Neither Dom or Rep - whatever.

But the Dems sure made hay on Bush and mis-characterized it right from the get-go.

Now the BHO is putting his spin on it and all the liberals will hail it as a program that will define the 21st century.

I looked at it as a program that could have helped many all along. I know that the program that I was a part of could have helped so many in my community. We didn't need money for adm. of the program we had churches that were ready to underwrite supplys and give us an office free for our use. Our congregations could not underwrite the cost of the program so that is where we needed the Faith Based money. But you need to have a lot of people in the community sign off or know what you are doing. The Dems that hold office in our community did a great job of derailing our attemps at getting our organization going. So over the past 7+ years people that could have been helped did not get it. Now if BHO makes it into the White House - they will. The money will be there faster than I can say George W Bush.

So - go for it Mr Obama - the Dem Machine is alive and well and ready to serve you - just like they have in the past few years and got you into the Senate.

So - again I ask. Was it worth it?

May BHO be as blessed as the people that were denied help with Faith Based the last 7 years.

WHatever -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 3, 2008 12:46 PM

Posted by: Diana Butler Bass | July 3, 2008 3:39 PM

Hopefully, the idea will survive its abuses--as recounted by both John Dilulio and David Kuo in their books. If corrected, the policy may widen the reach of non-profit organizations to serve those in need.

It should be able to survive and heach those in need. You won't have the Teddy Kennedy's along with Nancy and Harry shooting holes in it. You will have CNN, the Old York Times along with ABC, CBS, NBC falling all over the place to promote it.

So that people that I wanted to help will finally get help if Obama get the White House and you all fall into step with him.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 3, 2008 4:34 PM

I think that congressional funding for faith based groups would help a lot of people. Too bad our founding father's saw this a problem and inserted the 1st amendment. I guess they didn't think funding any religious group for anything was a good idea, even if it helped some people. Wonder why? Maybe they were aware of history and what happens to people's basic rights when government and religions get cozy. Think Middle East today or Christianity during the Inquisition. I'm sure this time it will be different so let's just ignore or twist the 1st amendment and get the federal dollars to the faith based community. The Bill of Rights are not really important or relevant today. After all it's for a good cause. Blessings, Cheryl

Posted by: cheryljtobin | July 3, 2008 5:02 PM

Barack Obama clarified his ideas regarding the poor, reassuring the public that he will ensure "tough enforcement" of workfare requirements. His statement that "there is no excuse for not working" confirms that he will uphold the most draconian of current policies, which reject the idea that a lack of jobs, illness, disability or circumstances are legitimate reasons for being unemployed. We have solidly embraced policies that violate international human rights standards (i.e., Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc.) But how many people even know this? Few have taken time to actually read their own state's workfare, disability, etc., agendas, much less talk to the people who have experienced it.

There can be no successful agenda for addressing (much less, relieving)poverty until there is an honest public discussion that actually includes the poor. They have been excluded for the past quarter-century. All Obama offers is to ratchet up the enforcement of punitive measures that are already enforced via destitution, loss of one's children, etc., and "the least of these" will continue to pay the price. I do understand that there is widespread belief that there is some sort of safety net for those who truly can't work, due to illness/disability or circumstances. This is incorrect. (Only a fraction of those who qualify for disability aid are able to actually get it.)

As long as the poor continue to be shut out of the public discussion, and as long as there are orgs that can profitably exploit them, we will continue to regard the poor as subhuman. Today, we funnel the least employable into prisons, mental institutions, the foster care system and the streets. But the costs of prisons and other institutions has been skyrocketing, and we just can't afford continued expansion. How unlikely is it that we ---including our Christian and Progressive communities -- will be willing to embrace a "final solution" of the evilest nature? Not long, I expect; we have already devoted years to dehumanizing our poor.

Posted by: DHFabian | July 3, 2008 6:08 PM

Government subsidies for 'faith-based initiatives are bad news.

They will ultimately open the door for ambitious religious folk– not necessarily YOUR kind of Christians, not necessarily Christians at all– to meddle in government, to their own detriment and that of society.

