THE EVANGELICALS AND CONSERVATIVE CATHOLICS HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM OBAMA
IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN FEARFUL FOR THE PAST EIGHT YEARS YOU WILL HAVE MUCH LESS TO FEAR NOW.
I was somewhat surprised to read in the Chicago Tribune on December 19, 2008 this headline: “Evangelicals fear new president.”
The article written by Manya A. Brachear highlighted ten fears about which the ultra conservative, fundamentalists are worried:
1. Hates Crimes Legislation
2. Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA,) which bans discrimination against gays and lesbians in federal employment.
3. Eliminate the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuality, which allows the military to remove openly gay men and women.
4. Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
5. Removal of the anti-abortion spending policies from appropriations bills.
6. Repeal of the Bush administration’s Mexico City Policy, which bans non-governmental organizations that receive funding from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries.
7. Fairness Doctrine legislation that could put restrictions on religious right broadcasters.
8. The Freedom of Choice Act, which would remove all restrictions on abortions before the fetus is considered a viable being.
9. Remove the Bush administration’s funding limits on destructive embryo research.
10. Remove funding from sex-education programs that promote abstinence until marriage.
The source for the list of fears is the Focus on the Family which is the ultra conservative Republican group that keeps the fires of the Evangelical agenda burning brightly on the air waves, in media campaigns and in the churches that share their fundamentalist belief.
Of all of the presidential candidates who have run for office, Barack Obama may well be the most open, the most sensitive to minority opinions and most prepared to accommodate most belief systems.
Nothing that Obama will propose, any changes that he espouses will force Evangelicals to do, nor to be denied from doing things contrary to their belief system. Those who are opposed to abortion will never be forced to have an abortion. It will allow those who have determined that the continuation of the pregnancy would be harmful to the health of the mother or the child to have a licensed physician to perform the operation. But neither Catholics or Evangelicals should never fear that they will personally be affected.
Since Evangelicals are fundamentalists, they believe that every word of both the Old and New Testaments is truly dictated by God and thus those who believe as they believe may not cast doubt upon any “jot and tiddle” of what they refer to as “the Word of God.”
However, it is true that Abraham of the Old Testament did have a baby whose name was Ishmael with Hager whom some believe was his second wife and others believe to be his mistress. Later, he had another son named Isaac with his wife, Sarah.
In Islam, men even today in some cultures are permitted to have four or more wives. Therefore, the mantra of many of your leaders that marriage is always between a man and a woman is simply not true. The Mormons historically held to the belief that a man could take as his wife a number of women and while the legal process began in 1862 under the administration of Abraham Lincoln, it was not until 1943 when the Mormon Church officially called its members to cease and desist the practice or be excommunicated, In the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth, who urged his followers to love, accept and forgive, it seems to many of us that a civil union between two people in love, should be permitted by law.
As to those who are phobic over homosexuality, there is not one single word in the New Testament, which is the final word as far as many Christians are concerned, in opposition to homosexuality.
Jesus’ reply to his disciples who asked under what circumstances a man should not get married, was simple and direct—“For there are different reasons why men cannot marry.: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who accept this teaching do so.” (Matt: 19:13)
This is the only reference in the New Testament relative to the question of homosexuality. What Jesus is saying is that some men are born homosexual with no capacity to love or have sexual intercourse with a woman. He did not judge this condition, but called upon his followers to accept it.
Others should not marry because other men made them that way, is Jesus reference to males who are not restricted either emotionally or physically from experiencing sexual relations only with a woman for whatever reason have sexual encounters with another male and appear to prefer that experience over heterosexual relations.
And finally, there are those who feel that by denying themselves any sexual activity, by controlling their natural sexual urges and repressing them, they are demonstrating the depth of their commitment to God and his Kingdom.
In all of my rather long life, I have never heard a minister or priest preach on this text from Matthew 19:13. But it is the only reference in the New Testament to the sexual condition of man and in no way does Jesus judge any of the alternatives to marital attachments.
In view of this teaching those who cannot accept homosexuality as a valid relationship are, in reality, turning their backs of the teaching of Jesus. He did not condemn nor did he approve, he simply identified the reasons why some men do not marry.
Our society is on the verge of understanding that any “love relationship” is preferable to no relationship, a violent relationship or an indifferent relationship.
Men and woman connect with those whom they can love, accept and forgive.
One of my friends makes what I think is a very valid statement: he believes one should get married when and only when he can find a person who accepts him just as he is with all of the warts, blisters and blemishes-- without any thought of changing him, transforming him or remaking him in their own image.
Homosexuals are no more of a danger in the military than are heterosexual males. The fact is that more heterosexual males violate the sanctity of the female body than homosexuals who assault the privacy and physical dimensions of fellow males. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” simply is not working.
And our government's phobia about homosexuality is not working either. At the beginning of the Iraq war, nine openly homosexuals military personnel who spoke perfect Arabic and Farsi at a time when we had an urgent need for foreign language experts to interpret for the newly acquired Iraq and Middle Eastern prisoners, were forced out of the military strictly because they were homosexuals. It was not that they had impinged upon the privacy or attempted in any way to impose themselves upon their colleagues sexually, it was strictly because they were openly gay. The military stripped itself of an urgently needed resource solely out of ignorance and an unfounded fear.
This type of fear says more about the sexual insecurity of the military than it does of the sexuality of the openly homosexual soldiers.
To alleviate the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy will in no way affect any Evangelical male or female. Any person regardless of sexual orientation who invades the privacy of another person will and should be prosecuted—rule or no rule.
