.

rmonde: Well that very interesting,eh!

So lets see,he’s a Liberal who likes
to vote Republican!

canopfor on December 29, 2008 at 7:31 PM

According to Jill Stanek this dude is a democrat, a “special assistant” to BO supporter Jim Wallace.
Sort of like the same mold of Doug Kmiec, Pepperdine law prof who says minimizing abortion is better than stopping it.

rmonde on December 29, 2008 at 7:17 PM

The old “I have been a lifelong Republican, but I just can’t take it anymore” trick.
How many times do these “reporters” fall for this junk?

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 7:49 PM

dakine, just for you.

Entelechy on December 29, 2008 at 6:49 PM

Ohhhhh, dakine, where are youuuuuuuu?

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 7:50 PM

This guy’s reasoning is WAY off. Say it with me everyone.

False
Dilemma

“My generation…” ??? Keep searching brother. You’re meandering your way to the truth.

Mojave Mark on December 29, 2008 at 7:55 PM

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Wow, you sure do assume a lot.
LOL, Held accountable? By Yahweh, Not you. Not any MAN. and not any building.
I know it’s difficult for your mind to grasp, but I’m not going to try to explain to someone who assumes like such a jackass.

bridgetown on December 29, 2008 at 8:00 PM

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Wow, you sure do assume a lot.
LOL, Held accountable? By Yahweh, Not you. Not any MAN. and not any building.
I know it’s difficult for your mind to grasp, but I’m not going to try to explain to someone who assumes like such a jackass.

bridgetown on December 29, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Thanks for the insult, but you answered the question.
You interpret the bible how you feel it needs to be interpreted, that is great. I have no problem, that makes it easy if you want to justify something.
Jesus came to us as a Man to spread the gospel, you don’t have to accept that gospel from that Man.
He chose disciples to teach us and to show us how to teach others, to build churches…you don’t need that, nor advice from that Man.
I have no problem, as I said, it is your religious world, by yourself, defined by yourself (certainly not by any other Man), you have a great religion, you should be proud and happy with it, it’s yours…it has to be perfect.

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 8:10 PM

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 8:10 PM

Again, you assume too much. And you’re wrong in every single assumption so far. jeeez

bridgetown on December 29, 2008 at 8:12 PM

Esthier on December 29, 2008 at 6:46 PM

Read this article by Nicholas Kristof, a liberal columnist for The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1

In short, he concedes that in both dollars and time conservatives contribute more than liberals. And that takes into account supposed “narrow” giving to churches.

Keep in mind that much of liberal “charity” is nothing more than support for many la-di-da causes, which, while beneficial to society, do little for the poor.

Time for liberals to put their dough and their time where their mouths are.

BuckeyeSam on December 29, 2008 at 8:23 PM

The GOP fracture is starting to get a little complicated.

RightOFLeft on December 29, 2008 at 8:23 PM

Here are a few verses from the Bible,, of all places,, that you will never see a lib quote,,,

Exodus 23: 1 “You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.

2″You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice;

3)nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute.”

And another,,, about a tax

Exodus 30:15 “The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel, when you give the contribution to the LORD to make atonement for yourselves.”

JellyToast on December 29, 2008 at 8:36 PM

Dare I add still another??

Lev. 19:15 “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.”

JellyToast on December 29, 2008 at 8:39 PM

The GOP fracture is starting to get a little complicated.

RightOFLeft on December 29, 2008 at 8:23 PM

It’s called healthy debate. Something the goosestepping libs don’t understand.

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 8:42 PM

I think the difference is that most Christians give to their church, not necessarily to help poor people.

So while Christians give more overall, it’s possible that Christians don’t give more charity to the poor.

I think your premise is wrong, but even if it isn’t, churches give tons of money to the poor here & abroad.

jgapinoy on December 29, 2008 at 8:44 PM

I think the difference is that most Christians give to their church, not necessarily to help poor people.

So while Christians give more overall, it’s possible that Christians don’t give more charity to the poor.