And they will ultimately if not sooner open the door for ambitious political folk– not necessarily YOUR kind of politics, not necessarily democratic at all– to meddle in Christianity and religion, to the detriment of Christianity, religion, and government and society generally

Be warned by the corruption that occurred upon Constantine's establishment of the Church as the state 'religion' of the Empire. This 4th of July, when our Constitution, our Republic, and the Anglo-Saxon rule of law are hanging on with the skin of their teeth, let's remember the old Deist Thomas Jefferson and his Baptist allies who struggled so hard to give quietus to that sorry old mistake. Please, the body politic is as marred as Caesar's body when the assassins were done with it. Please, not another blow, not another stroke!

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | July 4, 2008 1:09 PM

I wouldn't accept a mandate to give money to a faith-based intiative sponsored by a church that advocates this precept:
"Disavowal of the Pursuit of 'Middleclassness.' Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the 'talented tenth' of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor's control. Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:
1. Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.
2. Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
3. Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of 'we' and 'they' instead of 'us.'
4. So, while it is permissible to chase 'middleclassness' with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method--the psychological entrapment of Black 'middleclassness.' If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our 'voluntary' contributions to methods A and B [1 and 2]. And more importantly Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons." (Concept 8 of the Black Value System, adopted by Trinity United Church of Christ)

This would seem to reject the promise of a more fulfilling life offered by self-discipline and self-respect. Blacks can chase "middleclassness" but in doing so, they are told they will just become slaves in a different mold. In other words, don't assimilate. And perhaps Concept 8 is what sparked Wright's assault on Obama.

Posted by: judithod | July 4, 2008 4:09 PM

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | July 4, 2008 1:22 PM

I understand the Constitution so I don't need the lecture. I will read it sometime in the near future in between time of job hunting on the www. I more the likey adher to the letter of the Constitution rather than the inturperation of it like some.

Moderatelad, Where's the compassion of Christ in you? I'm afraid you're a Darwinist; here's another link:

What have I said that could make you think I am a Darwinist? I have done pleanty to make life better for many that needed the help. I perfer to help them learn to fish rather than always providing the fish when athey are able to fish themselves.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 5, 2008 1:40 PM

"Few have taken time to actually read their own state's workfare, disability, etc., agendas, much less talk to the people who have experienced it."

"I do understand that there is widespread belief that there is some sort of safety net for those who truly can't work, due to illness/disability or circumstances. This is incorrect. (Only a fraction of those who qualify for disability aid are able to actually get it.)"

Posted by: DHFabian | July 3, 2008 6:08 PM

I completely agree with the above. I have worked as a secretary for a mental health organization in a department comprised of "privatized" county offices—principally concerned with the Supported Housing Program for mentally ill homeless persons. The laziness and lack of concern for timely action in dealing with unstable persons in an unstable situation led to the loss of contact with many whose cases were eventually closed with the reason listed as "whereabouts unknown". Furthermore, there were other cases that had to be closed after a year of attempting to obtain the required documentation from "care coordinators" simply because the applicant had died in the meantime.

I also had a brief stint with a non-profit organization under a contract for the Workfare (Welfare to Work) Program. I was given an orientation that included instruction in how to deal with the disabled (not that I needed it). My first priority in accepting this position was, to my way of thinking, to motivate and energize those who had become discouraged and disillusioned with life—those who had lost any hope of improving their lot in life. I encouraged them to work closely with their counselors and job developers and to apply for any jobs that may match their skills. My mantra was: "I am here to put a smile on their faces and a bounce in their step." Unfortunately, my superiors were too busy saying that they were "lazy, stupid, and didn't want to work" or "they all grew up on Welfare" to give me any support in this endeavor. Many of my charges were senior citizens, women in the latter stages of pregnancy, and disabled workers with doctor's notes restricting any physical activity. Yet, I was expected to ride herd on them and force them to do heavy lifting and stand on their feet all day with no effort to determine what type of work for which they were suited.

The political philosophy espoused by most of those I worked under in both of these organizations was invariably "Conservative". And most of them claimed to be Christians. Needless to say I was terminated when I became critical of their attitudes.

"So - BHO will put together the plan and I am sure the same people that stopped us will get their money in no-time-flat from his White House. I know that they will not be hindered because those of us that were stopped will not do the same to them. (something about the Golden Rule comes to mind...)"

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 4, 2008 7:54 PM

Many Liberals have always tried to live by the Golden Rule. It is not exactly something that was invented by the Self-Righteous Right.

