Since this is an election year and there has been a recent debate about the conservative stronghold over Christians, I figured I would join the party.  I've often thought how easy it is for a political candidate to get Christians to vote for them, and since most evangelicals love five-step methods, here are the five ways to garner political support from the religious right: 

1) Claim you have been going to church for years and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior (obvious I know).  However, it's also key to release some kind of videotape of yourself praying or speaking at church. (With just that alone you will win 75% of your targeted support).

2) Speak out against gays and abortion and state that you will work to overturn Roe v. Wade and restore prayer in schools (knowing that both are impossible, but hey your potential followers don't know or really care to learn how our legal/political system works).

3) Claim that families are a centerpiece to a "better America" and you will make the restoration of family values your top priority while in office.  Don't forget to haul your spouse and 2 to 5 kids on stage with you to show everyone what a family oriented person you are (even though you only see them once or twice a month because you are always on the road and most likely your kids are drug addicts and/or partying alcoholics who sleep around, and you and/or your spouse are in a flirtatious relationship — if not a full blown affair — with one of the cute campaign aids).

4) Make guest appearances on Fox News (especially Sean Hanity or Glenn Beck) and talk about how the liberal media is not giving you fair coverage (even though the local/national news on NBC, ABC, and CBS have done a story on you at least once a week).

5) Claim that any negative press that contradicts your public appearance (i.e. cheating/affairs, drugs/alcohol use, partying/wild past, poor academic record (or lack of one at all), a-hole/diva attitude towards others, dysfunctional family problems, etc.) is all part of a witch hunt by the devil and liberals to destroy you because you are God’s chosen candidate. 

6) BONUS POINT: Write a book that tells of your childhood growing up in church, confesses your sins as a teenager/young adult, and promises your commitment to govern with faith over anything else.  (The book should win over that last 5% to 10% who doubted you because of the stories about your involvement in some weird cult like group while in high school or college.)

Frank Schaeffer is the son of the late evangelist Francis Schaeffer, who is credited with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States.  Frank is a professed pro-life Christian who was a registered Republican his whole life.  He’s an author, film director, screenwriter and public speaker.  In 2007 he released the book "Crazy For God" about his life as a fundamentalist Christian. Since 2000 he has been outspoken about the negative spiral the Christian Right and in general, the Republican party have taken. He recently wrote an article saying "how can anyone who loves our country support the Republicans now?…Today no actual conservative can be a Republican. Reagan would despise today's wholly negative Republican Party."

Below is a link to an interview he did regarding the current state of the far right in America. I believe he's right on in his concern over what's been happening in these circles.  It's time for those of us who do believe in Christ to denounce these groups, and call on Christian conservatives to pray for our President rather then attack him, and reach out to those in need of a Savior rather then expel them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZzsjULXDnA

A Sacramento California man, John Marcotte, has started collecting signatures to place a new piece of legislation on the 2010 California ballot. He wants to make it illegal to divorce in the state. Why? He contends that this is a natural extension of what people did when they voted "Yes" on a ballot measure to ban gay marriage and protect the institute of traditional marriage.

He has a website http://rescuemarriage.org/ in promotion of the “2010 California Marriage Protection Act" and some public service announcements on YouTube.

Number 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqe4mx2N7E0

Number 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LnIDwx9M_s

Although Marcotte has denied this is a joke, it's kind of obvious what he's trying to do here. His use of satire is illustrating how the 2008 California Protection of Marriage Amendment, more commonly known as Proposition 8, which passed with a statewide majority vote, wasn't really about restoring marriage or protecting children as their website http://www.protectmarriage.com/ proclaims. The primary emphasis behind the measure was to stop the advancement of gays and their influence on society.  However, as Marcotte points out, divorce is a huge threat to marriage and children as well, yet it is widely accepted and often practiced by the same people who are against gay marriage. So why haven't they put up the same sort of effort to stop it? Well I guess now someone has, and he raises a good point in doing it.

Did he deserve it?

Since we've been showing some good YouTube clips lately (and I live in California), I thought I'd share this.  This woman has been in the news a lot lately so I'm sure most people have heard it by now, but nevertheless it's still interesting.  Whether you agree with her or not, at least she spoke up for her beliefs while millions were watching and basically gave up her dream of becoming Miss America.   I don't think beauty pageants are the forum for a political debate but glad to see she didn't coward away from the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMvviFbkf0

David Mackin kindly sent in a copy of the letter that Creflo A. Dollar sent to senator Grassley:

It's a little ridiculous.
 

Dear Senators:

As a preliminary matter, I would like to assure you that we believe that, like every other citizen, each Christian has a religious duty to pay taxes and comply with the law. Three of the four gospels specifically emphasize Jesus’ teaching to his disciples: that we are to render unto Caesar what is due to Caesar, and to render unto God what is due to God. Matthew 22:21 - "They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Mark 12:17 - "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him." Luke 20:23-25 - "But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me? Show me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." We at World Changers Church believe that all of God’s people are required to pay taxes and that our Church has a scriptural mandate to comply with the tax laws. We can assure you that our Church makes every effort to comply with the requirements of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. If the Committee on Finance has any information to the contrary, we would certainly request that you provide it to us, so that we may take appropriate action to resolve the problem immediately.

We also believe that the tithe, or 10% of our income, belongs to God, not to the government. Leviticus 27:30 - "And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's: it is holy unto the Lord." Because the tithe does not belong to the government, we have serious concerns when the Senate Finance Committee, or any agency of the government for that matter, evaluates whether the way we use or implement the tithe is valid. The tithe is a gift from each member of our Church to the Kingdom of God and should not be the subject of review and criticism by members of the Senate. Asking this of us is no different from asking any other church in America for an itemized list of who put what amount into the collection plate at last week’s regular Sunday service.

