Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Should Christians Support Obama?

Oct 16, 2008

Now that I have caught your attention by means of a deliberately provocative question, let me start by asking another question: Will Christians be voting for Obama? There certainly will be. The real question is, should they be?

The short answer is each believer is accountable to God on these sorts of issues. Thus I am not here going to say that those believers who vote for Obama are out of the will of God or living in sin. People who love Jesus will for various reasons find themselves going for the Democratic candidate.

But I will say I am concerned about Christians who seem to have uncritically jumped on board the Obama bandwagon. There are even Christian pro-Obama websites. One is called The Matthew 25 Network. It is full of gushy admiration for the man, and is full of praise for his “Christian” credentials. It even praises Obama for his wonderful pro-life record. I kid you not:

It actually states that a pro-lifer can “unequivocally” support Obama. Now it goes without saying that abortion is not the only important issue which believers should consider when choosing the next President of the United States. But it is certainly a very vital issue indeed, especially for those who claim to be Bible-believing Christians.

I have written elsewhere about my concerns about Obama. But here I want to look a bit further at Obama’s views on abortion. I hope to demonstrate that there is no way in the world a pro-lifer could support Obama. And given the importance of the right to life, a Christian really should think twice before voting for Obama.

To help me out here I refer to a very important article written by Robert George. Entitled “Obama’s Abortion Extremism,” it very carefully documents the pro-abortion zealotry of Obama. I urge readers to have a look at his entire article (see link below). Here I will simply highlight some of the key points made in the article.

He begins with these sobering words: “Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.”

He lists far too many examples of this, but let me mention a few:

“For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, ‘forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.’ In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.”

He continues, “But this barely scratches the surface of Obama’s extremism. He has promised that ‘the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act’ (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ‘fundamental right’ to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ‘a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined “health” reasons.’ In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ‘sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies’.”

“It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many ‘pro-choice’ legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a ‘punishment’ that she should not endure. He has stated that women’s equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing ‘pro-choice’ about that.”

Obama the “Christian” has even worked hard to in effect legalise infanticide: “In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist’s unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.”

Amazingly, Christian supporters of Obama claim his policies will reduce abortion. Not at all, says George:

“We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood’s own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, ‘abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased.’ In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that ‘abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent.’ No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies – so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.”

George concludes with these words:

“What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama’s America is one in which being human just isn’t enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama’s America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: ”that question is above my pay grade.” It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator’s pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy – and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.”

“In the end, the efforts of Obama’s apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn’t even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.”

As I mentioned at the outset, many Christians have come out very strongly supporting Obama. Interestingly, the emerging church movement has many supporters of Obama. Thus we find Brian McLaren, a leading emergent, telling us how great Obama is:

Ah, you might say that being weak on abortion, or being strong on Obama, is not the end of the world for a believer. Unfortunately there is more to it than that. McLaren has also made it clear that he rejects some key biblical doctrines, including the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of hell:

The emerging church movement is sadly a group that has become far too cosy with postmodernism, and has therefore taken a very light view of the importance of truth and moral absolutes. It downplays doctrine and biblical morality, and instead is keen on doubt, uncertainty, and not being judgmental.

But with such vital issues as the killing of the unborn, we do not need sloppy sentimentality, or situation ethics, or moral relativism: what we need is a strong pro-life stance which will result in many babies’ lives being rescued from the slaughter.

At the end of the day, each believer must prayerfully consider who they should vote for. But if the issue of abortion was the only thing that we had to go on, then I would wonder why any biblical Christian would support Obama.

[1689 words]

81 Responses to Should Christians Support Obama?

  • Obama Hussein to me seems like a very smooth liar. He’s very educated in law and in words, so he can be the smoothest. I can see McCain and Palin wishing they could strangle him in debates where he denies and misrepresents things from his record as a senator.
    He reminds me of the many Christian women who have gotten taken in by the smooth lies and charming manner of a Muslim man. Anything can be said for the sake of a wedding, or for the sake of subduing the “infidels.”
    It’s not just Christians who are “infidels.” Every other religion, including atheism, is worth being lied to, and snuffing out. All those politically correct out there will be just as much fodder. And the naive Christians and Westerners in the Christian ethic assume everyone has the same code of truth-telling.
    We can still pray that Obama’s lies will be exposed before it’s too late. Some of them are already. So please do pray for the light of truth to expose any darkness. But walk in forgiveness and protect yourself with the Blood of the Lamb, and everyone and everything near and dear, as you enter this kind of prayer battle.
    Rebecca Field

  • I have said this a number of times, in a number of places, so forgive me if I have already posted it somewhere here.

    As a family we have just read the OT prophet Hosea – a very sad picture indeed.

    But what struck me was that one of the more severe judgements God brings is to remove and deny children, including close the womb, so that the nation withers away.

    Yet here we are in the sophisticated remnants of a once-great Western ‘civilization’ calmly doing it to ourselves.

    John Angelico

  • Obama’s America sounds very like Brumby’s Victoria on the abortion issue.

    John Nelson

  • Exactly what I was thinking John!
    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Great article Bill
    News tonight was saying he won the points on Abortion during the debate today—like to see Palin have a debate with Obama on Abortion.
    Stephen Lewin

  • It is grossly unfair for Rebecca to slander Senator Obama in that way. The fact anyone is still resorting to defaming Mr Obama from being a committed Christian to being Muslim shows what little one can raise against him.

    In fact, Obama has mentioned in the past he is against late-term and partial-birth abortion, and

    I am no fan of abortion, classify myself as pro-life and intensely disappointed at the recent decision in Victoria. But to use Biblical imagery to completely write off a believer, regardless of his claim as his faith as his driving force (and felt the Holy Spirit come upon him as he was baptised) is reckless and hypocritical, in the truest sense of the word demonising a man Jesus died to save. If he was a Muslim, it would have been proven after twenty months of campaigning, especially in the ruthlessly religious American voting system. Just how ‘Christian’ is your comment, Ms Field?

    I have no reason to believe a McCain administration would do anything about abortion. Whilst you may find this argument difficult to take on board, Mr Muehlenberg, Obama stands for a lot which keeps my conscience clear in supporting him. He’s a man who argues faith should be used to unite, not to divide, like this wedge-politics of the religious right lobby (which caused Palin to be McCain’s VP) and have little interest in the message of the Gospel, more their own power in the world hegemony’s political system.
    Murray Bentham, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

  • Thanks Murray

    You speak of how Obama’s faith will unite, whatever that means. Given that the two most divisive issues in America today are abortion rights and special rights for homosexuals, both of which Obama supports to the utmost, I fail to see how unity will be achieved under his administration. And I fail to see how those two positions can be squared with biblical Christianity.

    You are free to wish to see the nation pushed to the extreme left, but please do not pretend this will result in some sort of unity. It will simply make the nation more divided than ever, thanks to the radical agenda of Obama. But as I say, believers must be persuaded in their own minds.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Bill, you are a formidable social commentator and congratulations in allowing my comment to be included.

    I particularly dislike abortion, but I take issue with the continuous reference to abortion and gay marriage. I’m no fan of misquoting the Bible or pulling verses out of context (a cardinal sin by believers and non-believers alike), but Jesus never mentioned homosexuality or abortion. Clearly, abortion is killing innocent life, and these issues can be argued over until the cows come home, but what about Jesus’ beatitudes and message from the ‘Sermon on the Mount’? We can’t simply pick and choose issues we’d rather talk about, but meanwhile support McCain for a lack of welfare – Jesus championed the downtrodden and asked us to look after them – just an example.

    Similarly, how does the position of gun rights (supported by the GOP and Joe Biden, VP running mate for Obama) square with Biblical Christianity? Surely you wouldn’t blur this issue or go for relativist morality in regards to gun rights (which kill and injure roughly the same amount of children who are aborted each year in the US)?

    Much anti-Obama propaganda has labelled the Senator as a radical leftist – though he is a man who in this debate today signalled an administration that might include Republicans. He has a track record of working with Republicans (who, I assume you believe own an exclusivity on Bible-believing Christianity – or who you choose to believe is a Bible-believing Christian). How can you write so intelligently but delude yourself into synonymising conservative politics with Christianity?

    Perhaps we share more in common than we realise. One must either accept the Gospel or deny it. Are we hot or cold? Lukewarm isn’t good enough – and it appears many Christians are lukewarm.

    Keep agitating.

    God Bless, Murray Bentham

  • Thanks Murray

    You say Jesus never spoke about abortion or homosexuality. Of course this is rather disingenuous. The entire Bible speaks about God’s plan for human sexuality – heterosexual marriage – and rules out every other expression of sexuality. And the Bible is equally clear about not taking innocent life. Jesus of course fully supported both positions.

    But if we want to argue from silence, then we could also say that Jesus never said a word about gun ownership either. And the right to bear arms for self-defence has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. The right to protect one’s family has nothing to do with killing unborn babies. So I fail to see your point here. It is simply a very bad case of moral reasoning.

    And one must ask, just how exactly is Obama championing the downtrodden, why McCain is not?

    I see you pick up a favourite term of Dawkins the atheist: ‘delude’. I reject his depiction of my faith as delusion, and I reject your attack on me as being deluded as well. But I have written elsewhere on numerous occasions about how Christianity ultimately transcends all party politics.

    But I do agree with your final sentence about not being lukewarm.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • What can be done with a Christian who thinks that banning private firearm ownership and promoting a socialist welfare state should even be Christian objectives let alone considered as important (if not more important) than abortion and the integrity of marriage? I don’t know, but it does help explain why the polls are showing that Obama is favourite to win despite his anti-Christian agenda.

    BTW, there is a new video showing Obama mocking the Bible.

    Ewan McDonald.

