Obama Quote

"He [Ted Kennedy] is one of my favorite people," Obama said.

[...groan...]

Evangelicals Whoring For Influence?

Stephen Dinan has a short piece in the Washington Times titled "McCain's common ground with evangelicals." He briefly outlines McCain's strategy of jumping on the global warming bandwagon as a way to rally support from liberals, moderates, and "evangelicals" that are interested in the subject. His main support from "evangelicals" is coming from the Evangelical Climate Initiative.

Here's an excerpt from Mr. Dinan's piece:

"Sen. McCain's support of strong policy on emissions is in line with the evangelical community. In a recent Ellison Research poll, 84 percent of evangelicals said they favored federal legislation to reduce the emissions that contribute to global warming," the ECI said in its statement, mailed by the McCain campaign to reporters this morning. Curiously, that statement is not yet posted on the "press" section of ECI's Web site.

In reflecting on his piece, one must ask who decides what the definition of "evangelical" is? Who speaks for "evangelicals?" We should keep in mind an enlightened sentence in the new "Evangelical Manifesto:"

"Evangelicals have no supreme leader or official spokesperson, so no one speaks for all Evangelicals, least of all those who claim to."

But who are these "evangelicals" and why are they jumping on the global warming bandwagon? Should we be listening to them? Are they credible? Is the science of manmade global warming credible?

To answer these questions, we need to consider the following:
1. Who are these evangelicals? They are a who's who of liberal christian politicians, emerging church pastors, academia-wonks, and other "evangelicals" including the Rev. Dr. Rick Warren, Rev. Jim Wallis, Rev. Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Rev. Dr. Leith Anderson (who, ironically, is a signatory on of the Evangelical Manifesto too), and others. The full list can be seen here.

2. Why are they jumping on the global warming bandwagon? Common sense would point to them being, at best, deceived and premature in their support of a hotly debated scientific issue. At worst, they are whoring themselves and their constituents for political power and cultural relevance. I envy not the position they have placed themselves in.

3. Should we be listening to them? Are they scientists? Are they educated in any field remotely relevant to global climate? Are most of them above reproach on other issues and in other areas of their ministries? Largely...no. So why give them credence on this issue?

4. Is the Science of global warming credible? There is a very well-written book aimed at helping the lay person understand the "other side" of the global warming debate. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years is a wonderful, thorough, and exhaustively researched piece of literature that casts serious doubt on the global warming alarmist's conclusions. It's a must-read for every skeptic AND every global warming alarmist alike. Even environmentalists are giving it some kudos for being a book that needs an answer. An answer they have yet to craft. It is difficult to read this book and buy into the manmade global warming hysteria that is sweeping academia, political circles, and an increasingly fame-drunk "evangelical" leaders.

What it boils down to is this: why would ECI try to speak for all Evangelicals on a hotly debated academic subject like global warming? Have they not learned from the evolution vs. intelligent design debate that banking on conventional wisdom is often an investment in those who are subtly (or not so subtly) trying to undermine the Christian faith and/or our personal liberties?

I am embarrassed that church leaders would be so easily duped into a movement that seems much more about the erosion of liberty than the science of climate or the well-being of mankind.


On another note: An unrelated, but interesting tidbit in Mr. Dinan's article is that Concerned Women for America (CWA) is raising alarm that the Evangelical Climate Initive's largest donor(s) happen to be some of the largest bankrollers of the pro-abortion groups.

The Consequences Of Biofuels

U.S. Secretary of State Condi Rice finally broke the silence on the role of biofuels in the current surge of food prices:

"We think that it is not a large part of the problem, but it in fact may be a part of the problem, the ethanol debate," Rice told a gathering of the Peace Corps.

Thank you, Bush administration, for finally saying what thinking people all over the world have been saying for years - putting food acreage into production for transportation is not wise.

Our Role Model For the Model Core Curriculum?

Here is a link to a video that shows how inaccurate and unreliable Willard Daggett (the guy behind much of Iowa's new "Model Core Curriculum") is when speaking in public.

And here is an article about how untrustworthy everything he says is. And we let this guy craft the lion's share of our statewide curriculum mandate for schools? God help us...

Obama and Clinton on Abortion

Over the weekend there was a "Compassion Forum" held at Messiah College in Grantham, PA.  Both Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were there to address people of faith in Pennsylvania before the upcoming April 22 primary in that state.

