Letter to the Editor
Cal Thomas/Obama
Published Sunday, June 15, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!June 12, 2008
To the editor:
Cal Thomas presented a misguided critical evaluation of what he says is Obama’s religious position as a Christian. Not surprisingly, Thomas finds that Obama doesn’t measure up to his standard of Christianity. In effect, Thomas disqualifies Obama as a Christian despite Obama’s profession of both faith in Christ and commitment to a well-recognized Christian denomination.
Thomas’ exacting theological critique of Obama missed the point entirely. Theology does not matter here, no matter how Cal Thomas might prefer to slice and dice it. The Constitution of the U.S., in article six, says with respect to the president (and other federal office holders as well): “… but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
For someone like Thomas, a conservative who professes devotion as a Christian to exacting theological standards, it would be helpful if he applied faithfully the only standard that is relevant here. Leave theology to its realm but, as to the presidency and Obama, Thomas should take care to rely on the only document — the Constitution — that speaks to the place of religion in public office.
As a so-called conservative, Thomas fails in his argument because of his convenient disregard of the Constitution’s clear prohibition of a religious test for the presidency. Thomas defiles his own theology as well as our Constitution. We should be watchful of our constitutional principles as the ugliness of this campaign reveals itself in religious bigotry and theological hypocrisy.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Cal Thomas missed the point? I guess there's a first time for everything.
One more person taking their own view points twisting some detail to fit their arguement and regurgitating to any one within ear shot. JoeBtfsplk is correct here today.
I have come to the point that when anyone discusses their religion, or opinions on other's religion, I tune out. It is time for all this God/religion nonsense to exit the public theater.
It is pretty obvious that any criticism of Obama in this election will be deemed as racist and mean spirited. So far, those opposed to Obama have been told not to discuss his wife (who publicly campaigns for him), his racial background, his Muslim roots, his Christian faith (and pastor of close to 20 years), his grandmother, (a "typical white person"), his hippy mother, his lack of experience, his bending of the truth (that he is a racial and political healer), and his middle name (whatever that is). Also comments about Chicago Democratic machine politics are deemed irrelevant.
It is also mean to call his political views leaning toward socialism. But that is what wealth redistribution is, and his tax policies will do exactly that. Obama says that he will only raise taxes on the rich. In my 55 years I have never seen a Democratic administration NOT raise my taxes (except for JFK and I was too young then to be taxed). I am far from rich.
I am no longer certain of Obama's stand on when he would withdraw the troops from Iraq, or about having tea time with terrorists. These views seem to fluctuate.
As for Obama' professed Christianity, and Cal Thomas' criticism, I am not a theoloian and have no meaningful opinion one way or the other. However, Trinity Church is based on Black Liberation Theology, a belief system originated by James H. Cone in the 60s. Cone is a mentor to Jeremiah Wright. Wright was a mentor to Obama until just recently. Rev. Cone is also an avowed Marxist, a belief system he embraced in the 70s. I am not saying that Obama is a Marxist. But he has kept strange company for a POTUS.
"Theologian"
My Daddy taught me a lot of valuable lessons - like "You are known by the company you keep," and Obama has kept some questionable company over the years. If you haven't investigated Black Liberation Theology I suggest you do so before voting.
Morpheus - you may feel it's "time for all this God/religion nonsense to exit the public theater" but that won't happen. Politics and religion are so interwoven in this country that thinking people *must* consider a candidate's religious beliefs as part and parcel of their platform. And in the case of Obama, you need to look twice and dig below the surface.
Of course, the alternative (McCain) ain't no prize either. Personally, I don't think we've got a good presidential option this Fall. sighhhh
beware, in the latter days many wolves will come in sheeps clothing. barack HUSSEIN obama is a...... ? but what's the point anyway? obama's chances of carrying alaska is next to zero. the framers of the constitution had no intention of removing christianity from government. america has always been a christian nation. why do you think we've been so blessed? because of work hard? because we got lucky? in these latter decades we see america moving away from christian values with practices and much of it's population giving it's whole hearted stamp of approval of such. we begin to see those blessings being removed and undone. and people wonder why? of course, they have no idea anymore of how these blessings came to be in the first place as they don't know the one who bestowed them in the first place..
wow... in that last post, the grammer is atrocious. i apologize for that. i was in a hurry.
Gag.
What I don't understand is how so many people think that religion does or should play a role in every decision folks make--- especially the important ones like for whom to vote in November or how to run a country.
Honestly, there are a lot of us out there who don't give a second thought to religion until it's shoved down our throats and we have to ask (sometimes loudly... sometimes with reason) that others stop making it an issue.
Unfortunately, given the last eight years, we are now forced to consider the religious beliefs of the candidates, lest we make the same mistake again. That discourages me more than anything.
For Mr. Eaglin and other anti-religion bigots that live in our beautiful community, let me explain what article six of our constitution means. The line, “but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” simply means that our U.S. government nor any state or municipal governments can create laws which require someone to be of a certain religious persuasion.
As an individual, if Cal Thomas wanted to base his political decisions on what kind of shoes the candidates wear, then that’s his right.
As an individual, I could base my decision for president on what kind of music the candidates have in their iPods. Is it smart to do so? No. Is it my right to do so? Yes.
If Mr. Eaglin wants to be mad at someone, he should be mad at Senator Obama. It was Senator Obama, who decided to make his religious beliefs a central theme to his candidacy. If Senator Obama had only chosen to stick with his usual pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, anti-family, anti-American values, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, now would we?
But no, he wanted to appeal to religious conservatives. Now he and liberals like him, are upset that so many people would actually scrutinize his beliefs.
