Rev. Franklin Graham ~ *Obama won because Christians didn't Vote*

[exotix]

I tell ya ... I ... http://i50.tinypic.com/1057gop.gif




No, it's not 'Christians'' fault Obama won

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/16/15219396-no-its-not-christians-fault-obama-won?lite

The outspoken Rev. Franklin Graham claimed today that the “majority of Christians” did not vote.

“We know that from of the statistics that I’ve heard that the majority of Christians in this country just did not vote for whatever reason,” he told the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody (http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2012/11/16/franklin-graham-to-brody-file-on-obamas-re-election-christians-should.aspx).

“The vast majority of evangelicals did not go to the polls.”
He added, “God is in control, and if Christians are upset, they need to be upset at themselves.
We need to do a better job of getting our people- the church to vote.
Now, I’m not trying to tell you how to vote, you can vote, but vote, my goodness, and vote for candidates that stand for Biblical values.”


But Graham’s assertion -- and implication that had white Christian evangelicals just showed up in bigger numbers, President Obama would have lost -- is off base.

In fact, white evangelicals/born-again Christians made up the same percentage of the electorate as they did in 2008 – 26%.
They voted for Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon, by a wider margin than they did for Sen. John McCain four years ago.

And, they made up a largershare of the electorate in 2012 than in 2004, when the Christian Right supposedly fueled George W. Bush’s reelection.
They also voted for Romney with the exact same margin as for Bush in 2004, 78%-21%.

Not to mention, Obama won the 48 percent of the electorate that was Christian and not Protestant or Mormon -- 50%-48% among Catholics (25% of the electorate) and 50%-49% of "Other Christians" (23% of the electorate).

In Ohio, they were 1 point more of the electorate than 2008; in Colorado, 4 points higher; in Iowa, up 7 points; in Nevada, up 2.

(More stats inside)



http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MZaSoNE0OkQ/0.jpg

[Peter1469]

Voter turnout on the right was lower, but I have seen no figures about who it was. I suspect it was independents and not the religious right.

[KC]

I'm not sure about the accuracy, but one Podcast I listen to, in analyzing the reasons for Romney's loss said that the religious vote wasn't a problem for Romney, that he lost despite high turnouts among evangelicals and other traditionally conservative religious groups.

Thanks for posting.

[Calypso Jones]

Those so -called christians are the christian left...and i'd hardly call them christians. They are influenced by the apostate/miniantichrist Jim Wallis. I know some of these people. They are well meaning, but they are easily influenced and under the thumb of Wallis and his philosophy of Social justice.

[Calypso Jones]

plus i think that the right discounted the lefts ability to get out the multi-vote.

[roadmaster]

Those so -called christians are the christian left...and i'd hardly call them christians. They are influenced by the apostate/miniantichrist Jim Wallis. I know some of these people. They are well meaning, but they are easily influenced and under the thumb of Wallis and his philosophy of Social justice.

No such thing as a liberal Christian, they either follow Jesus or they don't.
Many just sit in Church and then allow others to sway them into believing something is ok but they know He said it's not. I refuse to go to a Church that will tell people what they want to hear instead of the truth.

[KC]

No such thing as a liberal Christian, they either follow Jesus or they don't.
Many just sit in Church and then allow others to sway them into believing something is ok but they know He said it's not. I refuse to go to a Church that will tell people what they want to hear instead of the truth.


That's just not true. I know many devout Christians who are politically liberal.

[roadmaster]

That's just not true. I know many devout Christians who are politically liberal.

How can they be? How can they accept something wrong as right?

[KC]

How can they be? How can they accept something wrong as right?

Political worldviews cannot be wrong. Just like an opinion cannot be wrong. People have different reasons for their beliefs, but no one's opinions are wrong, only the real world application of those opinions.

[roadmaster]

Political worldviews cannot be wrong. Just like an opinion cannot be wrong. People have different reasons for their beliefs, but no one's opinions are wrong, only the real world application of those opinions.

That's the problem. If Jesus says something we are not to twist or add to His words. Are we to hate no, but never lead people astray. I can't go around saying this is ok ect if He said it was not. Just like I will not bow to any man or woman on this earth. Wouldn't do me any good to meet the Pope or the Queen. :laugh: They would have to kill me.

[Calypso Jones]

No such thing as a liberal Christian, they either follow Jesus or they don't.
Many just sit in Church and then allow others to sway them into believing something is ok but they know He said it's not. I refuse to go to a Church that will tell people what they want to hear instead of the truth.

Roady i'm so sorry. but it is true. People like Wallis and Jeremiah Wright, That alleged catholic priest, fleegle or something like that...they are progressive liberal christians and i use that last term loosely. They have subverted Christ's message and turned it into a political movement. Look up Wallis, his background, his philosophy and his strategy. He is a good friend and confidant of B'obama.

[Calypso Jones]

Political worldviews cannot be wrong. Just like an opinion cannot be wrong. People have different reasons for their beliefs, but no one's opinions are wrong, only the real world application of those opinions.

road is right. This is a problem. There ARE absolute truths. Do you think pol pot's form of gov't was wrong or was it okay and just his opinion.

[KC]

That's the problem. If Jesus says something we are not to twist or add to His words. Are we to hate no, but never lead people astray. I can't go around saying this is ok ect if He said it was not. Just like I will not bow to any man or woman on this earth. Wouldn't do me any good to meet the Pope or the Queen. :laugh: They would have to kill me.

Most Christians I know who are politically liberal think that things like abortion and gay marriage are wrong, but they don't see those things as things the government ought to legislate against. They think morality is based on individuals making free decisions, and they think the best way for them to honor their God is to abide by their God's words without the government telling them they should.