The forum covered several topics including abortion.

Clinton was asked whether life begins at conception — which opponents of abortion contend is a reality that makes any termination of a pregnancy the ending of a life.

“I believe the potential for life begins at conception,” Clinton said. “For me, it is also not only about a potential life. It is about the other lives involved. … I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, … that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society.”

The New York senator added that abortion should remain legal, safe and rare.

The two candidates appeared separately at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Pa., and briefly met as Clinton left the stage and Obama took her place. The moment of pleasantries and handshakes belied days of angry accusations between the two over Obama’s comments about bitter voters in small towns.

Asked whether life begins at conception, Obama said he didn’t know the answer.

“This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? … What I know, as I’ve said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.”

Clinton is a Methodist. Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ.

Source: Fox News

Senator Clinton when come to her position on the issue of when life begins "after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years."  Senator Obama still hasn't come to a resolution.

The problem with Senator Clinton position lies in where she is going, as a "person of faith", for answers to her questions.  You won't find the answer in your own heart and mind. 

For both of the candidates the Bible is pretty clear regarding our personhood and provides a direct answer as to when life begins.  There shouldn't be mass confusion over this for people who claim to follow Jesus Christ.  Life begins at conception, and our personhood is a reality before conception when one reads Psalm 139.

Plainly put, a position that holds that life does not begin at conception quite frankly is not scriptural and is an inconsistent view for a follower of Christ.

A question that I would have for Senator Obama, if he is unclear as to when life begins would he have a policy that is so anti-life when it comes to preborn children; even so far as voting against Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act that would protect children who survived an abortion?  That seems inconsistent with the answer he gives us during this forum.  His votes seem to say his mind is made up regarding this matter.

Another thing that Senator Clinton said that I feel needs to be addressed.

"For me, it is also not only about a potential life. It is about the other lives involved."

The compassion argument, after all this is the "Compassion Forum".  Often times those on the left when appealing to Christian voters will point out Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.  For instance:

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy," (Matthew 5:7, ESV).

The noun, mercy, in the Greek is eleos, this word when used in the Bible always deals with what we see of pain, misery, and distress.  The results of sin.  It doesn't mean turning a blind eye to sin, but does mean extending relief, healing and help to those broken by sin.  Why?  Because we are broken by sin, as the very first beatitude states, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall receive the Kingdom of God," (Matthew 5:4, ESV).  (To hear recent sermons I've preached on the Beatitudes you can go here for part one and here for part two).

Jesus showed great mercy and compassion for the woman caught in adultery, but even told her to "sin no more," (John 8:11).  When looked upon the crowds and had compassion on them because they were "harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd," (Matthew 9:36).

I guess the question to ask is are we really being compassionate to those who are facing an unexpected pregnancy by allowing abortion?  I don't think so, mercy doesn't mean allowance for sin and compassion shouldn't create victims which abortion does.

If mercy is relieving pain, misery and distress how is it merciful to add to that pain, misery and distress?  Which is exactly what abortion does when you look at the potential complications and risks involved in an abortion, when you look at what it could possibly do to the mother's chances to become pregnant again after having an abortion, and looking at the mental health of those who have abortions.

No it seems to be that if Senator Clinton is looking at the other lives involved she would advocate: less red tape involving adoption and federal aid to help those wanting to adopt, less money to abortion providers and more to crisis pregnancy centers and maternity homes, and abstinence-based sex education to help prevent unexpected pregnancies (which actually works unlike "comprehensive" sex education).

Also Senator Clinton uses the phrase tossed around during her husband's administration that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.  I think a good case has been made that abortion is not safe for mothers (and definitely not safe for the pre-born children).  It is legal, but the the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion is bad constitutional law and should be overturned.  Regarding rare... 50 million since 1973 would hardly count as being rare.

I guess people of faith in Pennsylvania need to ask themselves if Clinton and Obama's position on abortion matches up with their values.  I would say not.

(If you want to read more on a Biblical framework for the pro-life position, check out my Against Abortion series of posts.)

Cross-posted over at Caffeinated Thoughts and Red Blue Christian.

Technorati Tags: Abortion,Barack Obama,Hillary Clinton,pro-life answers,Pennsylvania Primary

PETA Are Killers

I read in a magazine a couple days ago that 97% of animals obtained by PETA for adoption are euthanized. Hypocrites. Click here if you want to see the numbers for yourself.

The Mike Huckabee Story