I don’t know if we’re typical, but we give at least 10X more to the poor than to our church.

jgapinoy on December 29, 2008 at 8:46 PM

JellyToast on December 29, 2008 at 8:39 PM

You’re not giving the big picture. By being “partial”, he means showing favoritism. Regarding giving, God told the people of Israel to pay 10% of their income to the priests, so the rich did pay more (just not a higher rate, as we have).

jgapinoy on December 29, 2008 at 8:50 PM

Holy crap. Huckabee is getting his tax plan from the bible, isn’t he?

RightOFLeft on December 29, 2008 at 8:54 PM

Again, you assume too much. And you’re wrong in every single assumption so far. jeeez

bridgetown on December 29, 2008 at 8:12 PM

My apology, I thought you stated this:

Held accountable? By Yahweh, Not you. Not any MAN.

My assumption that Jesus was a man is wrong? That he chose disciples to teach us and to show how to disciple is wrong?
Okay, I have no idea what religion you are, but I am sure it is giving you strength.
But then you stated this assumption was wrong also:

you have a great religion, you should be proud and happy with it,

So, I am wrong on that assumption, and wrong all all the others. So maybe it isn’t giving you strength.
Whatever, you are content…that is the only thing important, that you are satisfied.
I envy you…

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 8:58 PM

There is not one verse in the entire Bible where God tells a government or leader to take from the rich and give that to the poor.
Here is an example where David was going to give a sacrifice, and a man said he would provide the sacrifice for David,, from the Old Test.: 1 Chr. 23-24,,,

23But Ornan said to David, “Take it to yourself, and let my lord the king do what is good in his eyes. Look, I also give you the oxen for burnt offerings, the threshing implements for wood, and the wheat for the grain offering; I give it all.”

24Then King David said to Ornan, “No, but I will surely buy it for the full price, for I will not take what is yours for the LORD, nor offer burnt offerings with that which costs me nothing.”

Yes,, God wants us to be charitable and give freely,,,,
but to GIVE,,, not steal from someone else and then give that to the poor!

And can you imagine some Republican saying “the poor will always be around.”
Well, Jesus said it,,,

“Mark 14:7 “For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me

People like this guy really want nothing to do with the real Jesus. They wear a religious costume to promote their own same tired old lib agenda.

JellyToast on December 29, 2008 at 9:01 PM

I don’t know if we’re typical, but we give at least 10X more to the poor than to our church.

jgapinoy on December 29, 2008

I know there are a lot of churches out there giving a great deal. Our church gives 50% of everything that comes into the offerings to missions all around the world. The have been doing it for years and years. It is a significant amount of money, too.

JellyToast on December 29, 2008 at 9:05 PM

Another thing to keep in mind when it comes to Christianity and charity is that it can often be more difficult to part with something when one doesn’t have to, as opposed to when it’s taken from you.

With the old saying about death and taxes people assume that the tax collector is coming anyhow, but to actually give money, charitably, when it is not required of you is certainly more rewarding.

12thMonkey on December 29, 2008 at 9:07 PM

Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore then going to McDonalds a hamburger. A Christian is someone who has confessed that he or she is a sinner and needs redemption from Jesus Christ who paid the price for sin in order for us to enter heaven. Jesus was mostly interested in our souls and not what government program was just or unjust. Jesus never mentioned the slavery issue in Rome. As I already said He was concerned with one’s soul and what each one of us will do about it.

garydt on December 29, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Tithing is only in the OT, not in the NT.
And in the OT, it really states that 10% should be set aside for God’s work. Not just given to the Priests, but it is “Mine”, and not to do what you want:
Here is a pretty good, abbreviated but accurate portrayal of OT tithing. (BTW, you don’t think a church would ever say you don’t have to tithe, do you?)