Whoa there, Mr. Danger. Being something other than "pro-religion" does not automatically make someone "anti-religion", nor does anti-religion equal bigot.
The top 2 Democratic presidential candidates were, and are, no doubt courting traditional Christian voters with their solemn belief in their personal faith. This has been a political strategy, and it appears to gag even their most ardent admirers, although for different reasons. I wont say that it is dishonest, as no one can tell what's in another's heart. But I have my doubts as to whether traditional Christian voters will be very happy with an Obama domestic policy.
It's too bad that McCain is his opponent. But he'll have to do.
Seriously, this "pro-abortion" crap has to stop. Just because someone thinks abortion should be legal - read: safe and accessible - doesn't mean they are "pro" abortion. An abortion is not something we pro-CHOICERS think "every woman should have", like a sexy pair of high heels. Or, in Fairbanks, a good pair of winter boots.
Thank you, Christina! Propaganda lives on, I guess.
Propaganda lives on in every aspect of politics, folks. Neither side is innocent of trying to ram mis-information and belief down another's throat. It'd be nice if everyone would stop it, but since all politicians (left, right, middle) have an agenda (left, right, middle) and some people buy into that agenda, (whatever flavor it happens to be this month) - the propaganda ON ALL SIDES will continue.
Oh yes. We each have the right to make anything an issue - even religion - you can choose to agree, disagree or argue the point.
The right to not be offended does not exist... I actually hope it never exists.
Dana VanDam: I'm highly offended by you telling me I don't have the right not to be offended. There needs to be a law about that.
LOL ;p~
Who cares what Cal Thomas thinks? I thought God was the only one qualified to judge people, not some self-appointed voice of God.
Imusuallyright
“…religious bigotry and theological hypocrisy.” These are the words that Mr. Eaglin himself uses in his editorial. They are not the words of someone who just isn’t religious. They’re the words of someone who is filled with an animosity towards religious people.
I know plenty of non-religious people and they don’t practice a faith because it’s just not for them. I also know plenty of people who are devoutly "anti-religion." They hate anyone who goes to church. They think that anyone who professes a faith in god must be a complete idiot. I know these people. They really do exist.
In the few years since I started practicing my faith, the only people that I’ve heard use the phrases, “religious bigotry,” or “theological hypocrisy” are anti-religion folks. So when I describe Mr. Eaglin, or anyone else, as anti-religious, it’s because their thoughts, words or actions make them seem “anti-religion.”
The way I look at it, Obama's got a decent chance of carrying Alaska if Ron Paul is on the ballot, too. That would split McCain's vote, and there's enough pro-Obama folks in Juneau/Anchorage/Fairbanks to carry the day. It's a long shot, but it's a shot.
So Mr. Danger, if you object to the generalizations, animosity toward religious people and name-calling, why do you follow suit? There was a lot of that in your 9:36 post.
You might call me anti-religion, but that simply means that I find religion distasteful, nonsensical and not for me, but recognize that other people feel differently. If I consider religious people misguided, does that make me a bigot? I have seen more attacks by the religious on non-religious people in my lifetime than the other way around... and for what? What good does it do to intimidate, belittle, threaten, word-twist or brow-beat someone into accepting your god?
Dana-
We do have the right to make anything an issue. I object to being told that what someone--- anyone--- finds to be an important issue need be the same for me. I object to the fact that politics (these days, as always) must include religion. There are very few jobs out there for which it is appropriate to discuss your religious beliefs throughout the interview because there are very few jobs for which it matters. Holding public office is not a job for which it matters.
IUR - I understand your point of view. But for many, religion and spirituality matter very much, and that includes some public officials. Expressing that religion is an important reason in deciding who vote for does not automatically mean that that person is telling you that it has to be important to you, too. People vote their issues, whatever they happen to be. A statement of opinion is not necessarily synonymous with an imposition of values.
"I have seen more attacks by the religious on non-religious people in my lifetime than the other way around... and for what? What good does it do to intimidate, belittle, threaten, word-twist or brow-beat someone into accepting your god?"
Thank you Imusuallyright. I concur.
Our founding fathers were SECULAR...their religion was SCIENCE.
The pledge of allegiance, putting 'in god we trust' on our money, etc, were all vote getting scams of pro politicians long AFTER all the founding fathers were dead.
Religion has no part in politics, and neither does misleading or false information; I advise the moral christians in Fairbanks to study (something besides another cultures journey across a desert 3000 years ago) before posting their ignorance.
BTW, Ron Paul has officially dropped his bid for the presidency, and started a new political party based on THE CONSTITUTION...
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
Wow, thats a novel idea for modern American politics, isnt it?
DenaliGuy---
I dont know about your education, but the birth of the United States was directly related to Christian faith, in all the history that I've read. While the founding fathers, in their wisdom, chose not to impose a specific religion on the people of America, the vast majority of them were devout Christians. Some of them, notably Jefferson, were more secular in their personal views, but they too did not wish to impose secularism on the people. The Constitution promotes freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
It was freedom of religion that first led the Pilgrims to this continent. History not being simple, there were many other reasons that Americans ended up here, not the least of which included the American Indians and slaves from Africa. They also had religious beliefs. Added to the mix. Jewish immigrants have contributed mightily to our history. And Asian people came to America, also with their religious beliefs. More recently, Muslims have arrived in America. With their religious views. There are pagens and witches with their own religious views. Athiests are not persecuted. To say that this is a secular nation ignores an awful lot of people and religions
The truly secular nations in the world's history have been Communist, e.g. USSR, The Peoples Republic of China, Cuba. They despise religion, because it is out of the State's power to control.
DenaliGuy - Not all people who believe are ignorant folk who need to "study" - there are learned people who are religious. Just a note.