Not easy being Christian with Election
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 09-23-2004 - 8:24pm |
Christians object to their faith being appropriated for political purposes; preaching anger and revenge in the name of Christianity ignores the New Testament messages of grace, love, and inclusiveness.
Indianapolis, IN, (PRWEB) September 9, 2004 -- As the 2004 election approaches, many Christians believe their fellow Christians are deserting the principles of their faith to follow a banner of anger, revenge, and punishment.
One of those is Gregg Hodgson, 67, an Indiana businessman and former banker who has served as campaign manager for Republican political candidates. A self-described "quiet Christian," Hodgson has devoted his recent years to helping people plan their own small businesses. "I've worked, one-on-one, with nearly 2,000 small businesses," he says. "It's the talent I've been given, and I try to make a difference with it before my own Judgment Day arrives.“
Today, Hodgson has decided to back the Kerry-Edwards ticket. "I'm rather conservative," he explains, "so I can't possibly support an administration that throws away a nice surplus and turns it into the worst deficit we've ever seen, in four years. The worst part of the deficit – which is being called our first 'permanent deficit' – was caused by Mr. Bush's lavish tax-breaks to the wealthy,†says Hodgson. “Even ignoring the way he exalts the rich, which of course isn't a Christian principle, what do we have to show for all that wasted money? Virtually nothing. It'll get even worse for the not-so-rich, too. Our treasury is broke, so we'll have to slash education, health-care and environmental programs.â€
Hodgson also decries the Bush administration’s way of governing and campaigning, which he labels, "fear-based manipulation, with nothing behind it." He suggests that politicians who appeal to our primitive fears, angers, and desires for revenge are stuck in the Old Testament, and are forgetting the New Testament messages of inclusion and love.
Hodgson acknowledges that there was a political aspect to the decision by the early Christians to build on the Old Testament. But he worries when he sees modern-day Pharisees attempting to hijack Christianity for political purposes.
"The Old Testament can be handy for bad guys," Hodgson observes. "Whenever they want to appear 'righteous' while exalting the rich, bullying the poor, passing judgment on others, or attacking others with vengeful anger,†they usually invoke the Old Testament.
Real Christians should not be fooled, Hodgson warns. "We've seen plenty of demagogues in our time, wrapping themselves in the flags of Christianity or patriotism so they could gain power. Christ repudiated the vengeful aspects of the Old Testament in very strong language. He ordered us to treat others as we'd want them to treat us – the toughest lesson anyone has ever tried to teach human beings. That's why he accompanied it with blanket forgiveness. He knew we'd often fail at it!"
"Angry, judgmental, revenge-filled people may call themselves 'Christians,' or even 'Fundamentalist Christians,'" Hodgson concludes, "but the Prince of Peace would know them as the very people he came to save! He'd forgive them, of course, but he'd weep bitterly at the harm they do in his name."
For a copy of John Bugay’s “The Christian Right Need Not Fear a Kerry Presidency†and other articles on this topic, contact media@republicansforkerry04.org
Edited 9/23/2004 8:25 pm ET ET by crownotangelgrl

Pages
if you find yourself bothered by the idea, just remember that 50 years ago white people were bothered by the idea of sharing the same drinking fountain with a black person, and then there was a movement & a rebellion where black people insisted that we all raise our consciousness and GET OVER IT
i think it is another civil rights struggle and i support them (gays who want to marry)
Professing to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man- and birds and four footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. - ROMANS 1:22-1:27
According to the biblical scholar William Barclay, this was written by the Apostle Paul, who was commenting on the moral depravity in the Roman Empire at the time of Christ.
What I am talking about is the LEGAL rights that this country grants me as a married person. I have a legal status as someone's "spouse" but this president wants to ammend the Constitution to dictate the gender of who I choose to be my spouse. I feel like that's EXACTLY the same as the government telling me I can only marry a white man, or an American man, or a man who is taller than me. Forcing me to live under such restricitons to my freedom would be un-American. AMERICA is not a church. I was raised & married in a church, but my wedding was one day with a religious element to it (9 years ago) because I chose to include that religious element, while my marriage as a legal status is ongoing, whether I convert religions or stay in my church in my private time or whatever. I am not suddenly an un-married American if I switch churches or religions.
Black people in the 1950's-60's civil rights movement were not seeking special rights, they were seeking the SAME rights as white people. The same school opportunities, the same seats on the bus, the same drinking fountains. Equality in the eyes of the law. American law is not a church commandment. American law is not the Bible. The police and courts are not interpreting scripture when they are enforce & interpret American law.
*****
Interesting- I just found this online:
Gay people call for the right to form legally recognised unions, giving gays the same rights that straights have, namely:
-The right to choose your spouse.
-The right to choose a spouse who is not a citizen of your country, and as a result, have them be allowed to live in your country with you.
-The right to income tax deductions for couples.
-The right to visit your spouse in hospital, even if the spouse's family want to stop you.
-Pension benefits and other spousal benefits such as company medical and dental plans.
-The right to adopt children.
-The right to claim their spouse or their spouse's children as dependents on income-tax forms.
-The right to transfer registered retirement savings plans to a surviving same-sex spouse without paying taxes -- the way straight couples can.
-Same-sex spouses should not be forced to testify against each other, just as heterosexual spouses are protected.
-Wherever the term "spouse" appears in law, it also apply to gay couples who have formed a legally recognized union.
*****
I have heard that there are over 1,000 legal rights I have as a heterosexual spouse in America. Can anyone think of others that are denied to partners in gay relationships?
Pages