A minister writes on the Democrats’ (now reversed) “not mentioning of God” in their platform, and the Rpublican reaction to it.
When Jesus separates the “sheep and the goats,” the saved and the unsaved in Matthew 25:31-46, the only question that matters is whether someone cared for the “least of these,” the poor, the naked, the homeless and those in prison.
Those being judged ask Jesus, “‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
Jesus replies, “‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’”
(I admit that when I read the gospels I thought that was the nicest advice I’d ever read.)
But now, look at this comment on that article.
When Jesus separates the “sheep and the goats,” Susan, the only question that matters is whether you believed Jesus is the Son of God.
Anyone can care for the poor, the naked and so on and still fail in this life. That’s the tragedy of where we are. How can the democrats think they’re doing God’s will by killing children in the womb and encouraging homosexual activity as acceptable?
You, of all people, as a representative of God on earth should know these things. Yet you ignore the truth of the Gospel of Jesus.
That should not be a surprise. It is not the first time this has been thrown in the face of liberal religious people. It turns out, President Obama himself has faced that before.
“Take my Republican opponent in 2004, Alan Keyes, who deployed a novel argument for attracting voters in the waning days of the campaign. ‘Christ would not vote for Barack Obama,’ Mr. Keyes proclaimed, ‘because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.’…Alan Keyes presented the essential vision of the religious right in this country, shorn of all compromise. Within its own terms, it was entirely coherent, and provided Mr. Keyes with the certainty and fluency of an Old Testament prophet. And while I found it simple enough to dispose of his constitutional and policy arguments, his readings of Scripture put me on the defensive.
Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, Mr. Keyes would say, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination. Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, but he supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.
What could I say? That a literal reading of the Bible was folly?”
OK people. When are you going to wake up? What will it take for you too see the obvious? You can’t play up the religious language, name the bible as the source of your morality, and expect to defeat the religious zealots that way. They will not only beat you handily in this game, but accuse you of hypocrisy on top of it. And you know what, maybe they have a point. Is that why liberal churches are shrinking so fast?