During the interview conducted by the Jewish ‘Shalom TV’ Biden said, “I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.” He also revealed that his son is married to a Jewish woman, of the Berger family from Delaware, and that he had participated in a Passover Seder at their house.

Biden presented himself as a friend to Israel, which he referred to as the US’ greatest Middle East ally.

“Imagine our circumstance in the world were there no Israel. How many battleships would there be? How many troops would be stationed?” he asked.

He also called comments about Israel’s connection to the war in Iraq “insulting”, explaining that “if tomorrow, peace broke out between Israelis and Palestinians, does anybody think there wouldn’t be a full-blown war in Iraq?”
Obama’s choice in a veep is more calculating than I suspected. Does this mean they actually have a chance with the Jewish vote?

Don’t count on it:

In any case, with Obama a risk on Israel and untested in matters of national security and foreign policy, and with the Republicans offering John McCain, a long time strong supporter of the US-Israel relationship and a man, whose entire career provides a definition of the words “tested” and “experienced”, it is no wonder that those Jews who choose this year to finally vote Republican will have a lot more company than they might have in the past.

At least seven lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Anglican (mostly American) organizations attended the meeting in support of “full inclusion of LGBT people in the life and ministry of the churches of the Anglican Communion”. Conservative bishops strongly disapprove of the movement and have even threatened to divide the church. According to the Economist, bishops from Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda with more traditionalist parishes refused to attend the meeting in protest.

One of the most controversial liberal figures is Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly gay, non-celibate, 61-year-old Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire, USA. He was not permitted to enter the meeting, but he opened a video blog devoted to the Lambeth event, called The Gene Pool, where he offered almost daily video commentaries.

In one video, he addresses the LGBT Episcopalian community with words of hope and strength.

The bishop's video-posts are paired with a flow of comments, always engaging even when expressing different views.

One commenter, Una, says:

Thank you Gene. I am a straight believer in God's love for ALL people, irrespective of race, religion, sex, gender. I too pray that those of us who live in countries where hush-hush is the order of the day can stand with you in open honesty about who we are as Christians in our own cultures. Like you, I continue to hope, though I am not an optimist in regard to the Lambeth outcome.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has done his best to keep the church together, and not made outspoken statements in support of LGBT rights, in spite of being known to hold more liberal views. Bishop Gene Robinson takes aim at Rowan Williams' “centrist stance” in a post on his other blog Canterbury Tales from the Fringe:

The morning we left Edinburgh, the headlines in the London Times announced the publication of letters sent by +Rowan Williams several years ago, in response to a conservative evangelical, in which he says that after many years of study and prayer, he has concluded that faithful, life-long-intentioned, monogamous love between two people of the same sex is NOT prohibited by scripture — and that scripture simply does not address this new phenomenon. Precisely what I and others have been saying all along.

(…) he has steadfastly done what he has said he would do: set his own personal understandings aside and take a centrist stance “for the good of the whole Church.” This is not news, folks! But it is indeed sad.

There were many other blogs created by liberal participants at the Lambeth meeting, including the Lambeth Conference LGBT Anglican Portal, Walking with Integrity, and the Lambeth News Blog.

In a final official release about the Conference, Episcopal Life Online quotes the Rev. Susan Russell, president of Integrity USA, and a parish priest based in Los Angeles:

“…in spite of extraordinary pressure to do otherwise, the Archbishop of Canterbury has managed to achieve his stated goal of a Lambeth Conference of reflection rather than resolutions.

“The long predicted coup d'état that was going to emerge from this Lambeth Conference and vote the Americans and Canadians out of the Anglican Communion failed to materialize. There is much to be grateful for in that.”

Susan Russel also created this interesting photo album showing a great deal of grassroots activism in the Communication Centre, along with other lively behind-the-scene snapshots, during the Conference.

Photo republished from Susan Russell's Lambeth Conference Photo Blog

Acting as “a faithful witness of God's inclusive love to the Episcopal Church and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community”, Integrity USA also made effective use of citizen media in The Lambeth Witness, a daily publication from and about the Canterbury event managed by the coalition Inclusive Church Network.