Posted by: Hermes | July 5, 2008 1:59 PM

Now, before someone brands me as an Ultra-Liberal Marxist or some other label of convenience simply because I try to consider the plight of those in need rather than prejudge their worthiness of my compassion:

I believe that the poor and powerless—the helpless, hapless, and hopeless—have been poorly served by both Liberal and Conservative politicians who are more interested in pursuing methods of control than helping those in need. Our intricate system of "Social Services" is BIG BUSINESS—whether administered through government agencies or privatized "vendors of services". Many of the people employed in this industry—and it HAS become an industry—are not interested in alleviating poverty because that would leave them without a job of their own.

I once worked as an electrician in a steel plant. One of the excuses given for "dogging it" on the job was: "We have to save some work for our children." That plant has been closed for some time now. On my last day of work in September, 1981, my supervisor advised me not to look for another job right away because I would be "back to work in 10-12 weeks". A year and a half later, I was called in to "discuss" my severance pay. The discussion began and ended with: "Sign now or you get nothing."

Over the next few months, I discovered that other employers in the area were reluctant to hire laid-off steelworkers until they were absolutely certain that the plant would remain closed. During that time, I had the pleasure of working with Ronald Reagan's Private Industrial Council that was also fond of "teaching men to fish". I had letters of recommendation from a vocational counselor stating that I had completed interest and aptitude assessments indicating that I was ideally suited for computer programming (I scored in the 95th percentile against programmers already on the job). I was rejected by both of the computer-related training programs—one because I didn't already have an Associates Degree in a technical field (I wasn't even allowed to take their test), and the other because I was interested in using the training as a stepping stone to further education in the field. That second program was narrowly restricted to relocation at my own expense to Boston (with a much higher cost of living than Buffalo) to work for half my former pay when I had just declared bankruptcy.

Posted by: Hermes | July 5, 2008 2:39 PM

OOPS! I just realized that my last post implies that I waited for a year and a half before I looked for another job. Sorry, if I misled anyone. Believe me, I had no faith in the future of the steel plant, and I was not about to wait for something that might never come to pass.

Posted by: Hermes | July 5, 2008 2:46 PM

For someone who calls himself "moderatelad", you sure are heavily invested in blaming Liberal Democrats for all your troubles. Why don't you take Ronald Reagan's advice and vote with your feet?

If you were at all interested in reading my posts for anything other than some indication that I am a "tax and spend' Liberal, you would have noticed that I criticize both sides of the aisle for their tendency to focus on enriching themselves and the wealthiest of their campaign contributors while ignoring the needs of the general public.

There are few statesmen in either party willing to work together on solving the problems they have largely created themselves through a hard-line stance on radical ideology. The only compromises I see are trade-offs in pork barrel projects and meaningless resolutions to name some calendar date as a day to honor some initiative or organization that they don't have to support.

There is little interest in either party in actually eliminating poverty. They just hope to keep it from getting so out of control that it leads to a full-blown revolution before they destroy our Constitution and take full control of all our lives.

By the same token, the Globalist "Free" Trade agenda was never intended to save consumers any money, but to increase the profits of multinational corporations while bankrupting the middle class.

By my reckoning, this will all be coming to fruition sometime around October—if not sooner.

Posted by: Hermes | July 5, 2008 3:30 PM

Rick: There is no racism, overt or implied, in my comment. Please go to the Trinity United Church of Christ website, and read for yourself the concepts of the Black Value System. www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Posted by: judithod | July 5, 2008 4:34 PM

Posted by: Rick | July 5, 2008 3:47 PM

...because they want all the goodies only for themselves and in fact feel entitled to them at the expense of everyone else...

Please - the victim factor is getting old. Unless you are talking about the rich Limo Libs in EDINA, MN that for decades have made it their goal to keep the minorities just opressed enough so that they have a supply of indentured servants available for their partys and BBQ's.

In my community your race really doesn't matter for the most part. If you are a minority - you will get assistance before a white child/student regardless of income. Two of my sons friends who happen to be minorities have been granted better scholarships and grants to college from the same school. My son has a better GPA than they have, 4.13 to their 3.87 and 3.93 to be exact. I have the lowest income of the three families and that was before my job was cut with the district. One of them has about double my income.

That is one of the biggest problems that I see with Afirmative Action is that it did not take income as a factor.

