Obama pro/con

[jayem]

"I think that it is a legal right that they [homosexuals] should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."

I'm sure he didn't mean that the SotM explicity justifies same-sex unions. I think he's saying that Jesus's admonitions not to judge, and to take the plank out of your own eye before criticizing others are more important to him than Paul's opinions about homosexuality.

A lot of Christians pick and chose their beliefs. There are those, i.e. Bishop Spong, who've written that Paul speaks only for himself, and not for God. That may not be your idea of Christian doctrine, but other people are entitled to their opinions.

 

[Ringo84]

I think the following cartoon sums it up quite nicely:

Ringo

 

[Fineous_Reese]

Where are his answers?

I don't think anyone has taken the opportunity to actually ask him those questions. the article was pointing out that the MSM usually fawns over him instead of asking tough questions.

hopefully he'll get the opportunity to give us some word on them, they seem pretty good questions.

 

[Stinker]

If that is the best New Testament understanding he has on these issues, I wonder what (if any) teaching he has learned.

 

[Voegelin]

So where are Barry Lynn, Ralph Neas and Charles Schumer? They've been quite vocal on how Christians should keep their religious beliefs out of politics.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nope, because we will reap what we sow.

And what exactly would we be sowing with Obama?

he might be a good president -- or possibly a very bad one. But we've survived bad presidents before.

The Bush line has given us three Commanders-in-Chief who are at best, forgettable and at worst, abominable. Americans are pretty resiliant people, however -- always willing to let the new guy have his turn.

 

[Carey]

From The Times

March 4, 2008


Barack Obama’s army is united in desire for change, but less sure what it means

He is promising hope and a new approach to government, but the Democrat front-runner may struggle to meet some great expectations


Tom Baldwin in Westerville, Ohio


Phil Sowell, a retired government official, scarcely pauses for breath when asked what Barack Obama would do as President: “He will bring peace to the Middle East and anywhere in the world where there is tragedy.”
But Larry Milton, 56, thinks that “he will be more worried about what happens here and less worried about other countries”. Carrie Thompson hopes that he will “address global poverty and other issues which Republicans keep overlooking”, while Ron Gaynor, 52, a lifelong Republican, says: “He will bring the power of veto and say ‘no’ to a lot of this government spending – we seem to give money to people all around the globe.”
They are all waiting to hear the man himself speak. It is a familiar scene, repeated across America dozens of times in recent weeks. Long queues snake around a sports hall – comprising people of all ages, races and social class – to gather under the Democrat presidential contender’s slogan of “change we can believe in”.
But what, exactly, is this change in which they all believe? The Times conducted more than 50 interviews at a rally in Westerville, Ohio, where many supporters made plain they have contradictory – and burgeoning – expectations of what “President Obama” would do.
function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) {var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id='+articleId+'&&offset=0&&sectionName=NewsUSElections','mywindow','menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655');}

On board with Obama — as he scents victory

Our correspondent spent four days with Barack Obama’s team as the Democratic presidential front-runner took on Texas


function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) {var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id='+articleId+'&&offset=0&&sectionName=NewsUSElections','mywindow','menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655');}Multimedia

