Filed under: Quotes and Articles
These last few weeks, I’ve been pondering the presidential race, especially as we got nearer Election Day. Big surprise there. Regardless, I was struck by the resemblance between our nation today, and the nation of Israel back in the times of Samuel.
You remember the story (it’s in 1 Samuel 8), we come onto the scene with the children of Israel clamoring for a king. Samuel is greatly displeased by this, but the Lord told him to allow the people their wish, but to give them warning. Samuel then proceeds to warn the people of Israel by listing the atrocities that would come to pass with a king as head of government. ” he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen…he will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers, and he will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves, and give them to his servants…and he will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants…” and the list goes on, but the point was that everything the people despised would happen to them if they had a king rule over them. But did they listen??? No, they continued to clamor for a king until God gave them one.
It seems to me that is exactly what this country did last night. No matter what facts were presented, the citizens of America didn’t listen. They wanted what they wanted, no matter the long-term consequences. However, the parallel doesn’t have to stop there. You may also recall, that after Israel’s bout with King Saul, God blessed them with a good king, one that was after His own heart, King David. If you look further into the stories throughout the book of Judges, after every mistake the children of Israel made, they would repent; and God, in His mercy, would save them, and make them a great nation once again. Unfortunately, in Israel’s case, this turned into a vicious cycle. However, my prayer for America is that this presidential term would be a splash of cold water on a group of deceived people, and that it would cause a radical turn around come next election. After all, we are Christians. Our hope is in God, and He will never fail us. He tells us that anything is possible for those who believe in Him.
To quote Mr. Green: “I am proud to be an American, but I am even more proud to call myself a Christian.”
Your Fellow Patriot,
Ashley
Filed under: Quotes and Articles
Lessons Learned from the 2008 Election: Why American values lost this one.
by Rick GreenThe race for President was essentially over on February 5, 2008.
Super Tuesday night, John McCain and Barack Obama became the choice of each party and the networks all juxtaposed the two nominees side by side on the screen giving their victory speeches. Obama was surrounded by thousands of fired up citizens as he smoothly worked the stage and delivered his powerful rhetoric. Next to him on the screen was McCain with ten politicians standing behind him as he squinted and struggled to read the teleprompter and muddle through yet another incoherent speech. The Democrats nominated the best communicator of our day, while the republicans nominated the worst communicator out of the republican field. The debates were an absolute rout, actually embarrassing for the republicans as Obama managed to serve up lies and deception on a silver platter with all the fancy fixings and McCain whiffed at softball after softball.
Should style and communication skills trump substance and positions on the issues? Of course not. But they do. It is not enough to have the right position or idea. If one cannot communicate that idea or position effectively, it goes nowhere. When the opposition lies and deceives, it is not enough to whine about the media not doing their job, you have to point out the deception and do battle effectively in the arena of ideas.
So lesson number one in this election is that we ignored the first part of God’s command for how we choose our leaders. He said in Exodus 18:21 for us to “choose out from among you able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness.” In the sound bite world we now live, a candidate that cannot communicate is not an able man (or woman!).
Lesson number two is simply that the American people only choose leftist leaders when those leaders deceive the people into believing they are something they are not. Florida and California voted to define marriage as one man and one woman and on the exact same ballot elected a man who is against doing so. Does anyone actually believe that Obama would have won if every single voter knew about his relationships with terrorists, felons, and Marxists? Or just how radical his pro-abortion positions are? That he supports socialist policies of redistributing the wealth? The only people aware of these positions were the ones watching Fox News because the rest of the media avoided these issues like the plague and the McCain campaign made the foolish decision of playing nice and ignoring most of these issues as well. So if a candidate is good at deception and the opposition is lousy at exposing it or unwilling to do so, the result is a foregone conclusion.
Lesson number three: whoever works hardest and smartest has the advantage. Let’s face it, the Obama campaign ran circles around the opposition. They were more organized, more creative, worked harder, and simply executed their game plan better. Yes, they had more money because of Obama’s broken promises on campaign finance and because they accepted $200 Million in undisclosed internet contributions, but it was more what they did with the resources they had than the fact they had more resources with which to work. As a student at Patriot Academy (www.patriotacademy.com ) told me this past summer, the democrats figured out the medium has changed to the internet and republicans have not…the same as in 1960 when television became the new medium. Once again, it cost us an election.