Access to the riverbank - not an issue.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 5, 2008 6:32 PM

Please note that it is definitely implied that blacks are the subjugated "captives" versus the "captors." What is stated is that it's an illusion that blacks can change their socioeconomic status; if they try to do so, they simply will become captives at a different level.

That you take all that out of the "Black Value System" proves my point succinctly. Having read it and understanding the context in which it was written, I see absolutely nothing that promotes a perpetual "victim" mentality as you insist; in contrast, it's designed to uplift those who have historically been themselves subjugated not just racially but also culturally. If you notice, one tenet does call for character development.

Further, this also proves just how removed from the reality of black America most conservative ideologues are. Apparently you see it as a threat, that people aren't going to play by your rules and conform to your values and become self-determinant in their own right, so you're going to denounce it. Keep in mind that, in doing so, you're only driving a wedge between peoples and demonstrating hypocrisy in the process.

Posted by: Rick | July 5, 2008 7:30 PM

Posted by: Rick | July 5, 2008 7:38 PM

You play both sides of the issue depending on what suits you. You can not have it both ways. But you do -

How sad

I don't think we need talk anymore as you have all the trump cards compared to the rest of us.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 6, 2008 1:13 AM

Rumors that Obama is Antichrist? I supposed we should have guessed that this would happen. After all, it isn't very far fetched from the lies circulating that tell us Obama is a secret Muslim and that he attended a militant Islamist school in Indonesia and/or that his father was an Islamist militant.

I can remember when some Christians thought Henry Kissinger was Antichrist. So what's new.

Although Snopes.com is essentially a secular site, they get this one right for basically the right reasons. Pay close attention to the last paragraph.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/antichrist.asp

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 6, 2008 10:05 AM

Posted by: Rick | July 6, 2008 9:29 AM

You, too, are woefully uninformed. Remember, the tide is changing and conservatives no longer control the discourse.

And we know that 'woefully uninformed' is code talk for 'not liberal'. Conservatives never had 'control' we just had the support. I don't think that the support has eroded to the point that you would make us believe. These are different times and the tactics of a John Kerry - 'reporting for duty' will not fly. But we will see what happens in 08 when it comes to the election.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 6, 2008 1:37 PM

The goal was to rile up his base. He can now point to angry Dailykos postings and present himself as a man who is beholden to no ideology.

Except that Obama doesn't have anywhere near as much of a liberal base as you think, never mind the "Dailykos postings" -- were that the case he would have won even easier than he did. Besides, with a number of high-profile conservatives now supporting him he can say that he is beholden to no ideology. You can't say that about McCain, however, because he knows that if he turns his back on the conservatives he's dead meat.

And we know that 'woefully uninformed' is code talk for 'not liberal'. Conservatives never had 'control' we just had the support.

You prove my point -- when you have control you don't need to think about it unless someone identifies something as a threat, which is why they went after Bill Clinton in the 1990s. My comment stands.

These are different times and the tactics of a John Kerry - 'reporting for duty' will not fly.

Nor will "Swift-Boating" work, either.

Posted by: Rick | July 6, 2008 2:25 PM

"Obama may be a lot of things but the antichrist is not one of them. "

Yeah. My thought when someone compares Bush to the antichrist or Hitler is that either could poll better than 33%.

One would think the antichrist could break 50%,at least in Iowa.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 6, 2008 3:06 PM

Why should I never mind the Dailykos postings? It is the largest, most influential Democratic blog in the US.

False on its face. Its influence is minuscule especially compared to the conservatives who have run the Republican Party since the 1970s -- as a registered Democrat (but one who got out of party politics in the early 1990s) who lives in a heavily-Democratic metro area, I rarely even meet rabid liberals like that because the Democrats here and in Midwestern and "border" areas tend toward social conservatism, effectively keeping Republicans out (my state went heavily for Hillary Clinton). Nor are they yet part of the party apparatus, which is where decisions are made, because they don't yet have the money behind them and probably never will -- have you noticed, for example, that its anti-war movement has stalled? There's a reason why it's called the "Democratic Underground."

Posted by: Rick | July 6, 2008 4:15 PM

Huffington Post may have become more popular since Obama began posting there, but that would only reinforce my point. Both are more influential than any conservative blog, and both are in the top 20 most frequented blogs in the country.