1. TITHING ACCORDING TO GOD

1.1 Paraphrase of God’s Commandments on Tithing to the Israelites

One tenth of all your income is Mine, and it is holy unto Me. (Ref. Lev.27:30) Therefore, I, as the rightful Owner of the 10% of your every pay cheque, command you the following:

a) Take the tenth portion of your pay cheque, which is Mine, go and have fun. Spend it on you and your family, for whatever your heart desires.(Ref. Deu.12:5-7; Deu.12:10-12; Deu.12:17-18; Deu.14:22-26)

b) However, do not forget those whom I have called into My ministry and those who are poor: take 10% of your every THIRD pay check and do not spend it on yourself and your family, but rather give it to them. (Ref. Deu.12:19; Deu.14:27-29; Deu.26:12-13)

c) Remember: one tenth of your income is My holy tithe, and you MUST

NOT use it for ANY unclean thing, that is, for ANYTHING, but for what I have commanded you. (Ref. Deu.26: 14)

Observe the above commandments so that you may learn to fear the Lord your God, and I will bless you and I will prosper you in everything that you do. (Ref. Deu.14:23; Deu.14:29)

In other words, God said: “Throw in a party – and I’ll pay the bill. However, do not forget those whom I have called into my ministry, and those who are less fortunate than you – and I will bless you.”

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 9:11 PM

One more thing Jesus was not diverse in beliefs. He stated in John 14 v.6 that He was the only way to Heaven.

garydt on December 29, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore then going to McDonalds a hamburger…

garydt on December 29, 2008 at 9:11 PM

excuses, excuses…then Jesus was a fool for having disciples go out and start churches.
Churches do feed the poor, but they also teach and hold one accountable.
Paul talks about a lot, you are to hold each other accountable. When you go to church, you bring your life with you, it reinforces His word, and it helps you feed others if you are strong, and it feeds you if you are weak.
That is why churches survive, they build each other…that is why Christ came to us, because we needed guidance, we can’t do it on our own…but being on your own is freedom from anyone or anybody “telling” you what is right, so you get to make your own rules.

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 9:16 PM

Sorry I am great believer in churches. My point was that a church does not provide salvation but only when a sinner finds salvation through repentence. This is probably done more in churches then anywhere else. Sorry I didn’t mean to give the impression I was against serving a church.

garydt on December 29, 2008 at 9:20 PM

12thMonkey,

With the old saying about death and taxes people assume that the tax collector is coming anyhow, but to actually give money, charitably, when it is not required of you is certainly more rewarding.

Desiring to help someone you think deserves your help and doing so is much more rewarding than helping someone out of duty to God or country.

FierceGuppy on December 29, 2008 at 9:21 PM

Sorry I am great believer in churches. My point was that a church does not provide salvation but only when a sinner finds salvation through repentence. This is probably done more in churches then anywhere else. Sorry I didn’t mean to give the impression I was against serving a church.

garydt on December 29, 2008 at 9:20 PM

Gotcha ya!
Often personal salvation comes from someones else’s intervention.
Jesus knew, by His action, that we need personal attention. And a continuous feeding of the word. And we are not capable of doing that on our own…obviously or He wouldn’t have wasted His time.

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 9:27 PM

christianity needs less clowns like thie ‘young evangelical’ please.

we need people like Newton, Edwards, and Wilberforce…but none are around…sadly…

and no one can replace billy graham…

right4life on December 29, 2008 at 9:44 PM

Keep in mind that much of liberal “charity” is nothing more than support for many la-di-da causes, which, while beneficial to society, do little for the poor.

BuckeyeSam on December 29, 2008 at 8:23 PM

actually, it’s worse than that. most leftwing “charity” is only charity by close analogy in the sense that it consists of non-recompensated, non-profit work. most of what leftwing ngos do in the world consists of political agitation: organizing, collecting testimonies, “creating awareness” in the first world, “raising conciousness” in the third world, and often lending elbow grease to failing policies of third world dictatorships. almost none of what the left does in the world actually bandages wounds or spoons food into mouths.

i once had some afsc a**hole brag to me that the quaker peacenics were still in vietnam working alongside the oppressed in vietnam…keeping the collective farms running. that was his refutation to my observation that the peace churches dropped their professed concern for the vietnamese once the u.s. left and the north rolled in and started up with the summary executions and loading of dissidents off to concentration camps.

once again: christians are not conservatives.

eh on December 29, 2008 at 9:46 PM

once again: christians are not conservatives.

