This is why I think Obama will win this coming election here in the U.S. Well, one among many reasons; disgust over Bush and the media attention Obama has received during the Democratic primary are other reasons. We know that Evangelicals were key to Republican victories in past elections. Republicans can't win without Evangelicals. And whereas before, Republicans asked Evangelicals to campaign for them, they aren't doing that this time, and basically there is no love lost among the Evangelicals. Now, with a tepid if not downright cold relationship between McCain and Evangelicals, Obama is taking a page from the Republican playbook and actively courting Evangelicals and Catholics. That can only mean trouble for Republicans, and more importantly, the key issues they stand for that we as Christians care most about.
This brings up an important issue. The election is being framed in terms of feeding the hungry -- social justice issues -- versus abortion and gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research. Let's be frank, Jesus, and even the Old Testament, did focus on feeding the hungry and taking care of the poor, with nary a mention, not directly anyway, of abortion and gay rights and so forth. This can give the impression that feeding the hungry is a more important issue. That's what Jesus emphasized, and so should we, the argument might go. But prescinding from the fact that abortion and embryonic stem cell research is murder and thus trump feeding the hungry, what we have to do I believe is look at the culture of Jesus' time and what the prevailing issues were. Gay rights, abortion, and embryonic stem cell research were not a problem. Thus I contend Jesus had no need to address them. Everyone knew that practicing homosexuality was wrong, and it was quite uncommon. Far more common were the poor and their suffering, so Jesus opted to address that first. Plus the scale of the suffering of the poor was such that it cried out to heaven.
If you compared the poor we have in the United States with the poor of the Middle East, you'd see a vast difference. First, poverty was far worse (i.e. more severe) in the Middle East. Second, it was more extensive (more people were affected). Contrary to what the Democrats would have you think, Republicans aren't against social programs for the poor, they simply disagree with the extent with which they should be extended. We have a very good social net in our country despite what anyone says, and the controversy is not whether we should have it, but how much it should be funded. On the contrary, while Republicans are not opposed in principle to social justice, Democrats are opposed in principle to restricting abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research. So while Republicans don't agree with them on social justice issues, they at least get partial credit, while Democrats get no credit on these Christian issues advocated by Republicans. That would be my argument, anyway.
Any Evangelical who would follow Obama is not really an evangelical. He has a hard line voting record of pro-abortion and has supported the partial birth abortion bill. Why someone who calls themselves a Christian would cast a vote for him is beyond me.
Besides, I have SCOURED the internet and have seen no other article stating that the Republicans have "lost the support of the evangelicals".
Beware of what you read. Not everything is truthful and not everything should be taken to the bank.
Such a strange subject. Republicans do not have the market cornered on Christianity. "Evangelicals" are simply Christians who like to beat their chests and proclaim they have all the answers. There are a lot of less rampumctuous Christians who do not reek of selfrighteousness . Democrats will do just fine with sincere Christians.Most of them are just that.
So amw, could you define "self-righteousness" for us as you understand it? Jesus proclaimed he had all the answers. Did that make him "self-righteous"?
Good question Eric. Jesus was the archetype of self-righteousness and to be called self-righteous maybe a comparison to Jesus.
I dunno. I see self-righteousness in terms of those who are righteous in their own eyes -- those who have deceived themselves into thinking they are righteous but in fact are not. It's the opposite of humility.
I think people who equate self-righteousness with moral certainty are mistaken. One can have moral certainty about what is right and wrong without being self-righteous. In other words self-righteousness doesn't have to do with being right (as in correct) but with one's own view of one's own holiness and righteousness (rectitude). The Pharisees are a study in self-righteousness. They thought they were holy because they were following all these laws, but in fact they were missing the important parts. They looked down on "sinners" while clearing themselves of any fault.
Are there Evangelicals like this? I'm sure they are, but I think our friend here is focusing on the moral end of things: that because they profess a moral certainty, an objective, absolute kind of morality, that they must be self-righteous. I don't see that as a definition of self-righteous. Of course, the Catholic Church holds to the same kind of objective moral certainty (although we also believe that guilt is subjective, which protects against certain forms of genuine self-righteousness) and for some reason we aren't getting the same abuse. As I said there are certainly Evangelicals who are self-righteous, maybe they are higher profile than the self-righteous Catholics. I don't know.
Back to whether Jesus is self-righteous. If you defined self-righteousness as following your own standard of righteousness, then it would make sense to speak of Jesus as self-righteous. I suppose and argument could be made for this but I like my argument better. :-)
Your statement:
"In other words self-righteousness doesn't have to do with being right (as in correct) but with one's own view of one's own holiness and righteousness (rectitude)"
I believe to be sound.
Jesus, however, would be both "right" as in correct and we all know how holy he thought he was, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." Those would have been very "self-righteous" sounding words to the Pharisees. My point is that being correct and thining you are correct and righteous should go hand in hand, if you are not deceiving yourself and others.
The problem with the wrongly "self-righteous" is that they are morally wrong and think they are correct and act disordered based on the disparity between what they are and what they claim to be. The properly "self-righteous" are like Jesus. They are morally correct and know it and act in a way that is a reflection of that perfect order between their state of being and their own understanding.