That tells me nothing because blogging was originally used by the conservatives, most notably to sink the Clinton health-care plan in 1994. And as for "more influential," that also is irrelevant because no accurate statistics can be actually kept, also in part because conservatism itself is on the ropes. (Who knows -- probably more than a few conservatives read liberal blogs to find out what the other side is doing.)

"I rarely even meet rabid liberals like that"

You don't have to meet someone in order for them to be liberal.

In my line of work I deal with all sorts of people, and until two years ago most of the complaints to my paper come not from the left but from the right, and most of those were older.

"Nor are they yet part of the party apparatus,"

Neither is any media outlet.

We've been consistently accused over the years of being in bed with the Democrats because it's easier for the conservatives to raise $$$ against somebody regardless of the facts on the ground.

Of course none of this has anything, at all, to do with whether Obama can cite criticism from the left as evidence of his supposed centrism. Sojo has used criticism from the rabid left (via Kos) to make a similar claim.

It has done no such thing, only saying a few months ago on one blog entry that some Kos subscribers are giving Christianity a second look because of Sojo's criticism of evangelicalism's longstanding ties to the political right. Even at that, it doesn't necessarily represent a shift in the extreme left nor does it say that it has influence in the Democratic Party because, as I said before, the left does not have access to the power structure the way the right does in the GOP.

Posted by: Rick | July 6, 2008 6:38 PM

Canucklehead:

I don't believe I've ever mentioned how much I enjoy the Canadian sense of humor. Sorta' makes me want to pack my bags and head North. I've pretty much had it with the Limbaugh ditto-heads down here. And now, we have Progressive talk radio shows trying to imitate his style—although with more substance. They still have a ways to go before they get to his level of bottom-feeding, but some of the hosts are giving it all they've got. UGH!!!

Posted by: Hermes | July 7, 2008 1:13 AM

One point that I have tried to make, although I haven't exactly spelled it out in detail, is that extremism of any stripe in politics (Ultra-Liberal Democrats and Neo-Conservative Republicans) or religion (hard-line, fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and Jews) is counter-productive to reconciling "differences" of opinion or belief. As a Christian, I believe that there is "none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Most Christians believe that this means acceptance of Jesus Christ in the here and now, and that is certainly the best choice of all. However, if that is the only chance one has to accept Him as Lord and Savior, then all who have ever lived would have had the same opportunity to hear the truth from earliest childhood.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of radical "warriors for Christ", I will say that God is very logical and practical in making provision for all to see the "error of their ways"—eventually. This is the whole point of the Millennium. There are those who will say there is no such thing, since the word itself does not appear in the Bible. But the term is merely an English word that literally means a thousand years. Revelation 20:6 plainly states: "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." Reign over whom, if not those who have not yet overcome?

Now, let us proceed to the subject at hand. There is nothing wrong in principle with "faith-based initiatives", but there is always the danger of compromising the Gospel of Christ whenever religion and politics work together on anything at all. It is the responsibility of Christians to see that they remain true to their faith, but this does not preclude making use of government programs to assist in their mission to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. If government is exerting undue influence in religious matters through these programs, we can always opt out of them. After all, don't churches enjoy tax-exemptions for purely religious uses of their assets? And don't they have to relinquish those exemptions when they stick their noses into politics?

I have great respect for most traditional conservative views on social policy, but I am often dismayed by the radically divisive strategy and tactics employed by the most politically active Christian "Conservatives" in making their point through ostentatious displays of their piety and "reverence" for life while allowing people to suffer the daily deprivation and denigration heaped upon the least of these—even as they whine "it's MY money" when talking about taxes. When Jesus held up the Roman coin in Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25 and said that we should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's, He made no mention of what is ours. The fact is that ALL of "our" money belongs to the government, in that it is a medium of exchange to facilitate commerce and trade by assigning a common denominator to determine the relative value of goods and services.

On abortion: It is my fervent desire to see the end to this barbaric disregard for human life. However, I cannot in good conscience support a ban on the practice unless and until we begin to take care of the children we have. Too many self-righteous Christians would force women to have babies that they cannot or will not care for once they are born—only to then abandon their fate to the vicissitudes of life by shredding the "social safety net" that everyone seems to think is too generous. Why accuse the poor of being lazy and stupid when we can't figure out how to give them a dollar's worth of assistance without spending ten to deliver it? We waste more money trying to deny anyone aid out of the fear of giving someone something he doesn't deserve through intricate mazes of rules, regulations, and procedures that constantly change at a such a pace that even the most knowledgeable cannot remain fully informed of what is required of others to qualify for our compassion and mercy.