eh on December 29, 2008 at 9:46 PM

this one sure as hell is…I am RIGHT for LIFE…I had the soviet union and their lackeys figured out when I was a teenager…I was reading Burnham, Buckley, Chambers, and Solzhenitsyn…

right4life on December 29, 2008 at 9:51 PM

According to my brief review of evangelical Facebook pages (very scientific, I know) it’s AP’s “fourth possibility: It has nothing to do with Obama, McCain, or leftism, but rather with the same disaffection with Bush that the public generally has felt for the last three years”.

aurelius on December 29, 2008 at 9:52 PM

and of course Orwell and Lewis…

right4life on December 29, 2008 at 9:52 PM

even as a teenager I left the ELCA because they supported the national and world council of churches…which supported the communists..people like SWAPO and ZANU PF

right4life on December 29, 2008 at 9:57 PM

Stupid 9.5 hour time difference, I was hoping to weigh in on this sort of thing: I’m not a huge Separation of Church & State kind of guy, but I will say this: Using government to provide Christian charity is a far bigger violation of the principle of Separation than putting “In God We Trust” on our money. So if there is an evangelical movement toward the idea of using Government (and, in this case, then I say “government” I mean “successful people’s money paid as taxation) to bail out the debt, there is no charity there. Charity, in the Greek, is Agape, “the love of choice” (noun) or “to choose to love” (verb). First Corinthians 13 uses Agape as the word for love (which is why the King James version translates it as charity). My point is that if you provide for the poor by your own choice, that is charity. If you provide for the poor because failure to do so is called “Tax Evasion” is not Christian charity. So the illusion that we can make it charity is bogus, and the “Evangelicals” who spout about how we need the government to do it because American Christians are failing to do it are charlatans. Nothing has been so devastating to Christian Charity as government intervention.

Spc Steve on December 29, 2008 at 9:59 PM

once again: christians are not conservatives.

eh on December 29, 2008 at 9:46 PM

No… Liberals are not conservatives.

Just because someone likes big government and socialism and their excuse for this is religion doesn’t mean everyone who may believe in God feels the same.

Wanting the government out of your religious beliefs is an inherently Christian, and conservative, principle.

12thMonkey on December 29, 2008 at 10:02 PM

Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore then going to McDonalds a hamburger…

garydt on December 29, 2008

Look,,, once we understand that no one really wants to submit to God,, none of us are seeking God,,, we are all running from God,,, half the battle is over.
It is God who is seeking us. We did not climb into heaven, God came down to this earth.
But you know,,, there are hypocrites at McDonalds,, but we still go there. There are hypocrites at the supermarkets, at the banks,, everywhere,,, but that never stops us. Only when it comes to church do some of us suddenly care about the company we keep.

JellyToast on December 29, 2008 at 10:03 PM

Thank God Jesus didn’t care so much about the company He kept.

JellyToast on December 29, 2008 at 10:04 PM

but The One did make inroads with young white evangelicals this year

Who are ‘young white evangelicals’?

Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected? Might he be less devout than advertised?

I strongly suspect he’ll do a ‘mohammed Ali’, or a ‘Kareem Abdul Jabbar’ and convert to Islam after gaining fame. It’s something you should be looking forward to ‘Allah’.

ThackerAgency on December 29, 2008 at 10:23 PM

once again: christians are not conservatives.

eh on December 29, 2008 at 9:46 PM

I’m not quite sure what your argument is based on…

…but rest assured that Christians can be liberal OR conservative.

There are many core aspects of Christian belief that fall under conservative ideals: ultimate truth, personal responsibility, judgment, hard line on sin.

And, yes, there are many core aspects of Christian belief that fall under liberal ideals.

Thus a well-rounded Christian is both liberal AND conservative, depending upon what aspect of their life you are examining.

Religious_Zealot on December 29, 2008 at 10:23 PM

CyberCipher, thanks for making some excellent points here.

INC on December 29, 2008 at 10:31 PM

I don’t know what some of you people are talking about. There is not a single aspect of Christianity that can be considered left-leaning or liberal. I’m all about helping out those who cannot help themselves but why should I want to put a low-accountability, inefficient, monoply in charge of doing so. I’d much rather have the church or private organizations in charge of such things where there is more over-sight than with the government.