Lesson number four: traditional values Americans are too busy enjoying the fruits of labor from the last generation and too few are accepting their responsibility to participate actively in their government and do their duty. It is time to wake up. It is time for Pastors to be more vocal on the issues, as they were in California with Prop 8, and they must also be more vocal about connecting the dots between the issues and the candidates. We need spiritual leaders willing to speak the truth and we need to be hungry for that truth and act on that truth.
Lesson number five: when republicans act like democrats, we lose. When democrats talk like republicans, they win. We nominated a republican who prefers to talk about what he has in common with his opponent rather than point out the differences, which only confuses voters and opens the door for the opponent to define the differences. The last thing republicans need to do now is run to the middle believing that is where the voters are…wrong conclusion! We need to get back to the basic traditional American values that made the nation great and that win elections when articulated correctly by a candidate like Ronald Reagan. And we must make a pact with the people that we will govern by those values and not abandon them as conservatives did over the last few years.
We now have a clean slate and an opportunity to raise our standards. Let us look for conviction oriented conservatives who can articulate our values and who will stand by them. It is time to speak truth in love and not a time to dance around the major issues facing our nation. Certain issues should be non-negotiable and never trumped by style, race, or party…they are listed in our Nation’s birth certificate as “…unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” For a more detailed description of what issues fall under these rights, read my book Freedom’s Frame (www.rickgreen.com), which also discusses in detail what we can each do to preserve that frame.
It is time to equip, inspire, and engage conservatives to get off the sidelines and into the game. Sulking under the bleachers is not an option. If you care about this Country and the future your children will inherit, then step up. You do not have to have all the answers to get involved, just showing up is half the battle. If you are looking for a place to start, join us in training and equipping young people through Patriot Academy, or get involved with a local political party or “salt and light” organization in your church, or just simply have some friends and neighbors over to start talking about how to get involved. There will be plenty of opportunities in the coming months and we’ll do our best to keep you informed of ways to get involved when you listen to WallBuilders Live! on your local station or at www.wallbuilderslive.com
Take heart, there is a HUGE remnant of people in America that share your values and are disgusted by this election and anxious for our future. Pray for God to raise up leaders of conviction that fit the description he gave us…able, God-fearing, honest, selfless individuals who without hesitation will put the good of the nation above their own.
Filed under: Quotes and Articles
By Gary DeMar
Trying to get elected as a third party candidate in American politics
is extremely difficult if not impossible since the electing process
is not by majority vote. Ballot access is also an obstacle since
third parties have to meet additional criteria not required of
Republicans and Democrats. Reform Party candidate Ross Perot was able
to get on the ballot in all 50 states in 1992 as was Pat Buchanan in
1996. Perot was a nationally known figure who had lots of money to
pour into the process. The Reform Party affected both elections but
did nothing to advance it as a genuine third party player. While
Perot received nearly 20 percent of the popular vote in 1992, he did
not receive a single electoral vote. Trying to change America’s
political system by running a third-party candidacy is a pipe dream.
A number of Christians are voting for third-party candidates for
“conscience sake.” Let’s look at the logic of this in the choice of
candidates. While Ron Paul is not running as a third-party candidate,
people will still vote for him as a write-in. At least Paul has an
electoral track record. He has represented Texas districts in the
U.S. House of Representatives since 1976. He ran and won political
offices on the local level before he ran for president in 1988 as a
Libertarian (while still a Republican) and as a Republican in 2008.
He saw the reality of working within the system because he understood
the inherent obstacles of a third party.
Bob Barr, like Paul, was a member of the U.S. House of
Representatives, representing the 7th District in Georgia. He lost to
Paul Coverdale in the 1992 Republican run-off for Senate, but went on
to win the 7th District House seat in 1994 against incumbent Buddy
Darden (Dem.) who had won it from when Congressman Larry McDonald had
lost his life when Korean Air Flight 007 was shot down by the Soviet
Union on September 1, 1983. Barr later lost his House seat in the
primary to John Linder. I cannot understand how a person who was not
being able to win state-wide and district-wide qualifies him to run
for president.
Many Christians are pushing Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party.