The fact is that our secular Constitutional government forbids the establishment of a national religion, and guarantees the free exercise of one's particular faith in good conscience with respect for the rights of others. Thus we have no right to pronounce "thus saith the Lord" in pursuing a particular political agenda. If we wish to "ban" abortion politically, then we must first seek to have the fetus declared fully human, if not fully developed, with all the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And we need to keep religion out of it, if we expect anyone else to listen to our reasoning. There is such a thing as morality—although no salvation—without Christ.

Ten Principles for the Secular World

1. There must be a purpose to life, if one is to survive and thrive.
2. This purpose should be the guiding principle of one’s thoughts, words, and deeds.
3. Hypocrisy is a heresy to humanity and an abomination to mankind.
4. Everyone needs (at least) one day of rest each week to contemplate:
The Past, The Present and The Future.
5. As imperfect as they may be, one’s elders have the “wisdom of years” of experience. They have often “been there and done that” and not found it worth the trouble.
6. Don’t kill; and don’t look for an excuse to call it “self-defense”.
7. Honesty is the best policy in matrimony or “civil unions”.
8. Don’t steal. It’s just not fair—to rich or poor.
9. Don’t lie about others; it’s bad enough to lie about oneself.
10. Don’t be jealous of others’ success in this ephemeral lifetime of seeking the sublime. They may actually deserve it (as improbable as that may seem in today’s world).

But why should it matter for your life?

That's really up to you—

Isn’t it?

Sorry—I don't know enough about using HTML tags for "style".

Posted by: Hermes | July 7, 2008 9:24 AM

Generally, the accusation is that reporters simply allow their own political preferences to influence what ought to be objective reporting. It is a perfectly understandable phenomenon, but does not consitute being in bed with anyone.

It is also inaccurate. In reality, most political reporters are pretty much devoid of ideology and don't feel they have the right to "intepret" what someone is saying -- when they do the story is clearly marked as "analysis." But too often conservatives maintain the mentality that "you're either with us or against us," which means that "objectivity" is not what they really want or expect -- they really want their views presented as absolute truth and we have no right or reason to do that.

Posted by: Rick | July 7, 2008 10:16 AM

Posted by: Rick | July 7, 2008 10:32 AM

'...he's right because McCain will probably play that up -- but his doing so at that time was certainly inappropriate and Obama was right to chastise him.'

That's a crock in my book.

McCain has talk about his private and political life more when it comes to his ability to be Pres. And if you think that Obama's states was 'chastisement' - I'm sorry - it was no way close to that.

CNN - a conservative alternative? No way. With the people that backed it to start - there is not a conservative on earth that CNN would not take great pleasure in impailing on anyones sword.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 7, 2008 10:59 AM

Hermes:

One of the disagreements I have with my brethren in the theologically conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is that they still (officially at any rate) hold to the Reformation doctrine that the Roman papacy is Antichrist. (They always frame their claim that it's the office of the papacy, not necessarily the individual holding that office.

Although I disagree with that, at least their understanding of Antichrist is rooted in the actual biblical teaching about Antichrist. If you read the passage in I John that talks about Antichrist--the only place in the New Testament where the term is used, by the way--you find that Antichrist is primarily an ecclesiastical figure, not a political one:

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. ... Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son."--I John 2:18-19; 22, emphasis mine.

So Obama cannot be Antichrist by biblical definition. Antichrist tries to deceive the churches, not rule over the nations. The notion that Antichrist is primarily a political figure comes from applying the term to the description of the beast in Rev. 13.

And as Kevin S. humorously pointed out in his comment on this topic (July 6, 2008 3:06 PM), those folks who are promoting Obama as Antichrist, in addition to their faulty reading of scripture, distinctly lack imagination.

Like I said earlier, though: we should have expected it, I suppose.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 7, 2008 11:28 AM

I do watch CNN and FOX to see what is being reported.

You make my point, especially with Fox (whose chair Roger Ailes was a Bush advisor at a time when he was actively running the network -- if the chairs of any other network were advising Democrats you would have been screaming bloody murder and rightfully so).