  • Ewan, do you believe stoning should still exist? I never used the term ‘socialist’. Of course, I’m sure you think it’s the poor’s fault for not being prosperous – perhaps read your Bible, that we should be helping them.

    I don’t want to politicise the Bible like some do and use it to divide – and clearly Jesus supported the hetrosexual lifestyle. It might be ‘disingenuous’ to claim he never spoke of homosexuality, but according to the records we have, it’s the truth. What do you have to say about how McCain’s and Obama’s policies fit in with other central Christian beliefs and values?

    Of course, you can take the easy option, and continue to centralise abortion and homosexuality, whilst negating other issues of vital importance.

    Bill, ‘Deluded’ was an unwise choice of words and I apologise for that – I also disassociate myself from Dawkins or [i]his own deluded[/i] beliefs. However I clearly take issue with the rejection of the Left’s contribution and involvement in Christianity which seems so prevalent on this site and in comments. I’m bewildered, but pleased that you have written on the contrary elsewhere.

    Clearly you can see why I am provoked if I see “Christian” (with inverted commas) used to describe Barack Obama, obviously loaded with cynicism, and repeated usage of his middle name, Hussein (though admittedly not in this particular article). I don’t think it is up to us to judge who is a Christian and who isn’t – I think that is up to the Great Judge Himself. And I type this in utter sincerity. In discussing issues such as abortion (where there is debate over the humanity of the unborn), we should not forget the humanity of the candidates.

    We should pray for one another as we seek the way forward, even though presumably most of us have no direct involvement by way of voting in the election.

    God Bless.

    Murray Bentham

  • I think it’s worth pointing out that Jesus didn’t have to speak out against homosexuality. It was already known in Jewish society that homosexuality was a sin, so there was no need to preach to the choir, as it were. Paul of course had to speak out against it since he spread the Gospel to Greece and Rome, where homosexuality was more common (e.g. Greek pederasty).
    James Swanson

  • Ewan, thanks heavens for your words of common sense. Abraham Lincoln summed it up when he said “You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all the people all of the time”. Senator Barack Hussein Muhammed Obama is indeed a Muslim in lamb’s clothing. I have no idea of how a committed Christian could justify himself/herself when called before our Lord and asked to justify one’s decision to endorse an abortionist. Nothing can justify support, tacit or otherwise for intrinsic evil. And there is no greater evil than the wanton barbaric murder of innocent defenceless babies.

    Should Barack Obama be known as “Barbaric” Obama I wonder?

    John FG McMahon, Kolonga, Qld

  • That McLaren and all his emerging church buddies support Obama is enough evidence for me that he will make a very dangerous president. Having read some of McLaren’s work, the ‘faith to unite’, of which Murray speaks, can hardly be considered the message of Christ, as the unpalatable topics of sin and judgment have been sidelined for the sake of ‘love’ and ‘tolerance’. The warm, fuzzy, postmodern socialist ‘gospel’ of the emergents and Obama bears little in resemblance to God’s word as the source of absolute truth.
    Ben Williams

  • Murray,

    “Surely you wouldn’t blur this issue or go for relativist morality in regards to gun rights (which kill and injure roughly the same amount of children who are aborted each year in the US)?”

    You have to be kidding yourself if you think as many children were killed by handguns as were aborted in America

    A quick glance shows 1.3 million abortion in 2005 and 30,000 gun deaths in 1999. Not even close enough to try and link them together.

    I am against the gun control laws they have the US so don’t think I am in favour of the republican proposals on that.

    As for this statement
    “He has a track record of working with Republicans”
    As the most liberal senator in the US that just hasn’t happened. He did not stand up to his own party in either Chicago or the US senate. Give me an example where he has broken from his party and worked with the republicans.

    As a Christian there should be no way that you can excuse away abortion, it is killing a human no matter which way you look at it.

    The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’ Matthew 25:40.

    Paul Wakeford

  • Thanks Murray

    Yes it is true that ultimately only God knows those who are truly his. But that is not the end of the matter. Throughout the NT we are told to discern, judge, evaluate, and so on. Jesus said we could know a tree by its fruit, etc.

    Jesus made it absolutely clear that if one claims to be a follower of his, then they must keep his commandments. The command not to shed innocent blood would be one of these. The command to not violate God’s position on marriage and family would be another.

    If a person claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ, but takes positions which are clearly contrary to the Word of God, then one should certainly start asking some hard questions.

    And just what is the debate over the humanity of the unborn, Biblically speaking?

    And Hussein is his name, so why is it so problematic to call him by his name?

    And Obama continues to lie about the abortion issue, including in his last debate with McCain:

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • You are correct, Bill to say that God’s commands must be taken into account – and we could apply this to a plethora of topics.

    Whilst the Bible explicitly prohibits murder, you must understand many don’t see abortion as murder to begin with. The Bible is a greater and surer foundation for morality, but you simply can’t cut it in today’s day and age trying to use the Bible as reasoning with those who fundamentally disagree with the Bible. Obama claims (I hope you like my choice of word there) to believe in The Bible, but there are clearly many in the political sphere who don’t and will immediately dismiss you the minute you mention it. Of course this does not mean we should reject the Bible or stop using it as the source of our worldview, but we must be able to debate secularly. Others do, and if you pretend otherwise, you’re going to miss out.

    Again, Hussein is is middle name, but you’re resorting to Orientalist tactics to make him appear un-American and un- or sub-Christian. Merely placing inverted commas around the term “Christian” – you’re asking for a reaction. What do we know of McCain’s faith? He is known to be particularly mercurial and swear violently behind closed doors, using bullying tactics to sway colleagues. Are we going to write an article about self-control and blessing one another should be questioned when it comes to McCain? Probably not, because that would void any attempt to defame Obama’s faith.

    Having said this, both McCain and Obama have a history of involving members of opposing parties in formulating bills – so the suggestion that Obama only votes along party lines (when he has also voted ‘present’ – including on abortion bills he has felt unhappy about certain clauses) is disingenuous.

    Murray Bentham

  • Bill,

    The reason people emphasize Obama’s middle name is because they wish to indulge in character assassination, by implying that he may be Muslim in practice or leaning, or by awakening our basest fears of the foreign or of other races. But there is not the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that he is Muslim, and the other implications are xenophobic at best, racist at worst. Such taunts are unethical, even in the grubby world of American politics, and it demeans us as humans, let alone Christians, when we resort to such tactics. I’m ashamed to see this practice promoted and endorsed here.

    I’m also ashamed to admit I voted for George W. Bush, twice. He too claimed to be a conservative but in 8 years he did nothing about the abortion issue. The neocons who run the Bush Administration have exploited the conservative Christian vote to get elected and then promptly forgot about us. Bush has delivered the most disastrous Presidency in American history and I’m sorry to say McCain’s policies aren’t much of an improvement.

    I’ve recently been traveling in America, and I’ve been horrified by the character assassination tactics employed by the Republicans. It is turning many people off, including me. The cynical and desperate attempt to appease conservatives by appointing Sarah Palin has also backfired. All but the most hardened of the conservative base consider her an embarrassment. Who wants a “hockey mom” a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

    I’ve become so annoyed that I’ve changed my voting intention. I was planning to support McCain but I’m now voting for Obama. I too disagree with his abortion stance, but I think he’ll make a better President and has more chance of digging America out of the mess it is in. I predict he’ll win in a landslide.

    Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

  • Murray,

    I really don’t know how it is possible to arrive at your position without pigeonholing the message of Jesus into some kind of humanistic (and therefore by nature – flawed) ethic first. The sanctity of life, and the reproducing of this for the future are wrapped up in such an obvious way with the issues of abortion and gay marriage, other issues such as caring for the downtrodden become secondary to them, because they are meaningless without addressing them first! I see your philosophy as akin to pouring water into a leaky bucket. First, fix the bucket!

    It’s not difficult – Obama’s policies here are at odds with the central tenets of Christianity. Of course, anyone can selectively quote Jesus to make it look like the poor are to be our main concern, but of course, the message is much more than that. It is puerile nonsense to say you are for the downtrodden when you are prepared to kill the most defenceless of all. And regardless of Obama’s recent attempts to evade his record, that is what he believes. Check out Jill Stanek’s blog to confirm this – she had several dealings with Obama long before he was even announced as a candidate. He absolutely, despite even the most recent equivocations to squirm out of it this week – including the 3rd debate, is on record to support infanticide. That is simply indefensible. How can you support someone who believes this?

    Unfortunately, it may be a case now that, as Jill Stanek writes,
    “…here we may have a scenario of Obama supporting something so heinous people simply may not believe it.”

    Mark Rabich

  • No Murray, I don’t believe “stoning should still exist”, but unlike Obama in that video, I have good theological reasons for my view.

    And yes we “should be helping” the poor, but unlike the political left, I believe this is primarily the role of the church not the role of the state. This is where the evangelical leftists always get it wrong – they think that the biblical references to helping the poor don’t much apply to individuals, they think that the state should be doing it. But most leftist welfare plans are little more than an attempt to redistribute wealth using the tax system – a concept also known as socialism.

    Ewan McDonald.

  • Obama somewhat supports abortion.McCain is a divorcee.If Christians are required to make judgement by God’s biblical standards, then it is only just that these standards be equally applied to both.One kills the unborn physically,the other kills children emotionally.God has no preference.
    Barry Koh

  • Thanks Murray

    Of course I never claimed McCain was a great Christian. And I don’t think McCain himself is making this claim either. But Obama certainly is seeking to present himself as an uber-Christian, mostly to win over gullible Christians. And it looks like his tactic is working pretty well.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks Barry

    No, Obama does not ‘somewhat support abortion’ He fully supports it, perhaps more so than any other politician in recent memory. And yes divorce is a tragedy for kids, but they are still alive. I reject this myth of moral equivalence here that somehow equates the murder of the unborn with difficulties the living may experience.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks Juliana

    So you think Obama will make a better President – by presiding over 1.3 to 1.5 million dead babies each year? By perhaps replacing two retiring Supreme Court judges with two more pro-abortion judges? How is he better? He will certainly be a better killer. It is a pity that the human rights of unborn babies is so low down on so many people’s priority lists, even those who call themselves Christians.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • For the record, I don’t believe McCain is a Christian either. I would say that if we were to judge by their lives and the things they say, that out of Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin, only Palin fits the genuine Christian category.