And, yes, there are many core aspects of Christian belief that fall under liberal ideals.
Religious_Zealot on December 29, 2008 at 10:23 PM

Yeah, like which one?

NeverLiberal on December 29, 2008 at 10:40 PM

Great thread. I hope Allahpundit lets this stay up for a while because I’d like to see lots of people’s opinions about this. Every time I think I’m going to post something, I read something that challenges what I was going to suggest, or I read something that someone has already written that is better than what I was going to say or …

*sigh*

I’m confused about my faith and my politics. Trying to learn. Trying to sort it out.

tartan on December 29, 2008 at 10:46 PM

There are fruits of the lives of Christians that you could tag as liberal or conservative, I suppose, according to the way that our culture views various behaviors. This is because it boggles our understanding to think that righteousness and love are not exclusive, but rather are both to be upheld and lived out.

INC on December 29, 2008 at 10:47 PM

I am really confused. I thought the 10 Commandments were weighted just a teensy bit more that the rest of the Bible, hence the special name and emphases placed on them by God.

I must have missed the part where we get to “choose”.

Laura in Maryland on December 29, 2008 at 11:04 PM

Christians have seen both righteousness and love in the cross of Christ. There’s an old hymn that states in one of its lines, Thy Love has met Thy Law’s demands.

The Law of God teaches God’s holy standard. Paul says in his letter to the Galatians that the Law was a tutor to bring us to Christ. In his letter to the Romans he states that through the Law comes understanding that we are sinners and the knowledge that we cannot justify ourselves before God.

In Romans 3, he writes,

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

2 Corinthians 5:21

God made him [Christ Jesus] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him [Christ Jesus] we might become the righteousness of God.

And why did God do this?

John 3:16

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

INC on December 29, 2008 at 11:11 PM

Laura,

If you work through Paul’s letter to the Romans, you will see that he carefully discusses the purpose of the Law. It seems he was even accused of trying to negate the Law. Look at Romans 6, especially the last few verses:

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

INC on December 29, 2008 at 11:14 PM

The notion that Christians are automatically conservative is just silly, as any conservative Christian will tell you. The leadership of every single major Protestant denomination is much more liberal than their membership (too many examples to list, but Meryl has written about it).

Anyway, this pansy is just a liberal. He’s not a “Christian conservative” who has seen the light and decided to become liberal, or whatever tripe he’s selling about poverty. He’s just a butt-sniffing little liberal, and in this case he’s trying to sell Obambi to other mush-headed little liberals on the basis of poverty peddling.

But Christianity really doesn’t work this way. No Christian who reads the Bible seriously and views abortion as the taking of human life, would suggest that this is a less important issue than “poverty” or “Iraq”.

He’s a clown.

Jaibones on December 29, 2008 at 11:20 PM

Yeah, like which one?

NeverLiberal on December 29, 2008 at 10:40 PM

Well, I’ve always found it interesting that what pissed Jesus off to no end was the money changers in the temple. Drive stakes into his hands, then it’s all “forgive them father,” do shady business practices in the temple, THEN he gets angry.

And it wasn’t just because the temple is holy, he called the money changers “thieves.” Think about that for a moment. The money changers were enganging in simple business practices, totally unregulated. The pilgrims weren’t forced to pay their unfair rates. But because the wealthy were taking advantage over the poor in their business, they were “thieves.” I think you could argue that this comes in conflict with the conservative idea of totally free markets. That is, if your business is exploitative, you are a thief. To most conservatives, neither side of a business arrangement can be a thief if you choose to engage in the business willingly in a free market, but Jesus doesn’t seem to think so. And thievery, which Jesus says includes unfair business practices, is something that can be regulated under the law.

But that’s just my take. I’d like to hear your thoughts on what this story means.

justfinethanks on December 29, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Bush has made amazing strides in Africa fighting AIDS and poverty. Obamba cannot even help his own brother out of horrific third world poverty. I don’t want to hear a bunch of whining about how evil conservatives are.

Laura in Maryland on December 29, 2008 at 11:39 PM

INC on December 29, 2008 at 11:14 PM

I’m not going to argue that point, but my point was that we can debate or interpret the rest of the Bible, but The Commandments are God’s Word, and are set in stone.

