What if Starbucks was marketed like a church?

Also courtesy Matthew Paul Turner

The Rapture is funny, apparently!

Courtesy Matthew Paul Turner:

How to Profit From the Coming Rapture: Getting Ahead When You're Left Behind

The Fatty Melt

Ladies and gentlemen what you are looking at is called "the Fatty Melt", also called perfection. What is it, you ask? A hamburger with grilled cheese sandwiches as buns:

And this, is the bacon fatty melt, which improves upon perfection:

Finally this is the Double Bacon Fatty Melt:

My brain is trying to ignore the chest pains...

How to make these? Here and here.

Obama on Abortion

Huh, it seems that this is national abortion blog week.

From Jason Boyett's Blog,

Obama and Abortion

First, I'll apologize up front. I know not everyone wants to read about politics on this blog. You'd rather read funny stuff and gentle religious sarcasm and blatant self-promotion about my books and writing. I understand that, so this will probably be the last presidential-themed post I'll do up until the election. But I need to put this one out there so I ask that you indulge me, baby, one more time.

Very few people in Texas, where I live, plan to vote for Obama. At least, very few people I know. Most of my friends and family are pro-McCain and see support for Obama as downright unChristian (though they still love me and probably wouldn't ever say this to me outright). Because Obama is pro-choice, a vote for Obama is often equated with a vote for killing babies.

Just to ease my parents' minds, let me make it clear that I have no interest in killing babies. I'm pro-life, and I have credentials. Once, when I was 16 or 17, I participated in a March for Life, holding an "Abortion Is Murder" sign that someone handed to me on the way out the door. Of course, I'm not sure how effective a 100-person march against abortion is in a city that's overwhelmingly pro-life already, other than making the participants feel good about their activism, and especially good when a passing motorist flips them the bird, because: persecution! I've even done marketing work for the local crisis pregnancy center and donated money to their operating budget.

So I'm pro-life but I intend to vote for the pro-choice candidate. And I'll be honest: Obama is unapologetically pro-choice. This makes me a slobbering hypocrite (at least in this area...I'm a hypocrite in lots of other areas, too.) So how in the world do I justify this?

It's simple: I'm a pragmatist. Despite his claims to being pro-life, I don't believe voting for John McCain will do anything to end or even reduce abortion in the United States.

Point #1: We have had a pro-life president in the White House for 20 out of the last 28 years, since Reagan's election in 1980. Has this led to abortions being reduced? Yes, but barely. Has it led to Roe vs. Wade being overturned? No.

Point #2: What about Supreme Court justices? If the president has any sway on abortion, it's by picking pro-life judges to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, right? Sure. Except in 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- the first real opportunity to overturn the abortion law -- five Republican-appointed justices voted to uphold Roe v. Wade. And in this case, only two of these justices (Blackmun and Stevens) were supporters of Roe v. Wade when the case began. I doubt we will ever see this law overturned. But don't trust me on this. Trust Bush appointee and Chief Justice John Roberts, who said Roe v. Wade was the "settled law of the land," and vowed he would uphold it. (H/T: Bryan)

Point #3: But let's say it were overturned by the Supreme Court. Then what would happen? The abortion issue would be given back to the states. (This was how it worked before Roe vs. Wade.) Some states would maintain its legality. Some states would outlaw it. But if you wanted an abortion, you could still get one, simply by traveling to an abortion-friendly state. Would it reduce abortions? Probably not. It would just make the process of getting one -- at least in a pro-life state -- a little more challenging.

Conclusion: There is little chance of overturning the abortion law. That being the case, what can we then do to reduce the number of abortions? That's the question we need to be asking.