    I don’t much care if Obama is Christian, Muslim or whatever – his policies are so appallingly anti-Christian that no believer in their right mind should be voting for him. The possible exception would be if you think that the church of America might benefit from a bit of persecution. (I actually think it would, but still don’t believe in voting for it.)

    The claim that Bush “did nothing about the abortion issue” is patently false. He may not have done as much as we would have liked but he at least gave his consent to the law banning partial birth abortion and also the born alive infant protection act. Former president Clinton refused to give his consent to the partial birth abortion ban and, as has already been pointed out, Obama voted against the born alive infant protection bill.

    The claim that Bush has “delivered the most disastrous Presidency in American history” is pure hyperbole. He’s probably done as good a job as could be expected with regard to the so-called ‘war on terror’, but of course on this point the lefties hate him. The left would prefer to pursue policies of appeasement which will of course be about as effective as those of Neville Chamberlain.

    As for “character assassination tactics employed by the Republicans”, this is nothing compared to that employed by the left against Sarah Palin. Michelle Malkin has collated examples of insane leftist rage here. Also the MSM are running an unbelievably partisan coverage in favour of Obama. It seems as though all the anti-God forces are combining to work against McCain-Palin and to support Obama-Biden, and yet some Christians seem unable to perceive it.

    Ewan McDonald.

  • Juliana writes, “Who wants a “hockey mom” a heartbeat away from the Presidency?”

    LOL! All in the context of writing about “character assassination tactics”? Never mind that she’s a Governor of a state… And ironic to be concerned about heartbeats, too…

    But I really don’t know whether to keep laughing or start crying sometimes when I read what you write, Juliana. Obama is on record for supporting the killing of children who are already born. The reasons he has given to deflect this are falsehoods. I can only concur with Molotov Mitchell’s comment on one of his videos “If Americans can watch this video and still support Barack Obama, then America is…beyond all hope.”

    Obama got this issue totally wrong and has continued to lie about it. Which means he actually knows people don’t like it, but he hopes to skirt around it to get their vote anyway.

    I don’t care if he’s also the best economist, diplomat… whatever. He gets life wrong and should be disqualified from anything remotely to do with public office. You’d think twice about a guy who thought this way being a school bus driver, wouldn’t you?!? But Juliana obviously thinks other things are more important.

    If someone thinks you’re an extremist for thinking we should be protecting life at its most vulnerable then I’m happy to stick both my hands up and say “Yes, that’s me.” I strongly believe that as being a measure of our maturity as a society. My parents both grew up in Nazi Germany, and I was talking about this the other day with my mum – her disgust was palpable.

    But the fact that we are even discussing this issue here pains me deeply, let alone having to state the absolutely blindingly exceedingly obvious.

    Mark Rabich

  • Thanks for the correction Bill that Obama is fully for abortion.I agree that abortion is murder and am against it.What I am saying is that we cannot be selective in our judgement.If we speak up against abortion,homosexuality or same sex marriage,then that biblical standard must apply to other aspects of our lives too.Divorce, which in the past was frown on by society ,is today a common tragedy in many marriages and is destroying our society.Difficulties in lives and other reasons can too be used as reasons for abortion and other lifestyle, and like divorce will soon be widely accepted as normal.While we might not agree on some things,I think you are doing a fantastic work.God bless you.
    Barry Koh

  • Juliana how can you say the “character assisinations” of the republicans is horrifying. They are legitimate question ebing asked unlike what the left has been doing. Look at what they have said and done to Sarah Palin and her family in the last month. Consider the media won’t look into Obama’s associations but will make claim about Sarah Palin’s baby, or even this. (Take care to be aware of the warning on the link)
    Paul Wakeford

  • Part of the problem is some well meaning Christians are, with good reason, disgusted with McCain. But they are misguided in the extreme, since the election should be a vote between the alternatives actually available. It is not just a chance to vent frustrations because the better of the available candidates is not perfect (and will never be since the Messiah is not standing!).

    As Greg Koukl says, we have a duty to minimize evil, even if it means voting for someone a lot less than 100% pro-life, if the alternative is 100% pro-abort.

    Thomas Sowell also points out (Losing the cultural wars)
    that if you demand 100% perfection from your allies in any cause, you’ll never win. The abolitionists won with compromises (not that even the Apostle Paul would have been an enemy of the 100% abolitionists since he didn’t come out and explicitly order slaves to be freed), and pro-lifers can do the same and win incremental victories, e.g. the victory on partial birth abortion bans.

    Obama supports partial birth abortion and infanticide, and judges like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and opposes the state ballots to make marriage one man and one woman. And there would be no checks on his power with a leftist Dem congress and new liberal judges appointed. Think of how long FDR stayed in power. According to most pro-life groups, as well as according to most pro-abort groups like NOW and Planned Parenthood, McCain has a largely pro-life voting record, while Obama is 100% pro-abort. E.g. his opponents,Evangelicals for Mitt, write:

    Without question, Senator McCain has a generally pro-life voting record and he is to be commended for that. But is it really a consistent record? For the current legislative session, Senator McCain has only earned a 75% rating from National Right to Life. McCain’s support for federally-funded embryonic stem cell research (H.R. 810) is the reason for his lowered rating and one of the main reasons why pro-life voters are suspicious of McCain’s sincerity on life issues.

    But I’d take 75% pro-life any day over 0%, as much as I’d like 100%. Or: as much as I hate losing 25%, it’s better than losing 100%. After all, McCain Criticized Obama for Pro-Abortion Votes on Infanticide, Partial-Birth.

    Conservatives thinking of voting for Obama because God might raise another Reagan are presuming on God. Just remember, FDR won four terms, although he prolongued the depression, simply because hurting people look to more government. And the current financial crisis can be traced to the Carter/Clinton “Community Reinvesment Act”, long after they left the White House—and remember how disgruntled conservatives helped Clinton into power by venting against Bush Sr. by voting for a third party! How many years will America suffer long after the Obamas leave?

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Juliana Simbroski

    The reason people emphasize Obama’s middle name is because they wish to indulge in character assassination, by implying that he may be Muslim in practice or leaning, or by awakening our basest fears of the foreign or of other races.

    What rubbish: his name is his name. And my concern is not that he is a Muslim but that he’s a rabid secularist in his deeds if not his words. It’s not accident that misotheists love him.

    But there is not the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that he is Muslim, and the other implications are xenophobic at best, racist at worst.

    Where are the racists? About half of white people will vote for Obama, but only about 3% of blacks will vote for McCain. So which people group contains more who vote on grounds of skin colour.

    I’m also ashamed to admit I voted for George W. Bush, twice. He too claimed to be a conservative but in 8 years he did nothing about the abortion issue.

    Nonsense. He re-imposed the Mexico city Policy that forbids federal funding of overseas abortions, and nominated originalist judges Roberts and Alito who affirmed that a partial birth ban was constitutional. Your counterfeit Obamessiah has explicitly supported partial birth abortion and railed against those judges, and promises to nominate judges who support that Roe v Wade monstrosity.

    The neocons who run the Bush Administration have exploited the conservative Christian vote to get elected and then promptly forgot about us.

    About “us”? If Obama and the secular Dems instituted persecution of Christians, I have yet to see any evidence that Juliana would be convicted.

    Bush has delivered the most disastrous Presidency in American history and I’m sorry to say McCain’s policies aren’t much of an improvement.

    Someone has forgotten Carter and Clinton.

    I’ve recently been traveling in America, and I’ve been horrified by the character assassination tactics employed by the Republicans.

    Read Obama’s supporters in the Daily Kos and other left wing gutter sites lately, who have been vicious against Palin right from the start?

    The cynical and desperate attempt to appease conservatives by appointing Sarah Palin has also backfired. All but the most hardened of the conservative base consider her an embarrassment. Who wants a “hockey mom” a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

    She was a mayor and governor. Yet Juliana is happy with a community organizer whose main achievements were books on his favorite subject—himself—not just a heartbeat away but the actual President.

    I’ve become so annoyed that I’ve changed my voting intention. I was planning to support McCain but I’m now voting for Obama.

    Hard to believe that such a lefty as Juliana ever intended anything else.

    I too disagree with his abortion stance,

    Hard to believe if you’ll vote for such a baby-hater just to vent your spleen against conservatives.

    but I think he’ll make a better President and has more chance of digging America out of the mess it is in.

    Once more ignoring the key role of Obama’s Dems in starting the whole mess with their Community Reinvestment Act and subsequent protection of Fannie and Freddie from criticism.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Bill, I could be offended that you are suggesting arguing against you “call themelves Christians”. I could be offended that you appear to claim such moral high ground and yet clearly do not believe in the equality of sin (“I reject this myth of moral equivalence here that somehow equates the murder of the unborn with difficulties the living may experience.”)

    If you and your cronies are going to talk about selectively quoting from and using the Bible, then at least shape up and be honest about it. I’m not offended by your comments, I’m disappointed at the lack of understanding you show – completely prioritising abortion and pretending no other issues exist apart from gay marriage. What about education, health, energy as issues which we should also base our judgements on? The everyday challenges and decisions a President will make must be considered. If one believes Obama’s policies on these issues affecting every citizen are superior, then it would be irresponsible to vote purely on what the candidates may or may not do about abortion and gay marriage alone.