Baldwin doesn’t have a chance, and he knows it. The system is against
him. Moreover, he doesn’t have any electoral experience. The same
goes for Alan Keyes who has no business running for president when he
couldn’t win a Senate seat in Maryland in 1988 and 1992 and couldn’t
beat Barack Obama in a Senate race in Illinois in 2004. At least Ron
Paul and Bob Barr have won some elections and have a legislative
track record.
I can’t see how anyone who has not won some political office
somewhere has any business running for president no matter how right
they might be on the positions.
So what’s to be done? At this point in time, we are stuck with a
two-party system. Deal with it. If radical leftists have been able to
take over the Democrat Party and a mini-Republican Revolution was
started by Reagan in 1980 and revived congressionally in 1994 and
1996, I can’t understand why we would not put our efforts into taking
over one of the major parties. If we can’t do this, then what makes
us think we can create a competing third party or send up a solo
candidate for president and get him elected?
The old adage that you can’t change just one thing applies here.
First, a two to six-year election process needs to begin now to
capture the Senate and the House by picking the most vulnerable
political party. Second, begin to recruit and groom candidates who
will run as reform candidates on a unified competing political
platform within one of the political parties. It would help to find
candidates who have political experience and some name recognition.
Third, bloggers and websites should be started immediately to lay out
the specifics of the new platform. Use the web to get around the
political gatekeepers. Fourth, build a giant email list of donors,
bloggers, information gatherers, and propagators of the
party-within-the-party takeover movement. Fifth, keep the kooks from
taking over the process. Sixth, the energy behind the effort will
encourage other candidates to jump on board. We might even get a good
presidential candidate out of the process.
Will the malcontents follow this strategy? Probably not. They will
bellyache about how bad the candidates and the two-party system are
then tell those who don’t vote for one of their miracle candidates
that they are not voting out of principle.
The Republicans and Democrats are in power because they’ve worked at
it. If you want to revamp the political system, it’s going to take a
lot of work and very few miracles. Are you up to the task?
http://www.americanvision.org/blog/?p=185
A Political “Solution”
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Who was it who said, “crack-brained meddling by the authorities” can “aggravate an existing crisis”? Ronald Reagan? Milton Friedman? Adam Smith? Not even close. It was Karl Marx. Unlike most leftists today, Marx studied economics.
Is the current financial crisis going to lead to crack-brained meddling or to some rational actions? Predicting what politicians are going to do is risky business. We will have to wait and see.
Saints are no more common on Capitol Hill than they are on Wall Street. We can only hope that the political “solution” does not turn out to be worse than the problem.
There are times when government intervention can make things better. But that is no guarantee that it won’t make things worse. As they say, “the devil is in the details”– and we don’t know the details yet.
Probably most members of Congress don’t know the details yet– and many may still not know the details when the time comes for them to vote on this bailout.
Taking an optimistic view, this biggest bailout of all time may stop the problems in financial markets from spreading into the general economy– which is currently nothing like the disaster area that the media portray it to be.
Ninety percent of the people on this planet would exchange their economic situation for ours in a minute. The media love hype, and have been dying to use the word “recession” all year but nothing has happened that meets the definition of a recession.
The American economy is growing, not declining. Our unemployment rate is up to 6 percent but there are countries that would be delighted to get their unemployment rate down to 6 percent. Our inflation rate is up a little but many countries would love to get their inflation rate down to where ours is.
Why then is there such a mess in the financial markets? Much of that mess is due to the very people we are now turning to for solutions– members of Congress.
Past Congresses created the hybrid financial institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private institutions with government backing and political influence. About half of the mortgages in this country are backed by these two institutions.
Such institutions– exempt from laws that apply to other financial institutions and backed by the implicit promise of government support with the taxpayers’ money– are an open invitation to risky behavior. When these risks blew up in their faces, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.
For years the Wall Street Journal has been warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking reckless chances but liberal Democrats especially have pooh-poohed the dangers.
Back in 2002, the Wall Street Journal said: “The time for the political system to focus on Fannie and Fred isn’t when we have a housing crisis; by then it will be too late.” The hybrid public-and-private nature of these financial giants amounts to “privatizing profit and socializing risk,” since taxpayers get stuck with the tab when high-risk finances don’t work out.
Similar concerns were expressed in 2003 by N. Gregory Mankiw, then Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Bush. But liberal Democratic Congressman Barney Frank criticized Professor Mankiw, citing “concern for housing” as his reason for supporting Fannie Mae. Barney Frank said that fears about the riskiness of Fannie Mae were “overblown.”
