Commentary

Are Democrats sincere when they profess to be religious?

15 Comments

Here’s an article from the American Thinker about the Mormon Harry Reid and the Catholic Nancy Pelosi. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

It is beyond ironic that a Mormon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and a Catholic, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, are in charge of passing ObamaCare. If passed, the legislation will federally fund elective abortions in every state. Reid’s and Pelosi’s respective religions, both of which (at least according to the churches’ official doctrines) ardently oppose abortion, are letting them get away with it. Apparently, in this day and age, the powerful are exempt from following God’s laws.

What about Nancy Pelosi:

Nancy Pelosi, purportedly Catholic, has long been an open proponent for abortion and today is the leading champion for nationally funded abortion. Pelosi was granted an audience with the sitting Pope. The Pope merely criticized Pelosi for her position and failed to take any disciplinary action for Pelosi’s open “propaganda campaign in favor” of abortion. Meanwhile, Pelosi’s local priest in San Francisco continues to give her communion — even though the Pope has stated that those who support abortion should not take part in the Catholic sacrament.

Harry Reid has a “Temple-recommend” in the Mormon Church:

Only the most obedient of Mormons are given “temple recommends.” These recommends allow faithful members access to the Church’s sacred temple ceremonies. Harry Reid, despite his vocal and public support for legislation that provides federal funds for abortion, is known to have such a “temple recommend.”

The author of the article condemns the churches for refusing to discipline these two pro-abortionists. But I think the more significant point is that Democrats think that church is just a club. They don’t really go to Church to subject themselves to a set of moral standards and moral obligations – it’s all for show.

15 thoughts on “Are Democrats sincere when they profess to be religious?”

  1. Let me say it again: you can’t be pro-choice and be a Christian.

    (Yeah, yeah, spare me what you believe to be righteous indignation and ask yourself this: would Christ have been pro-choice? Under any circumstances? Anyone with even a shread of honesty wouldn’t need to think about this for more than two seconds before reaching the only possible answer: NO.)

    Like

    Reply

  2. I completely agree with ECM. It is impossible to be “pro-choice” and also be a truly converted Christian guided by the Holy Spirit.

    wgbutler777

    Like

    Reply

  3. I think that the article, or who ever wrote it, does not understand the workings of religion. The LDS church cannot dictate to anyone their personal beliefs, and neither can the Catholic Church. That is between the individual and God.

    As I am not Catholic and do not really understand that side I will only make one comment on the LDS part.
    It is not the “Most Obedient” members that are given recommends. There are a series of questions that are asked, and if all are answered satisfactorilly the person is recommended. No where does it ask about beliefs on abortion. Also, the questions are, in general, up to the individual to dicide what is the right answer. When asked “Have you done anything that could make you unworthy to enter the temple” the person simlpy must give an honest “No” and that is that. If Reid honestly does not believe that his involvement in the abortion issue is enough to make him unworthy he is good. If he is dishonest, again, it is between him and God.

    ECM: There are times when abortion is justified, and Christians in all denominations should understand this. There are not common, but do exist. This would include rape, as well as health risks to the mother that endanger her life.

    Like

    Reply

  7. I don’t think you can make the case that rape is a justifiable reason for abortion, that is, certainly not from a Christian perspective. The child had no part in the rape. GHW Bush said it best when he said that he thought with pregnancies by rape there are two victims, and indeed there are. If we play the “what would Jesus do” game here, there’s no way we can say that He would approve of aborting a child conceived during a rape. No. The only “justifiable” abortion is one that takes place to save the life of the mother.

    For the Spinster,

    No Christian is “pro-war” just because he may see a justifiable reason to engage in war. Just as one would not be keen on an abortion even when the mother’s life is endangered by the pregnancy, yet realizes a choice must be made. Christians are often put in positions where a choice between evils are forced upon him. To choose the lesser of the two when no third option is available does not indicate the Christian is “pro-” anything, but only that he is accepting the responsibility of making the choice at all. Often, not making the choice is equal to choosing the worst scenario.

    Play those games elsewhere.

    Like

    Reply

  8. Dude, you are just making exceptions for your interpretation of the text. This kind of killing is “justified.” This kind is not. Or: discussion of abortion is relevant. Discussion of war is “a game.”

    Show me where in the sixth commandment that language exists.

    Like

    Reply

  9. Marshal

    I would agree that Rape is not as justifiable. However, the effect of rape, especially when it results in pregnancy, can destroy the life of the mother. Maybe not physically, but deffinitely emotionally and mentally. As such, in the early moments after the rape an abortion is not unchristian. I would say that all victims of Rape should have an abortion within a week, long before any signs of pregnancy occur. However, I am willing to give them the first trimester before denying the right.

    McSpinster
    Genesis 9: 6 “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man”
    Seems that God has commanded us to kill here.

    1 Samuel 15: 2-3 “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

    This was a command by God to not only go to war, butt to start one. And let us not forget the command to completely wipe out the canaanite people when Israel came into the promised land, which they were chastised for not doing.

    Anyone who actually reads the Bible and says that war is not justified by quoting one simple verse does not understand the workings of God and is picking that which he wants from the text.

    Like

    Reply

  11. McSpinster

    I am not sure what you meant by your last post. However, in regards to the 6th commandment, if you cross reference this with the original Hebrew (or at least the oldest copy we now have) the Hebrew word designates the killing of the innocent, or murder. It is not an all inclusive word like the english word “Kill”

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thanks for clearing that up.

      Here is an article on it by a prominent professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary.

      His qualifications are here. He is an expert in Hebrew language.

      Excerpt:

      Those of us who are familiar with the original Hebrew text of the Bible find frequent occasion to whine about inaccuracies and misleading expressions in the translations that are in use among non-Jews. Many of these discrepancies arose out of patently theological motives, as Christian interpreters rewrote passages in the “Old Testament” so as to turn them into predictions or prefigurations of the life of Jesus. Some of the mistranslations, though, are harder to account for.

      For me, one of the most irksome cases has always been the rendering of the sixth commandment as “Thou shalt not kill.” In this form, the quote has been conscripted into the service of diverse causes, including those of pacifism, animal rights, the opposition to capital punishment, and the anti-abortion movement.

      Indeed, “kill” in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb “harag.” However, the verb that appears in the Torah’s prohibition is a completely different one, ” ratsah” which, it would seem, should be rendered “murder.” This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

      It is, of course, not just a question of etymology. Those ideologies that adduce the commandment in support of their gentle-hearted causes are compelled to feign ignorance of all those other places in the Bible that condone or command warfare, the slaughter of sacrificial animals, and an assortment of methods for inflicting capital punishment.

      The KJV is a poor translation of the Bible. If you know the history of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus. Get an NASB. That’s the most literal translation available, except for the original Koine Greek itself. Here’s the relevant verse from the NASB.

      Like

      Reply

  12. I like what the guy said, but I still prefer the King James translation to any other. It just takes a little more effort to understand it.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to McSpinster Cancel reply