Furthermore, our faith teaches us that our giving should be in secret in order for God to reward us openly. Matthew 6:1-4 - "Take heed that you do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.” The Bible is very clear on this—when we give in private, our Father rewards us openly, and His favor is evident to all of those around us. In conjunction with this, our Church has a duty in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation to protect the privacy rights of our friends and members and the confidences they have placed in us. Our ability to sustain this religious obligation is seriously jeopardized by an open-ended public governmental investigation like Senator Grassley’s. We believe that is no more appropriate than asking particular parishioners the substance of their prayers or confessions.

We also believe that we should give of our materials to our teacher because of his spiritual teaching. 1 Corinthians 9:11 - "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” Galatians 6:6 - "Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things." The Bible teaches us that we should reward our spiritual leaders, and we have been blessed, both within our Church and in our partner churches, with truly gifted leaders. Like the members of many other religions, we feel as a congregation that we have a duty to honor our teachers.

Finally, we know that God wants us to be rich spiritually, physically and financially. 3 John 2 - “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." Psalms 112:3 - "Wealth and riches shall be in his house: and his righteousness endureth for ever." Proverbs 10:22 - "The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it." Deuteronomy 8:18 - "But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God; for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day." Genesis 13:2 - "And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold." 1 Timothy 6:17 - "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." God wants us to succeed—not to want—after all, we are His children. Being spiritually, physically and financially healthy is an outward sign of God’s favor, and we celebrate that blessing.

Faithfully,

Creflo A. Dollar

According to Yahoo News, President Obama wants to limit the salary of top execs whose companies are receiving Federal aid to $500,000 per year. Although I'm sure there will be the obligatory cries of unfairness and the need to adequately compensate talented individuals, I concur with his rationale and think this is an excellent idea.

And although it is in an entirely different arena, and in light of Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig’s recently divulged 2007 total salary of over $18 million, I wish the same could somehow be applied to the world of sports. I know these people are talented, and I understand the principles of free-enterprise, supply-and-demand, and laissez-faire. But really, does anyone actually need/deserve several million dollars a year in salary? 

Do you think Senior Pastors should also have salary caps?

-joe

(In light of the sparkling repartee engendered by yesterday's question, allow me to submit another….)

According to CNN, President Obama signed a memorandum on Friday that ends a prohibition on funding federal family-planning funds and contraceptives to international aid groups that provide abortions, abortion referrals or abortion counseling. See article here.

On the one hand, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Obama's move "welcome news to the poorest women and families in the world." 

And on the other, Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, said, "This is a stunning reversal of course from the president's campaign statements that he hoped to reduce the number of abortions."

Do you agree with the President? 

-joe

Yesterday, President Obama signed an executive order calling for the closing of Guantanamo Bay, to take place within the next year. He said, "We are not going to continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals.”

While lauded in some quarters, his decision was decried by, among others, families of the 9/11 victims (here).

Do you agree with him?

 -joe

A couple of days ago, I posted some questions to facilitate discussion about the persecution and killing of Jews in Nazi Germany and Europe before and during WW2 in a post entitled, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? Which questions were in turn born out of a previous thread concerning the killing of babies in the womb entitled, Pro-Life & In favor of Keeping Abortion Legal.

In that Pro-Life thread a number of interesting points/opinions, implicit as well as explicit came up…. 

1) it's not Government's role to regulate morality,  

2) Christians have no business getting involved in political processes,   

3) abortion is already legalized and thus is a moot point,  

4) Christians are not responsible for what is done as a whole in an unbiblical society,  

5) too many of the Republicans and the Religious Right have already muddied the waters for useful action, 

6) after more than 30 years of Roe vs. Wade, who really cares? 

….and the like.  

None of which notions hold water IMO. And so I ended up positing that — in both society as a whole and among Believers in Jesus — to reject the one (the killing of Jews) and embrace the other (the aborting of babies) is tantamount to not only apathy, but also hypocrisy. 

And it seems to me that decrying the killing of Jews in WW2 while accepting the legalized killing of babies in America since 1973 is not the only incongruity we have in society.

There are other “hot” topics which have fomented their way to the surface of politically correct dialogue, like:   

1) the wrongness of male chauvinism 

2) the need for women’s suffrage and rights

3) the evil of past injustices to racial/ethnic groups, 

4) with the resultant attitudes of entitlement by other racial/ethnic groups

5) the folly of a disregard for, and mistreatment of the environment

6) how the inhumane treatment of animals is wrong

7) the wrongness of bias against homosexuality/lesbianism.   

So what we have is the fact that some things are obviously right or moral to one group of people, and those same things can be considered wrong or immoral to a 2^nd group. And visa versa. 

For stance, tomorrow I could attend a predominantly African-American local church and use the so-called “N” word several times in conversation, and I’d probably not make it out of there alive. And yet, I could also say I believe in abortion and would probably experience little opposition, much less physical violence. 

And then, I could jump on a plane and attend a church in the so- called "Bible Belt" that evening populated by predominantly white farmers, and if I were to use said “N” word, I would probably get congratulated, while remarks supporting abortion would probably be disdained. 

So my question is, who — or what’s — to say what’s right and what’s wrong?  

Why is one thing deemed to be wrong or immoral while another is not?  

 -joe   

P.S. If my hypothetical scenario offends, I apologize ahead of time to any African-Americans, or farmers (sorry bout that 'Scrupe!  ) who may read this.