« Who's Funnier? | Main | Palin: 'Thank the Lord' and 'God has so richly blessed this land' »

October 17, 2008

Hispanic Protestants Move Towards Obama

President Bush won the majority of Hispanic Protestants in 2004, but a new survey shows that Hispanic Protestants are moving away from the Republican Party.

Comments

2nd lawsuit challenges Obama's citizenship
Man demands state verify birth records or remove senator from ballots

Note: It is incumbent upon ALL Secretaries of State in all of the United States to BOTH accurately verify Voters AND candidates. Barack Hussein Obama has sealed his "Hawaiian" birth records and also records in Kenya.

Failure to verify and certify qualification for ALL candidates in a general election by any Secretary of State may be a cause of action (dereliction of duty) and criminal charges may be filed.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111

Also:

The Video that could cost Obama the election

http://www.nextgenerationcorp.com/NextGenBlog/?p=68

First Lawsuit against Obama and the DNC:
http://www.obamacrimes.com

This makes no sense at all to me. Hispanics are family oriented, hard working, pro-life, and honest people. Democrats are none of that. If they are being fooled by Obama's speeches, they need to wake up and realize they need to vote their VALUES.

On June 28, 2006, Barack Obama mocked the Bible including Jesus Christ's teachings on the Sermon on the Mount. Obama stated, "Should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount, a passage that is so radical that it is doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application." Putting campaign issues aside, as Christians, do we want a President who is willing to mock the words of our Lord? I think not. The video is on YouTube if you choose to watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnmS_vULPxw

In fairness to Senator Obama and in response to Rhonda, I don't think that statement (part of a lengthy speech at Jim Wallis's Call to Renewal conference) was meant to denigrate the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus' teachings in that passage ARE radical, and if we applied them to our public policy without exception, it's hard to see how we could justify a Defense Department.

Here is the paragraph from which the statement is taken:

"And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles."

For those who prefer to read speeches rather than watch them, a transcript of the speech can be found at
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

To Larry Collins -- You haven't a clue of what you are talking about. There are tens of millions of "family oriented, hardworking" "honest people," who are Democrats. Some of them are pro-life and some pro-choice. Many of them are Christians. Many of them are Hispanic. Your condemnation of an entire group of people none of whom you have obviously met is just obnoxious.

To Rhonda -- You might want to check out the truth before you spew factually-challenged internet garbage. I watched the youtube video. Have you read the entire speech? It's a thoughtful, not radical, discussion of the place of religion in politics. He's not mocking anything. Here's the link to the entire speech. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

Here's the context of the quote that's got you all riled up:

"But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.

Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.

And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you've got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate.

Across the country, individual churches like my own and your own are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives, and rebuilding our gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.

While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles."

Maybe some of the Hispanics know that there is value in the example of a good, or even GREAT student--a great example for their own children.
In November, we can choose the F student--that should be easy for those that voted twice for the D student--or a very top of the class A student.
This particular A student is a Christian who is willing to talk to "all of God's other children," all of whom have a right to live in this world.

....and thank you Christian Lawyer for your thoughts

I'm hispanic, I'm christian, I have values, I'm pro life, I'm family oriented with 25 years of marriage and I support Barack Obama. God is not republican.

Thank you for the link, however I had already read the speech.

Understand that I respect the Senator Obama's desire to reconcile and bring together the various beliefs in America, although I do not believe his position is scripturally based; I am saddened that the Senator would trivialize Jesus Christ’s teachings, specifically the Sermon on the Mount, to heighten his own position on religious intolerance. The Senator could have just explained his position, nothing more, nothing less without taking Holy Scripture out of context. I do not expect you to agree, but I find describing the Sermon on the Mount as radical, displays irreverence.

Since you referenced the context of Senator’s speech, allow me to respond.

As you are aware, the essence of the Senator’s speech purported that religious tolerance should be politically correct today in America. However, Jesus Christ did not teach tolerance toward various religions and lifestyles; in actuality, Jesus was the least tolerant against sin, unbelief and false religions. This is not to say that God does not love all humankind, because He does, or to say that Jesus did not befriend sinners, because He did, or that as Christians, we are not expected to do the same.

Humanistic views such as the Senator’s stance on religious tolerance has become commonplace today as Christians as well as non-Christians attempt to find common ground with those of different faiths, including atheists. God demands absolute loyalty and does not allow for this type of compromise. Jesus said, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:34-37)

Possibly, I should have provided additional information with my first post. However, it was my first visit to the Christianity Today blog and was surprised to find an article where Christians were willing to set aside the issue of life and death for the innocent unborn because of the economy or position on the war.

The scriptures teach that if we choose first to exalt righteousness and turn from evil, God promises to heal our land as it is righteousness that exalts a nation, not wealth, prosperity or armies. (See Proverbs 14:34, 2 Chronicles 7:14)

Rhonda, it sounds like you believe what Jesus' disciples believed; that Jesus would overthrow corrupt, ungodly governments and have Bible-believing leaders in place. But Jesus did not overthrow the Romans and he stopped his followers from doing so. Why would Jesus want us to overthrow our own secular democracy now, if he didn't take down an idolatrous dictatorship then?