Laura in Maryland on December 29, 2008 at 11:40 PM

And it wasn’t just because the temple is holy, he called the money changers “thieves.” Think about that for a moment. The money changers were enganging in simple business practices, totally unregulated.

justfinethanks on December 29, 2008 at 11:37 PM

No, the money changers in the temples were essentially charging taxes upon the populace to perform sacrifices (probably to make it “fair” to everybody). Obviously a repudiation of socialist values.

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 11:53 PM

The temple businesses is a poor example of “left leaning” views of the Bible anyway. A better example is Jesus’ stopping the stoning of the adulteress.

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 11:56 PM

But that’s just my take. I’d like to hear your thoughts on what this story means.

justfinethanks on December 29, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Lots of things about Jesus being upset at the money changers on Holy Ground.
They were set up at the Temple, a pretty important part of the equation…and a stern warning to those ministers who make a profit and wealth at God’s house. The thievery comes from the promises of God’s wealth on those who spend in God’s temple.

right2bright on December 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM

It all comes to this… It is not what you do but why you do it… We were created for one reason … That reason is to have a personal relation with God and when we do we will know and do his will. We will not be driven by works but by Charity (love) for His sake. Much is made about what Jesus didn’t say. What has been written about Jesus would make a good pamphlet but… Jesus has said much more that we aren’t privy to. Christianity today is more like a cafiteria. I’ll take a little of this but I don’t care for any of that… Sorry folks you have to take it all. Many people say they don’t understand parts of the Bible… Well may be you should study it a bit more.

This is an exciting time. There once a time I belived in spite of science… now my faith soars because of science latest discoveries…

This young fellow isn’t recovering he is running from the truth…

vulcannomad on December 29, 2008 at 6:43 PM

I agree.

Glynn on December 30, 2008 at 12:30 AM

Get the Facts right – Mr. Evangelical !!

defendfaithandfamily on December 30, 2008 at 12:55 AM

But because the wealthy were taking advantage over the poor in their business, they were “thieves.
justfinethanks on December 29, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Why assume that they weren’t actually thieves in the more traditional sense? Take the example of Luke 12:12-15. A man approached Jesus and asked him to make his brother divide his inheritance with him. This on the surface would seem innocent enough but Jesus tells him to beware of covetousness. Jesus was able to read this man’s true spirit and knew of a truth what his real intentions were. Money changers were famous for shaving the coins to reduce their real value so they could have been thieves in that way also. From my understanding of money changers, it was a popular trade for swindlers because of its ease to cheat. I could go on further but I don’t feel like typing that much more.

The temple businesses is a poor example of “left leaning” views of the Bible anyway. A better example is Jesus’ stopping the stoning of the adulteress.

Skywise on December 29, 2008 at 11:56 PM

I hardly think that being merciful during a particular instance is comparable to being a liberal. He wasn’t repudiating capital punishment, he was just being merciful to someone who otherwise deserved punishment. This is the same Jesus who “treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God,” when he returns and the blood shall be “unto the horses bridles.” I was talking to a pastor once who quoted this verse to support the more
“liberal Jesus” and then I asked him if he thought that by Jesus doing this that he was insinuating that all adulterers and evil-doers should go unpunished. He responded with hesitated silence then said, well…no. The actual answer is that Jesus didn’t come to the earth to condemn anybody regardless of how much they deserved it because he came to save men’s lives. The Bible is full of fierce judgment, but just because God will be merciful when he chooses to doesn’t make him a liberal.

NeverLiberal on December 30, 2008 at 12:56 AM

Exit question: Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected? Might he be less devout than advertised?

Conspiracy theorists would say that’s just because he’s Muslim. but then they’ll have to explain why he cremated his mother. Maybe he’s Hindu?

Phoenician on December 30, 2008 at 1:10 AM

Yes Christianity is more lefty than righty no doubt.

Of course, I would NEVER join today’s democratic party…they are bunch of communist,atheist,pagan, genocide supporters!

But now that the republican party is finally completely dead…a new party in which Christians can coalesce (and win every election from here on out) is urgently needed.