Maxine Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus have also been among the liberal Democrats defending Fannie Mae. Just last year, Senator Charles Schumer advocated legislation to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their already huge role in the mortgage market. Republican Congressman Mike Oxley has also defended these hybrid financial giants.
Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been generous in their contributions to politicians’ political campaigns, so it is perhaps not surprising that politicians have been generous to them.
This is certainly part of “the mess in Washington” that Barack Obama talks about. But don’t expect him to clean it up. Franklin Raines, who made mega-millions for himself while mismanaging Fannie Mae into a financial disaster, is one of Obama’s advisers.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Filed under: Quotes and Articles
ECHOES OF 1860: IS “LIFE“ A QUESTION OF STATE’S RIGHTS?
by David Barton and Rick Green – 02/2008Much like the election of 1860, the 2008 presidential election has generated a spirited debate over the correct relationship between the state and federal governments. The former election debated the relationship of “states’ rights” to the issue of liberty; the current election has resurrected the issue of “states’ rights” but this time in the areas of life and family. Several current presidential candidates declare themselves to be pro-life and pro-marriage but, citing federalism and “states’ rights,” they oppose either a Human Life or Marriage Amendment to the federal Constitution, claiming that such issues are to be decided by the state rather than the federal government. Yet a candidate’s position on such issues actually identifies their understanding of inalienable rights rather than their commitment to federalism.
In the original governing principles set forth in the Declaration (and then subsequently incorporated into the Constitution through Article VII), the right to life is one of three specifically identified inalienable rights; additional inalienable rights were subsequently enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The original documents – both the Declaration and the Constitution – make clear that the primary purpose of government, at all times and in all situations, is to protect those few inalienable rights.
Some candidates believe that the right to life is inalienable only to the degree that a specific state agrees – that if a state does not believe that the right to life is inalienable, then the federal government should not force the state to protect that right. Yet protection for the few specifically enumerated inalienable rights must always surpass what any particular state wishes – and this is the proper constitutional position on all inalienable rights, whether of life, private property, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of religious expression, etc. It is the duty of all government – including state governments – to protect inalienable rights. In fact, if the philosophy originally set forth in the Declaration of Independence and subsequently secured in the Constitution is rejected – the belief that there is a God, that He gives inalienable rights to man, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights at all times (even when the states refuse to do so) – then there is no longer a unique American philosophy of government that will distinguish us from the rest of the world.
Click the link below to read the rest!
Filed under: Quotes and Articles
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies
were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of
the government.
Experience, however, soon showed in what way
they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency
of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold
and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to
concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the
public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law
by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of
the constitution, and working its change by construction, before
any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm
has been busily employed in consuming its substance.
In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all
liability to account.”
– Thomas Jefferson (letter to Monsieur A. Coray, 31 October 1823)
Filed under: Quotes and Articles
(Note: This post is in response to the article quoted in the previous post, “Discussion: Washington Post Article on Young Evangelicals and the GOP.”)
To me, the Washington Post article comes down to two very important questions:
1. What is the standard?
2. Something or nothing?
Question One: What is the standard?
A standard is basically an authority that can make a judgement. It judges whether something is right or wrong. So, what determines whether an issue, a candidate or a position is right or wrong? What is the standard?
It’s easy to allow our emotions to be the standard. We are trained by the world to make our decisions based on what “feels right.” Another version of this is the ever-popular Disney mantra to “follow your heart.” That sounds great. The only problem is that my feelings and my heart can deceive me. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9. Many of today’s candidates have become very skilled at playing on our fears, our emotions and prejudices to gain our support. But if I make a decision based on what I feel, I am declaring my feelings to be the ultimate standard of right. When I am fully aware that my emotions are often untrustworthy, this is a risky form of decision making at best.
So, if we can’t use our feelings or heart, what is the standard? What can we trust to discern right from wrong? For me, that standard is the unchangeable, infallible, perfect Word of God. God’s Word is alive and incredibly relevant, especially for the issues of today. When choosing whether to support a candidate, I look at their stance on the issues, then see how that lines up with God’s “stance.” I let the Word God has spoken judge whether the stance is right or wrong.