In terms of why Hispanic Christians might support Obama over McCain, many Hispanic people recognize that immigration is a life-death issue, just like abortion. Building a fence along parts of the border just cause people to take greater risks, leading to death in the desert, in rail cars, in trucks. Deaths of children and adults. They see the hostile nativist rhetoric in the Republican party and know that this could lead to people losing jobs unfairly, being persecuted and greater discrimination. I don't think anyone is ignoring moral issues, but there are more things going on than just abortion.

bmhowell - My college years were spent with the Sisters of Providence, a Congregation that believes in non-violent resistance, so of course I would not endorse “the overthrow of our own secular democracy” (your words). It is unfortunate you would make such an accusation because of my statements on religious intolerance; a principle that whether or not is considered acceptable in today's society, is illustrated throughout both the Old and New Testaments, including in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

What I do believe is that we should use legitimate ways and spiritual vigilance to advance the gospel, as well as when making our decision this election. St. Paul reminds us in Corinthians:

“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

A few weeks ago, Dr. James Kennedy gave a sermon on the New Tolerance and why as Christians, we must stand by that Christianity is an absolute religion and remember that we serve a jealous god.

Dr. Kennedy went as far to say that what is at stake for Christians is the core of our spirituality, that at some point because the world sees us as too narrow and that all religions lead to the same place, and that Christians are blindly following suit, that Jesus’ words, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me,” will no longer be acceptable in our society. If that happens, then Jesus died in vain and His resurrection has no meaning.

My faith is not in a person or political party to heal this nation, only God. I continue to pray that in this election, that as Christians we remember that we are not of this world and that we have the power to move this country forward through prayer without having to put aside our convictions, like protection of the unborn.

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will hear their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14)

Milo.... a prolife Christian voting for Obama? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. Voting for a man who said in 2007 that if he gets elected president the 1st thing he would pass is the Freedom of Choice Act. Don't know what that is? It would allow abortions at any time during pregnancy for any reason! No rules, how would God feel about that?

Rhonda --How sad that you believe that Jesus taught "religious intolerance." How in the world can that thought stand in the face of Jesus's teaching that the commandments can be summed up with the direction to love the Lord your God with all your heart and to love your neigbor as yourself? How do intolerance and love go together? Look at the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus used the image of a man from an outcast faith community to show that even those we disagree with can set the standard for living out God's word.

Obama wasn't saying that we should give up our beliefs! He was saying we should look hard at the things that most faith and ethical communities have in common and work on those -- while still holding true to our own beliefs. Calling the Sermon on the Mount "radical" is NOT irreverent. Many pastors of many varying perspectives, including conservative ones, have used the word "radical" about different parts of the Bible. Didn't Jesus come to shake up the religious leaders of his time? Isn't that a little radical?

And, BTW, D. James Kennedy is dead. He's been dead for more than a year, and incapacitated after a heart attack for months before that. The program you saw was a re-run and was certainly not inspired by recent events.

"Hispanics are family oriented, hard working, pro-life, and honest people. Democrats are none of that. If they are being fooled by Obama's speeches, they need to wake up and realize they need to vote their VALUES."

Last time I checked, Christianity wasn't pro-rich and pro-war. Last time I checked, Christianity and our faith's founders, including Yeshua Himself, advocated social justice- care for the poor, the discriminated and the 'little people.'

Also, as an example, yes, it is true that abortion is wrong. But why do you think abortions are on the increase? Have you thought about that? We, as responsible Christians, should be EDUCATING our children on the consequences of unprotected sex rather then living in a fantasy world where non-marital sex does not occur. We, as responsible Christians, should be reaching out to the people on the bottom, so that they don't loose hope in their own futures. Why would they want their children to grow up like that?

It's time that we thought about WHY things occur and work from thereon.

Christian Lawyer - I sincerely thank you for the spiritual fruit you bear! As usual there are divisive comments. Just vote where the results will be PEACE. Milo is right, God is not republican,democrat, conversative, etc. The bible can be easily taken out of content or misinterpreted by all of us. It doesn't mean it's intentional! I have heard well known Christian talk show hosts disagreeing with some of Billy Graham's interpretation. Let's face it, we will never KNOW it all or get it all RIGHT when it comes to the bible! We aren't suppose to! We are to simply be faithful (trusting God) in what He gives us revelation in. How are we going to spread the gospel to have hearts changed if we don't communicate with others who don't know Jesus!! Jesus talked with sinners! He dined with Sinners, etc. We keep looking at the PERSON instead of the SIN! All of my family members and friends are not saved! It took me 38 years to get there myself! Thank God for people who looked at my sin and not at me and just PRAYED ME THROUGH!! They NEVER stopped talking about this man named Jesus Christ! When I am with unsaved people, I have NEVER compromised nor been influenced!! I stay prayed up when I am in the presence of someone who's faith is different, backsliding or is simply not saved! I am their influence, they are not mines!! I have friends who were once buddist, Jehovah Witness, etc. Now they are CHRISTIANS!! Strong Christians at that!! I think the Hispanic community is not looking at Obama THE PERSON, but beyond that! They are SMART people and know he is NOT GOD nor the devil!! Does this mean anyone voting for Obama is going to hell?! I am a strong pro-lifer! Does this mean abortion is a greater sin than LYING everday!! With God, I don't think so!! Let's stop the hypocrisy!

Hi Rhonda,

I guess I don't understand your use of the word "intolerant." If we do not tolerate something, then doesn't that mean we have to work for its eradication? You combined passages about Jesus bringing the sword with passages about nations turning from sin with statements about how Jesus did not tolerate false religions. That all adds up to saying that we should not put up with a government that allows false religions to be practiced. In other words, a theocracy instead of secular democracy. I don't look to the government or society to affirm Christian teachings. With all respect to D. James Kennedy, having the "society" turn against Christianity, even finding our words "unaccceptable," would never make Jesus' sacrifice void. He said we would be persecuted for his sake. But I do not invite persecution, which is why we should support the separation of church and state, and keep the government as a religiously neutral body that protects the rights of ALL citizen (including the unborn, atheist, Muslim, and intolerant.)