Monday, July 28, 2008

"Evangelicals for Obama"

Before I launch into some Obama bashing, I should, to be “fair and balanced,” say a thing or two about McCain.

McCain wasn’t my first pick. Or my second. Or my third, or fourth, or...

McCain rarely misses an opportunity remind conservatives of why we dislike him so. He goes out of his way to skewer conservatives.

The best argument for voting for McCain is that while Obama is bad on all the issues that McCain is bad on, McCain is better on a few other issues. Obama is uniformly bad. And I think that’s an adequate reason to vote for McCain.

That doesn’t mean it’s an adequate reason for me. McCain is daring conservatives to vote for him because the alternative is even worse. It’s a game of chicken.

I don’t know that I’m prepared to vote for a candidate under such coercive terms. Don’t count on me to blink first. I’m not responsible for this dilemma.

It’s kind of like one of those movie scenarios in which your captors force you to choose which captive will die to spare the lives of your fellow captives: “Either shoot him or we’ll shoot you!” In that situation, kill us all and let God sort it out.

I think one can justify voting for McCain, and I also think one can justify sitting out this election.

I’m also curious to see who he will pick for Veep. If it’s Romney, count me out.

I’d add that even if McCain is elected, there’s not much he can do should the Democrats pick up a veto-proof majority in Congress. Let’s not be so focused in the presidential election that we overlook the Congressional election. That’s equally important.

Now let’s shift to Obama. And let’s begin with white “evangelicals” who plan to vote for Obama.

“Green said young evangelicals are ‘tired of the confrontational politics we've had over the last couple of decades’."

Fine. Let’s elect conservatives. That would put an end to confrontational politics.

Barring that, I prefer gridlock to smooth traffic flow over a cliff.

“And want ‘a broader agenda’.”

I don’t want a broader agenda. I want a narrower agenda. Less government, not more.

“And a much more inclusive approach’."

There’s nothing “inclusive” about liberal social policies. It’s all about groupthink.

“According to the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, 35 percent of young white evangelicals said society should accept homosexuality, compared to 22 percent of older evangelicals.”

“Accept” in what sense? To have all the same rights as normal people?

“While a commitment to poverty-fighting is nothing new for Christians, 58 percent of young white evangelicals would choose ‘bigger government providing more services’ over ‘smaller government providing fewer services’."

Of course, gov’t doesn’t fight poverty. It promotes poverty. It promotes a culture of dependency. In the welfare state, where you penalize productive citizens and subsidize unproductive citizens, there’s no incentive to work.

“Smith said her top priorities are the environment, poverty, and health care.”

Of course, this is code language for global warming, welfare, and universal health insurance. From what I can tell, anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.

Welfare doesn’t solve poverty. It creates and perpetuates poverty.

Universal heath insurance is a pyramid scam. Who’s going to pay? Not the poor. The rich? No. The rich shelter their income. Look at Ted Kennedy. He’s living off of his old man’s fortune.

Here’s a little history lesson for the younger generation. I grew up in a one-income, middle class family during the 60s and 70s. We didn’t have health insurance back them. No one did. It was a fee-for-service system. And it was affordable. We didn’t need heath insurance.

Insurance isn’t cost effective. If insurance were cost-effective, insurance companies would go out of business. They turn a profit on insurance because you pay in more than they pay out. It’s really pretty obvious.

In fact, government sponsored health insurance drives up the cost of health care. If gov’t is footing the bill, then the companies don’t have to be competitive. Just look at the post office.

BTW, I’m not knocking insurance, per se. But insurance is no solution to health care costs that annually rise higher than the rate of inflation. You end of with rationed health care. Just look at the UK.

“They're the issues that affect her most—more than abortion or gay marriage—and she thinks they're the issues Jesus prioritized, too: ‘I know that Jesus said visit the sick, feed the hungry,’ she said. ‘I feel like I'm not going against my faith by putting those issues at the forefront’."

First of all, she mentioned three issues, not just one. Was Jesus a member of the Green Party?

He also didn’t talk about the sick in general or the poor in general. That has reference to sick or hungry Christians.

BTW, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be charitable. But the Bible distinguishes between people who are poor through no fault of their own (e.g. widows and orphans) and people who are poor due to their lifestyle choices (e.g. sluggards).

In addition, the Bible proposes various forms of workfare (e.g. indentured service, gleaning the fields) rather than welfare. It proposes interest free loans rather than food stamps. You have to repay a loan.

"The whole gay thing?’ she says. ‘Jesus never mentioned homosexuals at all’."