John McCain does not have a good answer to this question. His answer -- if he gives one -- always involves the repeal of Roe v. Wade, the argument about appointing Supreme Court justices, and various "abortion is evil" statements. Which are fine, but if you agree with points 1-3 above, those are useless answers. What we need are some ideas about how to reduce abortion. But the Republican party's only idea seems to be repealing Roe v. Wade. That's it. In fact, the Republican party's 2008 platform says very little about abortion other than opposing it and promoting "every effort" to "enable and empower [those considering abortion] to choose life." Fine. But how do you do this? What does this empowerment look like? Do issues like poverty and health care and family planning play any role in reducing abortions? Unfortunately, the platform doesn't give answers. Let's just demonize Roe v. Wade and that's enough. According to Catholic legal scholar Nicholas Cafardi, the RNC actually removed abortion-reducing language from their platform this year.

Removed. Abortion-reducing. Language.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama fought to add language to the 2008 Democratic platform after consulting with religious leaders and pro-life Democrats about the issue. The platform calls for reducing abortion by promoting abstinence, adoption, and personal responsibility. It also provides for reducing unintended pregnancies through family planning services, education, parenting skills training, and health care. These are the kinds of resources many pregnant women don't have when they find out they're pregnant, and which make them think abortion is the only option. Catholic and Protestant leaders called the addition of this plan to the platform a "historic and courageous step" for Democrats. To be fair, others have criticized it as adding a good thing to an evil position (I'd label it "lipstick on a pig" but that phrase has pretty much jumped the shark). Regardless, it is a hopeful plan and a big shift in the usually antagonistic relationship between Democrats and pro-lifers.

(Update: Pro-Life Democrats have proposed the 95-10 Plan, the goal of which is to reduce abortions by 95% within 10 years. I really like this plan, but it's unclear at this point whether or not Obama has come out in support of it.)

When it comes to reducing abortions, the Republican party talks about a pie-in-the-sky scenario -- repealing Roe v. Wade -- that still wouldn't have much effect on the issue. Barack Obama has a concrete, serious plan any pro-life voter can (and should) applaud.

Two final points and I'll step off my soapbox and put it away until the election's over so we can all be friends again.

#1: There is more to being pro-life than fighting against abortion. For me, the pro-life platform includes things like poverty, women's rights, global human rights, environmental stewardship, torture, war, and racism. I think Obama is a more compelling choice than McCain on all of those. All of them. How can I be pro-life if I vote for the lesser candidate in 7 out of 8 pro-life categories?

#2: When it comes to elections, I am not a single-issue voter. Some people are, and if that's how you choose to vote, that's fine. But if a member of my family is in a terrible accident and we're rushed to the hospital emergency room, and I have the option of choosing one out of two doctors to perform emergency surgery, I'm not going to choose based on which surgeon is pro-life. I'm going to pick the professional I believe will do the best job in healing my injured family member. I apply the same reasoning when I vote for president. Parts of this country are broken or are in the process of breaking (and I include abortion among the "broken" stuff). But I'm going to choose a candidate based not just on his beliefs about that one issue, but on how I believe he will respond to all the issues. Which candidate will be the best healer?

Obama's stance on abortion falls far short of the Christian ideal. In fact, I think it's on the wrong side of the Christian ideal. But there are lots of issues to consider in addition to the abortion one, and when it comes to healing the rest of the brokenness, he's the doctor I'd choose.

Owen likes the planet Mars. I like Obama. Both of us are standing firm.

We'll return to inanity tomorrow.

The A-word and the current US Presidential campaign

Well, I'm shocked. James Dobson has publicly urged his listening audience to vote for McCain. I never saw this coming.

He specifically gives 4 reasons for this choice (which he insists is not an endorsement):

1. McCain & Obama's Saddleback forum comments about life
2. Pro life & general conservative positions of the republican party
3. Sen. McCain selected pro life/pro family VP Palin
4. Obama’s liberal views. His record is more liberal than any other senator.

Let's focus on #1. Some points to consider are below. But first, a disclaimer: I lean right of center, and am unashamedly pro-life. I also haven't decided who I should support. Abortion is one topic I have recently put a lot of thought on, much of which is below:

1. One of Dobson's reasons for voting for McCain is that he wants someone in the White house that will appoint conservative judges who will consider the "protection of life in the womb".