Photo at top is of Caterbury Cathedral, by Sarah Hecht, republished under Creative Commons license.

Did you see the Rick Warren thing? . . . Here's a good example of why religion shouldn't infect our public policy. . . The big question was "what should we do about evil?"

. . .And so Obama gives this very nuanced answer -- which I liked. And so, he loses the crowd. Yeah we should be aware of evil, he says, but we should be humble about evil. . . . What was trying to say is that it's easy being here in America to say that we're the good people. Evil is over there. You know there is a lot of evil right here: look at the prison system .. . . we torture people now. . .

And then McCain is asked the same question, and he says "Defeat it." And of course this goes over very well with this crowd, because they think of evil as something very tangible. The Devil. They're not kidding. They believe in this comic group figure, the Devil.

And so how can you have -- supposed to be a superpower, in this world, making the right decisions if this is the kind of thinking that goes into it. It's like trying to play a song when half the keys are out of tune.

Abdul Kargo, who is an American of Russian/Sierra Leonean descent, writes in his blog T’ings ‘n Times about McCain’s ad showcasing Obama as a “celebrity candidate.” He states that the ad is hypocritical of McCain, who had a cameo in Wedding Crashers, and that being a “celebrity” isn’t necessarily a bad thing. He further addresses how the Republican candidate compared Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears:

Why compare the presumptive Democratic nominee to a pair of celebutantes? It’s really quite simple. First off, we can be sure that education or educatedness—or whatever other qualities might prepare someone to lead a country—do not rank very high on the list of qualities people love in Paris or Britney. This is not to imply that Britney and Paris are unintelligent or uneducated. The point is only that these women are beloved not for their being qualified to lead the country. The Obama comparison thus implies that Obama, like Britney and Paris, is popular—because of his looks or some other quality—but not for his ability to lead. Ergo: Barack Obama is very popular but he’s not ready to lead.

Therefore, if Obama is a celebrity – he falls more in line with the entertainment industry. Kargo then analyzes this subject of Black people in the entertainment industry:

Black athletes, actors, and musicians have attained tremendous fame and secured professions for themselves by entertaining the American public. In my view, these accomplishments should be seen as a testament to the resilience of Black people in this country. Alas! No good deed goes unpunished so the Black community is repaid with binary stereotypes that place intelligence and athleticism/artistry/musical talent at opposite ends of a spectrum. “Sure,” the argument goes, “Black people are good entertainers but they’re not so smart. This is why there are so few Black directors, quarterbacks, or music executives.” In other words, talent and intelligence become mutually exclusive categories.

Kargo’s idea of mutually exclusive categories brings upon another issue: did McCain and Obama (or even Hilary Clinton, a few months ago) become potential candidates because of certain traits they possess – say another type of “mutually exclusive categories”?

Aung Kyaw, a Burmese-American college student, writes in her blog, a brain workout, that only those that qualify for the Christian “category” will ever have a chance for presidency.

Americans care oh-so-much about the religious preferences of McCain and Obama. For me, religion doesn’t matter. I think religion has little to do with how well someone performs as president. It’s irrelevant. In fact, it makes people do crazy things, like cut federal spending on stem cell research, especially when the stem cells are just thrown away instead of being put to scientific use.

In the last paragraph of her post, Kyaw writes:

Presidential campaigns are about being as narrow-minded as possible.

Rakoto's Rants (a Malagasy blogger living in the U.S.) draws comparisons between the United States and his home country:

Scandinavian nations are at the top of the list which does not include any African nations.
in Madagascar, traditional beliefs, Christianity (45%) and Islam (7%) account for 99% of the population. A Council regrouping the principal Churches of Madagascar (FFKM) has been historically very involved into the political life of Madagascar.

Yet, there were more openly “secular”presidents in Madagascar's history that in the US history (Thomas Jefferson being the only known atheist American president).

He then ponders the correlation between the open show of faith and electability:

So again, why is openly showing its faith a sine qua non for “electability” ? And how does one correlate the candidates' faiths with the ability to govern a country ?

I imagine there are no quick easy answer to that question although I assume that the history of the founding fathers escaping religious persecution has got to be a factor.