Let’s see—he condemned fornication (Mt 5:19), defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman (Mt 19:4-6), and mentioned God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:15). Just what Bible is she reading?

Anyway, it wouldn’t matter if Jesus was silent on the subject. Christian theology isn’t limited to a red-letter edition of the Gospels. Jesus upheld OT ethics, and he also appointed men to speak on his behalf.

Now let’s transition to black “evangelicals” who plan to vote for Obama.

“I started by explaining that for African Americans, there is a sense of hope no longer being deferred. Instead, hope is at the front door knocking furiously, waiting to see if African Americans will answer. If we open the door, forty million African Americans are going to witness a fellow African American getting the largest slice of the American Dream Pie—a dessert many had hoped to see people of color eat in their lifetime, but the many fell asleep having embraced such promises from afar.”

In other words, vote for him for the empty symbolism. That’s racist. It’s racial tokenism. Vote for a black—any black. Would Redmond vote for Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe?

Black “evangelicals” would be selling themselves cheap if they cast their vote for empty symbolism.

“As the struggle for social and economic equality has been a struggle for all African Americans, regardless of belief system(s), we all share in the joy when one of our own achieves the (presumptive) nomination for the highest office in the land.”

In other words, if you neighbor wins the lottery, then you win the lottery. Except that you don’t. If you neighbor wins the lottery, he gets the big fat check, not you. You’re exactly where you were before he won.

So this is more empty symbolism.

“An office that has been reserved for white males only until now.”

I wouldn’t say the presidency is been “reserved” for white males only until now. Running Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton for president isn’t much of a test.

“Obama’s candidacy would allow all African Americans to say to our forefathers, “we finally did it!’…”

More empty symbolism. Your forefathers can’t hear you. They’re dead and buried.

“Hope, yea victory, is finally here! We are equal at the highest level!”

That’s an illusion. If Obama is elected, it will be white votes that put him over the top. His success or failure still depends on white power.

“If we take DuBois’ musings as an accurate analysis of African American existence, we can see another factor involved in Christian African Americans’ support of Obama: identity.”

Which has nothing to do with Christian identity.

“We now have a candidate who we think identifies with the experience of African Americans.”

No, he identifies with his white Ivy League professors.

“He has experienced the struggle of the great-great-great-grandchildren of slaves (even though he is not one).”

No, he experienced affirmative action.

“So surely, it is supposed, he will fight for policies and programs that will be sensitive to the plight of his people and that work toward uplifting the entire race of people.”

Social programs don’t uplift black Americans. They hold them down.

“To the place where the playing field is level.”

In what sense is the playing field tilted?

“Surely, as one of us, he will sign into law measures that will protect the gains made during the Civil Rights and post-Civil Rights Eras.”

If Obama loses, will the South reinstate Jim Crow? I don’t think so.

“Because he is one of us, we have hope that we will no longer have to look at ourselves through the contemptuous eyes of others—i.e., white Americans.”

Do white Americans look with contempt on black Americans? That’s a pretty sweeping statement.

“We now can look at ourselves through the eyes of the man who could hold the most well-known office in the free-world, and he can look at the world through our eyes.”

This, too, is racist. It reflects a racial inferiority complex. A need for symbolic affirmation.

I’ve never voted for president to validate my personal identity. I’ve never seen myself through the eyes of my president. I never saw myself through the eyes of Bill Clinton.

The implication of Redmond’s statement is that black Americans need to prove themselves to themselves, prove themselves to white Americans, and prove themselves to the world.

Once again, that’s a racist sentiment. It reflects a racial inferiority complex.

If you really think you’re equal, then you have nothing to prove. No one to impress. You’re secure in your own identity.

“For African Americans, to deny Obama would then be, in some sense, to deny one’s own identity.”

In other words, any black American who doesn’t vote for Obama is a traitor. What does this say about Redmond’s priorities?

And how does his attitude differ from the attitude of a Klansman? What’s the difference between white identity politics and black identity politics?

For example, Bobby Jindal is a rising star in the GOP. Would it be a denial of my white identity to vote for an East Indian American? Why should racial identity—whether mine or his—even be a consideration?

“Being able to see the potential for mutual embracing of identities in a candidate further means that African Americans will not feel the need to settle on the candidate who represents the lesser of two evils.”

Only if racial identity trumps Christian identity or moral identity.

“By common consent, many African Americans feel that their votes are taken for granted by one major political party, and only courted as tokenism by the other major party.”

