Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Obama Says So-called Leaders Of Christian Right Hijacked The Faith

Not often does this blog center a posting on a particular politician, but let’s be fair. If Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry were the subject of a discussion on this blog doubtless it would be because they are professedly “good” or “devout” Catholics who are in favour of the legalized killing of unborn children and we would be raising the roof so that Catholic Bishops would discipline them by withholding from them the Eucharist—the Body and Blood of Christ—until they repented of their objective evil.

After all, the Scriptures warn, “For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.” Furthermore, the Christian “cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” Communion with Christ and communion with devils cannot be had at once. Christians, who by association, sympathies, and actions participate in devilish strategies that destroy life, family and the common good, cannot participate in Holy Communion.

So what happens when Protestant and Presidential candidate Barack Obama, who likewise supports child-killing, gets up in front of a church crowd of 10,000 and starts talking about doing “the Lord’s work” and accuses “the Christian right of ‘hijacking’ Jesus to polarize the public?”
"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together. Faith started being used to drive us apart," he said. "Faith got hijacked partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us.

"At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," he said.

Apparently Obama would have Americans believe that it’s ok to be religious, all the while tolerating, even advocating, the killing of unborn children by the millions and also permitting the destruction of the foundations of marriage and family, yet focusing instead on other “issues.”

There’s a lot I’d like to say about Obama, much the same as I’d like to say to folks like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and also Rudy Giuliani, but I’ll let Grant Swank say it for me. Grant is not always the most favorable in his comments towards the Catholic faith, but I’ll give him high marks for spotting hypocrites like Obama.

Hopefully, Christians don't need a voting guide in order to know that a vote for Obama is similar to a vote for Osama, the terrorist. Abortion is no less violent than terrorism and produces the same result-dead and bloodied human beings, most often in pieces.

Labels: ,


At 2:04 PM, Blogger Patrick Furlong said...

On the looks of things, you and I would fall on opposite ends of the spectrum of Christian faith. One reason I love and support my faith is because of the variations amongst it's followers- like you and I.

I found a quote by a Catholic hero of mine, regarding the very issue of voting and abortion, and I thought it would be relevant to share with you...

Cardinal Joseph Bernadine of Chicago, an opponent of abortion, cautioned Catholics against turning abortion into a single voting issue: "Our moral, political and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. "Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. ... Consistency means we can't have it both ways."

And so, in the spirit of that urging by Cardinal Bernadine, I support Barack Obama with the belief that the value and dignity of human life DOES NOT END at conception, and I believe when I look at the issues holistically, Barack Obama is the best man for the job.

And so, in regards to health care, the issues in war torn areas like the Middle East, the Congo, and Sudan, as well as a host of other issues like gun control, taxes, social security, the environment, civil rights and immigration, Barack Obama is the man that is most in line with my ideals, with my morality.

I hope that helps you understand why I support the man. I assume we will disagree still, but for me, I just can't vote or not vote for a candidate on one single issue...

"It's not about taking the right stand on issues. It's about choosing to stand in the right place. With those on the margins, those whose dignity has been denied. To choose to stand with the poor and the powerless and the voiceless. To choose to stand with the easily despised and the readily left out. To choose to stand with those whose burdens are more than they can bear. To stand with the demonized so that the demonizing will stop. And so you stand against forgetting as you leave this place, that we belong to each other." Father Greg Boyle, S.J.

At 3:55 PM, Blogger ELA said...


You said, “I just can't vote or not vote for a candidate on one single issue.”

What if the candidate was a racist, e.g. a card carrying member of the KKK? What if the candidate was a Jew-hater and a holocaust denier? What if the candidate was sympathetic to terrorism in order to achieve political ends?

Would any of these “issues” by themselves be sufficient for you to dismiss the candidate?

I hope you get the point. Without a doubt, for every voter, there are many “single issues” which would disqualify candidates. It’s simply a matter of starting to identify them and see where the “issue” of abortion might rank in that list of evils.

As we make clear in our voter’s guide:


Imagine a politician saying, “I support terrorism.” And then a voter saying,” I disagree with you on terrorism, but what's your health care plan?” You'd think they were both mad! You wouldn't think twice about rejecting a candidate who supported terrorism. His stance, permitting the public to be killed, is dangerous to society and contrary to every principle of public service.

Consider abortion in the same light. Abortion is no less violent than terrorism and produces the same result-dead and bloodied human beings, most often in pieces.


Regarding Cardinal Joseph Bernadine, his “consistent ethic of life” was dangerously flawed as evidenced clearly by the manner in which pro-abortion politicians interpreted his argument and used it to maintain the status quo on child killing. You might want to refer to this article.

Patrick, think about it. You’ve used the Cardinal’s point of view to nullify, for all practical purposes, your opposition in the public square to the killing of unborn children. This flies in the face of official Catholic teaching and the specific teachings of our last two Popes. Take some time to read and reflect on John Paul II’s "Evangelium Vitae," the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life" as well as Cardinal Ratzinger’s "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion."

Finally, if we consider the unborn to be the poorest of all human beings, a case which can easily be made, I believe your quote by Father Greg Boyle is an earnest plea to stand with the Unborn, unalterably opposed to their legalized murder and to all those who wish to maintain our evil status quo.


Post a Comment

<< Home