SaintOlaf on December 30, 2008 at 1:13 AM

Second look at Obama!
AllahPundit

Did you people really think that Ap here did NOT vote for Obama?

Lol!

Unfortunately for him, he will be sorely disappointed when he finds out that Obamba is not really an atheist and that he really worships at the church of skull and bones(i.e. he’s a satanist)

SaintOlaf on December 30, 2008 at 1:18 AM

Why assume that they weren’t actually thieves in the more traditional sense?

NeverLiberal on December 30, 2008 at 12:56 AM

This is why:
In Matt: 21:12, this was the second time Jesus came in kickin butt. The “merchants” had set up their booths in the court of the Gentiles in the temple, crowding the Gentiles who came from all around the world to worship God at the temple. The merchants were selling sacrificial animals at high prices, taking the “tourists” for a ride. The money changers exchanged all international currency for special temple coins, the only money the merchants would accept, and were deceiving the foreigners of their true value, taking advantage of travelers coming to worship. This was not cool with Jesus, and any practice that interferes with worshiping God angered Him.

right2bright on December 30, 2008 at 1:39 AM

I strongly suspect he’ll do a ‘mohammed Ali’, or a ‘Kareem Abdul Jabbar’ and convert to Islam after gaining fame. It’s something you should be looking forward to ‘Allah’.

ThackerAgency on December 29, 2008 at 10:23 PM

Maybe he does not need to convert.

Johan Klaus on December 30, 2008 at 2:18 AM

We will always have poverty and we will always have wars. During the last days Jesus told us there would be more pestilence, rumors of war, nation will be against nation, more earthquakes. Pestilence, I would venture to say will be eco-diasters and no matter how hard man trys to stop it the pestilence will come as of wars. The best thing is to be prepared as if this was your last day and live accordingly that your life will bare the Fruit of the Spirit.

garydt on December 30, 2008 at 2:30 AM

I’ll accept that the American right is pro-life when their fertility matches that of the Mexicans and the muslims.

Kralizec on December 30, 2008 at 2:35 AM

I’ll accept that the American right is pro-life when their fertility matches that of the Mexicans and the muslims.

Kralizec on December 30, 2008 at 2:35 AM

So, basically, what your saying is, the only way you’ll believe the American right is pro-life is if they procreate without regard as to how they will support large families?

Got news for ya, unlike Mexicans and Muslims, Americans don’t have the luxury of jumping the border of social states willing to allow them to stay indefinitely without penalty or spend billions in tax payer money to support the families they bring with them or create once they get there.

Apparently, only the American and European left are stupid enough to forge social systems like that.

SuperCool on December 30, 2008 at 2:50 AM

.

Which of those dozen verses about homosexuality are commands not to participate in such an act, and which of the two-thousand (so he says) verses are commands to give money to the government to fix these problems?

Jesus said, “Give to the poor.”

The socialist says, “We tax you so we can give it to the poor.”

This is from a blog I did on the matter:

…“On a dark street, a man draws a knife and demands my money for drugs.”

1. Instead of demanding my money for drugs, he demands it for the Church.

2. Instead of being alone, he is with a bishop of the Church who act as bagman.

3. Instead of drawing a knife, he produces a policeman who says I must do as he says.

4. Instead of meeting me on the street, he mails me his demand as an official agent of the government.

If the first is theft, it is difficult to see why the other four are not also theft.

papa_giorgio on December 30, 2008 at 3:37 AM

…“On a dark street, a man draws a knife and demands my money for drugs.”

1. Instead of demanding my money for drugs, he demands it for the Church.

2. Instead of being alone, he is with a bishop of the Church who act as bagman.

3. Instead of drawing a knife, he produces a policeman who says I must do as he says.

4. Instead of meeting me on the street, he mails me his demand as an official agent of the government.

If the first is theft, it is difficult to see why the other four are not also theft.

papa_giorgio on December 30, 2008 at 3:37 AM

The other four are Iran.

Or medieval Europe.

With a few exceptions, not much difference.

Also, excellent point.