There’s some truth to that. It’s a vicious cycle. Republicans ignore most black candidates because most black candidates are liberal. Most black candidates ignore the GOP in return.

We need movement in both directions. The GOP should seek out talented conservative “minorities” while talented conservative “minorities” should seek out the GOP.

“The votes do not result in policy changes that benefit African Americans as a whole no matter which party’s candidate wins office.”

Conservative policies benefit every race.

“An Obama candidacy immediately changes the hopeless feelings of resignation as the fall approaches.”


“Higher than average African American attendance at the polls in November could be a reflection of the joy brought on by the ability to pick a candidate without mental or emotional reservation and resignation.”

But they should have mental reservations about Obama. Indeed, that’s an understatement.

“An Obama nomination looks like a nomination for social justice – far more than does a nomination for someone from the other party.”

What social injustice does Redmond think black Americans are still enduring?

“If the Illinois senator will carry both white and Black voters in November, unlike Democratic candidates from other ethnicities, he will not be able to make promises to African Americans without accountability to keep his promises.”

My that’s credulous. White politicians lie to white voters all the time. Why would a black candidate be any different?

“Instead, he will be under pressure not to let his people down judicially. He will have to reject policies that stand against the Democratic version of racial progress, and he will have to sign into law policies that stand for such progress.”

What current policies stand in the way of blacks?

“They expect social and economic justice policies to find favor with this candidate, for Affirmative Action to be strengthened, for racial profiling and racial inequities in the legal systems to be brought into account and see diminishing statistics, and for ‘equal justice for all’ to be more than words on the halls of justice.”

You know, this way of casting the issue makes it sound as if we have an all-black underclass under the heel of an all-white government.

Last time I checked, there were black judges, black big-city majors, black big-city councilmen, black big-city police chiefs in charge of an integrated police force, &c. Who's oppressing whom?

“An Obama presidency would portray justice in another odd sort of way. Akin to the issue of hope above, his election would be seen as vindication. It would have a self-correcting effect on the errors of America’s history, with its sins of chattel slavery, Jim Crow laws.”

We’ve already corrected those errors.

“And ongoing civil injustices.”

Such as?

“What greater way is there for African Americans in turn to say, ‘We have overcome!”

I can think of a greater way. What about raising your kids in two-parents homes. Helping them with their homework so that they graduate from high school. Things like that.

“What an Obama in the White House would do for African Americans is allow us to feel.”

To “feel.”

“We can say, ‘Now this country is going to treat us equally, fairly, justly’.”

“Now”? Redmond is a pretty successful man in his own right to feel so victimized.

Does Barack Obama look like a victim of social injustice to you? Does his wife look like a victim of social injustice to you? If that’s the face of social injustice, it’s pretty lucrative.

“The above thoughts do not make a judgment on whether Christian African Americans should or should not vote for Obama.”

Of course it’s a judgment on Christian black Americans who don’t vote for him. Redmond just implied that any black American who doesn’t vote for Obama is a traitor to the black race.

“The intention of this work is only to offer some reasons that explain why Christian African Americans might vote for Obama in the fall.”

But notice that he didn’t give any Christian reasons. Not a single one.

“It does not address the suggested contradiction between voting for a pro-choice candidate and claiming to be a voter who holds a pro-life position. Personally, I think that sanctity of life issues only deal with one of ten areas of sin in the Decalogue, so they are not to be elevated above all of the other prohibitions and commandments.”

To begin with, he keeps harping on slavery. But weren’t the abolitionists single-issue politicians? Slavery was just one issue.

And what about the 10 Commandments? Is Obama any better on the other 9 commandments?

By belonging to one of the most liberal Christian denominations, Obama violated the 1st commandment.

By belonging to a church that advocated black liberation theology, Obama violated the 2nd commandment. He idolizes racial identity.

So does Redmond. Redmond idolizes Obama. He talks about Obama the way followers of Father Divine used to take about their leader.

Violation of the 3rd commandment was a crime in the Mosaic law. Does Obama intend to criminalize blasphemy? No.

Does Obama intend to restore the blue laws? No. So much for the 4th commandment.

BTW, I’m not saying if the 10 commandments should be enacted into law. I’m just measuring Obama by the yardstick which Redmond handed me.

Does Obama support the 5th commandment? No. He supports the welfare state. The welfare state doesn’t honor parents. To the contrary, the welfare state denies parental authority. It supplants parental authority. It usurps the role of the parent.

What about the 6th commandment? Redmond already concedes that Obama’s policies violate this command.

