The Clear Moral Choice
After his drubbing in the first debate, Barack Obama finds himself on the receiving end of plenty of advice when it comes to the next one. Jennifer Granholm (remember her?), the former governor of Michigan turned political commentator (though few know it, as she resides on Al Gore's Current TV), recently chimed in. "This election involves a moral choice," she recently declared, adding that "[t]his is a choice about our national character."
I have to chuckle whenever liberals want to talk in terms of morality. I mean, after all, it was their party that lustily booed God on their convention floor. Of course, this is in addition to their devotion to killing children in the womb; their removing prayer, the Commandments, and the Bible from the public arena; and their support of sexual immorality and the redefinition of marriage.
Ironically, with the devotion they show, for many, liberalism has become a religion. "Observing the basic divide in the American culture," Dr. Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, looks to Howard P. Kainz, professor emeritus of philosophy at Marquette University. Kainz notes: "Most of the heat of [culture] battle occurs where traditional religious believers clash with certain liberals who are religiously committed to secular liberalism."
Looking back over the last century, Kainz argues that Marxism and ideological Liberalism have functioned as religious systems for millions of individuals. Looking specifically at Marxism, Kainz argues that the Marxist religion had dogmas, canonical scriptures, priests, theologians, ritualistic observances, parochial congregations, heresies, hagiography, and even an eschatology[.] ...
Similarly, Kainz argues that modern secular liberalism includes its own dogmas. Among these are the beliefs 'that mankind must overcome religious superstition by means of reason; that empirical science can and will eventually answer all the questions about the world and human values that were formerly referred to traditional religion or theology; and that the human race, by constantly invalidating and disregarding hampering traditions, can and will achieve perfectibility.'
Of course, this directly contradicts the Judeo-Christian worldview held by most conservatives. Thus, Kainz boldly warns that modern secular liberalism is the greatest threat to orthodox Christianity. This is no new assertion, as Mohler also points out.
In the early 1920s, J. Gresham Machen, founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, argued that "evangelical Christianity and its liberal rival were, in effect, two very different religions." In his book Christianity and Liberalism, Machen goes so far as to propose that Christian liberalism is not Christianity at all, declaring that "Liberalism has abandoned Christianity."
Bishop E.W. Jackson certainly thinks so. The fiery black pastor recently implored black Christians to "end [their] slavish devotion to the Democrat Party." Jackson accuses Democrats of violating "everything we believe as Christians" and of creating an "unholy alliance" with Planned Parenthood, which, he declares, "has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was." He goes on: "Planned Parenthood ... has killed unborn black babies by the tens-of-millions ... and the Democrat Party and their black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide."
Many pastors, of every skin color, are becoming bolder when it comes to political activity. Sunday, October 8 was Pulpit Freedom Sunday. The movement, led by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), challenges the IRS over the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which forbids churches from specifically endorsing candidates. Over 1,500 American pastors participated and voluntarily informed the IRS of their "transgression." (In 2008, the number was only 33.)
As more and more people of faith see our government (especially the federal government) endorsing or specifically engaging in activity that many deem immoral, taking a political stand on the social issues is seen as vital. Pastor Mark Cowart in Colorado Springs told his congregation that "[w]hen a Christian goes in and votes for someone who promotes things that God abhors, I can't imagine how God sees that. I encourage you to look at your faith and your politics and your vote and see if they correlate."
Granholm's recent Huffington Post piece was entitled "Mr. President: Next Debate, Make Moral Choice Clear." Of course, what she really means is that she wants Barack Obama to make the case for bigger government. She wants Mr. Obama to make the case for having more of our money. Liberals love to be generous -- with other people's money.
So yes, please, Mrs. Granholm, let's debate the moral issues. Let's have Mr. Obama defend his "evolution" on gay marriage and his defense of what could only be described as infanticide. Let him justify to the American people why he prefers to be more generous with our income than he is with his own. Conservatives welcome this debate.