    When was Obama trying to claim that he was an uber-Christian? Where and when has he done this? He is clearly quite humble when it comes to this, highlighting his imperfections:

    The questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”

    Obama continually refers to Senator McCain as a hero, and recently at a Republican rally, a redneck spoke into the microphone that she didn’t trust Obama, because “he’s… he’s an Arab”. McCain rightfully took the microphone from her, shook his head and explained that Obama is a decent family man who he happens to have disagreements with. Of course, it would have been better if McCain had qualified that being an Arab does not preclude one from being a decent family man.

    But it is this Orientalism, whether spoken by the clearly uneducated or even worse those who have experienced the gift of proper education which attempts to instil fear. And Juliana is correct – it’s racist. If you want to talk about extremism, then be open to those who believe racism is extreme. If you think Obama’s stance on abortion precludes him from being a choice for Christians, then by all means write an article about it. But remove the frills that defame him, detracting from your argument. This article and the following comments could have been persuasive, but fundamentally irrational scare-tactics have only confirmed Obama as the right choice in the opinions of at least two comment-makers.

    When you attempt to character assassinate Barack Obama, you’re digging a greater hole for your argument and you must therefore judge John McCain similarly. Juliana’s statement is perfectly reasonable, particularly when one only has McCain’s word against Obama’s on what they will/won’t do/won’t bother with the abortion issue. It is a real insult to those involved in this blog to pretend that abortion (save gay marriage) is the only issue, let alone to suggest that an Obama election victory would mean he has blood on his hands. What about the millions of abortions George W. Bush has presided over? “So you think Obama will make a better President – by presiding over 1.3 to 1.5 million dead babies each year?” Even if McCain holds the opposite view to Obama, that doesn’t mean that the presiding over baby killing is magically transferred away to someone else. It is a flawed argument.

    Standing up for your beliefs is commendable. Being wilfully ignorant is not.

    Murray Bentham

  • Read Why I Can’t Vote For Obama by Huntley Brown, a Christian, fabulous concert pianist—and a black man. An excellent piece: he is hardly uncritical of McCain, but denounces Obama’s strident support for prenatal baby-butchery and his membership in a racist church for 20 years.
    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Bill,

    When the question of Obama’s religious allegiances arises, his supporters invariably (almost hysterically so) play the racist card. Muslims comprise so many races, including Italians, Americans, English, Australians, Mexicans, Irish, French, Germans etc that it is ludicrous to claim that a person who believes Obama to be a closet Muslim is a racist. If anything the correct description may be “bigot” as a Muslim is one who is a follower of Islam. By definition a bigot is one who is intolerant of another’s religion. A racist is one who is intolerant of another’s race ie Italian, French etc etc. Thus the word “bigot” applies to religion and the word “racist” applies to one’s genes.

    Having said all that, I am convinced that Islam is not a religious faith but a violent ideology. The translation of “Islam” is “submission”. Thus my fear that Obama’s true allegiances are not to democracy but to a violent intolerant theocracy. In the same way he is hiding his true views and intentions on abortion until he gets into power.

    I remind those who are Obama’s supporters of Abraham Lincoln’s words.

    John FG McMahon
    Kolonga, Qld

  • Bill,

    That would be no different to the situation that has existed under every President for the last 35 years. Do you really think that electing McCain will somehow make abortion go away?

    The Court is supposed to apply judicial opinion to interpretation of the Constitution. Even if McCain managed to get judges with anti-abortion views nominated, there is no guarantee that Roe v Wade would be overturned as a matter of law. And even if it were, how many states would then make abortion a felony today? Very few I would think, given public opinion on the matter.

    As Obama said in the debate, “No one is in pro-abortion”. Given the appalling situation with health care and education in America, surely his proposals to tackle abortion by better sex education and provide help for women to keep their babies are worthwhile aims? And surely it is time America addressed its unacceptably high rate of teenage pregnancy?

    The Culture Wars being waged over this issue are not helping solve it. Making pregnant women felons is not going to solve it. I think a new approach is necessary.

    America and the world face grave problems over the coming years. Whoever wins the Presidency will have an enormous burden on his shoulders, and abortion is just one of the dozens of policy issues that need to be addressed. It should not be the only issue on which Christians make their decision about who is best equipped to lead the nation.

    Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

  • Bill, thank you for some clear-sighted analysis on Obama. His abortion views are certainly horrific, but Murray and Juliana seem not to be overly worried by that.
    What I want to focus on is his thuggery, his alliances, his messianic self-portrayal, and his smooth-talking rhetoric to hoodwink the American people.

    1. Thuggery: he goes after anyone who stands in his way. This is evident in the way he originally came to power in Chicago – by strong-arm tactics eliminating opposition before an election was even held. Legal? Yes (technically); but moral? Hardly. We can see it now in the way he sends in his hatchet-men to denigrate “Joe the plumber”, merely because the latter dared to stand up to him and ask a question.

    Alliances: the connection with Bill Ayers has now come out. He is one who bombed U.S. public buildings, including the Pentagon, and is quite unrepentant to this day. They first met in the mid-1990s, and have had quite a lot to do with each other over the years. Now there is a very solid connection with Raila Odinga of Kenya, who lost the election there last December, and then embarked on a campaign of bombing and mayhem, including torching churches full of women and children. A gangster politician if ever there was one, but Obama campaigned for this thug in both 2006 and 2007, at American taxpayer expense. No this hasn’t yet come out in the media (they do everything to cover it up), but it’s on the blogs, just like the Bill Ayers connection was for quite a while.
    There is also the Tony Rezko connection. The latter is a convicted felon with whom Obama co-operated in corrupt lands deals during the 1990s.
    Then there is the whole ACORN connection, both in voter fraud, and in bullying bank executives into issuing high-risk loans (a significant contributor to the current meltdown). Obama is desperately trying to play this down, as with all the other scandals.

    Messianism: he both portrays himself, and is portrayed by the media as some sort of messiah who will come to the rescue of all the country’s ills. This is reinforced by the iconography, which I have seen on the net: head-and-shoulders portraits of Obama with rays, auras, and the like emanating from his head. This is sheer blasphemy! As a Christian anyone, just anyone, who comes either portraying himself, or being portrayed like that, is enough to turn me right off. This is not the spirit of Christ, but of antichrist, the substitute christ. (Matt.24:5).

    Mendacious smooth-talk: Whether connections with Ayers, with ACORN, whether his programme is tax-and-spend socialism, his stand on abortion, or whatever, he lies with a smiling face (or should I say a smirk). The gullible have fallen for all this throughout this year, but there are clear signs that the mask is now falling off. He is a shady character, to say the least, and all his associations and alliances have been with far-left radicals who are not above violence and shady dealing to obtain their ends.

    All of the above and more is documented (except for the Odinga connection which has only surfaced quite recently) in the book by David Ferroso, “The Case Against Barack Obama”, Regnery Publ. 2008. Ferroso insists that he is not a Republican partisan trying to denigrate an opponent, but a simply investigation of a man who remains an unknown quantity.

    Murray Adamthwaite

  • I have to say that neither of these candidates impress me that much, albeit I am marginally pro-McCain. I am disappointed in Obama’s support for abortion and I am equally disappointed with McCain’s appearance as dull and somewhat out of touch with how American’s are feeling (esp on the war issue, from what I’ve read) and the fear, like Juliana, that McCain will simply “use” the Christian vote like Bush did (and wasted esp on the abortion issue). It seems both options leave much wanting. I would have much preferred Condolezza (sp.) Rice as the Republican candidate, but alas that’s not the case.

    What I will say, however, is that there is absolutely no evidence to date to show that Obama is a Muslim. Yes he has a Muslim middle name and his family was Muslim originally, but I think it’s a shame people think that that makes him a Muslim now. From what I understand, Obama is a Christian, or claims to be.

    I pray that whoever wins, they will bring the United States back to a powerful position in world affairs. I am more concerned, day by day, when I think of China growing (economically and politically) in world terms and the US receding to a sad, lonely corner of the world.

    Andrew Dinham

  • Why would anyone believe in the equality of sin? Murder is clearly a worse sin than say theft. In the Bible, only the former warranted the death penalty. Jesus talked about some being punished with many stripes, others with few, which would be absurd if all sins were equal.

    Jesus mentioned an unforgivable sin, and whatever you think of this, it must be worse than a forgivable sin.

    John told of a sin that leads to death, as opposed to a sin that does not lead to death.

    In any case, the right to life underlies all other rights. There is no point having great education, welfare, shelter etc. if you’ve been butchered before birth so can’t enjoy them.

    Of course Obama is pro-abortion, not “pro-choice”. He wants to force taxpayers to pay for it!

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Oh, this “all sins are equal” error has been discussed before on this site.
    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Bill,

    You may recall my comment of sometime ago concerning seminar-trained interlopers.

    What looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck etc is a DUCK. With respect to his nationality and religion the question is this: Why wont Obama produce a copy of his birth certificate which would clear the air once and for all.? A further point is that the Muslims claim and recognize that Obama is a Muslim; he refuses to refute this claim.