And that’s especially ironic. Redmond harps on racial identity, yet abortion is a form of racial genocide. Redmond harps on racial identity as long as we exclude black babies from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What about the 7th commandment? Adultery was a capital offense in the Mosaic law. Does Obama intend to execute adulterers? I don’t think so.

Again, I’m not saying if he should or shouldn’t. Just seeing if he measures up to Redmond’s yardstick.

What about the 8th commandment? The welfare state is a form of theft. Coercive income redistribution.

What about the 9th commandment? Our current judicial system isn’t designed to acquit the innocent and convict the guilty. It’s only concerned with the rights of the accused, even when that involves the suppression of probative evidence.

Does Obama plan to rectify that situation? Not that I heard.

What about the 10th commandment? But the welfare state is predicated on envy. Class warfare. It institutionalizes the sin of covetousness—unless, of course, you’re a rich liberal politician, in which case you shelter your major assets and overtax the middle class.

So Obama flunks every one of the Ten Commandments.

Eric Redmond is a black man first and a Christian second—which is no kind of Christian at all.


  1. "Evangelicals for Obama"

    This is why I've stopped calling myself an evanjellyfish...I evangelical. Using the term orthodox Protestant might be a better term.

    "I also think one can justify sitting out this election."

    Yep, that's going to be me. Then again, who else is there to vote for?

    The whole post was right on. Liberalism is a mental-disorder.

  2. Wow, Steve, that's gonna leave a mark.
    Seriously, great post! Obama is a Marxist of the first order, I'm voting for McCain if for nothing else but to stop him.

  3. "I also think one can justify sitting out this election."

    I understand how you feel about McCain, he wasn't my first choice either, but this guy Obama is not just wrong, he's a potential enemy of freedom in this country. The stakes are too high to "sit it out."

  4. Maybe I'll write in Alan Keyes...

  5. Hey, this all started when people voted for Bush just because Jesus was his "favorite philosopher". I think this was before he declared June 10 as "Jesus Day" in Texas (that wasn't pandering at all, I'm certain).

    So NOW you want to keep religion out of politics?

    In a sense I agree: Obama should shut up and talk about running this nation as if it were a corporation, not a church.

    Maybe next election we'll get politicians running instead of wanna-be pastors?

  6. James,

    I never said I want to keep religion out of politics.

  7. James said:
    Hey, this all started when people voted for Bush just because Jesus was his "favorite philosopher".

    A) Name one person who voted for Bush because of that.

    B) If you're just being hyperbolic, then you've still got an amazingly myopic view of history. Try looking at the various campaigns since, say, Washington....

    Anyway, I'm going to sit this election out myself. Not entirely (I'm voting for everything else, and writing in "Khan From Star Trek II" as my candidate for President). But I cannot in good conscious vote for McCain or Obama. I'm in that amazing place of agreeing with both candidate's attack ads and neither of their self-promotional ads!

  8. "I understand how you feel about McCain, he wasn't my first choice either, but this guy Obama is not just wrong, he's a potential enemy of freedom in this country. The stakes are too high to "sit it out.""

    Well, it's like either shooting yourself in the head or slowly dying of cancer.

    The Democrat party will never again nominate a 'centrist'. The pre-60's era Democrats are gone, past away. We'll just have to face the same Statist/Maoist/Leninist threat the next time around.

    So, it will either be the case that conservatives send the Republican party a message that acting like the socialists across the aisle is unacceptable, or we will keep voting for so-called 'moderates' (i.e. the confused and inconsistent) and this country will slowly fade away (instead of in large steps with the Demoncrats (sic)).

    So, I don't like our chances either way, but by putting up a Reagan (or lesser equivalent) we'll at least have a chance to turn things around. It's time to send the Repubicans (sic!) a message, and hopefully, with the country taking a massive hit under this statist, they'll get the point.

  9. Let’s not be so focused in the presidential election that we overlook the Congressional election. That’s equally important.

    Here! Here!

    I'll add a few observations:

    1. Remind people you know that there isn't a penalty for not voting for President or VP but voting for the other candidates on the slate. Voting ballots aren't tests that you have to fill out completely in order to be counted. You don't have to cast a vote for any candidate. Likewise, you can leave some options unchecked and others checked.

    2. Obama calls himself the candidate of "change." Yeah, right. Go and take a look at his endorsements. Isn't it a wee bit ironic that the candidate of "change" has been endorsed by so many professional politicans, many of whom have been in office for over a decade?

