More on “gay marriage”: what was President Obama thinking?

The obvious question arises, what it a political decision for the President to endorse “gay marriage?” The answer is straightforward, but needs a bit of qualification. Buckle up for the ride.

Of course it was political. Everything that a politician does is a ploy of some sort and that is not being cynical. We are inclined to devalue the art of political positioning, but it is a time-honored tradition. Yes, President Obama has declined in popularity because of his decision, but that is not necessarily a signal of his righteous intentions. Now, there is a small distinction here. The President is certainly following his own moral instincts, which (sadly) closely mirror those of the typical American Christian.

The President is doing two things here, and he is pretty smart (even if one does not agree with his position). First, he is immunizing himself from criticism in November. By the time of the General Election, most of the fury will be expended and there is simply nothing new to be added. Secondly, and more important, he is also defusing many of the other moral time bombs that are always ticking away and ready to demolish any candidate of the slightest progressive inclination. How this works is pretty interesting.

President Obama knows that “gay marriage” is gaining momentum in public acceptance. We all know gay people. They are excellent folks. They have parents and siblings who are generally sympathetic. The harsh words of a few political opportunists may play in the deep south and in certain religiously attuned conclaves, but America is generally sick and tired of the abusive tone of public conversation.

This is a somewhat subtle maneuver, and people in Arkansas will hardly notice it, but the President has marginalized the Republican arguments against same gender unions. Yes, Mitt Romney will still speak out at Liberty University, but the developing GOP strategy will include a much softer stance in a larger venue. Just watch and see how much play the Republican owned and operated Fox News gives to the more inflammatory anti-gay rhetoric.

In reality, the Evangelicals have been completely abandoned by the Republican Party. There will surely be plenty of lip service to “traditional marriage,” but not in any way that might cost anybody anything. It is exactly like the abortion debate. The strategy this; lie to the Evangelicals for as long as we can get away with it. It has worked perfectly well in the “sanctity of life” debate for 30 years. For the GOP, there is only one sacred value, subsidies for the rich and corporations.

I know lots of my conservative friends will not believe this. Let me just ask a question about the Republican supposed opposition to Roe v. Wade, faint as it has always been. How’s that working out for you guys? Made any progress?

Republicans still win the White House, and probably both houses of Congress, in November. By endorsing “gay marriage,” President Obama has assured that he will not carry one single southern state and no western states except California and Oregon. Republicans will stage a strong “niche” campaign in the south and other socially conservative strongholds, but the larger image will be “the softer side of Mitt.”

This has a tremendous consequence for the Arkansas legislative races, especially in the Second District. More on that in a day or so. It should also be observed that this developing situation bodes ill for Evangelical Christians and those who profess a serious commitment to the gospel message. Does anybody still have the Holy Spirit’s phone number?

Some conservatives angered by Obama Thanksgiving speech

Here’s the deal. He didn’t mention God.

I must part company with some of my liberal friends who suggest that this is a secular holiday. It is a really big strain, or so it seems to me, to be just thankful to each other for the good things of life. Now, ingratitude is a widespread ill and a day of good-natured back slapping will not do much to soften our hard materialistic American hearts. If one is to be thankful, really sincerely so, it is a good idea to consider the Lord and creator of the universe. Thanksgiving is meant to recognize our human dependence on Almighty God.

Don’t get me wrong. God uses human beings to do his work on earth so we should be grateful when somebody helps their fellow man.  We should praise every good deed and every generous person. Still, human nature is evil. We will always rely on divine assistance.

Of course, President Obama is not the kind to make a show of his religion, and that is just fine with me. Obama has the exact vague belief system that is so typical among Evangelicals and so-called conservatives. All of the above appear to subscribe a similar Universalist doctrine of salvation, so when President Obama passes up an opportunity to spread that erroneous thinking, I am glad.

The President has passed up the crude and politically motivated “prayer breakfasts” where political opportunism is enshrined. You better come pray at our pagan shrine, or you are not really a good American or a true Christian. I appreciate that President Obama has opted for silence on religion and I can only hope that future presidents will follow his good example (fat chance).

Now, before somebody hauls me up on heresy charges, I am not to be included among those who supposedly chase religious opinion out of the “public square.” Catholic bishops have had a bit to say on that and, while I sympathize with their concern, I think they might try a little mirror time if they want to see the real problem. Besides the Catholic loss of credibility, another aspect of the devaluation of religious thought is the over abundance of extreme views. The loudest voices dominate the conversation and do not represent the much more moderate politics that I believe many Evangelicals embrace. Memo to journalists: all practicing Christians are not nuts and you ought to talk to some regular people sometimes instead of the Pat Robertson crowd.

And what if President Obama had mentioned God? I somehow feel pretty darned sure that the vast network of right wing opponents have a set of alternate talking points ready to go for any eventuality. After all, beating Obama is THE most important thing. There is not a shred of concern for the 14 million unemployed Americans or the suffering families.

Hmmmm….. now what exactly did James call “pure and perfect religion?”

Is Mormonism a cult?

I promise this is not “Church Chat with Pat,” but, as you know, lots of the public policy debates end up getting tied into religion. Part of this is a deliberate effort to embarrass political enemies and make them shut up. That’s a dirty trick. Period. It is what some desperate (are they all desperate?) Republican candidates are trying to do with Mitt Romney. It is despicable.

But, is Mormonism a cult? Beats the daylights out of me. The language is descriptive of somebody walking down the street, minding their own business, when out of nowhere comes a bunch of chanting zombies in white robes seizing the unsuspecting person and stuffing him in the trunk of a car. “Cult” conjures up images of jungles, Kool-Aid, and machine guns. The word “cult” may not have an entirely precise definition, but most people sense that it is not very positive.

A better way to look at this might be to look at the boundaries of “orthodox” belief: the so-called “ecumenical creeds,” the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils,the Chalcedonian Definition of the Trinity (the Tome of Leo). I have heard Moron theologians say they believe Jesus to be co-equal and co-existent with the Father. I have also heard Moron theologians turn a little mush on the creeds. I have a lot of questions about Mormon beliefs and my judgment would hardly be helpful. I am just trying to give the ordinary reader some idea that there are actual standards and limitations. This is a religious test, and while government is not asking the questions, it is still the kind of thing our Constitution explicitly forbids (Article VI, paragraph 3).

Now, what is really curious about this (and I am NOT saying that everybody who has raised questions about Mitt Romney is guilty) is that some of the critics have no real idea of what they believe about the Trinity or the person and work of Jesus Christ. Not only that, but I suspect that if you caught some in an unguarded moment, they might say that it really does not matter what anybody believes. In that respect, those individuals are no more “mainstream” or “orthodox” than Mr. Romney.

It may be just a small point, but back in jolly old England in the 17th. century, there were plenty of Church of England bishops who thought (maybe rightly) that the Puritans were a bunch of outrageous malcontents and trouble makers; in other words, a cult. The whiners and complainers got on a ship called the Mayflower and came to a place called America so they could worship in peace without being pestered by an official state funded church.

The Mormons I have known are great people and I say leave every one of them alone, including Mitt Romney.