When faced with today’s issues, what is God’s standard? To me, some of these issues are black and white, including life, traditional marriage and defending the defenseless. Others are not as clear cut, but still important. They require more time and study, but by seriously looking at the principles presented in the Bible, you can often determine what a Biblical stance is. For PA grads, think about the LIFT principles. If you compare them to the Biblical principles of authority and Israel’s form of government, which was given by God, you will find a lot of similarities. That’s why I am a conservative. But bottom line is that for me, whether I’m questioning a bill or a candidate, the standard of right or wrong will always be the Word of God.
Question Two: Something or Nothing?
Sadly for us, the political field can be kind of low on perfectly Biblical candidates. We are often faced with two disappointing candidates. How do we decide who to support, or if we should support either one? That’s where question number two comes in: Something or Nothing? One of the most valuable things I learned at Patriot Academy is to “take what you can get.” This is a “Something” mentality. “I’ll take what I can get (something) instead of losing everything (getting nothing).” Let’s look at how this relates to legislation, then how it helps with the candidate question.
A lot of great bills have been killed because the author refused to compromise. Compromise is an emotionally charged word. People of conscience can get angry at its very mention. “Compromise? Me? I believe in my principles! I am proud of my standards! “Surrender” is not in my vocabulary! I will never Compromise! Nevvvvvveeeerr!” I am so grateful for the people who take the “Never Surrender” view. They can be unbelievably courageous and committed to their beliefs. Unfortunately, a kamikaze, suicide-bomber mentality doesn’t really help when trying to navigate a bill from submission to passage. In fact, it often leads to blow ups, destruction and death of great legislation. These are the people with the “Nothing” mentality. They’ll only accept exactly what they want or take nothing – no compromise.
Since lack of compromise kills bills, maybe compromise can be a good thing. Let me make it very clear, I am not talking about compromising your principles. If you have a pro-life bill that completely outlaws abortion in Texas and someone tries to add a random clause allowing same-sex marriage – that’s wrong, period. You don’t compromise on your principles. But, what if you have a pro-life bill completely outlawing abortion illegal and the only way to get it passed is to allow abortion in the case of rape, incest of the endangerment of the mother’s life? Okay, abortion is wrong. And it could look like you are tacitly supporting abortion if you allow the compromise. A “Nothing” mentality would refuse to allow the clause since it would no longer be a perfect bill. The bill would be dead and no babies would be saved. But, a “Something” mentality says, “Hmmm. I can say yes to the compromise, and we’re still saving 90% of the babies. Or I can say no to the compromise and we save 0%. I’d rather have 100%, but that’s not an option. So, I’ll take the 90% over the 100%. At least it’s ‘Something.’” See the difference?
It’s the same way with candidates. There are no perfect candidates, there are no perfect bills – good grief, there aren’t even perfect people. But one will always be better than the other. The presidential elections are a great example. Senator Obama had the single most liberal voting record of any current Senator. Based on his past actions, you know that when faced with two options, he will always go for the more liberal. To me, that’s a solid 0%. Senator McCain has some liberal tendencies and I have questions about his character, but he’s solid on several issues I believe in, particularly the life issue. When faced with two options, he may sometimes pick the more liberal, but he will often pick the more conservative. I can’t put an exact percentage on that, but any percentage is better than no percentage. It’s “something” instead of “nothing.” And so, I’m supporting McCain. What about you? (There’s are a few other interesting options here in regards to candidate choices, but I chose to ignore them because I want this to be an article, instead of a short book. However, if you feel strongly about the third option, please say so and we can discuss in the comments.)
Filed under: Quotes and Articles
“GOP stands for Grand Old Party. It is an old nickname for the Republican Party.
The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln. After the Civil War, the upstart Republicans were perceived as the party that won the war. The Republicans who were firmly fixed into the Federal Government were ironically dubbed the “Gallant Old Party,” which soon became known as the “Grand Old Party,” which was then shortened to the “GOP.” The Republicans are conservative, they favor reducing the size and role of the government, and they support the rights of the individual.”
Summary: The GOP (Grand Old Party) is the Republican Party.
From wiki.answers.com, for those who wondered about the origin of the acronym.
There are a number of reasons I could give for not voting for the current candidates. However, their failure to require government to do that which we are personally charged with doing is not one of them. I am interested in your perceptions about this. Please read the following article and comment.
Mama Seay
……………………….
