A vote for Obama is neither Christian nor conservative.
The following caveats must be considered for those who are now having a seizure:
- The writer does not contend that a vote for McCain, or any other ticket, is a Christian and conservative vote.
- The writer does not suggest that those who vote for Obama are not Christians. Ultimately, only God can make that determination.
The author proposes that the GOP has exploited the conservative Christian right by pushing their emotional "single-issue" buttons (i.e., abortion and gay marriage) in order to retain its vote. I agree whole-heatedly. The Republican Party stopped being conservative after Ronald Reagan left office.
Before continuing, this point must be established. The GOP in no longer synonymous with conservatism. To lump them together, as this author seemingly does, is the logical fallacy of "The Package Deal". It implies that since many members of the GOP in the past were also conservatives, then the Republican Party must be a conservative party. That is no longer the case.
This writer is one voter who no longer associates himself with the Republican party, rather he is one that relates to conservative values and principles. In an effort to retain power, to "get along", to be considered cosmopolitan and progressive, many Republican leaders have abandoned the values that got them to Washington. Rather than represent those who sent them, they have shed their skin so that the main-stream media, who still hates them, will shower them with labels such as "moderates" and "independents".
Many conservatives and Christians are now backing McCain, not because they support him, but because he is the "alternative" to the most liberal candidate ever nominated for office. For them, voting for McCain is a hard bite to swallow, but it is preferred over the poison that will surely and expediently destroy the remnants of conservative and Christian values left in this country. To this writer, a vote for McCain is a delay of the inevitable (see "A Bible Story").
Where the blog's author derails himself is when he reveals his subscription to Liberation Theology, a belief system that combines Marxism with Christianity. Liberation Theology says that the allowance of poverty is one of the greatest sins, that since Christ commanded Christians to help the poor, Christians should do everything within their power to eliminate poverty, including using the state as a means to an end. The author concludes that, since Obama wants to help "... the poor,...the socially disadvantaged and...the economically distressed workers in our society..." a vote for him fulfills the Christian's responsibility to the poor and the sick. He also reasons that the GOP's hesitance to use government as a cure for social ills can be translated into the Republicans not wanting to help the poor and the sick and abandoning the very children they sought to save from abortion.
The above conclusions stand on enormous beams of logical fallacies. The latter will be addressed first.
Republicans and conservatives have been demonized in this fashion for years and years. They don't care about the poor. They don't care about the children. Old people, they will take your medicine. They want people to starve to death. Basically, anyone who doesn't have money, they want to die...
The first fallacy that should be addressed here is the "False Dilemma". In most cases, those guilty of the False Dilemma suggest that there are only two possibilities. In this case, the blogger seems to imply that attending to the needy can only happen through a Barack Obama presidency, that if he is not elected, the poor will continue to be poor, the sick will continue to be sick, the children will continue to starve and die from neglect. Are there really people that believe this to be true? I hope not (see "Pardon The Interruption" for another possibility).
The blog's author uses the False Dilemma as a springboard to launch into a Red Herring fallacy specifically known as a "Straw Man Argument". It is where one takes the opposing argument, twists it, re-packages it, re-presents it, and then argues against the misrepresentation as though it is what was originally said.
Conservatives, not necessarily Republicans anymore, believe that, due to the potential dangers of a larger more powerful government, it should be limited to very basic responsibilities, those outlined in the constitution and principally "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence (see this writer's posts for commentary: "An Interesting Exchange", "Pardon The Interruption", "A Bible Story"). To say that conservatives don't want to help people based on the fact that they don't want to do so through the government is an illogical conclusion. Conservatives, many of them Christians, not only want to help those in need, but they believe that they have been commanded to do so from their Lord and Savior. They do not believe, however, that it should be done via government intervention, that to do so is to enlist the help of an unnecessary evil.
For a second, I want to step back and make an observation. It has amused me to no end the hypocrisy of those who want the government to "intervene" for the "greater good" (i.e., ending poverty). For example, the referenced blogger complained, "Since this country’s founding, Christians have politicized Biblical values..." I have heard other "Conservative-Christian-Obama-Supporters" reference The Myth of a Christian Nation, that to attempt to legislate morality is contrary to Christ's teaching and ministry (a conclusion in which this writer agrees, see "Leave Them Alone"), that He never used government as a means to bring about social change. The same people argue that voting for Barack Obama is a Christian act since he wants to use the government to implement Christian values (i.e., helping the poor, the sick, the children).
Let me get this straight. Government legislation that imposes Christian values such as pro-life laws and gay marriage bans is contrary to Jesus' life examples; however, we should vote for Barack Obama because he wants to mandate that all citizens engage Christian directives such as caring for the poor, the sick, the children. Hmmm...moving on...
The blog's author lobs himself up a "big fat one" with a False Dilemma implying that Barack Obama and the government are the only avenues to help those that Christ commanded his followers to help. He then takes a "home-run cut" with the Straw Man argument saying that since conservatives and Republicans don't want to elect Barack Obama, it must mean that they don't want to follow Jesus and His commandments. He swings, misses, and throws his back out with the "Emotional Appeal".
The Emotional Appeal may be the clearest give-away that this guy is not a conservative. It is frequently used by "The Left" to justify actions that even they know are not the best decisions. Conservatives say, "let private entities care help those who need help." The missions, the churches, the pantries, the homeless shelters, we the people; these are the arms and feet of the Body of Christ, not the government. The liberal counters with, but there are still people starving. There are still people without health care. There are still homeless people. We need the government to step in and get involved.
It is ironic that this argument is even used because the same people accuse conservatives of being mean, cold, and heartless, yet they "appeal" to our "emotions". Yes, we want to help people. Yes, we do help people. Yes, we are just as sad that the world still overflows with injustice and hardships. No, we do not believe that we should solicit socialist ideas that have already proven unable to eliminate these problems. We will not make things even worse by panicking, abandoning reason, and turning the keys over to Barack Obama and the government.
Ultimately, the blog's author, and other "Conservative-Christian-Obama-Supporters" summarize their support by saying that Obama is a Christian and the GOP is not, that it only throws the Christian right a bone from time to time. Their views are rooted in Liberation Theology that lists apathy towards poverty as one of the greatest sins. With this doctrine, they judge conservatives and Republicans as being guilty of this sin. Above, it has been shown that this is not true. Instead, it is a complex web of logical fallacies used to trap those who "feel" their way through life.
"Conservative-Christian-Obama-Supporters" contend that he is a Christian, that his past actions and future plans embody the Christian faith. As mentioned previously, this writer is not qualified to asses whether or not Barack Obama is a Christian; however, the premise that his "fruits" are those of a Christian tree requires that one disengage intellectual thought and check in at the "Cuckoos Nest". Since this sanatorium seems to filled beyond capacity, the next post will examine this subject.
By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment