Rating the candidates with an evangelical Christian filter
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
Political labeling is a useful practice. When a candidate self-identifies herself with a partisan or ideological tag, voters then have a basis from which to start in evaluating these candidates. Granted, one should not rely solely on a Democrat or Republican and/or conservative or liberal label when making a vote choice — in the end, you vote for the candidate, not the party. But labels provide busy people who aren’t spending all day everyday following the nuances of each candidate to have a foundation to make an educated choice when it comes down to pulling the lever for someone who represents their viewpoints and ideology.
Thus being the case, when I look at candidates, I bring two filters — first, I am looking to see who is an evangelical Christian. Second, I rely heavily of my partisan filter, almost exclusively considering Republicans. Even if I didn’t consider partisanship, the Democrats rarely field a bone fide evangelical Christian candidate, especially on the national level.
With those filters in mind, here is how I rate the GOP candidates (or presumptive candidates) for president. (Note that this is an evangelical filter, not a basic conservative filter — which would have weighed issues like taxation and immigration more heavily).
1.Gov. Mike Huckabee. As a former Baptist preacher, an avid Pro-Life champion, and a supporter of traditional marriage who practices what he preaches, Huckabee has grade A credentials as an evangelical. More so than any of the other candidates, I feel Huckabee is an evangelical Christian because of his convictions, and not because of political expediency. Granted, my years in Arkansas as a journalist certainly have afforded me an opportunity to see Huckabee up close and personal, so you could accuse me of being a cheerleader for the home team. But because of the close examination, I believe Huckabee is the real deal. A+
2.Sen. Sam Brownback. Brownback is clearly the leading evangelical Christian in the presidential race today. Although the tone was clearly mocking, a Rolling Stone magazine article asks the question, “Who would Jesus vote for? Meet Sam Brownback.” In the absence of a breakout Huckabee candidacy, Brownback certainly has the most legitimate claim and legislative track record (he was first elected to the House in 1994) of supporting the evangelical Christian movement. Brownback’s conversion to Catholicism in 2002 may spook some evangelicals who have a negative view of Catholicism. A
3. Speaker Newt Gingrich. While Gingrich is not an official candidate, he certainly is acting like one. I struggle with Gingrich a lot, as will many evangelicals, because of his marital fidelity and divorce issues. However, Gingrich, a Southern Baptist, has forged what seems to be an alliance with Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, one of the most powerful kingmakers in evangelical Christendom. A prolific historian and writer, Gingrich seems to be emphasizing God in the public forum more now than ever before, as evidenced by his latest book Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation's History and Future. Gingrich, more than any other candidate, seems to be able to articulate the importance of faith in a pluralistic government. B
4. Gov. Tommy Thompson. The former Secretary of Health and Human Services and Wisconsin governor has a solid track record on marriage and abortion issues. He is a Roman Catholic. B
5. Sen. Fred Thompson. The Law and Order actor and former Tennessee senator has star power and a solid pro-life voting record. However, his divorce, which coincided with the start of his Hollywood career, may prove distasteful to some evangelicals. B-
7. Sen. John McCain. McCain is saying all the right things now to get into the good graces of the evangelical, and he has a solid pro-life voting record, including going on record as saying Roe v. Wade was a bad decision by the Supreme Court. After making disparaging comments about some evangelical leaders in 2000, McCain seems to have come around to embrace them now. McCain is an Episcopalian. C+
6. Gov. Mitt Romney. The former governor of Massachusetts tried to position himself as appealing to the evangelicals in the GOP base, but his past comments supporting abortion rights have hurt him, no matter what he says now. Also, many evangelical Christians consider Mormonism a cult because of their reverence of the Book of the Mormon in addition to the Bible. C
7. Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani scored major points with evangelicals when as mayor of New York City, he fought against blasphemous art exhibits in his city. Otherwise, his multiple marriages, his frequent appearance in drag, his support of abortion rights and gay rights, are all negatives for the Roman Catholic candidate. D+
(c) 2007 Lucas Roebuck
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Queen Pelosi
Speaker can't tell difference between friend, foe
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, is letting the power of her office go to her head. As speaker of the House, her role is to make sure the business of the House of Representatives gets done, and as a U. S. Representative for the 8th District of California, she represents the people of San Francisco.