SuperCool on December 30, 2008 at 4:24 AM

I’d suggest that the founder of recoveringevangelical.com is more lefty than evangelical–or he’s a leftist in evangelical clothing. Even the name of his website implies the same. Notice the implication in his argument. If you’re anti-abortion, you neglect the poor. Overlooking the bad logic, you won’t find another organized group of people in the United States that gives as much time and money to help the poor as Christians. To suggest that Christians don’t have enough concern for the poor because they’re pre-occupied with abortion is absurd. In fact, the same principle that prompts Christians to oppose abortion is the same one that necessitates that they help the poor–life is sacred. This guy has bought in to the left’s simpleton assertion that Republicans hate the poor. Perhaps this guy would rather sacrifice principle in order to climb on board the Obama train.

under on December 30, 2008 at 5:07 AM

Exit question: Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected? Might he be less devout than advertised? Second look at Obama!

He is, in fact, less of everything than advertised. The whole going to church thing was a photo-op for public consumption. Once it performed it’s mission, why bother repeating it? On to the next lie. I’m giddy with anticipation.

SKYFOX on December 30, 2008 at 5:34 AM

The pro-life litmus test needs to go – especially on the national level.

I don’t mind if a Republican candidate has that stance – but it should not be used to beat down a candidate like Giuliani or others simply because they don’t hold to an absolute anti-abortion stance.

Mr Purple on December 30, 2008 at 6:01 AM

No Christian who reads the Bible seriously and views abortion as the taking of human life, would suggest that this is a less important issue than “poverty” or “Iraq”.
He’s a clown.
Jaibones on December 29, 2008 at 11:20 PM

A huge failing of conservatives has been the failure to refute the claims made by the Catholic Church and many protestant denominations that:
(1) the Bible requires you to support “green” policies and to assume the existence of global warming;
(2) corporations should be distrusted, but government should be trusted;
(3) a Christian’s charitable duty is discharged through tax & transfer programs; and
(4) democratic socialism, and not capitalism, is the economic system that best promotes human dignity and freedom.

I know a ton of relatively pious people who really believe some or all of those bullet points above, and thus tend to (1) support Democratic policies and (2) feel a moral tug on the abortion issue (on the theory that “well, the Democrat promotes all these other Christian virtues, and how do I weigh that against the pro-abortion thing?” This is a significant problem and I think conservatives need to start leaning on theologians to come up with doctrines that make fiscally conservative positions sound holy.

Outlander on December 30, 2008 at 7:44 AM

If religious people “broke for Obama” and I have my doubts. They did so because of a lack of excitement for John McCain who has stuck his thumb in the eye of all conservatives at every opportunity. Christians are not single issue voters and McCain has irritated us on many levels and we were not enthusiastic about his run! We didn’t buy all the shilling by Laura and Shaun and Glen and Michael! McCain remained McCain. Put some pretty lipstick on him, he was still a pig. If the RNC keeps it up, the Christian community will remain non-supportive for years to come and they shall remain in the wilderness. But, most at the RNC feel as this dill weed does. Who needs people of faith? Let’s move to the center and be Democrat Lites? Ok…have fun, boys!!!

sabbott on December 30, 2008 at 7:44 AM

As a Christian this makes me so upset to see scripture twisting to make a false point.

Humans are to protect innocent life in all forms. The OT has that covered in the law. We are to stand against all sin, and preach God’s grace and mercy.

We are not, and I think that whats wrong with the left, is to try to bring heaven to earth and eliminate all poverty and injustice. Only God can do that by judgment.

Utopia can’t happen when sin exist!
It’s why Jesus said “the poor you will always have.”

Our job as the church is to bring people into the saving grace of God through Jesus. Our members are suppose to come to us for help, not the government. But everyone looks to the government for help.

Mercy4Me on December 30, 2008 at 8:25 AM

Here’s why the liberals made progress with young evangelicals:

2Timothy 4:3, 4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Obama and the media spun the fables, and lots of evangelicals bought into them. As a more “senior” (read – old) evangelical, I’m not fooled by the flash-n-trash of Uber-bama. I’ll stay home before I ever vote democrat.

abcurtis on December 30, 2008 at 9:19 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3