Is that right? Consider these statistics: (source)

What Supreme Court Justices did the pro-life folk put on the court? Seven of the nine Justices were appointed by Republicans. Does that startle anyone? Further, Justices appointed by Ronald Reagan (Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy) participated in voting down challenges to Roe v. Wade -- two such cases being Planned Parenthood vs. Casey and Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services.

George Herbert Walker Bush appointee David Souter also participated in defending Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, writing that to overturn Roe would have been "a surrender to political pressure... So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question."

Secondly, from Dobson's himself: (source)

"I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings..."

So is it a slam dunk that McCain will appoint those judges that Dobson wants? Not really. Even if it is, I think it may be more likely that if McCain were president, he'd get gunshy about the approval process and appoint a moderate.

2. If one says he/she is pro-life, does that only apply to the womb? What about prevention of unwanted pregnancies? Christians are good at crisis pregancy centers, where they counsel pregnant women not to get abortions. But what about career advice/Job training to help moms take care of their families? Child care to help moms provide for their families? What about parental training? We Christians are so preoccupied with keeping babies alive, we forget about keeping them alive.

3. How have pro-life republicans rewarded Christians' support? Not much. Why will it change with McCain? If abortion is one of the most important reasons for going with McCain, will he deliver?

4. Is Obama really that bad in his support of late term abortion? We know he is pro-choice, but what about the horrific late-term and live birth situations? See below for excerpts from his interview with Cameron Strang, publisher of Relevant Magazine:

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.

Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn't provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.

Strang: You’ve said you’re personally against abortion and would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions under your administration. So, as president, how would do you propose accomplishing that?

Obama: I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important—emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that’s something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think the proper role of government. So there are ways that we can make a difference, and those are going to be things I focus on when I am president

The conclusion: Abortion is always wrong. But should abortion be a litmus test in selecting our leaders? No. Should it be a consideration? Sure. But why is it the only issue that many Christians consider?

99 Balloons

Wow. The faith of these parents is truly inspiring.

Is there a "Christian" way to vote?

I've wondered about this for a while now and have a lot of questions with no clear answers.

Most American Christians are right of center because of the myopic (in my view) focus on two hot-button morality issues (abortion and homosexuality). But how should a Christian respond:

*to war? Is the Iraq war just? Is the war in Afghanistan just? Is war ever "just"? What should a Christian's response to war be? Is pacifism Biblically supported?

*to economic hardships? We all know it's a believer's job to help the poor and downtrodden; the widows and orphans. Do we? If we do, how often is it only a gift of our money but not our time and effort.

How should this translate in a political context? Should the government also assist in the care of its society? If it should, to what extent should the government help? how big should the "social safety net" be? On the other hand, if we do think government should have a social agenda, does this (subconsciously or otherwise) cause us to abandon our own personal responsibility because we (subconsciously or otherwise) think that the government is "taking care of it"?

*to wealth? What should our response be to wealth? We see the mantra "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer". Part of one party's answer is to eliminate tax cuts to the rich. The other party believes in "trickle down economics". Is there an aspect of class envy here? Or is an injustice? If so, how should it be corrected?

*to abortion? OK, fine, it's wrong. But is an outright ban the answer? It may very well be; but even if it is, is it worth the time and effort we Christians have historically put into this issue? If that time was spent spreading the gospel, or caring for the poor and downtrodden, wouldn't the Kingdom of God be furthered more?
Also, we Christians are good about crisis pregnancies, but what about help for new mothers?

Politically, why do we give so much attention to the pro-life/pro-choice views of our leaders? Why has it become a litmus test for Christians? Other than Bush's partial birth initiative, has there been any action other than simple lip-service by a pro-life politician? We hear so often that we need to get a conservative leader in the white house because of upcoming vacancies in the supreme court. When push comes to shove, will Roe v. Wade ever be overturned?

*to homosexuality? Does it really matter that homosexuals are getting married? Most Christians can agree that homosexuality is anti-Biblical, however, I have not heard one cogent non-theological argument against gay marriage. Doesn't there need to be an argument that will appeal to non-Christians also? Do non-Christians care that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong? Should they? Do we need a broader political reason? If not, why?