However, she has recently tried to add jobs to her plate, including secretary of state and commander in chief. With her party’s recent attempt to insert war strategy into military funding bills and the speaker’s trip to Syria in defiance of the White House, Pelosi is obviously suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Let me give deference to Pelosi where deference is due. Becoming Speaker of the House is an amazing accomplishment for anyone regardless of one’s gender, adding Pelosi to a rarefied pantheon of some of the most significant powerbrokers in human history. Speakers Tip O’Neal (D) and Newt Gingrich (R) come to mind in recent years as those who used the power of the position well. When Republican hacks whined about the speaker wanting/needing a bigger jet to fly cross-country from Washington to San Francisco and back earlier this year, the speaker was clearly in the right. She is the top dog in the most influential legislative body in the world, and she is second-in-line to be president, should the haters get their wish to see the untimely demises of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Duly elected by her peers, she deserves all the perks, honors and accolades afforded her by the speakership.
But by trying to conduct diplomacy with Syria on her own, Pelosi not only is breaching her duty to defend the Constitution, which clearly gives diplomatic power to the president, but she is also aiding the enemy by helping drive the divide here at home. Furthermore, Pelosi’s efforts, while likely well-intentioned, are hurting our efforts to deal with extreme Islam and terrorist regimes.
Why can’t Pelosi see she is overstepping her bounds ? The left-leaning Washington Post, USA Today and the right-leaning Wall Street Journal editorials all saw pretty much eye-to-eye on this issue.
USA Today: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad — even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home. Like it or not (and we do not ), President Bush’s policy has been to refuse to negotiate with Syria until it changes its behavior. That behavior is malignant. Syria has long meddled destructively in neighboring Lebanon and is widely seen as the bloody hand behind the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Syria has aligned itself with Iran and supports the violently anti-Israel groups Hezbollah and Hamas. It foments violence in Iraq by allowing suicide bombers and jihadists to cross the Syria-Iraq border.
The Washington Post: “ We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace, ” Ms. Pelosi grandly declared. Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U. N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri.
The Wall Street Journal: What was Ms. Pelosi hoping to accomplish, other than embarrassing President Bush ? “ We were very pleased with reassurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process, ” she told reporters after meeting with dictator Bashar Assad. “ We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria. ” She purported to convey a message from Israel’s Ehud Olmert expressing similar interest in “ the peace process, ” except that the Israeli Prime Minister felt obliged to issue a clarification noting that Ms. Pelosi had got the message wrong. Israel hadn’t changed its policy, which is that it will negotiate only when Mr. Assad repudiates his support for terrorism and stops trying to dominate Lebanon.
Ironically, Pelosi represents a district that is renown for is promotion of the homosexual lifestyle. Perhaps Pelosi doesn’t realize that expressions of homosexual love can get you jailed in Syria and carries the death sentence in other Islamic countries in the Middle East.
Pelosi’s shortsighted “diplomacy” politically injures the man her left-wing supporters hate, President Bush, who is the person who is trying to protect America from terrorists and terror-supporting states who hate America, because, among other things, we are relatively tolerant of homosexuality and support political and social equality for women, etc. Assad, et. al., are using Pelosi to hurt Bush and weaken America.
Perhaps the power of the speakership has blinded Pelosi so much she can no longer see who the real enemy is.
(c) 2007 Lucas Roebuck
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, is letting the power of her office go to her head. As speaker of the House, her role is to make sure the business of the House of Representatives gets done, and as a U. S. Representative for the 8th District of California, she represents the people of San Francisco.
However, she has recently tried to add jobs to her plate, including secretary of state and commander in chief. With her party’s recent attempt to insert war strategy into military funding bills and the speaker’s trip to Syria in defiance of the White House, Pelosi is obviously suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Let me give deference to Pelosi where deference is due. Becoming Speaker of the House is an amazing accomplishment for anyone regardless of one’s gender, adding Pelosi to a rarefied pantheon of some of the most significant powerbrokers in human history. Speakers Tip O’Neal (D) and Newt Gingrich (R) come to mind in recent years as those who used the power of the position well. When Republican hacks whined about the speaker wanting/needing a bigger jet to fly cross-country from Washington to San Francisco and back earlier this year, the speaker was clearly in the right. She is the top dog in the most influential legislative body in the world, and she is second-in-line to be president, should the haters get their wish to see the untimely demises of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Duly elected by her peers, she deserves all the perks, honors and accolades afforded her by the speakership.
But by trying to conduct diplomacy with Syria on her own, Pelosi not only is breaching her duty to defend the Constitution, which clearly gives diplomatic power to the president, but she is also aiding the enemy by helping drive the divide here at home. Furthermore, Pelosi’s efforts, while likely well-intentioned, are hurting our efforts to deal with extreme Islam and terrorist regimes.