Please understand that those questions are born from the desire to comprehend the decision-making process of the common elector during the elections from an outsider's perspective.

Blogger Bush Out is surprised that the majority of voters would sooner vote for a Jew or a woman than an atheist:

Atrios links to these Gallup results. It's pretty sad that 11% of US voters would not even consider voting for a woman. But the really scary stat is that a majority of US voters would never vote for an atheist.

Also interesting that 92% would vote for a Jew, but the question of voting for a Muslim was not even asked!

A commenter, Bukko_in_Australia, demonstrates one side of U.S. opinion:

One of the things on TV that embarrasses me most about my countrymen, aside from the clowns on Jerry Springer, Dr. Phil and Judge Judy, are their constant references to God and prayer. Makes Yanks sound like a bunch of gibbering superstitious Third-Worlders.

eat lard, in a post entitled “The Atheist Manifesto,” discusses how atheists are regularly relegated to the category of those with no belief structure or morals:

In the great Democrat litmus test recently Senators Obama and Clinton showed that both a Woman and Black was conceivable and realistic as a choice of the people’ Chief Executive. But polling numbers above have ruled out a non-religious President of the United States. It’s not surprising therefore that ‘Shares our Values’ is a consistent and accurate measure of a voter’s personal preference for a candidate.

Despite the popular idea that values must be religious, I ask you, is it hard to imagine that atheists have values and make conscious choices to live by them? That our values should differ, like our belief structures do but that they stem from choice, experience and commonsense is so hard to imagine?

Daniel Cuevas, a Puerto-Rican blogger writing for WeOp-Ed, discusses the Latino vote as it relates to the spectrum of religion:

At the risk of using sweeping generalizations, I don't think that most people would doubt that blacks and Latinos are people of faith. Latinos pray almost as many times a day as Muslims, and blacks are the only people I know whose voice mail greetings are most likely to tell callers to have “a blessed day.” Like the Christian Right and the Republicans who pander to that voting bloc, Latinos and blacks invoke God into their personal lives on a daily basis, and not just when they take the Lord's name into vain, either.

Liberals, on the other hand, are widely regarded as being secular and atheist. Most white college professors are both liberal and secular to the point where they actually look down on people who believe in God. Most white liberals couldn't care less that the right wing segment of American media label them as Godless and blame them for everything from the overblown “war on Christmas” to an alleged opposition to school prayer…but Latinos care.

For more information on atheist voters in the United States, check out this post from an American atheist on which candidate is best, and this post on secular organizations which support Obama.

I recently realized that many of us Christians are indeed “sheep”. And I don’t necessarily mean the kind that Christ calls His own (although He calls us that). I mean the kind that are dumb, willing to be led around by anyone and everyone that wants to ‘shepherd’ us. The latest example is how the media and some politicians, rather than we ourselves, are defining the role that evangelicals and others have played in the past and will be playing in the next American election. Here are a few examples I’ve picked up from both the media and partisans on this very point:

• “Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama.” – Alan Keyes, Republican Senate candidate in 2004.
• “Obama is emerging as the candidate with the greatest chance in decades to coax at least some Christian evangelicals and other churchgoing voters away from the Republican fold.” – MacLean’s magazine, July 7, 2008.
• “If this election turns out to be as close (as the one in 2004), religious groups could make a big difference.” – John Green, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
• “There are signs of a potentially historic shift.” – MacLean’s magazine, July 7, 2008.
• “Evangelicals are waking up to the idea that abortion is not the only moral issue.” – Stephen Mansfield, author, The Faith of George W. Bush.

With Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy dead, and Pat Robertson awfully quiet at age 78, the press (again not us) points to popular preachers of today and tells us Joel Osteen simply urges people to vote, T. D. Jakes has not endorsed any candidate, and Rick Warren is not openly partisan and seems to be embracing broader social concerns than what evangelicals have traditionally worried about. It tells us that more and more Christians feel that neither political party made a difference on abortion, but the Bush administration was immoral on the issue of war and terror. It tells us that evangelical organizations like Sojourners out of Washington are devoted to fighting poverty and ending the war in Iraq. It (not us) tells us younger evangelicals care more about the environment than their elders. The implication is clearly, “What’s the matter with the rest of us?”