For many reasons, for the U. S. to insist that the only way that our federal funding will be given is for programs that preach abstinence is unconditionally absurd.
Very few teenagers and other young persons wait for marriage to have sexual experiences. This is not new. I was sixteen when I “lost my virginity:” and to be honest, I did not lose it, I willingly gave it a way. And I am not sorry I did and would certainly do it again, if I had the opportunity to do it over. As people are getting married older and older (which is a good thing), to wait for marriage is to allow their most stimulating and their most pleasurable years of sexual experience to slip away; such a waste!
My mother suffered for years with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease that very well could have been cured by allowing the stem cells that were about to be destroyed to be employed in the essential function of scientific research. I was livid with Bush and others who fought against the productive utilization of stem cell materials that were about to be discarded.
Not only will Obama allow stem cells that are deemed to be thrown in the garbage to be employed in our laboratories, but he will do it for the health and benefit of our whole society. To do otherwise truly would be a crime.
We of the more progressive side of politics and religion believe in freedom of choice. Freedom of religion includes a phrase that not many of our Conservative brethen appreciate, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
I believe with all of my heart that abortion, birth control, stem cell research and other social subjects that strenuously divide us as a people fall under the matters of faith and not the purview of the law and its courts.
Therefore, the constitution is quite clear in this context. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.” Abortion, stem cell research, and birth control fall within the “free exercise thereof.” These are matters of faith and not issues of the law.
Evangelicals are free not to exercise the use of birth control and no government under Obama would even consider preventing you from continuing your objections to it.
Evangelicals are free to abstain from having an abortion, to prevent their fellow believers from obtaining an abortion and no government under Obama would even consider preventing you from doing so.
Evangelicals, under Obama, will never be, nor will those family members or any of their community of believers ever be forced of give or receive stem cells for any curative or other purpose.
Evangelicals will undoubtedly see more progressive individuals nominated to the U. S. Supreme Court and other federal court vacancies, but because the issues of abortion, stem cell research, birth control and other social issues they embrace are matters of faith and not matters of law, they in no way will be prevented from enjoying“…the free exercise thereof…”
I have not taken up all of the items on the list of 10 fears, but they are simply tangential to the issues I do discuss.
Hate Crimes are not going to erased from the law books of a society that proudly proclaims itself to be “one nation, under God.” No devout Christian would support the abolishment of “Hate Crime Laws.”
There is a good chance that the Obama administration will continue to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) simply because I have pointed out above there is absolutely no evidence that homosexuals are a greater threat to our society than heterosexuals who are far more guilty of committing crimes against members of the opposite sex that homosexuals are of committing crimes against members of the same sex. To believe otherwise is an “old wives tale.”
Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act is also contrary to the premise of a progressive political agenda. The cry of the leadership of the Evangelical and Conservative Catholic factions of Christianity is that the Bible commands that marriage must be between one man and one woman; however, because we know that other cultures such as Islam allow for multiple wives, and even the Bible speaks of men throughout Judeo-Christian history who took unto themselves several wives, the argument that one man and one woman falls short of the test of candor. Jesus does not address the issue per se.
It is obvious that this act is targeting the gay and lesbian community and therefore reeking with unwarranted prejudice.
I do believe that the Obama administration will ban the teaching of abstinence in order to receive federal funding for sex education courses and that the Bush Mexico City Policy will be displaced. The nations with the greatest need for abortions and birth control are in the poverty stricken portions of the globe. To deny these countries funds for such activity is to sentence millions of children and youths to a life of hunger, disease and abandonment. However, Evangelicals and Conservative Catholics will not be forced to face any threat in their personal lives from a change in this policy.
The Fairness Doctrine, I believe, is an important piece of legislation for a democracy that depends up the evenhandedness of its media. Voters will not know the truth if media without proper government regulation is allowed to present biased news coverage, lies, and distortions. Thomas Jefferson believed that democracy would die if people could not read and newspaper could not print the truth.
We have seen in the elections of 2000 and 2004 a man elected president because of the impeachable lies many media and PAC 527’s advocacy groups used to defame the opposition candidates. The most grievous was Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who falsely accused John Kerry of lying about the numerous medals he was given for his voluntary service in Viet Nam. This group hated Kerry because he returned to the U. S. to commence a campaign to tell the truth about the war and how it was being conducted. He testified before the Congress and exposed some of the most egregious violations of international law committed by American troops including the total destruction of villages populated by people who were innocent of any connection with the Viet Cong.
People like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and many other radio talk show hosts such G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North who twisted and distorted the news in favor of one political party or the other. Voters need objective information to make intelligent decisions.
In the most recent election, a small but loud group of racially prejudiced voters claim that Obama is a Muslim although it was nothing more than a rumor started by forces determined to destroy his candidacy. Others falsely challenged his citizenship that has been unquestionably certified by the State of Hawaii.
This must not be allowed to continue—thus the Fairness Doctrine relative to airways and television channels “in the public domain” i.e. owned by all of the American people, should be accountable to all of the American people and all of their points of view for a fair presentation of the truth.
This doctrine does not apply to newspapers and magazine that are privately owned, but any medium in the public domain should be required to provide equal coverage to all parties concerned.
In no case will the Obama administration force its political perspective upon the Evangelicals; however, others should not be denied the expression of their points of view in both religion and politics. That is the democratic way. Courts should not be employed to allow one party or group of believers to lord over those who disagree with them whether it be in matters of law or in the matter faith.
It was Roosevelt who said, “The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself.” It is as true in 2008 as it was in 1933.
1:15:43 PM 
|