    John FG McMahon
    Kolonga, Qld

    Michelle Obama was working in the same law firm as Bernadine Dohrn 20 years ago. (Bill Ayers’ wife) Obama was assigned to Michelle Robinson as his ‘mentor’, (this is how they met), for holiday jobs when he was still at Harvard. Obama and Ayers worked on the ‘Woods Foundation’ (doled out big money to ‘Acorn’ and ‘Trinity ‘black liberation white hating church) together for 3 years then in 1995 (after his autobiography ‘Dreams From My Father’ was published) Ayers picked Obama as Chairman of the ‘Chicago Annenberg Challenge’ to supposedly help failing schools. For 6 years they implemented Ayers ‘ radical education ideas. 160 million was doled out ( Obama’s only executive experience?) and no one knows where all that money went! Ayers and Obama worked closely as co directors between 1995 and 2001 on the CAC, attending board meetings, retreats and press conferences. It is not only the past unrepentant bombings of Ayers but his very close affiliations with Obama until recently that cause reason for much concern. Ayers famously stated ,”Guilty as hell and free as a bird ” Also in 2001 September Ayers was photographed standing on the American flag in an alleyway (perhaps he didn’t have the guts to do it on a crowded footpath?) was published on the 12th, saying he wished he had done more (bombings) he didn’t feel they did enough!

    Obama’s associations with Ayers are misnamed they are more correctly understood as affiliations and working involvements ,even sharing the same radical views.There is fascinating evidence at American Thinker that Ayers co wrote or ghost wrote Obama’s first memoire! Jack Cashill has compared the writing styles with examples. See what you think. A radical anti Israeli, PLO supporting Muslim Khalidi. One clue comes from an unexpected source, Rashid Khalidi, the radical Arab-American friend of Obama’s and reputed ally of the PLO, thanked Ayers in his book preface, for making his dining room table available to struggling writers of the neighourhood and giving them assistance on how to write an autobiography!
    and here;

    Jennifer Parfenovics

  • Here is a bit more horrific detail about Obama and the Woods Foundation I mentioned above.

    “‘Woods Fund’ When Obama went to work for Bill Ayers at the Woods Fund, he actively promoted funding ACORN’s kind of activism. Though the Fund considered such groups controversial, they went on to provide ACORN with grants totaling $190,000 over the three years Obama was there. Specifically: During Obama’s time on the Woods Funds ACORN received grants of $45,00 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), and $40,000 (2002) from the Woods Fund. This was not merely a measure of Obama’s devotion to ACORN however. More likely it was part and parcel of the Chicago Way of getting ahead in politics.”

    Jennifer Parfenovics

  • Thanks guys

    Sorry but I have been busy interstate, but a few remarks.

    Juliana, I am finding an ever-increasing disconnect and dissonance between what you claim to be (a pro-life Christian conservative) and what you actually say here. It seems if one is true, the other is not. Indeed, with all due respect, I find your arguments becoming increasingly bizarre and illogical, based on what you claim to be.

    “Do you really think that electing McCain will somehow make abortion go away?”

    Name one person in the world – let alone on this website – who has come even close to making such a silly suggestion. Of course it will not go away. But there will be a huge difference between a President and political party being in power which is primarily pro-life, and a President and political party which is primarily pro-abortion. You might as well suggest that it would make no difference to slaves if William Wilberforce, or a slave owner, were running Great Britain a few centuries ago.

    And who ever said a McCain win will “guarantee that Roe v Wade would be overturned”? There will however be a huge difference if Obama gets in and appoints several more left-wing Supreme Court justices, or if McCain gets in and appoints several more conservative judges. It will make a tremendous difference, not just to the abortion issue, but to a whole range of important issues.

    “As Obama said in the debate, ‘No one is in [sic] pro-abortion’.” Sorry, wrong again Juliana. Obama is pro-abortion, pure and simple. We have seldom seen a politician so stridently pro-abortion as Obama. He supports abortion. He is in favour of abortion. He wants abortion.

    And now (in true pro-life, conservative Christian fashion?) you want “to tackle abortion by better sex education”? Puh-leeese. I have written elsewhere of the failure of liberal sex ed programs. They compound the problems, not remedy them.

    “Making pregnant women felons is not going to solve it. I think a new approach is necessary.” Oh, so now you are actually suggesting that McCain wants to throw women in prison for having abortions? Just why is it that you time and time again deliberately distort and misrepresent the position of the Republicans on all this? We really do not think you are that unintelligent to make such outrageous, misleading and inaccurate claims. So we can only surmise more sinister motives. Just what is your real agenda Juliana? With all due respect, one could be forgiven for thinking you are a paid-up member of the Democratic Party, and a leading official in the Elect Obama Campaign, with the incredulous comments you have been making here.

    Of course there would be nothing remarkable or notable about your comments if you had claimed all along to be a secular, pro-abortion lefty. They would then just be the standard pap one hears from such folk. But one can see nothing in your comments that indicates they are coming from a genuine pro-life conservative.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Bill,

    I’m a realistic pro-life conservative. There are limits to what a President can do, and limits to what the Supreme Court can do when it comes to social issues.

    If McCain is elected, what difference exactly will it make to the legality of abortion in the USA, or any other conservative issue? Congress is likely to have a substantial Democrat majority in both houses. It may be good if McCain was elected to provide checks and balances, but that is also likely to create problems because justice nominations need to get past Congress.

    And even if Row v Wade were overturned we still have the problem that abortion then becomes a state matter, as is gay marriage.

    But McCain’s conservative credentials are somewhat suspect. And when Palin was asked about Roe v Wade in her debate she actually agreed with the privacy rights in the Constitution upon which that case was grounded. Does she not understand the case, or does she recognise that overturning it will be problematic?

    It’s interesting that the Catholic Archbishop of New York invited both candidates to address the annual Al Smith dinner last week in New York. Catholics have long been leading the fight against abortion and the archbishop rejected Kerry in 2004 because he was pro-abortion. Obviously they think Obama is far more acceptable. How do you explain this If Obama is in fact the devil incarnate as you imply?

    My reading of it is that the Catholic Church recognises that all life issues are connected, and that you can’t single out abortion in isolation from all other social issues facing America.
    There is a document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship put out by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that is worth reading on this matter.

    I think you and many of your correspondents are very ill-informed about the role of the President as laid out in the US Constitution. If you want to prove me wrong in that assessment, explain to me what McCain can or will do on the abortion issue.

    I reconsidered my position on the election because I recognise the limits of power in these matters. Row v Wade has been around for 35 years and several Republican Presidents. My vote comes down to who will be the best for America in these troubling and uncertain times. McCain was unimpressive in the debates and did not look “Presidential”. He is a good and honourable man, but I think his best years are behind him and his campaign has run off the rails, not necessarily through his fault. But I do think America and the world would have been a much better place if McCain had beaten Bush in the 2000 nomination.

    Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

  • But before Americans can vote either way, they have to be bothered to vote at all.
    Michael Watts

  • Thanks Juliana

    “McCain’s conservative credentials are somewhat suspect.” Please quote for us where anyone on this site said McCain was the ideal conservative. No one has said that, and it is not the issue anyway. The real issue is this: Obama’s radical credentials are not at all suspect. His extreme leftism is a matter of public record. Yet you are telling us that you will vote for him, all the while claiming to be a pro-life conservative. Sorry, but there does exist what is known as the law of noncontradiction.

    “The archbishop rejected Kerry in 2004.” Sorry, wrong again. You are either uninformed or misleading here. The truth is neither Bush nor Kerry were invited to the 2004 Dinner. The Archdiocese of New York said at the time that the presidential campaign could detract from the ‘spirit’ of the event.

    “The Catholic Church recognises that all life issues are connected.” Sorry, more red herrings. First, I am not a Catholic, so my position is arrived at independently of whatever Catholic thinking might say. Second, most pro-life Catholics I know reject the “seamless garment” argument that if one is pro-life on abortion, one must be anti-capital punishment and anti-just war as well. And I have argued the moral and biblical differences about these issues elsewhere on this site.

    “Explain to me what McCain can or will do on the abortion issue”. Sorry, once again the real issue is this: “explain to me what Obama can or will do on the abortion issue”. Your implication that there is zero difference between the two men and the two political parties on the abortion issue is farcical.

    As I said at the beginning of this article, if a Christian wants to vote for Obama, that is up to him or her. But what I do find so ludicrous is for a person to claim to be pro-life and pro-Obama. That is as logical as saying one is pro-Jewish, and pro-Hitler. Or pro-chastity, and pro-Hugh Hefner. Or pro-creation, and pro-Darwin. Or pro-God and pro-Dawkins.

    Sadly, it seems the destructive postmodern assault on truth and absolutes has also effectively penetrated the churches.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Bill,

    As a Catholic I agree that the Church is anti abortion, anti euthanasia etc. But the Church does have rogue Priests, Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals who have adopted tainted liberal feminist theology. Thus we have some renegade clerics dining and socialising with the likes of Obama and his ilk etc. As regards Senator Kerry, he was instructed by his Bishop not to present himself for Holy Communion until he publicly recanted and retracted his anti-life views.

    Recently Speaker Nancy Pelosi was publicly admonished by her Archbishop and other Church leaders on her anti-life views and misrepresentations of the Church’s Teachings. Archbishop Burke recently publicly stated that the Democratic Party was “a party of death”. With respect to the issue of whether a Christian should support Obama it must be said that one cannot lie down with the wolves if one is a lamb.

    Yes, Bill your statement “Sadly, it seems the destructive postmodern assault on truth and absolutes has also effectively penetrated the churches” is so so true.

    John FG McMahon, Kolonga, Qld

  • Juliana writes:
    “My reading of it is that the Catholic Church recognises that all life issues are connected, and that you can’t single out abortion in isolation from all other social issues facing America.
    There is a document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship put out by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that is worth reading on this matter.”

    Well, I had a look at quick look at this document, and I don’t know how you’ve formed this view.  Take for example:

    “34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. “

    and then there’s these ones:

    37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

    42. As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

    44. Human life is sacred. The dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. Direct attacks on innocent persons are never morally acceptable, at any stage or in any condition. In our society, human life is especially under direct attack from abortion. Other direct threats to the sanctity of human life include euthanasia, human cloning, and the destruction of human embryos for research.