GOP Loyalty Not a Given For Young Evangelicals
By Krissah Williams Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 15, 2008; A01
DULUTH, Ga. — Jonathan Merritt is a Baptist preacher’s son with a pristine evangelical lineage. It was his dad, the Rev. James Merritt, who reportedly brought President Bush to tears in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks when he called the president “God’s man for this hour.” The Rev. Jerry Falwell was like a grandfather.
“I grew up believing an evangelical couldn’t be a Democrat,” said Merritt, 25. “The two were mutually exclusive.”
But in the past year, as the presidential campaign has focused on the country’s problems, Merritt has begun to question the party of his father. There was his recent revelation that “God is green,” a mission trip to orphanages in Brazil that caused him to worry about global poverty, an encounter with a growing strain of politically liberal evangelicalism that has taken off online, and a nagging sense that Bush’s unpopularity has been an embarrassment to the evangelicals who overwhelmingly voted for him.
“When you look at the political party that has traditionally championed poverty, social justice and care for the least of these, it’s not been the Republican Party,” said Merritt, who now considers himself an “independent conservative” and is unsure whom he will vote for in November. “We are to honor the least of these above even ourselves. It’s very difficult to reconcile totally.”
He is part of a growing group of young born-again Christians standing on one of the many generational breaks surfacing in this election cycle. Merritt still shares his parents’ conservative convictions on abortion, a core issue that forged Falwell’s Moral Majority and brought evangelicals firmly into the Republican camp, but he says they are no longer enough for him to claim the Republican Party.
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that while a majority of young white evangelicals describe themselves as conservative on social issues, slightly more identified this year as either independents or Democrats than as Republicans. In 2001, about the time that Merritt was working as precinct captain for the Republican Party, an overwhelming majority of young evangelicals identified with the GOP.
Merritt may no longer, but neither does he consider himself a Democrat. He is just the kind of young evangelical voter whom Democratic Sen. Barack Obama has targeted and Republican Sen. John McCain cannot afford to lose. In 2004, nearly eight in 10 white evangelicals supported Bush, according to exit polls. They accounted for a third of the president’s total votes. In aWashington Post-ABC News poll of registered voters last month, McCain led Obama 67 percent to 25 percent among white evangelical Protestants. Obama’s campaign is hoping that young evangelicals such as Merritt will be a way in.
McCain and Obama will try to appeal to them Saturday, when they sit down with Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in California and one of the most influential evangelicals in the country. Warren, whose best-selling book “The Purpose Driven Life” helped shift the conversation in evangelical circles beyond culture wars to serving and loving others, is expected to ask the candidates about global poverty, the HIV/AIDS crisis and climate change. He is one of a new generation of evangelical leaders who have shaped Merritt’s worldview.
“There’s a shift in issue focus,” said Joshua DuBois, 25, who was associate pastor of a small evangelical church and is responsible for Obama’s faith outreach. “I don’t think any young evangelical is ignoring the traditional values issues, but they are adding other issues, including poverty and war, and they are also looking at integrity and family.”
Six months ago, after gaining national attention for publicly pushing Southern Baptists to become more environmentally aware and acknowledge climate change as a reality, Merritt received a call from an Obama staff member.
“They tried to feel me out and see where I stood,” he said. “They weren’t pushy.”
The outreach surprised and impressed Merritt, and he told the staffer that he was unsure whom he would vote for, but that he had concerns about Obama’s support of civil unions for same-sex couples, universal health care and abortion rights. Merritt said he is open to further conversations but he has not heard back from the campaign.
He has also been watching from afar as Obama’s camp has continued to try to pull along the willing in other ways. Saturday, the campaign will roll out a “Believers for Barack” Web site to blog about Obama and for visitors to volunteer for service projects.
McCain’s campaign is quietly fighting back. Staffers are visiting churches and telling people that though Obama speaks freely about his faith, he “takes extreme positions on certain issues that are not in sync with the evangelical population,” said Marlys Popma, who oversees evangelical outreach for McCain. She acknowledged that a lot of evangelicals are undecided because of Obama’s extensive faith outreach, but she said that when they hear McCain’s message and understand Obama’s liberal views, they will support the Republican.
This week, Popma’s team will add pages to McCain’s Web site targeting evangelicals, emphasizing his desire to see the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling overturned, his conservative views on same-sex marriage, and his plan to appoint conservative justices. An interactive section on the site targeting young evangelicals will outline McCain’s plans to address climate change and world poverty.
