Give Me That Old Time Religion
October 5th, 2007 by Dave
Have you noticed lately how socially liberal politicians are seeking to wrap themselves in the blanket of religion? At least it’s proof that they recognize how faith can be a powerful and influential force in the political sphere. Nevertheless we would be wise to consider such newfound religiosity with a healthy dose of cynicism and circumspection. Allow me to suggest this simple litmus test:
Is someone’s religion informing their political viewpoint, or have they gotten it backwards with political viewpoints attempting to inform religion?
No party has a monopoly on faith. And it has been very encouraging to see candidates dialogue about the role that religion can properly fill in guiding their decision-making.
But we must also be watchful in order to discern when political motivations seek to co-opt the church for nefarious purposes. Such is the case with the Fall 2007 forums at St. Francis Episcopal Church in Stamford, where the homosexual lobby seeks to continue its infiltration and exploitation. The following guest speakers will be hosted by the church:
- Oct 7th – Sen. Andrew McDonald, a leading advocate of same-sex marriage in CT
- Oct 14th – Darren Spedale, pro-SSM author of “Gay Marriage: For Better or Worse”
- Oct 28th – Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton, pro-SSM activist from NJ Episcopal Church
- Nov 4th – Anne Stanback, executive director of “Love Makes a Family”
The goal is clear. Social activists seek to consolidate their gains within the Episcopal Church, to ensure that its members are brought even more firmly within the pro-SSM camp. For those remaining Bible-believing Christians within the ranks of these congregations, it will be yet another round of indoctrination in the new theology where the spirit of inclusion is thought to trump the Holy Spirit and God’s unchanging moral law. May heaven help them to withstand these lies, and to realize that their own clergy are actively enabling a transformation from sacrament to sacrilege.
As a nation, we are so desperately in need of a spiritual revival. For politicians whose actions are truly reminiscent of the song “Give Me That Old Time Religion” – who honestly acknowledge the need for faith, and who earnestly seek its guidance in matters of governance – we should all be expressing our thanks in prayer. But for those who sing a dissonant version of that song, as if to say “I need some of that old time religion in my profile, to better portray myself and appeal to the electorate”, we ought rightfully to identify them as hypocrites.
Are we to presume that man can rewrite God’s law? The answer is given in His Word:
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3)
I the LORD do not change. (Malachi 3:6)
I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right. (Isaiah 45:19)
One more thing we should note. So often the supposed principle of “separation between church and state” is trotted out when necessary to silence the advocates of conservative family values, and yet it never seems to be a problem when religious allies can be found for the socially liberal agenda! If it’s OK for politically motivated speakers to give a church lecture series to sway opinions, how can anyone legitimately object to religiously motivated speakers who seek to influence opinion in the public square?
The planned forum on Oct 7th with Sen. Andrew McDonald has been postponed because of the death of his mother, former State Representative Anne McDonald.
The Government Accountability Office’s newly forming union is in trouble. A small number of employees from the GAO’s gay and lesbian community are seeking to get extra seats on the council for the purpose of forwarding an agenda that is anti-family. The leader of the gay and lesbian group, at the last staff meeting open for comments, argued that the federal employees in the GAO should not get Christmas off, but rather should have a floating holiday.
Employees who have said that there should not be a special seat for to represent homosexual employees (noting there is no special seat for families, other single people, or any religious group) are being intimidated and threatened. They are being shouted down.
What’s the matter with a floating holiday?
While some folks have accused “GAO Union” of fabricating his/her story because of a lack of supporting documentation, it seems to me that it is genuine.
Take a look at the description of their interim governance structure at http://www.gaoanalysts.org/HTML_Pages/Interim_Governance.htm
Why do they need a dedicated union representative for LBGT interests? And what really is the purpose of the 2 additional “undesignated” diversity seats? Are they simply “representative at large” positions, or are they being set aside with the intention of inviting additional LBGT representatives to have a seat within the union’s governing body?
Setting aside for the moment any question of religion or morality, this plan is quite simply an affront to democratic representation. Why are the following demographic groups deemed equivalent and each worthy of a single diversity seat within the governance structure?
Asian — 4% of the population
Black — 12% of the population
Disabled — 18% of the population
Homosexual — 2% of the population
Hispanic — 15% of the population
Yet another example of the squeaky wheel getting an undeserved and disproportionate voice in governance.
Did anyone other than myself question GAOUnion’s claim? It certainly is difficult to tell, given that questioning GAO is apparently against the rules here.
I have written to the GAO Union for clarification. While I realize said clarification will not be published here, I’ll let you know what they say. I’m sure you’ll be interested.
Dave,
As your concern as voiced seems to be that there is a disparity in the representation afforded the various minority groups, what do *you* suggest would be a fair number of chairs for each of the minority groups listed? One chair for homosexuals at 2%, 2 chairs for Asians at 4%, 6 chairs for Blacks at 12%, and so forth?
Alis,
It was just you. Sorry your message got deleted.
It is actually worse than the first post. Right now, it appears the union will not even allow a vote on the council structure — as it had promised — and instead is going to force this unrepresentative structure down the throats of GAO employees.
If you don’t believe me call 301.565.9016 and ask for Julie, Paul, or Greg … then ask if this is true. That is the number for the union.
Alis,
You ask an interesting question. Let me rephrase it and reflect it back to you in order to clarify and illuminate the problem with this way of thinking. How many representative seats ought to be set aside and reserved exclusively for a particular group on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability or sexual orientation? Can you imagine the outrage if we started saying “this seat within our government is reserved for people who are [fill in the blank], and all others are ineligible for election to it”? I would hope that if you’re genuinely opposed to discrimination, it should be wrong all the time – not just when it’s politically convenient. I am at a loss to explain why some believe a special privilege like this is warranted on the basis of such factors. The principles of democratic representation call for equal access by all potential candidates.
By the way, I’m still waiting to see if anyone responds to my original article, which had nothing to do with the GAO Union situation!
Great post Dave!!
You made a very salient and logical, final point:
“If it’s OK for politically motivated speakers to give a church lecture series to sway opinions, how can anyone legitimately object to religiously motivated speakers who seek to influence opinion in the public square?”
Tony Perkins takes on Giuliani
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7008.html