At the annual national meeting of the United Church of Christ, one of the most liberal denominations in the world, Democratic Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama took a swipe at the religious right in a speech before the assembly.
Speaking before an enthusiastically supportive crowd, Obama stated that the religious right had used faith to divide Americans rather than bring us together.
He then used some of the religious right's key issues such as prayer in schools, abortion, and homosexual marriage to lash out at evangelicals, all of which supposedly further proves their 'divisiveness.'
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the beliefs of the United Church of Christ, which supposedly represents the Senator's belief system and faith.
The United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the conservative Churches of Christ) is a mainline Christian denomination that has strayed far from its core doctrines, as have most of the so-called 'mainline' Protestant denominations.
For example, the United Church of Christ (designated as the 'UCC') participates in 'the Jesus Project' and its predecessor 'The Jesus Seminar'--a consortium of ultra-liberal scholars who state not only that Jesus did not speak upwards of 85% of what is attributed to Him in the New Testament, but that Jesus in all likelihood did not even exist as a historical figure.
Thus, I would like to ask the good Senator, which has been more divisive--the fact that millions of evangelicals denounce the slaughter of unborn children, or the fact that his own denomination overtly attacks the faith of millions of Catholics, conservative Protestants, and independent Christians?
In addition, the United Church of Christ is long-known for its support of liberal political initiatives, including denouncing the U.S. military and its use in war, the support for women who choose to have abortions, the opposition to school prayer, in spite of the fact that across the globe and right here in America drastic accommodations are being made to MUSLIMS who wish to pray.
The UCC also openly supports gay marriage and allows openly gay clergy to serve as Pastors of its churches.
Do they have a right to these views? Of course they do. This is a free country, and any group, religious, private, or otherwise, has the right to make its own rules and endorse whatever lifestyle or set of beliefs it wishes.
But this is not the point. B. Hussein Obama said that evangelical Christianity is divisive because it supports a traditional view of marriage, denounces the removal of corporate prayer from schools as an anti-Christian motivated tactic, and supports those policies in society and in government that uphold and honor the sacredness of human life.
Perhaps the good Senator also thinks that evangelicals are divisive because they insist that Jesus Christ was a real person and that the Bible is to be taken seriously as the definitive authority on faith for Christians.
Thus, when you hear B. Hussein Obama, Presidential candidate for the Democrats, speak about those awful members of the religious right, remember that this is the man that voted AGAINST allowing medical care and life-support to be given to babies who survive botched abortion attempts.
The man has ZERO credibility when it comes to matters of faith.
And it is highly doubtful that the UCC can call itself 'Christian' with integrity.
Speaking before an enthusiastically supportive crowd, Obama stated that the religious right had used faith to divide Americans rather than bring us together.
He then used some of the religious right's key issues such as prayer in schools, abortion, and homosexual marriage to lash out at evangelicals, all of which supposedly further proves their 'divisiveness.'
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the beliefs of the United Church of Christ, which supposedly represents the Senator's belief system and faith.
The United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the conservative Churches of Christ) is a mainline Christian denomination that has strayed far from its core doctrines, as have most of the so-called 'mainline' Protestant denominations.
For example, the United Church of Christ (designated as the 'UCC') participates in 'the Jesus Project' and its predecessor 'The Jesus Seminar'--a consortium of ultra-liberal scholars who state not only that Jesus did not speak upwards of 85% of what is attributed to Him in the New Testament, but that Jesus in all likelihood did not even exist as a historical figure.
Thus, I would like to ask the good Senator, which has been more divisive--the fact that millions of evangelicals denounce the slaughter of unborn children, or the fact that his own denomination overtly attacks the faith of millions of Catholics, conservative Protestants, and independent Christians?
In addition, the United Church of Christ is long-known for its support of liberal political initiatives, including denouncing the U.S. military and its use in war, the support for women who choose to have abortions, the opposition to school prayer, in spite of the fact that across the globe and right here in America drastic accommodations are being made to MUSLIMS who wish to pray.
The UCC also openly supports gay marriage and allows openly gay clergy to serve as Pastors of its churches.
Do they have a right to these views? Of course they do. This is a free country, and any group, religious, private, or otherwise, has the right to make its own rules and endorse whatever lifestyle or set of beliefs it wishes.
But this is not the point. B. Hussein Obama said that evangelical Christianity is divisive because it supports a traditional view of marriage, denounces the removal of corporate prayer from schools as an anti-Christian motivated tactic, and supports those policies in society and in government that uphold and honor the sacredness of human life.
Perhaps the good Senator also thinks that evangelicals are divisive because they insist that Jesus Christ was a real person and that the Bible is to be taken seriously as the definitive authority on faith for Christians.
Thus, when you hear B. Hussein Obama, Presidential candidate for the Democrats, speak about those awful members of the religious right, remember that this is the man that voted AGAINST allowing medical care and life-support to be given to babies who survive botched abortion attempts.
The man has ZERO credibility when it comes to matters of faith.
And it is highly doubtful that the UCC can call itself 'Christian' with integrity.
1 comment:
Violation of church and state?
Check out full coverage of this at
http://www.ucctruths.com/
And send an email to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (americansunited@au.org) demanding that the UCC lose it's 501(3(c) tax exempt status because:
From the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State perspective, a political speaker at a religious event has one of two distinct roles: Either they are 1) speaking as a candidate for office or 2) speaking as a non-candidate. If Obama was speaking as a non-candidate (since he was supposedly invited over a year ago before he declared) then his reference to campaign pledges if elected to office clearly violates AU's standard for separation. If he was speaking as a candidate, AU's standards call for equal access by the other candidates for the same office... which didn't appear to happen. In either case, his speeches before the Iowa Conference and the General Synod were a violation of separation by AU's own standards.
From the UCC perspective, there should be no confusion as they publicly advocate for the same rules on separation as AU. Furthermore, UCC leaders and conference ministers understood Obama's status as a declared candidate for some time and, by virtue of their reporting on the Iowa speech a week earlier, also understood that Obama's address would be a campaign speech. The UCC clearly and knowingly violated AU's standard for separation.
Post a Comment