October 25, 2004
Kerry speaks on that which he does not know: Faith
Today Kerry gave his big “Faith” speech in an attempt to fool the faithful into voting for him. I’ve been silent on the issue for a couple of weeks now, but if Senator Kerry feels like he’s man enough to bring it up (and make it the topic of a speech), then I guess he’s man enough to take it.
You can read the full speech at my link above, but needless to say it is full of deceptions. First, Kerry starts out about his faith providing strength and then quotes James:
In the Book of James we are taught: "It is not enough, my brother to say you have faith when there are no deeds...Faith without works is dead."
Okay, here’s where I literally choke. When Kerry quotes “Faith without works is dead,” it bothers me a great deal. Why? Because he follows up with this drivel:
My faith, and the faith I have seen in the lives of so many Americans, also teaches me that, "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me." That means we have a moral obligation to one another, to the forgotten, and to those who live in the shadows. This is a moral obligation at the heart of all our great religious traditions. It is also the vision of America: "E Pluribus Unum." The ethical test of a good society is how it treats its most vulnerable members.Who among us is more vulnerable today than the 8 million Americans who are out of work? Who is more vulnerable than the 45 million Americans without health insurance? Who is more vulnerable than the parents who have to choose between food and medicine for their children? Older Americans - our parents and grandparents - should not have to take bus trips to Canada to afford the medicines they need to live -- and live healthy lives. No mother who gets up and goes to work every day should have to raise her children in poverty. That's why we have to raise the minimum wage, ensure equal pay, and finish the job of welfare reform, so we can honor work and once again grow the middle class instead of growing the number of people in poverty. [Ed. Note: my emphasis]
Hmmm. Let’s see, John. Maybe the unborn? Maybe those who are being killed to fund embryonic stem cell research which has not resulted in anything remotely resembling a cure? Oh, and by the way, that’s over 6 million babies a year, John, not counting the embryonic research murders or the escalation of abortion you're seeking. Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me, indeed.
The simple fact that he has the gall to quote that passage of Scripture speaks to his moral blindness and decadence. That passage pushes the intellect to consider the unborn and John Kerry wants to start using Federal funding to kill more of them. Personally opposed? My @$$.
Then, this so-called “Catholic” goes after those Bishops who are actually trying to protect the “least of these”:
I have tried and so much of that effort has been nourished by my faith. I know there are some Bishops who have suggested that as a public official I must cast votes or take public positions - on issues like a woman's right to choose and stem cell research - that carry out the tenets of the Catholic Church. I love my Church; I respect the Bishops; but I respectfully disagree.
My task, as I see it, is not to write every doctrine into law. That is not possible or right in a pluralistic society. But my faith does give me values to live by and apply to the decisions I make.
In other words, I am guided by my personal morals that suggest I should vote for anything that gets me elected. Earlier in the speech he says his “values will guide [him] as President.” What? Except in the case where those affected can’t vote? Kerry sold out his pro-life stance for political power and now he’s feeding it to those who want to believe. Sickening.
He ends with:
May America always have God's blessing even when we’re killing his children at an unbelievable rate. [Ed. Note: I assumed the latter part of the sentence from his earlier remarks
I think most would prefer Kerry just come out in the open and admit that for him faith is merely a political tool. Don’t preach to me on faith, Senator, when you have none. Faith includes standing up for those positions which won’t help you get elected.
By the way, for those who aren’t aware: the Catholic church hardly ever publicly excommunicates members in our day and age. However, members can privately excommunicate themselves through certain acts and I personally believe John Kerry has done just this. Maybe I’ll post more on this later.
God bless,
Jay
PS - Forgive my anger, but the injustice of a man like Kerry drives me nuts.
Posted by Jay at October 25, 2004 04:17 PM | TrackBack |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Jay, while I agree with every point you bring up,
Bush remain at odds with the Christian denomination he professes to belong to as well.
9 Bishops from his denomination wished to meet with him (presumably about the war) and he refused to even listen. Kerry did meet with the Catholic bishops though he did not heed them.
While I admit Kerry promotes a greater evil than Bush does, both Kerry and Bush seem equally guilty of the sin of using one's apperance of faith as a political tool to attract voters.
The only excuse I can come up with to mitigate Bush's disregard for his bishops comes when I realize that Protestantism prides itself on autonomy from its bishops and hierarchy. Perhaps when both Bush and Kerry disregard their bishops, Bush remains a good Protestant while Kerry does not remain a good Catholic.
Posted by: Richard Wan at October 25, 2004 11:07 PMJay,
If you have seen my posts in the other forum on abortion. I have echoed the same points in your Article in my dialogue with Rigan.
It also bothered me when Kerry quoted James..
I repeat my montra... Where are YOUR Works Mr. Kerry. He has a terrible voting record in the senate. He has a worse voting record on abortion.
As you and I have pointed out he voted Agaiinst the ban on Partial birth abortion, He has stated that He is for a woman's right to choose and that he would do NOTHING to overturn Roe V. Wade.
It has been argued by Rigan that he is following the law when he votes against the Unborn. She claims that he is bound constitutionally to vote against the unborn ..
Rigan says that our laws are not based on God's laws but on some other socialogical standard. She says that a change in the law should be based on scientific or Civil precident and not on religious precident. I stated the scientific evidence, which is that there is a heart beat at 18 days of development and brain waves at 42 days of development. The absence of both is I believe the legal criteria to pronounce death so the presence of both should be the legal criteria for life.
I then went on and cited examples of unjust civil laws such as Slavery and the prohibition of the right to vote for women. Also African Americans legally were not considered people at one time.. Thankfully these laws were all changed through our legislative process. Just as those UNJUST laws were eventually over turned shouldn't Roe V Wade be over turned on the basis of an UNJUST law against the unborn?
Shouldn't John Kerry have voted his so called conscience regarding abortion and voted to change the laws rather than doing everything in his power to deny the rights of the unborn...
Yet John Kerry and Rigan say that there is no conflict between being personally against abortion and publically voting to support it ??
I sure don't want a man as president that doesn't have the guts to stand up for his beliefs or to stand up for the rights of the unborn.
I just don't understand the logic..? Is Kerry's position logical to anyone else besides John Kerry and Rigan?..
Jay Thanks for writing your article. I am in total agreement with you on this one ...
In Christ,
Clem
Posted by: Clem at October 26, 2004 08:35 AM
