Springtime in the South Carolina Lowcountry

Follow Sunlit Uplands by E-Mail

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

"Pastor to Presidents" Replaced by Gay Bishop


A conservative Christian activist says it's a sad omen for the Obama administration and the United States that Barack Obama has been seeking guidance from the Episcopal Church's first openly homosexual bishop.

The Times of London reports that the president-elect sought out New Hampshire homosexual bishop Vicki Gene Robinson for advice three times during his presidential campaign. Robinson, whose ordination in the Episcopal Church has caused a deep rift within the Anglican Communion, was reportedly sought out by Obama to discuss what it feels like to be "first."

Robinson notes in their three private conversations, Obama voiced his support for "equal civil rights" for homosexuals and described the election as a "religious experience." Peter Peter LaBarberaLaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes Obama's consultations with Robinson show the true tenor of his upcoming administration.

"It looks like Billy Graham has been replaced by a gay bishop. We're moving to, perhaps, our first anti-Christian president; it's beyond post-Christian. Gene Robinson advocates homosexuality as part of the Christian experience," he explains. "Now Bible-believing Christians cannot accept that. Homosexual practice is sinful, as taught by the scriptures. This man [Obama] pretends to be faithful to Christianity, even as he works very hard to undermine it."

LaBarbera suggests Robinson may possibly replace Jeremiah Wright as one of Obama's main spiritual advisers. Wright was Obama's Chicago pastor for 20 years before disassociating with the controversial preacher during the presidential campaign.


7 comments:

CKAinRedStateUSA said...

Pretend Christian Barack Obama doesn't know any better.

So is it a bad omen?

Yes, I guess, if it signals what he thinks constitutes Christianity.

And with pretend-Christian Barack Obaam, I agree with LaBarbera the president-elect will reveal himself to be anti-Christian.

No, wait, he's already done that.

He champions abortion.

He's a friend of the homosexual agenda.

So what's left?

Erosion of or outright assault on the First Amendment?

With him, I expect anything.

CKAinRedStateUSA said...

Pretend Christian Barack Obama doesn't know any better.

So is it a bad omen?

Yes, I guess, if it signals what he thinks constitutes Christianity.

And with pretend-Christian Barack Obaam, I agree with LaBarbera the president-elect will reveal himself to be anti-Christian.

No, wait, he's already done that.

He champions abortion.

He's a friend of the homosexual agenda.

So what's left?

Erosion of or outright assault on the First Amendment?

With him, I expect anything.

Anonymous said...

The scriptures say 'By their fruits shall you know them'; now perhaps, with a double entendre.

Anonymous said...

I expect a lot from him, too, and I see many good omens, although I don't really care about omens but about facts.

However, I find it presumptious of you to define what true christianity is. You will have to accept that each document is open to interpretations and that includes the bible, especially the bible, who contains a wealth of contradicting information.

Secondly, the U.S.A. are not a fundamentalistic religious state like Iran where the clerics define politics. You are quoting the constitution and feel it threatened by Obama, but it is this constitution which clearly separates politics and religion, and which has been threatend by fundamentalistic Christians. So even if he wanted to, the president of the U.S.A. cannot impose basic religious rules on a political society. He has been elected by people with different creeds and vocations and has to try to represent them all. Everyone can exert his religious freedoms for himself but cannot impose them on the whole society. The secular society has to find and manifest its rules outside of the church.

Daniel J. Cassidy said...

Patrick --

Please show me where the Constitution of the United States "clearly separates politics and religion," and how it "has been threatend by fundamentalistic Christians."

The phrase and concept of "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in that document.

While some would extrapolate the establishment clause of the First Amendment to mandate such a separation, I think our Chief Justice would argue that it simply addresses the establishment of a national church.

Upon adoption of the Bill of Rights the Congress asked President Washington to proclaim a day of thanksgiving. From the first Congress to the present day, every session of the House and Senate begins with prayer, presided over by House and Senate chaplains. The Supreme Court sessions also begin with prayer. Congress has always provided chaplains for all branches of the armed services; federal buildings are inscribed with quotes from scripture, and the Presidential and federal oaths, currency and Pledge of Allegiance all include references to God, as do all fifty state constitutions.

The "separation of church and state" phrase originates in a personal letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Connecticut Baptists assuring them that the federal government would not intervene in church affairs. In the past century the ACLU and other secularists have used this private correspondence to suggest an absolute wall banning practices that have been part of the American tradition from the beginning. The founding fathers understood very well that the rights and laws they were upholding have their authority in the divine, natural law. Any law that contradicts that law is invalid and has no claim on anyone.

Are you suggesting that only "secularists" have a right to influence public policy, and that Christians, "fundamentalistic" or not, must check at the door any beliefs, derived from their religious faith, when entering the public square? That is intolerance, Sir.

Anonymous said...

No,I do not suggest that only 'secularists' have a right to influence public policy; every citizen has this right irrespective of his convictions. I was only implying that the law cannot be based on a particular religious faith.

And yes the notion 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the constitution but is traced back to the mentioned letter by Jefferson.

You yourself admit, that the constitution and the amendments are up to interpretations (and different chief justices during time have interpreted them differently). I also think it is partially up to interpretation what the founding fathers thought and what they did not think. Some quotations are quite firm and leave very little room for interpretation, others open the door to a multitude of them. Some of these interpretations have to change with time because the world evolves. The founding fathers were human beings like you and me and could not foresee the globalized world we live in today. So some questions have different answers in different times and we have to discuss the foundations of our political life again and again and this will never stop. The population with non-Christian faith will grow in the next decades. How will the U.S. accommodate this?

I actually think, that the mentioned prayers and oaths which are part of the national tradition, should not be part of political life. They can have as much space as they need in religious life and one generally accepted interpretation of the first amendment is exactly this: religious freedom. Barack Obama is Christian - in contrast to many allegations in political rightwing circles - so no problem there. But imagine the day a Muslim is elected president or a Buddhist - what do you expect him to do with these traditions?

Daniel J. Cassidy said...

No one has suggested that the laws be based on a "particular religious faith," but this nation was founded by Christian people and remains a predominantly Christian nation. If our government is "of the people, by the people and for the people," those people have every right to ensure that government policies reflect what a majority of people believe. Those policies will be determined at the ballot box and by our representatives in the Congress. Those of a "particular religion" or no religion have every right to advance what they believe to be true and just. That is what I am doing in my modest way in writing a blog. I compel no one to read it. Why do my views cause someone who seems to believe he is open-minded and tolerant such consternation?