Posted by: Rick | July 7, 2008 1:00 PM

Don:

I should be a little more thorough and precise in my particular understanding of the situation. The reason that THE antichrist is not mentioned in Revelation is because anyone who elevates himself above God is AN antichrist spiritually. The second beast is most certainly a political/military leader who gains his power by virtue of the blessing and support of the first beast—that is popularly referred to as the antichrist—but is, when he first appears, the false prophet. This where most people get confused, since Revelation 13:7 states that it is "given unto him to make 'war' with the saints and to overcome them". This is religious/spiritual power with political undertones—not political/military power with religious overtones.

It is the second beast that will make fire rain down from heaven by means of technologically advanced weaponry. He is the one that will introduce the mark that qualifies one to participate in the one world economic system. He is the one that will make an "image" of the first beast and kill anyone that refuses to worship that image. This is where the term "antichrist" (meaning instead of Christ, or in the place of Christ) takes form and may be applied to the first beast.

You see, most people's understanding of Revelation is completely opposite of what is commonly accepted—and that is how Satan deceives the entire world. He puts out a pack of lies—such as Left Behind books promoting an easy way out for fair weather Christians who have never experienced real persecution. He has succeeded in changing God's Law by abandoning the Sabbath in favor of "the Lord's Day". He has promoted the celebration of the Christianized pagan holidays of Christmas and Easter, which have nothing at all to do with Christ or God's plan of salvation that is intended for one and all.

Posted by: Hermes | July 7, 2008 2:32 PM

Posted by: Hermes | July 7, 2008 2:48 PM

'..."hearers of the word" and tell them to do it on their own.'

But many times you really can do nothing until they do 'hear'. We just had MN Teen Challenge at our church and the stories of victory in Christ over addiction were amazing. I can understand a little about adiction - food. But I am clueless about what they have gone through as I don't think that I could score two asprin on main street in my little town.

But it was not until they had reach the end on their rope that they were willing to listen to God and know His Son in a personal way that gave them victory. We can pray - encourage - even try to manipulate the situation. But until they are willing and ready to 'hear' - nothings going to change. The paradyme that I have used in the past is 'when the pain of the situation exceeds the fear of the process, change happens'. They have to take ownership and then things can change. Some people just have a higher pain tollerance than others.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 7, 2008 3:13 PM

Posted by: Rick | July 7, 2008 5:01 PM

too late - no comment.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 7, 2008 5:06 PM

Hey, what happened to Hermes' link to that Obama is anti-christ site? Come on you First Amendment suppressors, I want to keep up with the REAL news from America.

Posted by: canucklehead | July 7, 2008 5:24 PM

There's something ironic and amusing about talking heads weighing the merits of this issue.

When did folks who only show up for weddings and funerals become experts on faith-based initiatives?

Posted by: John | July 7, 2008 5:53 PM

John - as a clergyperson, I represent your implication. I'll have you know I visit the Greens at least 3 or 4 times a week. Why, just today I finally parred the course.

Posted by: canucklehead | July 7, 2008 8:52 PM

Posted by: Hermes | July 7, 2008 9:05 PM

So there are a few that have yelled. There is still free speech in this country isn't there?

Being yelled at for not accepting their point of few lock, stock and barrel? The the Enviromentalist Evangelists Al Gore for one?

Yes it is on both sides of the isle or fence and maybe we should listen to the message and not put so much stock in the messanger? This is what I was told to do when I pointed out the samething that you are talking about.

Goose and Gander

Blessings -
.

Posted by: ModerateladRW | July 7, 2008 10:51 PM

Mod:

Where in my last post did I mention the antichrist? Canucklehead asked where the link went, so I put it up again for his convenience. I never heard anything about Carter being the antichrist, and Reagan wondered if he was himself. Strange that one would doubt himself that much.

Meanwhile, the internet and talk-radio have become major sources of "news" for those with closed minds and open mouths. Few Americans are interested in the facts these days.

Posted by: Hermes | July 8, 2008 9:26 AM

Anytime my friend. I know mod thinks it is a waste of time to contend with the wing nuts that dominate the discussion on such sites, but I worry about those inquiring minds that haven't reached a conclusion yet.

Someone has to tell them the truth before they are irretrievably lost.

Posted by: Hermes | July 9, 2008 11:44 AM