The Pew Forum tells us that the greatest loss of support for George Bush between 2001 and 2007 came from white evangelicals aged 18 to 29. A recent Pew poll says that only 57 per cent of white evangelical Protestants support the Republicans, down from 62 per cent in 2004. The press says this is an opportunity for the Democrats and Obama to gain votes – enough to win the election.

Why is this happening? Well, for starters all of the above are true. Bush has lost many Americans over the war. Current popular preachers are staying silent. Christians are giving up on winning certain issues, and focusing on those for which the Democratic Party seems to have a stronger platform. The ‘moral majority’ is dead and the Christian left is starting to take charge once more. But there’s another reason.

Barack Obama is speaking more openly about his ‘faith’ and feeling at ease doing so. John McCain considers it a personal matter. In addition, he has alienated many Christians on his stance on certain traditional Christian issues. With nothing to gain in those areas by sticking with McCain, many are investigating the move to the left.

Here’s what the press wants us to think and believe and they say it through the words of Douglas Kmiec, a pro-life conservative Roman Catholic: “You should not have blinders on about the rest of your obligations to your fellow neighbors: addressing the needs of health care, to provide a family wage for a working person, and it certainly requires that you pay attention to the use of warfare, and whether it has been justifiably applied in a limited circumstance.”

However, they clearly seem to also be telling us, by their silence, that Christians, especially evangelicals, can have blinders on about the very “faith” of the candidates in the upcoming election. Take a closer look.

I believe there’s enough evidence that Barack Obama is not a Muslim. But he also takes a postmodern, theologically liberal approach to scripture putting less weight on some of Paul’s instructions on lifestyle and more on the Sermon on the Mount. While the press admits this approach is not for everyone, it points out that it is gaining popularity. It then suggests that Obama’s type of faith may be just the ticket at this time when the face of evangelicalism is changing.

Okay, so how does all this relate to church leadership? I believe as leaders we have a responsibility to encourage our congregants to think for themselves and not be led like sheep by anyone else, including the press. I believe we also have a responsibility to help them ask some questions, in fact some of the same questions the press asks. For example, “Regardless of a candidate’s own faith, what is his attitude towards Islam?” Some of Bush’s troubles with evangelicals started when he spoke of the Muslim and the Christian God as one. Or “What is the value of a candidate’s faith when he totally misunderstands the difference between O.T. law and N.T. grace?” as Obama did in his famous June 2006 speech in which he said it is difficult to translate the Bible into secular law. He spoke as follows: “Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?” I, for one, place no value on any man’s comments about his own faith when he talks like that. His very questions indicate he has very little of any true understanding of Scripture and God’s plan for man. He wants us to allow our faith to inspire, but not to dictate, public policy.

Hopefully, we don’t want just an inspiring faith that cannot be applied to life and reflected in public policy in a nation that is predominantly Judeo-Christian. And besides, tell the Muslims that their faith should only inspire, and not dictate. Tell them that Sharia law is no good. In Obama’s thinking, being against abortion because God is against it is not good enough; he wants us to explain to everybody’s satisfaction, including an atheist’s, why abortion violates moral principle. As for John McCain we may well ask, “Why is he so silent about his faith? Could it be he really does not have anything substantial to offer in that department?”

I also believe we have a responsibility to get together and speak with one mind on this topic authoritatively for ourselves. If not, we should at least get together and say, “what’s going on in American politics today, or at least the abuse and misuse of true faith in American politics today, really does not concern us because it does not change the Truth!”

But then again, that’s my take. What’s yours? Are we really in a “damned if we do and damned if we don’t” situation? What are you telling your congregation as the election nears? Although I do not for a minute believe any of us have an in on what our Lord would say or do in any situation, the famous adage “WWJD?” seems to fit well here. And most importantly why has there not been a definitive voice for Christian church? Is it because we’re to not bother with all this? Help me out.

