It is one of the favourite clichés of the secular left to accuse the so-called “religious right” of being fixated on personal morality issues, such as abortion and homosexuality. “You guys are so hung up on personal morality. Why don’t you concentrate on what’s really important.”
I hear this all the time from the secular lefties – and even the religious lefties. They think they occupy the high moral ground here, and think they can pooh-paw anyone who differs from their version of events. But no one watching the two recent national political conventions in the US can ever fall for this baloney again.
One political party was talking all about the economy, about jobs, and family, and about the nation. And the other party spent all its time talking about abortion and homosexual marriage, and especially seemed to be fixated on God – albeit in a most negative manner.
The former was of course the Republicans, while the latter was the Democrats. The Dems seem to be obsessed with personal morality issues nowadays. There was barely a speaker in the entire DNC who did not drag up the abortion issue. That and their insistence on destroying the institution of marriage were the two main themes of their convention – along with denying God three times.
Their ugly misotheism I have already spoken about – see here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/09/06/democrats-death-and-deicide/
But the incredible thing is, even many of your run-of-the-mill secular lefties expressed concern about their fixation on things like abortion. For example long-standing hard-core lefty Cokie Roberts said just recently that this was really all rather excessive.
In a panel discussion on TV she said the following: “I think this Democratic convention was really over the top in terms of abortion. Every single speaker talked about abortion — and, you know, at some point, you start to alienate people. Thirty percent of Democrats are pro-life.”
And they complain about Republicans being only interested in abortion. As Robert Knight has just written, this is a role reversal of major proportions. The Republicans were focused on jobs, on the debt crisis, on health care, while the Dems were strung out on their radical leftist personal morality issues.
His opening paragraphs are worth reproducing here: “If the November election is solely about the economy, why did the Democrats boot God and Jerusalem from their platform at the Democratic National Convention only to panic and then rig a vote to put them back in?
“It’s well worth a couple of minutes to watch hapless Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on YouTube fail three times at the podium to get a two-thirds majority to put God and Jerusalem back in the platform and then declare, Soviet-style, to a cascade of boos that the motion had carried. The mayor’s stunned look after the first couple of failures is priceless.
“If the economy is the only issue that matters, why did the Democrats feature a parade of speakers who thundered support for abortion? It was so over the top that The Washington Post’s pro-life Democrat (an endangered species) Melinda Henneberger’s column on Friday was headlined ‘Democrats and their obsession with abortion.’ If the Republican Party is supposed to be the party obsessed with social issues, why were they barely mentioned by the GOP but everywhere in evidence at the Democratic convention?
“Instant celebrity and contraceptive freebie advocate Sandra Fluke warned darkly in her ‘war on women’ speech at the Democratic convention that if the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, Americans will ‘have a new vice president who co-sponsored a bill that would allow pregnant women to die in preventable deaths in our emergency rooms.’ The dastardly GOP pair also will cause cancer deaths, but we’ll leave that to once and future Obama ad campaigns.
In between claims that the economy is humming along nicely and President Obama is still our savior, speakers also rammed home the message that marriage as God created it is so over.
“Democratic National Committee Treasurer Andrew Tobias spent more than half of his nearly four-minute speech talking about homosexual rights, including a hurrah for Rep. Barney Frank’s recent ‘wedding — to a guy!’ If it’s the GOP that is in the grip of religious fanatics, why did the Democrats at first refuse to have Cardinal Timothy Dolan give the closing prayer as he did at the GOP convention or have liberal Roman Catholic nun Sister Simone Campbell give the pitch for more big government? Vashti McKenzie, the first female bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, gave the party’s credentials report while assuring us with a straight face that Mr. Obama had ‘pulled our country back from the brink’ of economic ‘collapse’ and was the ‘one person with the plan to return this country to prosperity’.”
Yes, the entire convention was quite a spectacle alright. They might as well have held it in Havana or Caracas. What a bunch of hot-headed lefty activists. So leftwing was it that some future potential Democratic leaders had to keep their distance – literally. As Knight explains:
“The important thing is that Mrs. Clinton was halfway around the world while the Democratic convention was going on in North Carolina. You’d think someone who might aspire someday to be the presidential nominee would show up at her party’s most important event.