Again, I have some opinions on these issues (some of which may have leaked out because of my writing). But I honestly do have questions on these. Questions, that I don't think have a clear answer; and answers that cannot be answered by one political party or another.

Article: Ten Commandments of Talking (or blogging) Politics

Posted for your enjoyment this election season. And just in case I have any Canadian readers, you can modify this for yourself as needed. ( Although we all know that the NDP is of the devil. (-: )

Ten Commandments of Talking (or blogging) Politics

It’s that time. Now that both parties have had their convention, things could get heated. Here’s a reminder to folks to behave appropriately. In fact, let’s hold each other accountable in this network to a higher level of discourse for the next few months with these Ten Commandments of Talking (or blogging) Politics.

1. Do not worship political theories or parties. (You shall have no other gods before me.)
Do not worship ideas or theories instead of God. Not your stance on global warming or Capitalism or deregulation or education or abortion or gay marriage or health care or international trade or war. Do not put your hopes in a political stance or party line or economic theory. Those things are important, but they should not distract us from our unity in Christ Jesus.

2. Do not worship political figures or images. (You shall not make for yourself an idol.)
Obama is not the savior. Neither is McCain. Neither is the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Do not bow to Elephants or Donkeys. Good leadership is important. Political pep rallys and mascots are fun, but they should not distract us from our unity in Christ Jesus.

3. God is not divinely endorsing your political opinion. (You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.)
This is slippery. But it is important. We can’t answer the question Who Would Jesus Vote For? except in the privacy of our own hearts. I’m serious. This doesn’t mean Christians can’t express political opinions if they are so inclined. But it does mean we must humbly represent our opinions as our own personal opinions, not God’s opinion. Neither party is God’s party. And in a sense, both candidates already belong to God because they both acknowledge him publicly. (And of course, we don’t judge hearts.)

4. Do not use God to prop up your politics. (Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.)
OK, people. Both sides fail at this too. Corporate worship is not the place for political messages. Period. This is a fine line to walk. It doesn’t mean politics can’t come to church at all. Rick Warren did a fair job at Saddleback recently. But it wasn’t under the guise of worship. In your blogs, do not use the Word of God to prop up your political hopes. Don’t.

5. Honor your father and mother. (Honor your father and mother.)
Election season is probably not the time to try to convert your parents to your political viewpoint. Here’s my suggestion. If they start ranting and raving against your candidate, respect them by keeping your mouth shut. Don’t take the bait. And certainly don’t bait your parents! This doesn’t mean all political discourse is off limits—but remember that elections aren’t sporting events. Do not let abstractions become a wedge between you and your family. It’s not worth it.

6. Don’t be cruel. (You shall not murder.)
Elvis may have said it best, but Jesus had some good words on this too. He said, “Anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment… anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (Matt 5:21-22). If another blogger slanders you, talk to him or her privately first (Matt 18:15-16). Don’t air ugly conversations in your comment sections. Don’t attack people or ideas in public posts. This doesn’t mean you have to be silent. Respond to comments with an email. Engage them as Jesus says. And remember that it isn’t a sin for two Christians to disagree about politics.

7. Be pure. (You shall not commit adultery.)
I’m not sure how this applies to politics except as a reminder that we need to be examples of purity. Before you post a comment for or against someone, ask yourself if you are going to sully yourself or discredit yourself as a Christian. And don’t forget the comparison between idolatry and adultery. Don’t get so excited about politics that every conversation and post and comment reveals which side you are “in bed with.”

8. Be honest. (You shall not steal.)
Be honest when you vote. Stolen elections won’t help anyone. For some people, this may be a call to volunteer to work the polls on Election Day! A friend of mine volunteers for every election. Of course, every state is different, but she recommends contacting your local democratic or republican headquarters. Tell the party chairman for your party that you want to volunteer on Election Day. (You will need to be trained before you can work the polls.) The phone book should list contact information for both parties under “Associations” or “Political Organizations.”