Until next time,

Ken Godevenos

A few miles from where I live is the 20,000 member Saddleback mega church. And tonight, its pastor Rev. Rick Warren is interviewing both senators Obama and McCain. The format is that each will spend about 60 minutes on stage alone with Rev. Warren (I would've preferred all three to be on the stage at the same time, but I am sure that was opposed by both parties), and that they will get the same questions asked. And Rev. Warren assured us that Sen. McCain will be in a ‘cone of silence,' while Sen. Obama gets to go first, thanks to a coin flip.

“We got to learn to disagree without demonizing each other,” said the good reverend who claims to be friends with both senators.

CNN televised the entire two-hour event live. And McCain won Round-1!

Some highlights included Obama's admission that Jesus Christ died for his sins, that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, but that he would not support a constitutional amendment with that definition, evil does exist and that we should confront it but with an approach of humility, would not have nominated Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court, and if you're making $150,000 a year or less as a family you'd be considered middle class or poor, depending on the region (to which Rev. Warren responded, “in this region you'd be poor”). But in my opinion, did not eloquently answer the question as to why he wants to be President, other than repeat the same mantra of politics and Washington is so broken, and that he has the “ability to build bridges across partisan lines, racial, regional lines, to get people to work on some common sense solutions to critical issues.” We all know what happened the last time a candidate promised reaching across partisan lines.

McCain then came onto the stage and the two candidates briefly exchanged pleasantries. In fact, Obama told McCain to “go get'em.”

McCain's greatest line might have been “serve a cause greater than your self-interest.” Or “by a strange coincidence, I was not elected Miss Congeniality again to the U.S. Senate,” when he responded to the party loyalty versus America's best interest question.

McCain's responses included the fact that religion and prayer played a very important part during his captive years in Vietnam, a baby is entitled to human rights at the moment of conception, marriage is between one man and one woman, and as a federalist, states should make their own decisions, until and unless a federal court decided that one state had to observe what another state decided, he would not favor a constitutional amendment to enforce the definition of marriage (of course both candidates reinstated their allegiance to the recognition of union between same sex couples and that they too are entitled to the same rights as married couples), evil should be defeated, radical Islamic extremism must be dealt with, with all due respect would not have nominated Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens, because he thinks they legislate from the bench and not adhere to the Constitution, believes in choice in competition when it comes to schools — public versus private, and school vouchers, etc., some of the richest people he's ever known in his life “are the most unhappy,” ‘rich' should be defined “by a home, a good job, an education, and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one we inherited,” doesn't want to take money from the rich, instead wants everyone to be rich — keep taxes low and not raise them, increase revenue, and cut spending.

McCain made the most anti-Russia statement I've heard to date as it relates to killing of innocent people, human rights abuses against Georgia, and others in that region and democracy. As to why he wants to be President, McCain believes America's best days are ahead of us, that he'll be the President of every American, and he'll always put America first.

Round-1 goes to McCain, hands down, in my opinion . . .

Watch Larry King Live on CNN Monday night as he interviews Reverend Warren.

I think that this is outrageous -- and those on the left who appreciate Obama and what he may mean for this country must become as tenaciously committed to what is right and what is good -- and fighting for that -- because those on the other side of these debates are trying to compel Obama to dilute himself.

I remember when I was young we were told that prayers asking for bad things to happen to other people will not be answered!

See I support Obama for one and only one reason: He is black, Period. I dont think his presidency will do anything for Kenya. It will not add the sufurias of ugali in our houses (Moi 2003) But Still Praying for bad things to happen will is a tard silly.
Focus on the family claimed it was meant to be a spoof but after mob protests they did remove the clip.. but this is the internet, there is always evidence and the damage had been done!

On a lighter note CNN informs us that Obama had a 4 star meal during his vacation in Hawai, which happened to be his 2nd four star meal since he arrived! SMH at CNN can we import some fighting kajoras to give them something to report?

*looks around, tip toes away and crawls back under the rock*

This “humorous” Stoplight video from Focus on the Family asks people to pray for “torrential, small-stream-flooding, an umbrella ain't gonna help you rain” on a specific time and place.
No, not any of the California fires. Denver, over the stadium where Barack Obama is set to deliver his nomination speech, that very night.