    64. Our 1998 statement Living the Gospel of Life declares, “Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others” (no. 5). Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed. Cloning and destruction of human embryos for research or even for potential cures are always wrong. The purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is not an act of mercy, but an unjustifiable assault on human life. Genocide, torture, and the direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants in war or terrorist attacks are always wrong.

    There’s more, but I think the point has been well and truly made. Obama is on record to support the abolishing of just about any remaining barriers to killing young life by any method that can be invented – not just in the womb, but if it happens to escape the attempt as well – all in the obscene name of ‘choice’. My cursory reading of the document makes it clear what a Catholic with a “well-formed conscience” should do. I’d venture a guess that most non-Catholic Christians (like myself) would agree with much of the reasoning here.

    Classic own goal, Juliana.

    Mark Rabich

  • That’s a sober observation John.

    If memory serves, the Church also has rogue ‘members’ (so-called) that used their positions as MP’s to vote their conscience in support of abortion and cloning bills in the Australian Senate and House of Rep’s too. I can’t imagine that it is any different in America? The unborn clearly don’t have a chance if this is the result of the informed conscience of Church representatives.

    Though I cannot recall whether there was any fall-out from the Catholic Church following conscience voting by Catholic MP’s in support of such bills here in Australia, I trust that in Senator Kerry’s case, his Bishop is true to his word.

    Duane Proud

  • Breaking news: Obama’s ostensibly “pro-life” supporter Doug Kmiec is exposed explicitly for what he obevious was, a “pro-choice” advocate.

    See Douglas Kmiec Exposed: Catholic Obama Backer Takes Pro-Abortion Position and Catholic Lawyer Still Deceiving Voters to Think Obama is Pro-Life on Abortion

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Mark,

    You are so correct. As a well informed Catholic, I cannot but applaud you on your contribution. May I ask however that rather than a cursory or as you say “a quick look” that you explore the material in greater depth. Thus armed, you can counter any further arguments of those such as Julianna. Using terms such as a “quick look” leave you in turn open to the charge of being as superficial as Julianna was/is. You may well ask yourself that given these official Church statements, even from the Pope himself, why the likes of some Catholic clerics and religious ignore these clear signposts and support the likes of Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy and other members in the Club of Death.

    Bill summed it up with his plaintive cry “Sadly, it seems the destructive postmodern assault on truth and absolutes has also effectively penetrated the churches”.

    Australian Catholic Bishop Kevin Manning argued the case of whether “Should Christians Support Obama?” with a statement on the eve of our own Federal Election on 24th November last. He said:

    “A pastoral message on voting:

    From Bishop Kevin Manning, Catholic Outlook, November 2007

    My Dear People,

    One of the most basic obligations of citizens is to vote, and to be an informed voter who makes decisions based on solid moral principles. In view of this month’s Federal Election, I suggest a few guidelines to help you fulfill this most basic obligation.

    In doing this I do not endorse, or oppose, any particular party or candidate. Rather, it is my hope that these guidelines will show how our Catholic faith, and human reason, should shape our thoughts and actions in daily life.

    In a democratic society, voters choose representatives to whom they give authority to work for the common good, not only for the good of the individual.

    The election is not about “me” and “my” economic or social wellbeing alone. It is about the whole country, the individuals in it. The Second Vatican Council teaches that “Every citizen ought to be mindful of his right and duty to promote the common good by using his vote” (GS 75).

    Voters must keep in mind that choosing one politician before another can significantly affect many lives, especially the lives of the most vulnerable people in society, such as the unborn, and those who are terminally ill.

    For these reasons Catholic voters have a serious moral obligation to exercise their right to vote, whether on the federal, state or local level.


    Respect for human dignity is the basis for the fundamental right to life. It is also the basis for the right to those things needed to live with dignity, e.g., productive work and fair wages, food and shelter, education and healthcare, protection from harm, and the right to move from one country to another in search of the necessities of life.

    The principle of the dignity of the human person requires Catholics to come to the aid and defence of the defenceless, especially the poor.

    Another guiding principle is the defence and promotion of marriage as the unbreakable bond between one man and one woman. Society is only as healthy as is the institution of marriage and family.


    Our vote must be guided by a well-formed conscience, a law written “by God on our hearts, that disposes us to love, to do good, and avoid evil”. This obligation over-rides self interest, party affiliation, or the personal attraction of any individual politician.

    Like an inner voice, conscience has the authority of the very voice of God and we have a serious duty to follow the guidance of conscience. To act against the judgment of conscience when it is certain about what is good and evil has the same seriousness as disobeying God.

    It is possible for our conscience to be certain, but at the same time incorrect about what is good and evil. That is why we have an equally serious duty to properly form our conscience so that it can correctly judge what is good and evil. We are obliged to seek the truth and abide by it.

    Catholic teaching:

    From the moral perspective, Catholic voters may differ on issues such as immigration policy, healthcare, or affordable housing. Catholics may even have different judgments on the country’s decision to wage a just war.

    Some choices always involve doing evil, which can never be done, even as a means to a good end. These choices include abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning.

    Such acts are judged to be evil in themselves, or intrinsically evil, regardless of motives or particular circumstances. Catholics may not promote choices that are intrinsically evil or even remain indifferent to them.

    It follows that we would commit moral evil if we were to vote for a candidate who takes a permissive stand on actions that are intrinsically evil when there is a morally acceptable alternative.

    So there we have it: voting involves duties and responsibilities. Our duty is to vote in keeping with a conscience properly formed by fundamental moral principles.

    Quite obviously, no one can tell you who to vote for. However, the Church assists you in the formation of conscience, enabling you to consider the issues in the light of fundamental moral principles.”

    So Mark, for Julianna’s sake and edification, I will sum up the Catholic Teaching on one responsibilities and duties when voting:

    “Some choices always involve doing evil, which can never be done, even as a means to a good end. These choices include abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning.

    Such acts are judged to be evil in themselves, or intrinsically evil, regardless of motives or particular circumstances. Catholics may not promote choices that are intrinsically evil or even remain indifferent to them.

    It follows that we would commit moral evil if we were to vote for a candidate who takes a permissive stand on actions that are intrinsically evil when there is a morally acceptable alternative”.

    That definitively and unequivocally places any Catholic who votes for or supports Obama in any way whatsoever out of Communion with the Church and out of Communion with God.

    John FG McMahon, Kolonga, Qld

  • Mark,
    I’m not a Catholic either, but a key phrase was “if the voter’s intent is to support that position”. That’s my thinking on the matter. I don’t agree with Obama’s position on abortion, but I think his other policies on the economy, jobs, poverty, education and healthcare will create a much better environment in which women faced with an unwanted pregnancy can be better helped and encouraged to carry the pregnancy to term.

    I fully recognise that McCain and Obama, and their respective parties, have opposing positions on abortion. But having an ideological position is one thing, and achieving any change is quite another.

    If Obama’s Presidency creates a better America for everybody, and a better environment in which to raise children, that seems to be a better outcome for families. Alternatively, of what use to the conservative cause is a McCain Presidency that is no different from the status quo, irrespective of what his views on abortion might be?

    Politics is always a matter of compromise, no candidate is perfect, and those of us who can vote in this election have to weigh up all policies and decide which candidate is more likely to bring the USA, and the world, back from the brink of disaster.

    There are really only two choices, and if all Christians were to follow your advice and reject Obama, it means they have to vote for McCain. So I ask once again, in what specific ways will McCain be able to create a better environment for families?

    Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

  • Thanks Juliana

    “If Obama’s Presidency creates a better America for everybody…” But that is a tremendously big ‘if’. Why do you assume Obama will do this and McCain won’t? It seems this is a faith commitment on your part, not backed up by the evidence.

    As to families, Obama is a big government statist, something which has always been inimical to the wellbeing of families. We know Obama has many decidedly anti-family beliefs, including strong support for special rights for homosexuals, and so on. These are not family-friendly.

    But I am not here to defend McCain, or make his case for him. He is far from the ideal candidate. But the worldviews of the two parties are poles apart, and that will have a great impact on how families in particular, and the nation as a whole, will fare.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Julianna,

    Please undertake a careful study of my contributions to this debate. The Catholic Church clearly states that no matter how much “good” a candidate or an elected politician proposes or promises to achieve in one particular area or another, eg. such as increased benefits for single mothers, that if that candidate/politician proposes and supports just one intrinsic evil such as abortion, than the right minded (Catholic) voter must decide that the rights of the unborn baby exponentially and absolutely outweight any “right” or “benefit” or “good” that a single mother may receive if that candidate is elected. The Right to Life is the First and BASIC right. No other “rights” exist if this right is viciously taken away. A child’s “rights” to a better education, a good job, good healthcare, freedom from poverty and pursuit of happiness simply don’t exist if that child has been aborted and not permitted to fulfill his/her human potential. No baby – no rights!!! It cannot be more clear!

    Duane, Catholic Members of Parliament/Senate whether here in Australia or overseas are not “representatives of the Church”. They are representatives of their electorate. Should any of these representatives, be they devout Catholics or be they Catholics in name only, adopt a position which places them outside of the Catholic Church and out of favour with God it is their individual choice and responsibility and not the responsibility of the Catholic Church. The Church, in most cases, does not “punish” or “exclude” people. People by their own individual actions, thoughts and God-given free will exclude themselves from Communion. The Church is not a religious police force. Having said that, the Church leadership, in the main, has been weak in publicly refuting the positions and statements of so many nominal Catholics who make statements or decisions associating their Catholicity with their words or actions. In this regard the mainstream media, unless it serves its own purposes, invariably fails in any case to report any admonishment or correction issued by the Church upon such persons.

