Christians Should Be Appalled At Politicians Who Invoke The Name Of Christ

2007-03-06
By

From the Associated Press:

“Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.

Edwards, in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country’s willingness to go to war ‘when it’s not necessary.’”

Liberals complain when conservative politicians claim that Jesus is against homosexuality, against abortion and in favor of a flat tax.

But progressives should also protest when a Democrat injects religion into the political realm. A pastor speaking to his congregation has every right to channel Jesus and speak in his name. But a politician, representing Americans of all religious persuasions, has no right to opine on the political leanings of Jesus.

I’ve read the Gospels countless times, and I don’t remember Jesus sharing his views on abortion, homosexuality, the flat tax or pre-emptive wars.

It’s totally irrelevant what Jesus thinks about any political issue, he’s not the running mate of any political candidate.

John Edwards is shamelessly pandering to “people of faith” by stating that children should have private time to pray at school. There is nothing prohibiting students from silently praying anytime school is in session. As long as there are pop quizzes, there will be prayer in the schools.

Mr. Edwards, don’t tell me what you think Jesus feels about the poor or the Iraq war; tell me how you will address these important issues.

This secular columnist shouldn’t be the only one speaking out against mixing politics and religion; Christians should be the first ones to protest when a politician cynically brings up Jesus for political expediency.

5 views

  • conservativation

    RPR you are correct in this. As a Christian and a conservative I am not encouraged by ANY politician invoking Jesus in their remarks. Sure, I am glad to know if, in my opinion (and it has to be opinion because no man can know the true heart of another with regard to religion, especially in the positive proclamations of it) a politician is being true to what, if they really are a believer, is the uncompromisable source for the truths on which they legislate. Its a slippery slope, and one that begs for less and less sincerety, when politicos pander to Christians it is obscene. Listening to Hillary preaching in Alabama was equally troubling, as it is when republicans do it as well.

  • PolishKnight

    RPR has apparently discovered that politicians “pander” to special interests! Also in the news, when it rains people get wet!

    Robert, it’s a fact of life that politicians attempt to gain votes by pandering and appeasing the diverse interests of their constituency even when they conflict with each other. This behaviour is referred to as “two faced”. It’s nothing new under the sun.

    Your exasperated, hyperbolic tone comes across as either naivity or the same kind of cynical “pandering” that you are criticizing.

    And I think it’s safe to say that Christ understood this in his time.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/the-gonzman/ The Gonzman

    I have no concern when a politician invokes religion – but if he or she is going to do it to “look respectable” and seek photo-ops of them piously carrying their Bibles into church, they should jolly well expect their religious leaders to call them on walking the walk, and not just looking reverent.

    I do agree, though, that the Decalogue has no place in courthouses and other such government buildings. The government buildings aren’t worthy to display them.

    Maybe after some work, and establishing some integrity they might be.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/the-gonzman/ The Gonzman

    Oh – “No religious test” for public office, Robert. Includes tests for secularism.

    Shame on you.

  • mruffolo

    Hillary Clinton delivers private pro-’gay marriage’ speech to homosexual activists

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) that she intends to make sure “nothing stands in the way of loving couples, gay or straight, who want to adopt children.”

    Clinton also reaffirmed her support for homosexual civil unions by announcing her co-sponsorship of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, which would grant the same benefits to homosexual partners of federal workers as those given to legal spouses.

    LaBarbera says. “It’s astonishing to watch the evolution of liberals,” he observes. “Once they start down that road of the homosexual agenda, it seems as if it’s a matter of a few years before they’re going all the way.”

    “Liberals like Hillary and Obama are playing a very sneaky game in my view,” the pro-family advocate notes. “They’re for homosexual marriage — it doesn’t matter what you call it. If you’re giving all the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples or unmarried couples, it’s basically marriage,”

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/03/hillary_clinton_delivers_priva.php

  • KVolz

    I do not like it when politicians use religion to help them gain ground politically. It seems like they are “using” God. And you are right, kids can pray at church even when there is no quiet time. Although I am not against quiet time, it wasn’t just for prayer, it was for meditation or anything else that could be productive.

  • chas

    RPR This is the typical suppession of rednecks by secularists. You ignore the reality that throughout the history of the world all dominant cultures had slavery. The Great Wall of China was built by slaves. The pyramids in Egypt were built by slaves. The book of Esther was about the slavery under the Persians. The Romans for a thousand years survived by making the people they conquered slaves. The Muslims for a thousand years did the same and still practice slavery.

    The only great world empires that outlawed slavery are Great Britain and the US, what the bible is refers to as suffering and oppression, because slavery was made a political issue rather than a religious one. The only reason they outlawed slavery was because of their belief in Jesus. But you secularists are so embarrassed by Jesus you want all references to him banned. You hate what has made the US good. George Washington said you are not patriotic if you give the finger to our traditional religion and morality. You want redneck Christianity totally suppressed. This will result in relativism, social chaos, and despair.

  • midcitiesNCP

    Thats funny! Edwards should be struck down by lightning especially after he sat back and did nothing to his employees on his campaign for totally trashing God and Christianity in a very despicable manner.

    Typical Liberal though…Votes for everything that is detestable by God, then has the cajone’s to actually pray about something when in trouble. Very Laughable!
    But for once I semi agree w/ RPR in that Prostituting oneself out like that for political gain is wrong and the people arent stupid and see right through their deception. McCain is just as bad.

  • http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/ christianj

    Unbelieving hypocritical lefties should have the decency to disregard issues, topics or persons they have denigrated themselves.






Search