The Swamp: A God Gap for Obama?
The article reference above explores a swing in regular church goers in their support of Obama from the time of the New Hampshire Primary to the time of the Pennsylvania Primary. Obama was seen as more attractive to people of faith back during the New Hampshire primary. It was thought that he might actually be the candidate who could break the stronghold Republicans have had over the last two decades with voters who have come to be known as "the Religious Right."
Yet in the Pennsylvania Primary where Clinton out polled Obama by 10%, her lead was twice as big among those who described themselves as "regular church goers." Clearly the Jeremiah Wright scandal and the disparaging remarks in San Francisco about those who "cling to God and guns" have hurt Obama among people of faith. But while the winds may be changing among Democrats who attend church with some regularity, I don't believe that Obama ever truly had any chance of pulling votes from churchgoers who traditionally vote Republican. Many in the media think that the Religious Right desires to make our nation a theocracy, and will vote for any candidate who says he is a Christian and uses spiritual or faith based language. There is an assumption that the "religious" voter is unsophisticated and easily manipulated.
As the leader of a small Southern "God clinging" congregation I can tell you that my faith guides my thinking on certain issues. And no matter how much spiritual language a candidate uses, no matter how often, or seldom, he attends worship, I will be voting on those issues. There are several issues that guide my political preferences, and my faith plays a part in all of them. But those most influenced by my faith are:
Marriage and Family. A candidate that supports gay marriage, civil unions, and other so-called "gay rights" supports a family hostile social cause. I'm not homophobic. I neither fear nor hate homosexuals. I not only do not condone violence against homosexuals, I adamantly condemn it. I am, however, concerned about redefining marriage and family to the degree that they really have no meaning at all. I am very concerned about living in a culture where the highest value is tolerance, which has been translated into having no values at all. If a person of faith expresses the Biblically based belief that homosexual behavior, or even extramarital heterosexual behavior is morally wrong, he is branded as a hater, a bigot, and a homophobe. His beliefs are not tolerated because they are not tolerant of a do whatever you want world view.
I'm not suggesting that I want a president who will police sexual behavior. I honestly believe that in a free society, consenting adults should be legally allowed to engage in whatever sexual activity they want. But being legal doesn't make it moral. And in a society that persecutes and ostracizes those who dare to speak up for what is moral, I certainly will not support a president who bows to the pressure of homosexual special interest groups seeking not only for special rights based on their sexual behavior, but whose true agenda is to create a societal belief that such behavior is not a perversion of God's plan, but is part of the natural order. As long as Obama, Clinton, or any other Democratic candidate panders to the homosexual lobby they will not make inroads into the faith community.
Further Reading: Al Mohler's The New Face of Gay Marriage
Abortion. My wife teaches in the public school system in Georgia. She shared with me this weekend that she has actually had an opportunity to teach a pro-life lesson in the classroom. She has a supply of incubating eggs that her class is caring for. I assume the lesson is a science lesson, though she didn't say. But she did tell me that they were able to hold the developing egg in front of the bright light of a video projector. The light actually penetrated the shell of the egg so that you could see the developing chicken embryo inside. None of the children had any doubt that what they saw in that egg was a living, moving, baby chicken. Terri hopes and prays that when those children vote as adults, when they have to make their own ethical decisions about an unexpected pregnancy, they will remember that baby chick. They will remember that they didn't just see a mass of tissue, they saw a living chicken.
The "Religious Right" voter believes that a human baby in the womb is also already a living person. But unlike that baby chick, who will one day make some Baptist family a fine lunch, we believe that human life, even unborn human life, is sacred. We value human liberty and want women to have all the "choice" in the world. But we know that values sometimes conflict, and therefore must be prioritized. The right of one individual to live supersedes the right of another individual to choose. As long as Obama, Clinton, or any other Democratic candidate values individual liberty above the sacredness of human life, they will not make inroads into the faith community.
Education. Our church sits on the southern edge of Clayton County in south metro Atlanta. The entire county's school system is about to lose accreditation because of a school board that can not get it's act together. Thousands of children must settle for a sub-standard education unless their parents can either afford to send them to a private school, or can find a way to move the family to another county. This type of substandard performance happens when there is no competition in the market. Christian parents have for many years sought alternatives to secular government education. Many have sent their children to private schools where they can be taught lessons of faith, and where they won't be taught that they were descended from some type of amoeba. Others have educated their children at home so that they can exercise their responsibility to train up their children in "the way that they should go."
In recent weeks we've heard about a
Christian student who was given a failing grade because his art contained a scripture reference (John 3:16) and a cross, while other students were aloud to draw art depicting demonic beings. California courts have just issued rulings making
homeschooling essentially illegal. In order to educate the children at home the parents would have to obtain state certification in education. We've all heard the stories of schools providing condoms and abortion counseling to students without parental notification, much less parental consent. Behind all of this is a world view that says the state knows better than the parent what is in the best interest of the child.
Christian parents want to protect their children from being taught a world view that is in opposition to the family's system of faith. They will support candidates who support giving parents more instead of less choice in education. One of the greatest ways our government can do this is with a voucher system. Instead of forcing all parents with limited financial resources to send their children to the government's schools, parents should be allowed to send children to the schools of their choosing, and the government money should follow the children to the schools. Not only would this allow parents the freedom to choose a school that shares their values, but such a system would introduce a free market that would prevent the fiasco going on in Clayton County, Georgia right now. If a voucher system were in place, the private sector would have been providing quality alternatives in education to this county years ago. As a result, the public schools would also be in much better shape, because they would have had to compete keep both the students and the money that follows them in the system.
But Obama's party has long been in the pocket of the unions. And no union is more powerful in the United States than the teachers' unions. A voucher system would mean that some of their schools might lose students to private schools or homeschooling, and that they might in turn lose their jobs. So this party has consistently voted against vouchers and parental control, in favor of these unions. As long as Obama, Clinton, or any other Democratic candidate puts the jobs of government teachers ahead of the values of Christian parents, they will not make inroads into the faith community.
So poll all you want. Speculate on whether the "God gap" favors Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. Come November the bulk of religious conservatives are going to be voting for John McCain, not because he is regular in church attendance, or uses the right religious jargon, but because he and his party have a history of being on the right side of issues that people of faith hold dear.