Why can’t Pelosi see she is overstepping her bounds ? The left-leaning Washington Post, USA Today and the right-leaning Wall Street Journal editorials all saw pretty much eye-to-eye on this issue.
USA Today: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad — even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home. Like it or not (and we do not ), President Bush’s policy has been to refuse to negotiate with Syria until it changes its behavior. That behavior is malignant. Syria has long meddled destructively in neighboring Lebanon and is widely seen as the bloody hand behind the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Syria has aligned itself with Iran and supports the violently anti-Israel groups Hezbollah and Hamas. It foments violence in Iraq by allowing suicide bombers and jihadists to cross the Syria-Iraq border.
The Washington Post: “ We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace, ” Ms. Pelosi grandly declared. Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U. N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri.
The Wall Street Journal: What was Ms. Pelosi hoping to accomplish, other than embarrassing President Bush ? “ We were very pleased with reassurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process, ” she told reporters after meeting with dictator Bashar Assad. “ We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria. ” She purported to convey a message from Israel’s Ehud Olmert expressing similar interest in “ the peace process, ” except that the Israeli Prime Minister felt obliged to issue a clarification noting that Ms. Pelosi had got the message wrong. Israel hadn’t changed its policy, which is that it will negotiate only when Mr. Assad repudiates his support for terrorism and stops trying to dominate Lebanon.
Ironically, Pelosi represents a district that is renown for is promotion of the homosexual lifestyle. Perhaps Pelosi doesn’t realize that expressions of homosexual love can get you jailed in Syria and carries the death sentence in other Islamic countries in the Middle East.
Pelosi’s shortsighted “diplomacy” politically injures the man her left-wing supporters hate, President Bush, who is the person who is trying to protect America from terrorists and terror-supporting states who hate America, because, among other things, we are relatively tolerant of homosexuality and support political and social equality for women, etc. Assad, et. al., are using Pelosi to hurt Bush and weaken America.
Perhaps the power of the speakership has blinded Pelosi so much she can no longer see who the real enemy is.
(c) 2007 Lucas Roebuck
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Homosexuals aren’t scary
Christian opposition to ‘gay’ marriage isn’t homophobia
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
I’ve always summarized my Christian-informed philosophy on homosexuality with the quip: Love gays; just don’t love like they love.
After all, if I go by the Bible, which reminds us in Romans 3:23, that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” I know that in the eyes of God, we are all inherently no better than a practicing homosexual. Being a drunkard, lusting after another’s spouse, being prideful or hating someone will earn you a one way ticket to the fiery lakes of hell just as soon as engaging in homosexual intercourse will.*
We all have temptations. For some of us, it’s greed. For some of us, it’s the bottle. For some of us, it’s same-sex sex.
However, the fact we all are tempted by and fall to sin doesn’t make these activities any less wrong. Now I understand that many readers out there do not believe the Bible has any claim on the truth. Fortunately, we have the right to practice and promote religion in the United States (and reject it, if we so choose to be guided by such foolishness).
The laws of God and of nature tell me that homosexual practice is wrong. So, like many evangelical Christians, I democratically oppose any legal attempts to condone the practice. This would include efforts to legalize homosexual marriage, to allow homosexual couples to adopt children, etc.
Practicing homosexuals, using the same democratic rights that I have to oppose homosexuality, have been promoting cultural acceptance of same-sex relationships in an effort to win hearts and minds to their side of the issue. One somewhat effective tactic has been controlling the language of the debate.
First, the homosexual community has co-opted the word “gay.” Not too long ago, the word meant "happy, merry and joyful." Today, when you think of the word gay, the first thing that comes to mind is homosexual. Linguistically, homosexuals want the world to associate same sex attraction as being gay (happy) as opposed to being gross. The use of the word gay to describe homosexuals is shrewd — I mean, who can be opposed to happy people?
Now, the linguistic agenda has moved forward, beyond helping homosexuals themselves seem more sympathetic. The word being applied to all those who oppose universal condoning of homosexuality is "homophobe." Those who oppose “gay” rights suffer from homophobia, the new line goes. The effort here to associate the orthodox Christian position on homosexuality, that homosexual practice is sin, with a psychological dysfunction is particularly powerful.
A phobia is defined as “a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it,” according to dictionary.com. Homosexuals want to imbed in our culture that opposition to same-sex relationships is an irrational fear.