• Full coverage: US elections

• Pictures: race for presidency

• Video: Clinton scores big in New Hampshire

Background

• How the row over race turned into a beauty contest for the Democrats

• Republicans congregate in South Carolina

• Clinton: my teary moment won me New Hampshire

Related Links

• Clinton accuses Obama of dishonesty

• Rezko makes life difficult for Obama

• Obama and Clinton turn up in same town

Sarah Jaffy, 41, says: “I really like his healthcare plan. And there’s another policy – it’s my favourite – ooh, I can’t remember right now.” Erin Henderson, 18, has gone with a gaggle of friends to see Mr Obama and she declares: “We’re all really excited about him and we heard he might make it easier to get into college.”
Today these voters could tip the balance of the Democratic presidential race Mr Obama’s way. If Hillary Clinton loses Ohio and Texas, most observers – including her husband, Bill – say her candidacy will fail.
She has become increasingly frustrated at seeing her poll leads evaporate in the heat of Mr Obama’s phenomenal appeal. She rails against his soaring oratory, saying: “I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified.’ The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know that we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.”
But Mr Obama’s coalition of voters suggests his message is succeeding in reaching out, not only across the racial divisions that have long scarred America, but also over the partisan political landscape that has characterised the Clinton-Bush era.
As such, he resembles another charismatic youthful politician who made ephemeral promises of hope, change and a new approach to government: Tony Blair in the UK 11 years ago.
It is a comparison not lost on Mr Obama’s admirers, who answer charges that support for him is a passing fad by pointing out that the former Prime Minister won successive landslide election victories before his star began to fade. And, while British is politics is often dragged down by cynicism, the optimistic American psyche that is always open to a promise of “new leadership” and a “new beginning” may keep Mr Obama afloat for longer.
Mr Blair, however, could offer evidence for his claim to stand for postpartisan politics, having defeated the old left of the Labour Party by dumping the Clause IV promise of mass nationalisation and steering the party towards the “radical centre” over three years in opposition.
Mr Obama, by contrast, can only really show a campaign that is winning support from many independent and Republican voters – despite having, according to a study by the National Journal, the most liberal voting record of any US Senator.
Mrs Clinton last week cited a passage from Mr Obama’s book, entitled The Audacity of Hope, “where he said that he is a blank screen and people of widely different views project what they want to hear”.
The full quote, however, is more interesting. Mr Obama said he had many orthodox opinions as a Democrat and a black man, before adding: “That is not all I am. I also think my party can be smug, detached and dogmatic.” He then set out views – on the free market, patriotism, spirituality, and a politics not based solely on “victimhood” – which he predicted will “get me into trouble”.
Although admitting that he was new enough to be a blank screen on which “people of vastly different political stripes project their own views”, Mr Obama added: “I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them.”

If this guy truly wants Obama to win Obama will win.

As he speaks, Senator Jay Rockefeller, a national security expert, is on the stage explaining why Mr Obama is qualified to be commander-in-chief. “It’s just how you feel about it,” he says. “I trust him.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3479342.ece

 

[MachZer0]

And what exactly would we be sowing with Obama?

With Obama, we would be putting our sinfullness right up on the table. Basically, as a nation, we would be saying this is our sin, we're proud of it and we're going to legitimize it by law. recall that one of the causes for the demise of Rome was the undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis of human society. Combine that with Obama's promise to deconstruct our military and you have a weakened nation from within, and a nation ill prepared to defend itself. We will reap what we sow

 

[Voegelin]

Trinity United Church of Christ did not give Farrakhan the Lifetime Achievement Award. The church once funded a Christian based magazine targeted at African-Americans. By the time the issue giving Farrakhan the Lifetime Achievement Award was released, it was no longer under the funding or direction of the Trinity UCC.

The award was given out last year and is named after Obama's pastor, the man the Rev Jim Wallis says shaped Obama's feelings and rhetoric.

And, quite frankly, I don't give a rat's behind what religion the president embraces. IMHO, religion shouldn't play a role in how well someone runs the country, especially with the whole separation of church and state.

Obama is running around telling people the Sermon on the Mount justifies gay unions so so much for the "whole separation of church and state" thing.

I certainly care what religion a person is. I can think of dozens of religious beliefs (and I am sure you can as well) which would cast serious doubt on if a person is fit to be president.

 

[reverend B]

we would be putting our previous sin on the line and expelling it, saying we have matured beyond the sad lineage of racism that defined the first two thirds of our history and continues to be a legacy that we should be ashamed of. we are outgrowing our childhood years as a country and starting to live up to the sentiments of a constitution that challenged the world with its liberal views of the common man.

 

[joebudda]

Compared to the many serious questions about the integrity of J. Sydney McCain? I say "Pffffft".

It is a sad state of affairs when all we got to choose between is horrid and horrible.

 

[Nathan Poe]

With Obama, we would be putting our sinfullness right up on the table. Basically, as a nation, we would be saying this is our sin, we're proud of it and we're going to legitimize it by law.

Which sin would that be? Voting Democrat?

recall that one of the causes for the demise of Rome was the undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis of human society.

I recall no such thing. So, those maurauding Barbarian tribes were just an unrelated coincidence -- Revisionist history is fun!

