I read Marxist Professors and Half-Breed's (dated October 30, 2008) and have been ruminating on and off about it since yesterday. It makes me wonder about the context in which Barack Obama openly discussed (wrote about) his coming up. I didn't read Obama's book, not because I would refuse to but more on account of financial issues and other priorities.
I will say openly that my own positions coming up (if one can call it that) have changed drastically as I've experienced different environments and cultures, etc. It would surprise me greatly if Barack Obama has not changed from his previously held convictions not just because he is a politician and it is generally accepted knowledge that politicians are basically dishonest in the "noble lie" sense at a minimum.
The linked article asks why anyone would vote for such as person as Barack Obama since the quotes come directly from Obama's book. Well, if the context in which the Obama-quotes have been placed were correct, meaning if all the assumptions (the whole tenor of the blog and not just the single post) of the article's author were correct, one could hardly disagree. What I see though is a willingness to examine the warts of Obama but not of McCain.
Frankly, the best place to start is with one's own warts. Oh, it's painful to be honest with oneself. I speak from personal experience. We've all erred. We all must go through the repenting process or fall further. Has McCain repented? I don't see anything to indicate that he's working on it. Has Obama repented? I don't see it there either. Has "lot 2 learn" (the author's user name behind which he hides) repented? Where's the evidence to suggest it?
I'm not voting for Obama regardless. I'm not voting for John McCain either. I don't want either one of them as leader. I'm not voting for anyone for president of the United States, because for two reasons 1) I don't think any of them is right for such a leadership position, and I don't buy the lesser of evils voting position at all anymore (I've changed) and 2) I don't hold with coercion. American-style democracy is coercive.
Christianity is not coercive. You are free to be in error and to not accept Christianity. Christians don't force others. They appeal with the truth and then let it be, aside from doing their own good, non-coercive works.
The only place coercion enters is within the voluntary house of Christ. No one is forced in. Those who enter to stay must, however, conform or leave. Heaven wouldn't be Heaven filled with nonconformists with righteousness.
What do you think?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)