"Romney was right on target for what this crowd wanted to hear. Nothing about Iraq, nothing about reinstating the gold standard, nothing about S-CHIP--just abortion, marriage, porn, and families. He even mentioned the fact that he's Mormon and that some people might think he shouldn't be the GOP candidate for that reason rather jokingly, brushing it off as a non-issue. He's figuring his 'family cred' speaks for itself -- I wish I'd tallied how many times the word left his mouth -- and it fared quite well with the crowd."Even this far into this disastrous war, and given what we know about climate change, this crowd would frankly re-elect George Bush if they had the option--as long as he quoted a few bible verses and pledged to keep hating the gays. He can undermine healthcare for children and is a hero to this crowd. Yet, Romney panders away. Forget that he is Mormon. Let's just recognize what a flip-flopping panderer he is. And that he is exactly the kind of moral voice these people want.
Sigh.
12 comments:
The conversation in the SBC blogosphere is quite, um, well...enlightening.
There are some who flat will not support Romney because of his Mormonism and commenters are convinced only a Christian (it doesn't matter how you define this term, I don't think) is qualified to run the country.
I discovered the pastor of the largest SBC church in my home town, FBC Spartanburg, SC, has publicly endorsed Romney.
I again think this just goes to show how conflicted and how little actual thinking and evaluating goes on among the conservative evangelical voting crowd. If they would evaluate the CANDIDATE instead of looking at his RELIGION it might be possible to get somewhere, but as long as the religion smokescreen is up, we will get absolutely nowhere.
Vote for a Democrat? Not even an option; unthinkable, really. This option has not even arisen in the SBC blogosphere.
I support S-CHIP, but are you saying that it is somehow un-Christian to oppose that bill? I got into this discussion once with some Christians who spent a great deal of their time helping the poor, but didn't think that there was anything biblical about the gov't having to help the poor vs actually doing yourself.
I came to the conclusion that they had a point. I will still support many gov't programs out of pragmatism and the fact that they are a benefit to society, not because I believe it is part of a Christian duty.
No, not saying that Christians can't oppose the bill, but saying that these particular Christians don't even want to discuss the key moral issues of the day. They only want to talk about gays and abortions, and don't want to address the growing inequality in our country, global warming, torture, or the 50 million americans who don't have health care.
I would suggest that it isn't very good christianity that avoids talking about these issues.
I see where Steve is coming from. There is a clear biblical mandate to help the poor, widows, orphans, and downtrodden of society. For instance, the gleaning laws of Leviticus we see played out in the book of Ruth.
However, the church has clearly abdicated these roles to the government and if I remember correctly (Streak, correct me if I'm wrong), welfare passed with an overwhelming Christian majority.
If we were to really be a more biblical society as some envision, then churches better stock up their food pantries and burgeon their benevolence funds. But it is so much easier to simply point at gays and lesbians and tell them they're doing wrong then actually do something.
I know some Christians that are selective in what they are outraged by, but I also know some that give a great deal, in terms of time and money, to helping out in their community. I know you are not doing this, but I just don't it as being that simple that one can say, "if you are a good Christian, you will vote for _________."
I also think that many people (myself included) think that the gov't is lousy stewards when it comes to spending out money. That doesn't mean we should abandon programs, but it does mean we should expect better.
I agree 100% that some Christians are overly concerned when it comes to gays and abortion.
Tony: if I remember correctly (Streak, correct me if I'm wrong), welfare passed with an overwhelming Christian majority. Just not sure what that refers to. 60s welfare policies?
Steve, I don't think I ever suggested that Christians have to support government programs, though if they don't AND don't have a reasonable alternative in mind, their own personal giving is not necessarily a response. In other words, they might help people a lot, but if they know that their assistance and others won't actually feed people who need fed, then opposing a program that might do so is not exactly sound thinking. Is it?
Nor am I suggesting that Christians have to vote a certain way--in fact, it is the Dobson's of the world who do that. But I do think that a Christian group who doesn't even talk about some of the pressing moral issues is suspect. If Christians completely ignore torture and the environment, what does that say about them in this modern context?
The question was ambiguous. Yes--I was referring to the policies of the sixties, yet wasn't welfare turned back over to the states in the nineties? There may not have been hearty approval of welfare but there wasn't staunch opposition either.
Some Christians I know do criticize welfare for having made a permanent underclass of people who live off the welfare checks, but then again there are community folks who live off church food pantries and benevolence funds. That isn't something society will ever escape.
Plus, too many Christians are too individualistic and abstract in their thinking when it comes to providing for the poor. Most think if they give to the world hunger fund their responsibility is fulfilled but yet won't work at the local food pantry.
Streak, my comments were just me thinking out loud (or, I guess, in print) and were not directed at you.
The issues you mention are important and should be discussed.
Welfare is a difficult subject for many to discuss. Most people seem to have no clue as to what the 'system' is like. They have some distorted image of a single mom with 10 kids that buys lobster with her food stamps and drives a Cadillac. I'll admit that I have mixed feelings about the whole thing, but there has to be some kind of safety net.
Steve, no worries. Just clarifying on my end. I understand the concerns about welfare and some are certainly well-founded. I risk the return of our troll by reminding all of us that Reagan used the specter of a "welfare queen" driving her Caddy (he didn't specify race, but then again, everyone knew what he was talking about, didn't they?) to scare everyone.
I think the dilemma is complicated, but at its heart there is a fundamental disconnect between some conservatives who believe that the economic system will and does self-correct. During the Cold War, that solidified into someone who criticized capitalism somehow advocating communism, or a Soviet style system. Or, last week, as one Republican called SCHIP: "Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents." Sigh.
I think we would be better off if we could all admit that capitalism is the best and most dynamic economic system known to man. But it also can be very destructive and requires monitoring and often even some kind of external force (government, for example) to ensure that capitalism doesn't simply destroy people or the environment. That isn't a call for communism, simply a call for democratic tinkering (which we have always had in America).
I think Romney would win EVERYONE over with the following speech on religion:
http://christianprophecy.blogspot.com/2007/10/mitt-romneys-speech-on-religion.html
Pay no attention to the man behind the machine. The enemy is not me or my vacuous, it is our enemies--liberals.
I'M the enemy?! Had I known I would have been more organized! I coulda been a contenda . . .
Post a Comment