    The representatives of the Church are not Members of the House of Representatives nor the Senate but its Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests etc. The Catholic Church, for reasons of Church-State relations as well as moral, theological and ethical reasons, does not permit any of its clergy or religious to assume political office. The recent case of a Catholic Bishop elected as President of a South American nation is demonstrative of this. Upon being sworn in, this person was “defrocked” by the Church as a Priest and Bishop. No doubt you are unaware of this.

    You may care also to research the relatively recent case of Cardinal Pell being officially called before the State Parliament of NSW to account for his public statements to Catholic MPs to be mindful of their Catholic duty. He was successful in defending the serious charges made and laid against him by the Greens.

    John FG McMahon, Kolonga, Qld

  • Michael Medved: For Conservatives, Obama’s Changes Would Be Permanent and Devastating. To summarize this article:

    A presidency with Barack “it’s good to spread the wealth around” Obama and a liberal left Dem congress will irreversibly damage America. Even now, we are paying for programs instituted by Dems that Republicans couldn’t kill, but they produce lots of people dependent on them and thus Dem-supporting. And of course, Barack “I don’t want my daughters punished with a baby” will stack the courts with judges like Ruth Bader Ginsberg rather than Roberts and Alito who upheld the partial birth abortion ban (against Obama’s wishes).

    Conservatives (as this one calling her(?)self “Juliana Simbroski” claims to be): don’t spite the country just because McCain is far from perfect. It is especially crass to want to sacrifice the country for four years in the hope that a new Reagan will arise: you just don’t know that, and it is presumtuous to claim that God will raise one. During the Great Depression, FDR won four terms although (or perhaps, because) he prolongued the Depression, and the Dems held Congress for five decades.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Thanks Jonathan

    Another part of a response to those claiming to be conservative but are tempted by Obama: A major difference between left/liberals and conservatives concerns how they view politics itself. The left sees politics as the panacea for all ills, which is why Obama has such a messianic agenda. They really believe all problems can be solved by the State. Heaven can be created on earth by the coercive utopians.

    Conservatives are much more circumspect. They do not believe at all that government is the solution. They see big government as the problem. Thus for Julianna and others who lament a wasted Bush presidency, many conservatives are also disappointed in what could have been under Bush.

    But conservatives are realistic, exactly because of their Judeo-Christian worldview. They know that in a fallen world we will not bring heaven to earth. Utopia just will not happen. We may not be able to see virtue achieved, but we can see evil restrained. That is often the best we can hope for.

    Bush may have wasted opportunities, but how much worse would things have been if the Left had been in power for the last 8 years? Bush may not have achieved a lot in terms of enacting virtue, but he did a lot in terms of preventing evil, at least to varying degrees.

    An Obama government will be the opposite. And when he appoints more leftwing judges, the leftist takeover of America will be near completion. If all we can do in a fallen world is prevent the slide into evil, anarchy and total corruption, or at least slow it down, then I will take that instead of those who want to speed up the process of decline.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks for the info and clarifications John,

    As a Sydney-sider (not that that should necessarily matter) I am familiar with the comments by Cardinal Pell and the reaction it caused. You may not have picked that up in my last comment because I didn’t make it obvious that it was that to which I was referring in the second paragraph. I’m glad he wasn’t found to be in contempt. It seemed to me he was quite entitled to make clear the RCC’s position in light of the conscience vote.

    Also, I apologise about the use of the words ‘members’ and ‘representatives’. When I used these words, I was not intending to play semantics or diminish the titles of those in the RCC. I intended those terms in a looser sense than the way you have used them. I even used the word ‘members’ quite obviously tongue-in-cheek. I acknowledge that these so-called members do not in fact agree with the official teaching of the RCC and therefore should not be associating themselves with the RCC in any way. ‘Representatives’ I agree, was probably not the right word to use. Ambassadors would have perhaps been more appropriate in both cases.

    How can I explain myself better?

    I understand that Catholic MP’s are not official representatives of the Church. But Catholic MP’s (that is, those who identify themselves as members of Roman Catholics, in that they attend mass, trust in Christ, receive communion etc…), while they certainly do represent their electorate, still act as ambassadors for the Catholic Church. So when there is a conscience vote on a weighty moral issue and their conscience is not being informed by the RCC and that which grounds the position of the RCC, they are being poor ambassadors for the Church and most importantly, for Christ, whom they claim to follow. This is why I actually support the stand taken by Cardinal Pell. As an official representative of the RCC he probably felt duty bound to make the public comments he did.

    Sorry for the confusion and thanks again for your thoughtful response.

    Duane Proud

  • Juliana,

    In addition to Bill’s comment:

    “But conservatives are realistic, exactly because of their Judeo-Christian worldview. They know that in a fallen world we will not bring heaven to earth. Utopia just will not happen. We may not be able to see virtue achieved, but we can see evil restrained. That is often the best we can hope for.”

    I would add that the difficulty in voting for a polarised race such as the US Presidency (and our own two-party elections also) is that “conservatives” leaning towards McCain, and “progressives” leaning towards Obama, both believe that the world could be a better place.

    But that similarity is only apparent because “conservatives”, and particularly Christian conservatives, are aware that better does not even remotely approach perfection, whereas “radical progressives” would believe (wrongly in my view, along with Bill and others here) that earthly perfection is somehow possible, if only the people could be forced to do the right thing/s.

    Progressives have only half of the truth – yes, people are a problem (with apologies to Douglas Adams), but no the solution is not totalitarianism (by whatever means, stealthy or revolutionary, parliamentary or military).

    We can’t make people do the right thing, only God can do that – and His solution is vastly more radical than the “radical progressives” can countenance.

    And that’s why true Christianity most often winds up on the conservative side while erzatz Christianity mostly sides with the “progressives”.

    John Angelico

  • Duanne,

    Yes, the sin of giving false witness is the worry. The public perceive these MP’s as “Catholic” which in fact they are not, and the Church is subsequently and consequently judged by the public on the actions and words of these MP’s. I would rather that the Church publicly and formally ex-communicate these MP’s to ensure that the public clearfly undertsand the Teachings of the Church. Whilst the public may then disagree with these Teachings there would be no confusion or misunderstanding of the Church’s position on these issues.

    John FG McMahon, Kolonga, Qld

  • Ah that’s my question John, the one to which I was first referring. Were they publicly and formally ex-communicated? There was a lot in the press about Cardinal Pell’s statements but nothing that I recall about the fall-out for the MP’s that actually voted in support of this bill and those like it. Does anyone know anything about this?
    Duane Proud

  • No Duanne that’s what I am lamenting. Understandably the Church always continues to extend the hand out in forgiveness and reconciliation and ex-communications are a rare and very drawn out process. If the Church readily ex-communicated those such as these than quite a number of rogue clergy would not be still occupying their positions to this day. It is a delicate and complex issue. I’m simply expressing (venting?) my own frustration.

    John FG McMahon, Kolonga, Qld

  • Obama the Bible mocker scholar:

    “Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount — a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?”

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • It seems that many if not most people equate change with something that has to be better than the status quo. That was a reason behind the riots in many European nations in 1968 and the Iranian revolution in the late 1970s. It seems to be difficult for many to realise that man just cannot bring about a heaven on earth with his own efforts.
    Unfortunately, even many Christians do not take the Fall seriously. Presidential candidates may say they are “people of faith” but they deconstruct the Bible to make it say what they want it to say. Thus, Senator Obama thinks Paul’s teaching on the consequences of rejecting the Creator is an “obscure passage in Romans”. This alone speaks volumes about his “faith” that allows him to elevate himself above Scripture. I don’t think any Christian should vote for him.
    Joel Kontinen

  • Yesterday I watched a video of an abortion being performed. There is only one way I can describe it TOTALLY EVIL!!! There is no justification for abortion. In Proverbs 6 v 17 it says that God HATES the shedding of innocent blood. As I watched the little baby appear from the womb in bits and pieces, legs with little toes, hands with little fingers, a fully formed head with eyes, nose and mouth, all happening in a pool of blood, Proverbs 16 v 7 came alive to me.
    Roger Marks

  • Tired of Life?
    Or It Seems Less Like a Garment Now

    There has been a steady campaign by some Christians who regard themselves as orthodox and conservative to persuade the rank and file of their Christian brothers and sisters to rethink their predictable support for political candidates who are pro-life. They bring other issues to the fore—war, torture, taxes, education, health care, and poverty—in an attempt to undermine the claim that conscientious Christians must always support pro-life candidates. They imply that such “single-issue” pro-life voting is unsophisticated, often in lockstep with the mostly uneducated “religious right,” and perhaps not even very moral in the long view.

    This witness counters the notion that the purported inadequacies in addressing other “moral issues” such as health care are equal in gravity to abortion. Indeed, health care cannot even be properly considered apart from abortion. How can one argue for the moral imperative of universal health care without insisting that it also apply to infants who survive an abortion? How can one argue that universal health insurance must include provisions covering abortion? What sort of “health care” is that for the child being dismembered in the womb?

    If human life is not defended at its source, to purport to defend it only at points downstream is inconsistent if not hypocritical. When life is defended at its source, then the mandates to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and the imprisoned become aspects of a genuinely consistent ethic of life.

    The seamless garment position means consistency with the Christian tradition in opposing abortion regardless of the political repercussions. If Christians are to stand in solidarity with unborn victims of Roe v. Wade, they must defend them at every opportunity.

    Or will the unborn in the next life, if asked about the brevity of their earthly sojourns, reply, “Even the Christians grew tired of defending us”? God forbid.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Dr. Dobson Talks with Gov. Sarah Palin

    Audio of the interview is available here.

  • Obama unwittingly revealed his rabid wealth-confiscating socialism to “Joe the Plumber”: “it’s good if you spread the wealth around”. That his wasn’t a slip can be shown from his radical words in a 2001 National Public Radio interview:

    “But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical.