[Calypso Jones]

That's just not true. I know many devout Christians who are politically liberal.



and what is your experience that we should trust you about that devotion. I know they appear to be devout and politically liberal... but are they really devout? Do they believe in the tenets of christianity or are they apostates. Would you know the difference.

[KC]

road is right. This is a problem. There ARE absolute truths. Do you think pol pot's form of gov't was wrong or was it okay and just his opinion.

I think Pol Pot's methods of government was wrong, but that doesn't mean his opinions are incorrect. Opinions cannot be incorrect, even if they are morally wrong. Pol Pot's government was morally wrong. Morality may be based on absolute truths. In fact, if it isn't that means we are never really justified in prosecuting someone for a claim we find immoral.

[KC]

and what is your experience that we should trust you about that devotion. I know they appear to be devout and politically liberal... but are they really devout? Do they believe in the tenets of christianity or are they apostates. Would you know the difference.

Nothing more than we should trust conservative Christians about their devotion. Since I am only capable of seeing the outside signs of Christianity, such as church going, bible reading and Christian moral actions, that is the only means I have for evaluating them.

[Calypso Jones]

I think Pol Pot's methods of government was wrong, but that doesn't mean his opinions are incorrect. Opinions cannot be incorrect, even if they are morally wrong. Pol Pot's government was morally wrong. Morality may be based on absolute truths. In fact, if it isn't that means we are never really justified in prosecuting someone for a claim we find immoral.

why yes it does mean his opinions are incorrect because they have consequences. He killed indiscrimately. That is wrong. not just by biblical standards but by secular standards. Wrong. period.

[Calypso Jones]

I think Pol Pot's methods of government was wrong, but that doesn't mean his opinions are incorrect. Opinions cannot be incorrect, even if they are morally wrong. Pol Pot's government was morally wrong. Morality may be based on absolute truths. In fact, if it isn't that means we are never really justified in prosecuting someone for a claim we find immoral.

public education. value judgements. moral relativism. You want your children educated like that too? Aren't you angry at how you've been manipulated?

[Calypso Jones]

Nothing more than we should trust conservative Christians about their devotion. Since I am only capable of seeing the outside signs of Christianity, such as church going, bible reading and Christian moral actions, that is the only means I have for evaluating them.

do you read and study and pray yourself?

[KC]

why yes it does mean his opinions are incorrect because they have consequences. He killed indiscrimately. That is wrong. not just by biblical standards but by secular standards. Wrong. period.

You mean morally wrong, based on the existence of absolute morality. What I'm talking about here is incorrect. There's a difference between the two. Pol Pot's opinions may have led to immoral actions, if morality is both absolute and universal, but his opinions cannot be incorrect.

This philosophy of knowledge (as far as I know) comes from Descartes. That's where I first read about it, but I'm sure Descartes inherited it from somewhere else. Descartes was working on a proof for the existence of God in his Meditations on First Philosophy, but it ended up being the premises and his logical foundations that make him so valuable to Philosophy in general.

[KC]

do you read and study and pray yourself?

No, I'm not a Christian.
Although I have read the Bible. Some parts I have studied more than others.

[KC]

public education. value judgements. moral relativism. You want your children educated like that too? Aren't you angry at how you've been manipulated?

No. I wasn't educated in moral relativism. In fact the main reason I'm not a relativist is because I've had some awesome Philosophy instructors.

[Calypso Jones]

No, I'm not a Christian.

then of what value is your opinion of their devotion.

An opinion is your belief or feelings about a subject (or person). And you can be very wrong in your opinion because it is not based in fact but your feelings.

[Calypso Jones]

No. I wasn't educated in moral relativism. In fact the main reason I'm not a relativist is because I've had some awesome Philosophy instructors.

oh yes you are. Your awesome philosophy instructors have done a great number on you and you don't even know it.

[KC]

then of what value is your opinion of their devotion.

An opinion is your belief or feelings about a subject (or person). And you can be very wrong in your opinion because it is not based in fact but your feelings.

Consider the following statement:

"I think that there should be less government intervention in the economy."

I can't be right or wrong about that statement. It's not a truth claim.

Now, what if I said this:

"The economy functions better when the government does not intervene."

The second one is a truth claim. I'm no longer just asserting an opinion, I'm asserting some knowledge about the world. I can be right or wrong about this claim, but in my opinion I am right.

[KC]

oh yes you are. Your awesome philosophy instructors have done a great number on you and you don't even know it.

Don't tell me what I am or am not.

[Calypso Jones]

Don't tell me what I am or am not.

truth hurts.

[KC]

truth hurts.

Enough with the personal stuff, how about responding to what my actual claims are?
Calypso Jones. You are going to give me a response to the example I provided in post 25, aren't you?

[Calypso Jones]

How can they be? How can they accept something wrong as right?

apostasy. we see it all the time.

[Calypso Jones]

Enough with the personal stuff, how about responding to what my actual claims are?
@Calypso Jones (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=248). You are going to give me a response to the example I provided in post 25, aren't you?

i just went back to see my responses to your remarks. I think i have responded to each one. You made a claim. I proved it was your opinion and your opinion was wrong based on your feelings and not actual facts.

[KC]

i just went back to see my responses to your remarks. I think i have responded to each one. You made a claim. I proved it was your opinion and your opinion was wrong based on your feelings and not actual facts.

If you had you still haven't responded to post #25.

Edited thereafter: Or # 20 for that matter. And you haven't proved anything, you've only presented me ad hominems and straw men.