“On the other hand, it will be easier in 2016 to pretend to be a moderate, middle-class-loving, normal American politician if she keeps her distance from a crowd that lionizes Barney Frank and Sandra Fluke, embraces Marxist economics and is divided over whether God and Jerusalem are fit for inclusion in the party platform.”
Yes quite so. So what was that about being hung up on personal morality again?
13 Replies to “So Just Who Is Hung Up On Personal Morality Here?”
Yes these god-haters are no longer tolerant and non-judgemental but as moral as fanatical Muslims – except it is the morality of a totally capsized civlization, where good has become evil, truth has become lies and light has become dark. Isaiah 5.20 says;
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter
I’m always amused and bemused when people say “the church” (whatever that means to them) is obsessed by sex. They ignore the fact that only a small amount of time is spent on talking about the subject in sermons etc. Perhaps they include the churches’ great concern in recent years to have good policies for youth workers in order to avoid sexual abuse.
What should be obvious to everyone is that the secular world is far more obsessed with sex than Christians, with widespread use of pornography, some of which by descriptions I have read sounds ghastly and horrible and is surely not sexually tempting to normal people who can be tempted enough by a pretty face and a nice figure. We can add to that the vast amount of sexual matter in mainstream entertainment, including the bores who have to spoil a good Agatha Christie movie with homosexual references. Methinks they might be a bit obsessed with sex (and the money it earns).
Being concerned that people will live decent lives for their own benefit and that of others is being hung up on personal morality? Good. Let’s hang up and hang around in a salty manner.
David Morrison
Yes exactly right David.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hi Bill,
Regular reader of your posts. Informative stuff. I’ve a question that I’ll try to get to in a roundabout kind of way…
From reading this post and an earlier one (‘Why Christians Should Be Interested/Involved in Politics’) you seem to be saying that Christians should be aware of and engaged in politics. I guess I’d agree with that; nothing wrong with being aware of what’s going on in your own country…
You also seem to suggest, or at the very least hint, that in the US the Republicans are the party that Christians should probably vote for, or at the very least consider voting for; that they are the party that uphold Christian values and such. Fair enough. This is your blog and you can say whatever you want; it’s the internet!
My question (sorry to take so long to get to it) is: do you think it would be appropriate for you to share your views from the pulpit of a church; do you think that Pastors/Preachers/Churches, etc should endorse political candidates or parties; either explicitly or implicitly?
Sorry again for my rambling!
Graham Stokes
Thanks Graham. The position Charles Colson, I and others have taken on these matters is this: individual Christians should certainly be informed and involved in politics. But the pastor perhaps should focus on feeding the flock, and perhaps not use the pulpit specifically for partisan politics. However, it seems a case can be made that if a pastor may not want to endorse a particular candidate from the pulpit, he should at least let his congregation know which candidate or which party stands closer to biblical principles, and let each member decide how to vote. That much seems fair enough.
While the pastor’s main calling is to feed the flock, it will be unavoidable at times to not mention serious political issues which at least his people need to be aware of, such as abortion or homosexual marriage. There would thus be nothing amiss in a pastor stating a truth such as the following: the Republican platform is pro-life, pro-family and pro-faith, while the Democratic platform is not. People then can vote on that basis. Of course members should not rely solely on what their pastor tells them, but study these matters themselves.
So yes and no is the short answer on how churches, or church leaders, should be involved here. We don’t want to overly politicise the church, but we don’t want it failing in its duty to be salt and light in the political and social arenas either.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hi Bill,
Thanks for that response. Very thoughtful and balanced.
Just one final question; what is your opinion on political candidates being invited to speak (whether on personal or political issues) at churches?
Should political candidates be able to express their views in a church; even if they are speaking on non-political issues, their presence in the pulpit might indicate the church’s implicit endorsment?