    It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. … And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was — because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change … The Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.… The Framers had that same blind spot … the fundamental flaw of this country.” , who said in a 2001 National Public Radio interview:

    “But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical.

    It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. … And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was — because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change … The Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.… The Framers had that same blind spot … the fundamental flaw of this country.”

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Here’s a great bit of commentary on Obama:

    In my world, you don’t humour a politician who presents “Change,” “Unity,” and especially, “Hope,” as hypnotic mantras, with the power of enchantment over very large crowds. And you especially don’t humour such a politician at a time when both country and world are unstable, and hard decisions will have to be made.

    Deeper than this: Obama has presented himself from the start as a messianic, “transformational” leader — and thus played deceitfully with ideas that belong to religion and not politics. That he has done this so successfully is a mark of the degree to which the U.S. itself, like the rest of the western world, has lost its purchase on the Christian religion. Powerful religious impulses have been spilt, secularized.

    In this climate, people tend to be maniacally opposed to the sin to which they are not tempted: to giving Christ control over the things that are Caesar’s. But they are blind to the sin to which they are hugely tempted: giving Caesar control over the things that are Christ’s.

    “Faith, hope, and charity” are Christ’s things. They apply, properly, outside time — to a “futurity” that is not of this world. They must not be applied to any earthly utopia. A Caesar who appropriates otherworldly virtues, is riding upon very dangerous illusions. Follow him into dreamland, and you’ll be lucky to wake up.

    Full article here.

    Ewan McDonald

  • Here’s a couple of more links to relevant articles:

    The October issue of Judeo-Christian View dealing with Obama’s positions on abortion and same-sex marriage. Note especially the photo of the Obama campaign literature being distributed to churches.

    7 Reasons Why Barack Obama Is Not A Christian campaign by the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.

    Ewan McDonald.

  • This is absolutely crazy. Now Obama is claiming to have a “righteous wind” at his back! His personal views on things like abortion and same-sex marriage are about as unrighteous as it is possible to get and yet he has the audacity to claim to be benefiting from a righteous wind? I’m just absolutely astounded with this disconnect from reality.

    Ewan McDonald.

  • Thanks guys

    A Brazilian living in Australia, Augusto Zimmermann, sent me this article by a noted Brazilian philosopher, Olavo de Carvalho. Here is one paragraph of this important article:

    Obama “has already performed at least one confirmed miracle: he is the first presidential candidate who has won the applause of all the enemies of the United States without it having ever aroused the least suspicion of the American establishment against him. Counted among his enthusiasts are Hamas, Iranian president Ahmadinejad, Muammar Khadafi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, and the television station Al-Jazeera. I wonder what would have happened to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s candidacy in 1932 if he had received ostensible support from Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini.”

    Please read the entire article:

    Or see my write-up here:

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Hi Bill This scripture caught my eye in Leviticus 20 every christian should take note of what the word of God says.

    Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
    Lev 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
    Lev 20:4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
    Lev 20:5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
    Who gives any of his descendants to Molech, he shall surely be put to death: The worship of the horrific idol Molech was mentioned in Leviticus 18:21. Molech was worshipped by heating a metal statue representing the god until it was red hot, then by placing a living infant on the outstretched hands of the statue, while beating drums drowned out the screams of the child until it burned to death.
    I will set My face against that man and against his family: The penalty for Molech worship was death and if the sentence was not carried out by Israel, God declared He would set My face against that man and against his family. God will prosecute if the legal system of Israel failed to.
    Sadly, even a man as great as Solomon at least sanctioned the worship of Molech and built a temple to this idol (1 Kings 11:7). King Ahaz of Judah gave his own son to Molech (2 Kings 16:3). One of the great crimes of the northern tribes of Israel was their worship of Molech, leading to the Assyrian captivity (2 Kings 17:17). King Manasseh of Judah gave his son to Molech (2 Kings 21:6). Up to the days of King Josiah of Judah, Molech worship continued, because he destroyed a place of worship to that idol (2 Kings 23:10).
    Lev 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD.
    Nor shall you profane the name of your God: It is obvious God would condemn such an abomination. But this command is here in this context of sexual sins because often, Molech worship was a method of infanticide to eliminate illegitimate children, eliminating the fruit of the immoral sexual conduct God has commanded against.
    Molech worship can be seen as an ancient version of birth control by infanticide, as even today many people practice birth control by abortion.
    We serve God under the terms of a different covenant, a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6). When we forsake God, and are not abiding in Jesus Christ, things may – and often do -go badly for us, but not because God has actively set His hand against us as He did to Israel under the Old Covenant. When we are not abiding in Jesus, and things go badly for us, it is simply because our actions have consequences, and we reap the bitter fruit of not keeping ourselves in the love of God (Jude 1:21).
    Michael Bourke

  • Yes Obama is wrong on abortion. But he is right about universal healthcare. How can any Christian stand the fact that people who need healthcare, and who cannot afford it, are suffering, and in many cases, are dying because they cannot get the treatment they need to live? So apparently people who identify themselves as “right wing christians” are just fine with 47 million Americans not having any kind of healthcare? You can say that you believe these 47 million people should have healthcare, but none of your right wing politicians seem to agree with you on this point. So why are you voting for them?
    Mipam Thurman

  • Thanks Mipam

    Two things. You – and the left – are simply wrong on the numbers of those without health care in the US, and the majority of these people are those in between jobs. So the numbers fluctuate greatly and are usually temporary. And the actual figures are far lower than the typical leftist figures.

    Second, if Obana wants to move full steam ahead with abortion, then in one sense it really does not matter. Dead people do not need good health care, or anything else for that matter. The right to life is fundamental, and far weightier a matter than socialised health care, or any other benefit which only living people can utilise.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Mipam conveniently forgets that what should be measured here is not whether a nation has a socialist health system, but what is the average life expectancy of that nation’s citizens? I dare say, without even knowing these figures, that the USA is doing pretty well by that measure.

    It is simply absurd, as Bill points out, to compare the crime of abortion to some alleged crime of not providing socialist health care. This is yet another example of an attempted moral equivalency the left and professing Christian Obama supporters keep making, and quite frankly, I’m growing very tired of it.

    Ewan McDonald.

  • Mipam said:

    “But he is right about universal healthcare. How can any Christian stand the fact that people who need healthcare, and who cannot afford it, are suffering, and in many cases, are dying because they cannot get the treatment they need to live?”

    Why do you say this? You are presenting only an emotional argument based on suffering and dying. The impact of the curse is such that we will all die of something or other one day, and this will continue until Jesus returns.

    You claim that life-giving (ie. emergency) treatment is being denied because of a lack of universal (government-funded?) health care.

    The hyperbole is a sign of weak argument, as it is not supported by any serious statistics. Bill has already refuted your general point, so I will confine myself to refuting your use of emotional argument.

    Please substantiate your points, or save your typing fingers.

    John Angelico

  • So needing medicine that you will die without is not a “right to life” issue for you? If you do not treat a condition like lime disease, you will die, and painfully so. Why are these deaths, which can be prevented, not morally abhorrent to a society that claims to be founded on the sanctity of life?
    Mipam Thurman

  • Thanks Mipam

    But who exactly is withholding medicine from dying people? Throwing out reckless and baseless charges of course does not make an argument. Perhaps you have been watching too many Michael Moore docos. You really will have to do better than that I am afraid.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Mipam asks “Why are these deaths, which can be prevented, not morally abhorrent to a society that claims to be founded on the sanctity of life?”

    This shows the morally abhorrent view of atheists who obviously believe they have the right to decide who should live and who should die.

    If death by lack of health care is morally abhorrent, death by lack of money should be morally abhorrent. If athists kill their babies because they can’t afford the cost of raising a child, why don’t they insist that the government provide universal welfare payments so that a woman need not have their baby killed because of lack of money?

    Roger Marks

  • Rev. Dr Peter Barnes, minister of Revesby Presbyterian Church, Sydney, has an excellent article, “Are all sins equal”, New Life p. 22, 13 Nov 2008. He argues that the affirmative answer is Stoic, then demonstrates biblical support for the negative.
    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • I find it difficult for Christians to support Obama because his beliefs are contrary. He is not for personal accountability he is promoting socialism. Socialism is not each person taking account of their own individual actions. I am confused as to how his acceptance of abortion is in the main stream of Christian thought. According to the bible homosexuality is a sin. His acceptance of this same sex marriage is not in accordance with the bible. I am completely flabbergasted as to how Christians defend their support of someone who does not hold or even practice many of our beliefs.
    Peggy Sue Yarber, California

  • I enjoyed reading this article Bill. One thing is that although abortion is not mentioned in the bible there many teachings on the subject.
    As Christians we should know that destroying the life of a child is profoundly wrong. We are taught that we should love each other therefore abortion is death and does not come into the equation . We read in John 10:10 that Christ conquered death therefore he also conquered abortion.
    As Christians we are supposed to support God so how can Christians support abortion? By doing this surely we fall into the same category as the people of old in the bible. God condemns the killing of children as told through the prophets.
    From the moment of conception there is a child, a life that deserves the chance to experience life.
    When a child within the womb is deliberately destroyed it is so profoundly wrong, how can a person not feel guilty? Why shouldn’t they face the charge of murder the same as any other person who destroys the life of another.
    I guess the question remains as to how much one values life and how sacred is life to a person! Children are a gift from God (Gen 1:28) therefore as being a heritage from the Lord a child is a reward as a fruit from the womb (Ps127:3).
    Having a relationship with God allows us to recognise that an unborn child has the same identity as a child that has been born.
    If Obama is the “Christian” that he professes to be then surely he would realise that overturning this law makes him as guilty of murder as those who destroy the life of the unborn child.
    Esther Smith

Leave a Reply