I assure you, I do not fear homosexuals. I hate to even use the word homosexual to describe a group, because I am really talking about a group of brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, friends, engineers, doctors, actors, teachers etc., who struggle with one particular vice. I pity them as I pity myself for my own sins. But I do not fear being in the same room with homosexuals, being friends with a homosexual person, or fear gays as a political force. I have never met a homosexual I was afraid of. Most of them are nice people, just like you and me. Unfortunately, for you, me and practicing homosexuals, niceness doesn’t get us through the pearly gates.
As much as homosexuals would like to believe that opposition to the moral normalization of their sexual practice is based in irrational fear, in actuality, it is based in a clear understanding of Christian scripture. Christ teaches us to love sinners, not fear them, and his disciple John taught us, “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:8).” Loving sinners, however, doesn’t mean embracing their sins. After Jesus showed compassion to the adulterous woman, whom the religious leaders wanted to stone to death, he told her to “Go and leave your life of sin. (John 8:11).”
I believe if Jesus walked the earth today, he would intervene on behalf of homosexuals against those who persecute them. Then he would tell gay people to go and leave their life of sin.
* Although, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and deserve hell, Jesus took our punishment on himself, so now if we believe in him, we’ll have eternal life. See the movie, The Passion of the Christ, or better yet, read the book.
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
I’ve always summarized my Christian-informed philosophy on homosexuality with the quip: Love gays; just don’t love like they love.
After all, if I go by the Bible, which reminds us in Romans 3:23, that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” I know that in the eyes of God, we are all inherently no better than a practicing homosexual. Being a drunkard, lusting after another’s spouse, being prideful or hating someone will earn you a one way ticket to the fiery lakes of hell just as soon as engaging in homosexual intercourse will.*
We all have temptations. For some of us, it’s greed. For some of us, it’s the bottle. For some of us, it’s same-sex sex.
However, the fact we all are tempted by and fall to sin doesn’t make these activities any less wrong. Now I understand that many readers out there do not believe the Bible has any claim on the truth. Fortunately, we have the right to practice and promote religion in the United States (and reject it, if we so choose to be guided by such foolishness).
The laws of God and of nature tell me that homosexual practice is wrong. So, like many evangelical Christians, I democratically oppose any legal attempts to condone the practice. This would include efforts to legalize homosexual marriage, to allow homosexual couples to adopt children, etc.
Practicing homosexuals, using the same democratic rights that I have to oppose homosexuality, have been promoting cultural acceptance of same-sex relationships in an effort to win hearts and minds to their side of the issue. One somewhat effective tactic has been controlling the language of the debate.
First, the homosexual community has co-opted the word “gay.” Not too long ago, the word meant "happy, merry and joyful." Today, when you think of the word gay, the first thing that comes to mind is homosexual. Linguistically, homosexuals want the world to associate same sex attraction as being gay (happy) as opposed to being gross. The use of the word gay to describe homosexuals is shrewd — I mean, who can be opposed to happy people?
Now, the linguistic agenda has moved forward, beyond helping homosexuals themselves seem more sympathetic. The word being applied to all those who oppose universal condoning of homosexuality is "homophobe." Those who oppose “gay” rights suffer from homophobia, the new line goes. The effort here to associate the orthodox Christian position on homosexuality, that homosexual practice is sin, with a psychological dysfunction is particularly powerful.
A phobia is defined as “a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it,” according to dictionary.com. Homosexuals want to imbed in our culture that opposition to same-sex relationships is an irrational fear.
I assure you, I do not fear homosexuals. I hate to even use the word homosexual to describe a group, because I am really talking about a group of brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, friends, engineers, doctors, actors, teachers etc., who struggle with one particular vice. I pity them as I pity myself for my own sins. But I do not fear being in the same room with homosexuals, being friends with a homosexual person, or fear gays as a political force. I have never met a homosexual I was afraid of. Most of them are nice people, just like you and me. Unfortunately, for you, me and practicing homosexuals, niceness doesn’t get us through the pearly gates.
As much as homosexuals would like to believe that opposition to the moral normalization of their sexual practice is based in irrational fear, in actuality, it is based in a clear understanding of Christian scripture. Christ teaches us to love sinners, not fear them, and his disciple John taught us, “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:8).” Loving sinners, however, doesn’t mean embracing their sins. After Jesus showed compassion to the adulterous woman, whom the religious leaders wanted to stone to death, he told her to “Go and leave your life of sin. (John 8:11).”
I believe if Jesus walked the earth today, he would intervene on behalf of homosexuals against those who persecute them. Then he would tell gay people to go and leave their life of sin.
* Although, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and deserve hell, Jesus took our punishment on himself, so now if we believe in him, we’ll have eternal life. See the movie, The Passion of the Christ, or better yet, read the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
