Heather Rosema of Grand Rapids, Michigan, is precisely the kind of Christian voter that Senator Barack Obama covets.
Rosema, 41, chose George W. Bush in 2000, when she put greater emphasis on issues like abortion and gay marriage. This year, she intends to vote for Obama.
Rosema, a member of Roosevelt Park Community Christian Reformed Church, sees a true man of faith in the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. “He talks about God very easily,” said Rosema. “I think that I hear that from him. They seem to be a Christian family.”
Mike Langerak, meanwhile, remains unimpressed.
“Obama has got a good line. He presents himself well. But his walk does not follow his talk,” says Langerak, a 50-year-old roofing contractor from suburban Hudsonville who also attends a Christian Reformed church.
I am not a Protestant. That said I will never never never vote for a man who supports late term abortions. If he were the only one on the ballot I would stay home.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
As a pro-life person I have tired of voting for pro-life candidates who talk a good game but never deliver. We have had more pro-life Presidents, 12 years of a pro-life Congress and guess what, we still have abortions.
I no longer use the pro-life issue as a litmus test for candidates. At this point I have not made up my mind as to who I am voting for, but I will no longer make the singular issue abortion as determining who I am voting for.
Actions speak louder than words. One of the truest things ever said.
Startling realization: Satan’s presence is felt in the world.
Option 1: Give up and ignore Satan’s actions. Perhaps even go along with some of them because you’ve given up.
Option 2: Follow the teachings of the Bible even if you are discouraged. Persevere.
I think the core issue in this election is the composition of the Supreme Court as replacements are appointed for retiring Justices.
I have supported pro-choice candidates when there weren’t credible alternatives or the office didn’t really impact on the subject. And I have raised the same complaints as Jim raises in #2. However, the situation today is radically different than 20 years ago, when the first president Bush appointed David Souter. In fact, the Supreme Court is far closer to a judicial, rather than a legislative, body than it was 8 years ago. It is reasonable to suppose that the next president will be able to tip the scales with decent appointments and we will see more issues (including abortion) returned to the political process, where they belong.
Which is only one reason to not vote for Senator Obama. I agree with him about very few issues, and I don’t think he has the experience or judgment to be the president.
Interesting #1. I have been saying the essence of your second sentence when asked in our household to justify my voting intentions, and am accused of being a Single Issue Voter, by our teenager. Now I am having to research the S.I.V. to defend my position! Why should this be? Isn’t it obvious that the Party of Abortion aborted too many of its future voters?
The idea that John McCain, who barely even mentions his faith and is a consummate apologists for his Democrat colleagues is somehow the more “Christian” choice is off my radar.
Pro-life voters in my Michigan county returned to office three different times a, and I say this realizing it’s not very nice, “moron” who did nothing while in office, but who will now collect lifetime retirement and health benefits for his service simply because he was pro-life.
We still have abortion in Michigan and a moron with lifetime benefits simply because people would not vote for an intelligent candidate with ideas for bringing back our recession-adled state simply because they see one issue above all others.
Sorry, I want an end to abortion as much as anyone, but as long as we make it the defining issue, we are worrying about the peanuts while the elephants walk by.
Those who support the sanctity of life, don’t see the sanctity in the lives of 4,000 men and women sacrificed to a lie in Iraq, by a pro-life President who put our best and brightest in harm’s way on a whim. The same guy who battled his era’s enemy, the Vietnamese, in the National Guard in a southern U.S. State. (McCain certainly has an edge there).
The same people who rail about abortion should be a the forefront of not putting to the slaughter men and women who are needed at home to defend our own shores and take care of their own live children.
So pardon me if I evaluate both candidates on the totality of the issues and not just one.
Um, ok, thanks for responding to my question, #6.
Wow, Jim (#6) – I’m against the Iraq War, myself, but I wouldn’t put it on a moral par with the legally protected murder of a million babies a year. It’s important to remember that Senator Obama even opposed saving babies in the case of botched abortions. Of course, when they suck out the brains and crush the baby’s skull, you don’t have that problem.
And I would have to note that almost every pro-choice person I have known would never think of voting for a pro-life candidate. So why does the “one-issue-voter” thing only apply in one direction? For that matter, I remember hearing both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama promise to appoint pro-choice supreme court justices and I never once heard “litmus test” thrown at them.
Something to think about – written to Catholics by Archbishop Chaput:
[blockquote]What is a “proportionate†reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.[/blockquote]
Wow, what a statement! You won’t find me voting for a pro-choice candidate with that kind of monkey on my back….
