Obama's gall

The United "Church" of Christ is one of the largest pretend denominations in the country. Long ago abandoning any semblance to real Christianity it has joined numerous other pseudo-"churches" in becoming the religious arm of the DNC. It embraces sodomy, abortion and a long list of evils as acceptable and condemns those who view those acts as immoral as being immoral for daring to view something as immoral. Logic, obviously, is not their strong suit. Thus they attempt to put a religious spin on virtually every Liberal political issue, providing rationalization for Liberal politicians to claim the "religious high ground". Something like someone standing neck deep in raw sewage lecturing others on the importance of clean socks.

So it is no surprise to see Barack Obama, a member of the pseudo-"church" addressing their annual convention, and condemning those who use religion to further their political agenda. Let me repeat that if you didn't quite get it: Obama, speaking before a religious convention during his presidential campaign condemns others who use religion to further their political ambitions.

Of course he only meant Conservatives, not better-than-you Liberals who can use or abuse religion whenever or wherever they want. He expects his listeners to assume the double standard.

The Democratic hopeful said in his sermon speech, "Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart. Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us."

Translation: Whoever disagrees with a Liberal is causing division.

That people might not agree with Obama's version of religion is not considered a factor, only that he disagrees with others, therefore they are the ones causing division.

The Liberal view of religion is as a pretend thing to mold and shape to suit whatever purpose Liberals decide is important at the time. The problem is that that's not religion. And for them to insist that everyone else be forced to accept their definition of religion or be considered divisive and evil is not only divisive itself, but closed-minded, arrogant, dogmatic and oppressive.

Also, exactly who would these "so called leaders" be, and who exactly is calling them leaders? Who he's referring to are various ministers, and religious organizations that enjoy the freedom to impact national policy that any other individual or group has the right to do. The only one calling them "leaders" are Liberals who want to belittle and marginalize them. Isn't it hypocritical to use the adjective "so called" before a term you and your crowd alone use?

Obama further said, "At every opportunity, [the so-called leaders of the Christian Right] told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design."

Now, why would we need "leaders" telling Evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespected their values and disliked their churches when we have plenty of Democrats demonstrating exactly those things. When Democrats want to outlaw homeschooling, allow only Liberal churches to participate in the political process, force relativism on government schooled kids and claim a person is unfit for office if he or she regularly attends an Evangelical church, why would we need some one to tell us that that's a good sign Democrats disrespect our values?

Abortion, homosexual marriage, school prayer, intelligent design (and he conveniently omitted embryonic stem cell research) are where the battle fronts are. Suppose Mexico declares war on the US, and send in ground troops. That we don't send our army to Wyoming, wouldn't be evidence that we don't care about Wyoming, but only evidence that that's not where the battle is.

Obama also said, "There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its No. 1 legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich. I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version."

When was that? You also have to remember that Liberals call any tax that is actually fair on the middle class, "tax cuts for the rich". Not that that was ever the Christian Coalitions #1 priority. Making stuff up as you go is a typical Liberal ploy. After all, the end justify the means, right, and Obama has already been caught in quite a few lies. And the Bible version I have says "Thou shalt not steal" and taxing one segment of the population to give part of the money to another section would be the same as stealing. Since that's generally on the same page about not bearing false witness, I can understand why it may have been removed from Obama's version of the Bible.

What's even more outrageous is after years of the Left telling us that, in spite of the actual exit polling results, faith had nothing to do with the last election outcome, they are scrambling to try to pretend to be religious.

Transparent, aren't they.

Posted by Danny Carlton at June 25, 2007 8:25 AM