I had a friend who actually left a church as a result of such a thing. A Family First candidate was asked to articulate her party’s policies one Sunday morning. Though I think my friend probably agreed with a lot of the party’s policies, he disagreed with the pulpit being used in such a way.
Your thoughts?
Thanks again for your response,
Graham Stokes
Thanks again Graham.
If a church does not want to be politically partisan here, one way to get around it is to host a meet the candidates’ forum. Our church has done that. Invite each party’s candidate, and ask them some tough questions. That is one way of letting people decide for themselves without becoming too partisan.
But as I said, there may be a place for more than just political neutrality here. As the parties become more diverse, and some parties become more and more un-Christian or anti-Christian, the time may come to boldly proclaim preference for one over another. And the smaller Christian parties may well need to be given a special hearing, since they won’t get that from the MSM.
So each church and church leader needs to prayerfully and carefully consider what to do here. But in a place like America, where Obama has been so ferociously anti-Christian on so many fronts, I would not mind it a bit if pastors got up and told their congregations to be very careful who they vote for, and how damaging one party can be.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Thanks again Bill,
Another great response. I have to agree with you about ‘some parties becoming more and more un-Christian or anti-Christian’. My home state – Tasmania – is a case-in-point. So depressing to see it fall into an economic and moral abyss; a horrible experiment in social engineering (gay marriage, surrogacy, etc.) gone wrong…labor/greens…depressing!
By the way, what are the smaller Christian parties you speak of? I know about Family First, but not too many others…
Good article,
Thanks again,
Graham Stokes
Thanks Graham. The CDP and DLP, as well as FF.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I think Pastors should be very careful of what they say in the “pulpit” that might be interpreted as political. But I think they should be outspoken in other situations. Pastors and Priests are rightly (or wrongly) regarded as leaders in their communities.
Inviting a political candidate to preach is risky. Better as you suggest, Bill, organize a forum and invite all candidates. It usually becomes very obvious which candidates are worthy of support and they may not be FF, CDP or even DLP.
John Bradford
Worth noting that minor parties have it better here in Australia than in many other countries. In Au, preferential voting means we can vote #1 for our actual first choice without risking this being a de-facto vote for our least preferred choice, due to vote spreading.
Andrew White
Hi Bill, let’s not forget “Rise Up Australia”
Mario Del Giudice
Yes these god-haters are no longer tolerant and non-judgemental but as moral as fanatical Muslims – except it is the morality of a totally capsized civlization, where good has become evil, truth has become lies and light has become dark. Isaiah 5.20 says;
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter
David Skinner, UK
Hi Bill, thanks for yet another great article.
This clip may give you a bit of a laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pksug2a3H54
Annette Williams
I’m always amused and bemused when people say “the church” (whatever that means to them) is obsessed by sex. They ignore the fact that only a small amount of time is spent on talking about the subject in sermons etc. Perhaps they include the churches’ great concern in recent years to have good policies for youth workers in order to avoid sexual abuse.
What should be obvious to everyone is that the secular world is far more obsessed with sex than Christians, with widespread use of pornography, some of which by descriptions I have read sounds ghastly and horrible and is surely not sexually tempting to normal people who can be tempted enough by a pretty face and a nice figure. We can add to that the vast amount of sexual matter in mainstream entertainment, including the bores who have to spoil a good Agatha Christie movie with homosexual references. Methinks they might be a bit obsessed with sex (and the money it earns).
Being concerned that people will live decent lives for their own benefit and that of others is being hung up on personal morality? Good. Let’s hang up and hang around in a salty manner.
David Morrison
Yes exactly right David.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hi Bill,
Regular reader of your posts. Informative stuff. I’ve a question that I’ll try to get to in a roundabout kind of way…
From reading this post and an earlier one (‘Why Christians Should Be Interested/Involved in Politics’) you seem to be saying that Christians should be aware of and engaged in politics. I guess I’d agree with that; nothing wrong with being aware of what’s going on in your own country…
You also seem to suggest, or at the very least hint, that in the US the Republicans are the party that Christians should probably vote for, or at the very least consider voting for; that they are the party that uphold Christian values and such. Fair enough. This is your blog and you can say whatever you want; it’s the internet!