9. Defend the truth and the facts. (You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.)
And who is your neighbor? Barack Obama. John McCain. Joe Biden. Sarah Palin. But also the Democrat next door and the Republican across the street. Here’s my practical suggestion. Refrain from sending asinine email forwards. But let’s take it one step further. If you receive a slanderous email, check the Snopes page on McCain or the Snopes page on Obama. Then send a kind response to the person who forwarded the email (NOT the whole list) explaining the error as gently as possible.

[edit: See also Snopes page on Sarah Palin]

10. Be prepared to accept the results. (You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.)
In November one party will win control of the executive branch. The other will lose. When the time comes, do not covet your neighbor’s political victory if your side loses. If your side wins, do not gloat.

With God’s grace, we can all get along for the next few months regardless of who we will support at the polls on November 4, 2008.

Article: Why Do Evangelicals Embrace the Republican Party's Demonization of Others?

Background: Jon Trott is an infrequent blogger and the former editor of Cornerstone Magazine, which was the best Christian cultural magazine in modern memory. Relevant Magazine aspires to be what Cornerstone was. Cornerstone, you may recall, was the outlet that exposed Mike Warnke as a tragic deception.

I always enjoyed Jon's writing; not always agreeing with it 100%. But as it should, it forces one to think, and to examine views and viewpoints in a different light. I reproduce this for you here for your reading pleasure. No explicit or implicit endorsement is intended. I hope it causes you to think as it has me.

Just Wondering: Why Do Evangelicals Embrace the Republican Party's Demonization of Others?

My life, unremarkable as it is, has since 1973 been dedicated to trying to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. I believe the gospels are historically accurate as well as revelatory gifts from God. I'm an old-school Jesus Freak -- even live in a "commune" started by Jesus People and called Jesus People USA. We're in many ways vanilla-flavored Evangelical Christians -- looking to the Old and New Testament Scriptures as our primary guide in all matters of faith and practice. (In 1989, we joined an egalitarian, woman-positive denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church.) We also share the American experience and many American distinctives culturally, and realize how intertwined (for good and for evil) America's history and Evangelical history have become.

I have a novel idea for Evangelicals. Let's look at evil as conceptualized by the Republicans of 2000-2008. Evil is postulated as a "them" problem. Remember George W. Bush's comment that we were going to eradicate Evil in the world? This view puts evil out there, as a "them" problem. But biblically speaking Evil is an "us" problem. WE -- individually and corporately in our various communities of faith, social networking, and national identity -- are the place where Evil exists. Further, more often than not, Scripture specifically speaks to "us" and "I" rather than "them" and "he" or "she." The Bible is a relentlessly personal book addressed to us / me.

Here' s another novel idea, building on the above. Let's look at history as evidence. That is, history will reveal to us our own complicity in the Evil of our world. Consider, for instance, racism. Evangelicals show a remarkable and commendable eagerness to dismantle any remnants of racism. Yet, I gently suggest we often do so while far under-estimating the breadth and depth of racism's legacy in these United States. I am old enough to have personally watched a bigot dancing -- literally -- on his lawn, celebrating one warm April morning the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. "They shot him -- they shot that commie nigger Martin Luther King!"

And who created the historic context and social rationalization for slavery in the United States? Christians. No, there's no dodging it. Just as South Africa built a sophisticated God-frame around apartheid, their torturous system of color and class, America did so. And Christians rationalized with proof-texted Scripture (as they do now in regards to oppressing women in churches and in marriage). Christians bought slaves, whipped slaves, destroyed black families by selling parents from children and wives/husbands away from one another. Christians raped slaves, using the Old Testament stories in an a-historical manner to justify these "relationships." Our Constitution, for a convoluted set of reasons, defines a black slave as "three-fifths of a person." The largest Evangelical denomination of today, the Southern Baptists, came into existence as the result of a church split with northern Baptists over slavery.