Combine that with Obama's promise to deconstruct our military and you have a weakened nation from within, and a nation ill prepared to defend itself. We will reap what we sow

Defend itself from what? Obama has proposed, AFAIK, to curtail our nuclear program -- of course, with the Cold War long over, we no longer have much use for all those ICBMs. Furthermore, the heart and soul of the nuclear deterrent is MAD -- Mutually Assured Destruction -- which doesn't do much to scare people who blow themselves up on a regular basis.

If Obama is supporting trimming the fat off our military -- the fattest part of our national budget, it sounds like a good idea.

 

[MachZer0]

Which sin would that be? Voting Democrat?

Killing live born babies, just to mention one

I recall no such thing. So, those maurauding Barbarian tribes were just an unrelated coincidence --

Let me refresh your history memory

Defend itself from what? Obama has proposed, AFAIK, to curtail our nuclear program -- of course, with the Cold War long over, we no longer have much use for all those ICBMs.

Oh I don't know, China maybe

Furthermore, the heart and soul of the nuclear deterrent is MAD -- Mutually Assured Destruction -- which doesn't do much to scare people who blow themselves up on a regular basis.

His cutting of the defense systems of our country goes beyond nuclear weapons

If Obama is supporting trimming the fat off our military -- the fattest part of our national budget, it sounds like a good idea.[/quote]

 

[Adivi]

Obama is running around telling people the Sermon on the Mount justifies gay unions so so much for the "whole separation of church and state" thing.

Separation of church and state only implies that there can be no official state religion, not that the president cannot speak on manners of religion.

I certainly care what religion a person is. I can think of dozens of religious beliefs (and I am sure you can as well) which would cast serious doubt on if a person is fit to be president.

Yeah, like what if he sows his fields with mingled seed, or wears mixed fabrics?
[BIBLE]Leviticus 19:19[/BIBLE]

 

[Pepperoni]

From: FRC Action

On the campaign trail yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) defended his support of abortion and same-sex unions. In response to a question at a stop at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Obama said he does not support calling same-sex unions marriage, but thinks same-sex couples should be given the recognition and benefits granted to married couples. "I think that it is a legal right that they [homosexuals] should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." Jesus teaches on a number of issues central to the Christian life in the Sermon on the Mount: being witnesses to the world, loving our enemies, honoring marriage - but there is no instruction on same-sex unions. As for St. Paul's writing in Romans, it is distinguished not by its obscurity but by its clarity and consistency with all of Christian teaching about the nature of sexuality and marriage."

Well, yeah, I guess that everyone knows that
love your neighbor = support gay marriage
and
love your neighbor = favor abortion

Wow.

What would we do without Sen. Obama to clear that up for us?

 

[Allahuakbar]

Well, yeah, I guess that everyone knows that
love your neighbor = support gay marriage
and
love your neighbor = favor abortion

Wow.

What would we do without Sen. Obama to clear that up for us?

Logical Fallacy - Strawman

Where does Senator Obama claim he is interpreting the Sermon on the Mount for all of Christianity. His personal beliefs are that judgment is not the purview of government or social politics.

 

[USMC4Life]

Logical Fallacy - Strawman

Where does Senator Obama claim he is interpreting the Sermon on the Mount for all of Christianity. His personal beliefs are that judgment is not the purview of government or social politics.

Actually its more of a generalization, but you made the relativist fallacy basically, its okay for Obama to say the sotm says its okay to have gay marriage, but Republicans cannot make the same claim for anti-gay marriage.

Ironic, your claiming logical fallacies even though you claimed a incorrect one, but then you do one.

 

[Allahuakbar]

Actually its more of a generalization, but you made the relativist fallacy basically, its okay for Obama to say the sotm says its okay to have gay marriage, but Republicans cannot make the same claim for anti-gay marriage.

Really? I said "its okay for Obama to say the sotm says its okay to have gay marriage, but Republicans cannot make the same claim for anti-gay marriage"? Where? A direct quote please.

Ironic, your claiming logical fallacies even though you claimed a incorrect one, but then you do one.

It is not incorrect. Pepperoni claimed Obama was providing interpretation for all Christians, which he clearly is not. She is setting him up as a worldwide Christian authority so she can deny that authority. It is an absurd attempt, but if it makes her happy, and it is all she can muster, so be it.

 

[Braunwyn]

I still can't believe these primaries. It's such a tight race. I'm on the edge of my seat over here.

 

[brinny]

Nooooooooooooooo!

was I emphatic enough?