Merritt has not been in touch with the McCain campaign, and he said it seems that the senator from Arizona is uncomfortable talking about his faith and is seeking endorsements from the evangelical old guard. He calls McCain’s acceptance, then repudiation, of the Rev. John Hagee‘s endorsement “strange.” Hagee angered church leaders by making controversial comments about Catholicism.
“McCain has really used the old-school tactics of trying to snag some of those big evangelical leaders who oftentimes don’t represent young evangelicals,” Merritt said.
A Page From the Bible
The environment was the first issue that Merritt cared about passionately that did not fit his traditional Republican mind-set. He remembers sitting in a class on systematic theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina last year and his professor saying: “When we destroy God’s creation, we are destroying God’s revelation. It’s similar to tearing a page out of the Bible.”
For a Southern Baptist, the Bible is the infallible, literal word of God, and that stuck with Merritt.
“I could feel God making my heart sensitive,” he recalls.
Merritt worries about the state of the country in a two-war, declining-dollar, post-Sept. 11 world. He has heard from Baptist missionaries who are having a hard time sharing the Gospel overseas, where opinions of the United States are so low. He is concerned about the loss of life in Iraq and the toll it is taking on families, and he is rethinking his support of the war. He recently persuaded his mom to start recycling, and he carries canvas shopping bags in his trunk so he will not add to landfills by using plastic ones.
Donnie McDaniel, a friend of Merritt’s who is studying theology and the environment in a doctoral program at Southeastern, voted for Bush four years ago but said that neither of this year’s candidates is a perfect fit. He is 32, grew up attending a Wesleyan holiness church in South Carolina and became a Southern Baptist when he married the daughter of a missionary.
“It’s probably going to be a decision I won’t make until I walk into the booth that day,” he said of his choice of candidates. “There’s no doubt that Barack Obama uses Christian language. He’s getting attention, but for the most part, I’m theologically conservative and . . . conservative on social issues,” McDaniel said. “But I look at John McCain, and he doesn’t really represent me either. I have a theological commitment to nonviolence, too. Truly, if you are an evangelical Christian, no political party should be able to fully represent you because you are doing something counter-cultural.”
Merritt has also been exposed to leaders of the “emerging church,” a youth-driven Christian movement that has grown through an online network and encourages small meetings in homes, bars and coffee shops. Merritt attended an event recently and found enlightening what one organizer called an “ironic hipster revival and book reading.” Its leaders tend to be politically liberal, and Merritt was provoked by questions they posed, such as “How did the Gospel become married to the American political system?”
Competing Interests
Merritt weighs less esoteric questions as overseer of the College & Single Life ministry at his father’s Cross Pointe Church, which has 1,750 attendees each Sunday. The young adults meet in a room decorated like an urban loft, with dim lighting, brown leather couches and patches of wallpaper that look like exposed brick. One recent Sunday, Merritt spoke on being judgmental.
“The church has a bad reputation for being judgmental, worrying more about what people wear to church than the fact that they are coming to church,” he earnestly told the group of about 20.
The students agree, and they say some of it has to do with a politicizing of their religion. They feel the tension of their competing interests.
“I went to school with a lot of agnostic people and after Bush, they were like ‘no’ ” to religion, said Brittany Kelley, 22, who recently graduated from Savannah College of Art and Design. She is leaning toward McCain because she shares his economic views and is afraid that Obama will raise taxes. But in a lowered voice she said she does not feel the way some of the other young evangelicals do when it comes to all social issues.
“I have a lot of friends who are homosexual, and if they wanted to get married, that’s okay,” Kelley said. “They are not going to stop it because it is illegal.”
For Merritt, the decision comes down to combining the values his father taught him and those he has discovered along the way. The more he talks about McCain and Obama, the clearer it becomes that he is dissatisfied with both. In a freelance column published recently, he wrote: “If Democrats begin championing the sanctity of human life and traditional marriage, they may capture some of the powerful Christian voting bloc; if Republicans can develop an aggressive platform on issues like poverty and the environment, they can reverse the erosion of their evangelical base.”
Merritt is not convinced that either party will go far enough to win him over in this election.
“We’ve become such an idealistic generation where our parents were so pragmatic,” he said. “I’m not ruling out third-party candidates.”
Polling editor Jon Cohen contributed to this report