My question (sorry to take so long to get to it) is: do you think it would be appropriate for you to share your views from the pulpit of a church; do you think that Pastors/Preachers/Churches, etc should endorse political candidates or parties; either explicitly or implicitly?
Sorry again for my rambling!
Graham Stokes
Thanks Graham. The position Charles Colson, I and others have taken on these matters is this: individual Christians should certainly be informed and involved in politics. But the pastor perhaps should focus on feeding the flock, and perhaps not use the pulpit specifically for partisan politics. However, it seems a case can be made that if a pastor may not want to endorse a particular candidate from the pulpit, he should at least let his congregation know which candidate or which party stands closer to biblical principles, and let each member decide how to vote. That much seems fair enough.
While the pastor’s main calling is to feed the flock, it will be unavoidable at times to not mention serious political issues which at least his people need to be aware of, such as abortion or homosexual marriage. There would thus be nothing amiss in a pastor stating a truth such as the following: the Republican platform is pro-life, pro-family and pro-faith, while the Democratic platform is not. People then can vote on that basis. Of course members should not rely solely on what their pastor tells them, but study these matters themselves.
So yes and no is the short answer on how churches, or church leaders, should be involved here. We don’t want to overly politicise the church, but we don’t want it failing in its duty to be salt and light in the political and social arenas either.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hi Bill,
Thanks for that response. Very thoughtful and balanced.
Just one final question; what is your opinion on political candidates being invited to speak (whether on personal or political issues) at churches?
Should political candidates be able to express their views in a church; even if they are speaking on non-political issues, their presence in the pulpit might indicate the church’s implicit endorsment?
I had a friend who actually left a church as a result of such a thing. A Family First candidate was asked to articulate her party’s policies one Sunday morning. Though I think my friend probably agreed with a lot of the party’s policies, he disagreed with the pulpit being used in such a way.
Your thoughts?
Thanks again for your response,
Graham Stokes
Thanks again Graham.
If a church does not want to be politically partisan here, one way to get around it is to host a meet the candidates’ forum. Our church has done that. Invite each party’s candidate, and ask them some tough questions. That is one way of letting people decide for themselves without becoming too partisan.
But as I said, there may be a place for more than just political neutrality here. As the parties become more diverse, and some parties become more and more un-Christian or anti-Christian, the time may come to boldly proclaim preference for one over another. And the smaller Christian parties may well need to be given a special hearing, since they won’t get that from the MSM.
So each church and church leader needs to prayerfully and carefully consider what to do here. But in a place like America, where Obama has been so ferociously anti-Christian on so many fronts, I would not mind it a bit if pastors got up and told their congregations to be very careful who they vote for, and how damaging one party can be.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Thanks again Bill,
Another great response. I have to agree with you about ‘some parties becoming more and more un-Christian or anti-Christian’. My home state – Tasmania – is a case-in-point. So depressing to see it fall into an economic and moral abyss; a horrible experiment in social engineering (gay marriage, surrogacy, etc.) gone wrong…labor/greens…depressing!
By the way, what are the smaller Christian parties you speak of? I know about Family First, but not too many others…
Good article,
Thanks again,
Graham Stokes
Thanks Graham. The CDP and DLP, as well as FF.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I think Pastors should be very careful of what they say in the “pulpit” that might be interpreted as political. But I think they should be outspoken in other situations. Pastors and Priests are rightly (or wrongly) regarded as leaders in their communities.
Inviting a political candidate to preach is risky. Better as you suggest, Bill, organize a forum and invite all candidates. It usually becomes very obvious which candidates are worthy of support and they may not be FF, CDP or even DLP.
John Bradford
Worth noting that minor parties have it better here in Australia than in many other countries. In Au, preferential voting means we can vote #1 for our actual first choice without risking this being a de-facto vote for our least preferred choice, due to vote spreading.
Andrew White
Hi Bill, let’s not forget “Rise Up Australia”
Mario Del Giudice