Jim, #6 – I think your reasoning is flawed. While I agree with the catastrophe of the sacrifices in Iraq (those of our own children, but also those of Iraqis), I agree with #8 one can’t take a million babies yearly and compare that with 5000 US men and women over 8 years. Neither is acceptable, but I wouldn’t try to make them comparable. Bush has done a number of things poorly; however, his Supreme Court appointees are, in fact, supremely good choices. While I’m not 100% certain McCain will appoint Supreme Court Justices I approve of, I am 100% certain Obama will appoint ones I don’t approve of – because he has said he will and his votes support what he says. We are amazingly close to a tipping point on the Supreme Court – and also amazingly close to losing the opportunity to change this abomination for the rest of our many of our lifetimes. To vote for Obama is, truly, to vote for abortion – if he wins, at least two and up to four justices will retire during the next 8 years (as I understand it from reading somewhere else).
As to #5, what is wrong with being a SIV? I used to use that as an epithet of sorts, but I’ve come to believe that Christ has us be single issue in our approach to life – it is all about the Kingdom – so why is being a SIV a bad thing? It means, in this case, you are passionate for justice, passionate for equality, passionate for the respect of the most basic aspect of humanity the State can recognize – life. Be gracious with your teenager because he/she is young and passionate, but also be clear that the road of abortion is racially unequal, it is unjust and it is, on the most basic level, wrong.
This is one young evangelical happy to vote Obama.
This is one young evangelical who won’t be voting for either candidate.
In my town, I haven’t found one friend, either in their thirties or twenties, who will be voting for Obama. Not one, so far.
The whole “will evangelicals vote for Obama” line that the media is taking is mere hype – at the end of the day the percentage of folks who claim to be evangelical who vote for Obama will be the same percentage as who voted for Gore or Clinton.
Obama is certainly on the wrong side of the abortion issue, but in addition to that he’s just patently unqualified to be President.
The youngest prime minister in Britain’s history presided over the abolition of the slave trade, as did one of the youngest and least qualified Presidents in America
Most evangelicals will vote for McCain. A small percentage may decide to vote for Obama – more so than previous Democratic candidates. It seems that evangelicals are thinking about wider issues nationally, such as the environment, AIDS and poverty – all of which are also “pro-life” issues.
I believe the formal RC standpoint on electing pro-choice politicians is that a Catholic cannot vote for someone BECAUSE they are pro-choice. One can still vote for a pro-choice candidate.
There are other ways to decrease abortions without criminalizing women. Abortions decrease when women have guaranteed healthcare, access to all other forms birth control, and men have jobs. These are much less statist.
A bit more from Archbishop Chaput – describing his own experience of suporting President Carter:
And his thought about those who “personally” abortion but will vote for pro-choice candidates on other grounds:
“There are other ways to decrease abortions without criminalizing women.”
Yes there are. The doctors could be charged with murder for hire.
I agree that many evangelicals will respond to Sen. Obama’s overtures, but much of that response will not be positive.
Read “ObamaNation”. Obama preferred the use of the word “Fetus” over “Child” in a third trimester abortion law in Illinois. His stuff is reminiscent of stuff Fidel Castro said before he actually took over Cuba in 1959. Nobody thought Castro was a Communist.
wow
ObamaNation is a piece of hack literature. If you want to know Obama check out who is advisers are. the one example #18 gives could apply to most democrats.
Calling Obama a communist is inaccurate and irresponsible. Simply put, it is guilt by association – indirect association. The guy taught at one of the most conservative schools in the country and was well-liked by conservatives. His economists are libertarians – more so than Bush’s. The plain fact is that Obama will run from the center.
If you want to know about Bush, however, check out Thomas Frank’s new book.
“Calling Obama a communist is inaccurate and irresponsible”.
The comment was:” His stuff is reminiscent of stuff Fidel Castro said before he actually took over Cuba in 1959. Nobody thought Castro was a Communist”. Mr. Wilkins, Obama could be a Communist? Many suggest he is a Marxist, as well as his wife. I did not suggest as much. I am simply suggesting that he says very little of substance on any subject requiring a yea or nay. It takes a great deal of effort to never vote either for or against any bill while a member of the Illinois legislature, but, rather, to vote a straight “present” on every item presented. Very strange behavior. Castro was a sly devil.
“If you want to know Obama check out who his chief advisors are”
Comment: His chief advisor is one Mr. Axelrod, who specializes in making black candidates acceptable to white and other non-black voters.