    Now, I happen to agree we need real change in DC. We need it in my state General Assembly too. However, I've learned from being part of SBC politics that it's entirely possible to throw off the yoke of one set of power mad men for another. That's not change, its merely substitution of personalities. If these people who support Obama really believed in change, they wouldn't be running for office themselves - yet again. If Ted Kennedy really believed in change, he would have taken the opportunity to retire when he was diagnosed with brain cancer.

    By the way, personally, I think one of the biggest problems we have is the two party system. Their leaders collude in the states to keep others out via partisan redistricting. Both parties gerrymander the voting districts every ten years on top of that. They do it to keep certain people in and other people out. That's certainly the case in NC. I know, because I was party to the redistricting hearings here a few years ago. There are districts in NC that were crafted because Billy Bob and Big Daddy, if the districts were drawn a particular way, would be living in the same district and would have to run agin' each other, and they didn't like that. So, Speaker Black did a deal with them by seeing that their districts were maintained to keep them separated and the opposing party weak - and therefore they were kept in office for another election cycle, not by the will of the people, but by the will of the Redistricting Committee. In exchange, the Billy Bobs and Big Daddies in the General Assembly did political favors for Speaker Black later down the road. In other words, we need "change" but the change we need is not cosmetic - and Obama's change is the epitome of cosmetic change. It's all about showmanship, "feeling," etc.-all show, no substance, just like a sermon by Jeremiah Wright, but I digress...

    3. Be careful about voting for the anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage candidate for the sake of staking out a claim on those issues. I did that in my last election, and I wound up supporting a man who sold his vote, changing parties for the sake of kickbacks from my state's Speaker of the House. It turns out that they are two of the most corrupt men this state has produced in recent history. One of them is/was a member of a local IFBx church here too. Character is important. I'd sooner vote for a pagan who I know is a pagan than a dishonest man who masquerades as something he's not. At least I know where the first one really stands.

    4. I can think of one reason to vote McCain. It's called the electoral college. If you feel strongly enough about Obama to keep him out of the office, and even if you dislike McCain, if you think that Obama might otherwise win, vote for McCain to keep the other one from winning your state's electoral votes. If he has a solid enough majority in your state going into Voting Day, don't vote if you don't think you can in good conscience vote for him. Speaking for myself, that's my strategy. I'll not vote for either one - unless there is good reason to think Obama might win NC.

    Finally, isn't it interesting how God has, in His providence, brought the issue of religion into the public sphere in this election. In times past, the focus has been on the right. Look at what's happening right now. Thanks to Obama, Black Liberation Theology has been exposed publicly. Thanks to Romney, Mormonism has been discussed. Thanks to McCain, the heresies of the Word of Faithers and John Hagee have been exposed as well. In addition, the ignorance of the average evangelical has been exposed. The inability of the churches to deal with these issues has been exposed as well. The pragmatism of others has been exposed - like Richard Land. God has revealed the state of the American churches on both the left and right in this election cycle. "When the Son of Man returns in all His glory...what will he find in America?" (my paraphrase).

  10. I don't vote. I used to until I found out that elections are never decided on a single vote, not even close, and the closer the election is, the more likely that it's outcome will be taken out of the voters hands anyway. We also must remember that we live in a republic not a democracy. At the end of the day votes don't mean a whole lot. I know I won't be wasting my time and money on voting for a President ever again.

  11. McCain wasn't my first choice, but he's much better than Obama, and there's a lot at stake in this election. I expect the next President to appoint at least two Supreme Court justices, for example. I'm voting for McCain, and I'm trying to convince other people to vote for him.

    We vote with other people, not alone. They choose the field of electable candidates for us. A vote isn't equivalent to an endorsement of everything a candidate stands for. Different people can vote for the same candidate for different reasons. If our society has already driven the car to a point where it has to either go over the cliff or wreck into a fence, I don't see anything wrong with moving the steering wheel toward the fence.

    And just how bad is McCain? Many of the comments I've heard about him from conservatives have been misleadingly negative. His American Conservative Union (ACU) lifetime rating is 82%, and it was 80% last year. Obama's ratings are 8% (lifetime) and 7% (last year). See here. That's a highly significant difference.

    I don't think that sending a message that we'd prefer a more conservative candidate is worth giving the presidency to somebody with an 8% ACU rating. How significant is the sending of such a message? It hasn't been too long since Reagan was last elected and the younger Bush ran as a conservative. The choices in the Republican field this year weren't as good as they've sometimes been in the past, and McCain won, probably largely because of a perceived electability advantage. It's plausible, and I think likely, that somebody more conservative than McCain will be chosen the next time (perhaps Bobby Jindal). I don't think there's much of a need at this point to send a message to the Republican party by not voting or by voting for somebody other than McCain.