Regarding history and Evil, human beings have a funny way of not seeing its most obvious lessons. For instance, as another Christian leftie co-worked said to me recently, "When we look at Nazis as inhuman monsters instead of human beings inspired by their own sense of right, we are on the verge of becoming Nazis." That is, he continued to explain, when we recognize Evil in others yet fail to understand the commonality of that Evil with all humans throughout history, we risk endlessly repeating history in a demonically naive manner. We "other" the other. This is true of all of us, this writer included. As much as I loathe George W. Bush's thinking, policies, and acts as President, believing he's the worst President this nation has ever suffered, I suspect he's quite a nice guy in person. That is, a lot like me.

That raises the possibility that I could, given the amount of power a President has, create and activate deeds of Evil as a Christian every bit as horrendous as those he's committed in Iraq. And maybe worse... who knows? Fortunately for all of us, I'll never hold such power.

But in light of the above, there's yet another issue we as Evangelicals have to confront. That issue is nationalism. The previously spoken, more often now unspoken, assumption regarding America is that it is God's chosen nation. There is no biblical basis for that idea. Only Israel -- not modern-day, but Old Testament Israel -- is called by Scripture "God's people." And, as any Jewish scholar will tell you, it appears that being God's people usually involves a lot of pain.

We Evangelicals assume a lot of things about our centrality in God's plan, our expectation of material blessings, our belief that militarism is not only a necessity but a positive good. And much more. But beneath all of that runs a river of arrogant pride. We often fall into the root error of believing in our own goodness, our "deserving" blessings both material and relational.

And here is where history and the present collide. The Republicans sell us two things successfully. Fear and Anger. What are we to be fearful of? The Evil in the Other, that evil that our President promised us we would defeat and destroy. What are we to be angry with? The resistance of the Other to our goodness and rightness.

Jesus was murdered by people who thought that way.

People like us.

And Jesus continues to be murdered. "As you have done to the least of one of these, you have done it to me." Those Iraqi mothers and children and fathers and sons who died via American bombs, missiles, and bullets died at the hands of America. And America is us.

Yes, I believe the gospels to be about Jesus in history and (as Kierkegaard warns) even more about the contemporaneity of Christ. Jesus is here now, calling us now, consistently reminding us of our absolute need of Him. He is Love, and His Way does not include pride but rather the crucifixion of pride. We are not a Christian nation and should not expect to be a Christian nation. We as Americans are a nation of individuals and groups of people with thousands of differing beliefs. As Christians we are citizens not primarily of this world but of a coming kingdom.

That kingdom is to be rooted in Jesus' command: "Love one another." This idea is not historical -- that is, it rarely appears as an actuality in history. It is a dark thought with which I end this rambling. But I think that true love can only be actualized by people who see their own Evil, and capacity for Evil, most or all of the time. This is not the way Republicans think these days. Evil is Other, Good is Us.

Fear sells in this setting because we are truly afraid, we have not yet laid our lives down in surrender to Christ the way we think we have. Anger excuses our fear, legitimates it. Anger is the illusion of being righteous, the emotional ace that overrides the suffering heart. To love is to suffer.

History's lesson is that especially in recent years since 9/11, the Republicans have taken this fear/anger paradigm to incredible lengths. Democrats in the past have done the same thing. But Democrats have not tried to sell Evangelicals a bastardized version of the Bible. Obama is a committed, regenerate Christian, yet more importantly than that his attempts to integrate faith and politics are impressive in their cautious humility.

I, as one Evangelical, cannot agree to uphold the Republican Party. The crimes of Iraq -- one million more times worthy of impeachment than a former president having his penis sucked by an intern and lying about it -- will never be punished on this earth. But I am damned if I will support a party, or a candidate, who uses the same language, the same cynical reliance upon god-fearing people, to garner power. Damned because how can I love my neighbor while caving in to the Christless hate and arrogance such language and actions reflect? For the past two elections, we Evangelicals have helped elect an administration rooted in the godless, ultra-elitist ideas of Leo Strauss.

Will we do it again? Will we?

History says we will. The gospels say history is important, but the present potentially even more so.