    I hope Romney isn't the candidate for Vice President, both because of his Mormonism and because of his air of political opportunism (and the reality behind it). But I would vote for McCain even if Romney is chosen.

  12. Increasing the likelihood that Obama gets to appoint a few Supreme Court Justices sounds like pure insanity to me, so I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. Is not the supporting of the Levites through tithes compulsory income redistribution and, therefore, on your analysis, theft?

  15. "I prefer gridlock to smooth traffic flow over a cliff."

    My favorite Steve Hays quote from this excellent post!

    Saint and Sinner: "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

    Have you been listening to Michael Savage?

    Rhology: "Maybe I'll write in Alan Keyes..."

    I wrote in Alan Keyes in the 2000 election.

    P.S. Obama is soooo bad ("How bad is he?") that even if McCain picks flip-flopper Romney as his veep, I'll still vote for McCain.

    P.P.S. FWIW, even though the guy I voted for in the primary didn't have a chance, I still voted for him anyway. There's no "perfect" candidate, but out of this year's GOP candidates, I thought Mike Huckabee was clearly the best candidate in my humble and distinctly minority opinion.

    My distaste for McCain and my hopes for Huckabee are so large that I'm praying that McCain doesn't pick Huck to be his running mate.

    Lastly, if it were up to me as the head of the RNC braintrust and I could yank the puppet strings, I'd run a Huck-Condi Rice GOP ticket against Obama.

    (1) Huck's just as good, if not better than Obama in a debate format.

    (2) Huck has my social conservative values on the issues of pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.

    (3) Condi being a woman would possibly pick up some disenfranchised Hilary voters.

    (4) Condi is strong where Huck is perceived as weak: Foreign policy and national security and defense.

    (5) Condi is African-American and that will help get votes from the African-American community.

  16. After voting for Bush last election cycle...I promised myself no more voting for the lesser of two evils.

    I'll be voting for the man with the most biblical stance on fundamental issues. He isn't perfect, he won't win, but he's the man that would best represent me: Chuck Baldwin.

    I'm not really a 3rd party guy, either. I generally make fun of the Constitution Party.

    A vote for McCain invites "more of the same".

  17. AMC said:

    "Is not the supporting of the Levites through tithes compulsory income redistribution and, therefore, on your analysis, theft?"

    That has nothing to do with the philosophy of income redistribution.

  18. Peter Pike writes: "
    A) Name one person who voted for Bush because [Bush said Jesus was his favorite philosopher]."

    According to a 2004 survey, "Bush voters placed much more emphasis on a candidate's religious faith than did Kerry supporters. Among those who voted for Bush, 14% cited a candidate's "strong religious faith" as the single most important quality in their vote".

  19. James,

    A) That doesn't prove what you claimed in the first place, and

    B) Bush's comment about Jesus being his favorite philosopher came when he was running against Gore, not Kerry, anyway.

    And as I pointed out in my first response, even if you were speaking hyperbolically or metaphorically here (using the "Jesus is my favorite philosopher" as a euphamism for religious belief), as I stated then (and which you ignored for some strange, odd reason), this would require you to have a very myopic view of history to think this began with Bush.

    Note that we haven't even addressed the issue of whether it's appropriate for people to weigh religious matters. This is because it would be pointless to do so when you lack the ability to even frame the issue correctly.

  20. "Note that we haven't even addressed the issue of whether it's appropriate for people to weigh religious matters"

    It's appropriate, yes, just as it's appropriate to weigh every other issue. Is it prudent to consider a candidate's religious faith (or lack thereof) as the most important or only factor? I would strongly suggest no. Believing in Jesus doesn't make anyone more competent in the difficult affairs of state, I'm afraid. However, I'd mostly likely consider Obama (who has some form of religious faith, whether you agree with its application or not) over someone who was hostile towards all forms of religious faith merely due to the impact that may have on religious liberties.

    While you might consider me "hostile" to all religion, I actually prefer an environment where the free expression of it is not inhibited by restrictive legislation or judicial rulings.

    I am many things, but a communist I am not.

  21. "I’d add that even if McCain is elected, there’s not much he can do..."

    This is one of the better reasons to vote for McCain.

  22. Guys, McCain is out of his mind. He'll start a nuclear war. Obama is a clown and a buffoon, but he is less likely to kill us all.