Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Elizabeth Warren would never use faith to pander to the faithful, and other incredible myths

Published

on

Earlier this month, the Boston Globe published an article touting the depth of Elizabeth Warren’s Christian faith. While I won’t question the genuineness of her faith (or lack thereof, whatever the case may be), I do however question the timing of the Globe’s release of the article. Far too often, politicians have used faith to pander to the faithful for votes. Legal Insurrection’s William A. Jacobson explores this point in his piece:

Why this sudden focus on Warren’s Christianity? I consider it the start of the Warren rebranding for 2020. While a lot of potential Democrat candidate names are mentioned, Warren is at the top. Running hard left will help Warren win the primary, but will hurt in the general election. She’s going to have to appeal to those God-fearing Christians Democrats have long mocked as bitter clingers and deplorables.

He may well have a point. Those who have their eyes on either 2018 or 2020 may well start laying the foundations of their campaigns in the here and now. The New York Times pointed out Warren’s robust fund raising in their piece:

Ms. Warren has built a formidable online fund-raising operation, which has brought in $5.1 million this year for her 2018 re-election campaign and allowed her political action committee to donate $270,000 to other Democrats. Yet she also has joined a parade of would-be Democratic presidential contenders who have paid visits to the wealthy summer enclaves that serve as A.T.M.s for the party’s candidates.“I think Elizabeth is laying the groundwork for a run. She won’t admit it, but it looks like that,”

I admit that it may well be mere coincidence that stories about Warren’s “deep faith” are coming out around the same time as the New York Times is publishing articles about her “formidable online fund-raising operation. However, call me a cynic, but I doubt it. “Rebranding” oneself in the political sphere as a “devout follower of Jesus” may be a great ploy to woo naive Christians into casting a ballot for them.

Sadly, the use of religion as a tactic to sway the votes of the faithful has been used since time immemorial and it seems to work; otherwise, politicians wouldn’t keep doing it. The fact of the matter is a large portion of the country still identifies as religious in some form. Roughly 80% (depending on what poll you refer to) of America still identifies as some sect of Christianity. Practically speaking, it’s smart for a politician to dust off “The Good Book” and wave it around as if they’ve been a true believer all their lives. Many politicians have been guilty of this. From Trump’s now iconic “Two Corinthians” speech to Hillary Clinton waxing poetic in regards to being a Methodist while also stating that religious people need to “change their beliefs.” This is a phenomenon that is found both on the left and the right ends of the political spectrum.

Using Faith As A Prop

During the past presidential election, I didn’t support either candidate from the two major political parties. However, as a small-L libertarian, I was drawn to then Libertarian candidate Austin Petersen. I remember sharing a video clip with then-presidential candidate Petersen to my Facebook with words of approval. A fellow Christian commented on the video by saying, “Be careful. He’s an atheist.” My response was essentially one of, “Who cares?” Frankly, I found Pertersen’s honesty refreshing. Instead of pandering to me for my support with lies about his “deep faith”, he frankly admits that while he doesn’t believe as I do, he’ll fight to uphold the constitution, which includes my religious freedom.

However, I feel as though there are many among the faithful who would prefer the comfort of empty professions of faith, rather than hear truth: many politicians who claim to have faith, really have no faith at all. To that point, Jacobson is right to state that “…there’s very little historical evidence of Warren’s ‘deep’ religious faith, other than in a political context.” To contrast her professions of Christianity, he rightly recalls that proof Warren’s claims of possessing Native American heritage remain obscure at best:

…weaving stories from people completely unrelated to Warren as to their own experiences with Native America family lore or growing up as Native American in the 1950’s and 1960’s with bits and pieces of Warren’s story.  The end result is an attempt to paint Warren as a victim of circumstance and the times she grew up in, as a means of explaining away the many inconsistencies in her story.

Yet when one digs down into the actual facts in the Globe story, it actually is quite devastating to Warren, proving that contrary to her many recent accounts, Native American ancestry was not central to her life at any time prior to the mid-1980s when she claimed “Minority Law Teacher” status in a national law faculty directory.

The fact of the matter is, that many already see Warren’s truthfulness as questionable due to the sketchy circumstances regarding her supposed Native American heritage. People of “deep faith”, particularly the Christian faith, should never allow themselves to be put into a position where their integrity is questioned. As Philippians 1:27 states, “Whatever happens, conduct yourself in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. (NIV)” That includes honesty about one’s own heritage.

Putting Faith In Its Proper Place

Our faith should inform our politics, not the other way around. That is not to say that as followers of Jesus, we must completely remove ourselves from the political sphere. Dr. Vincent Bacote points out in his book, “The Political Disciple“:

“While it is vitally important to proclaim the gospel, introduce people to Jesus, and help them move toward faithful discipleship as they participate in church life, it is also tremendously important for Christians to see that it has always been our responsibility to care for the world, cultivating the flourishing of life through our activity in culture, politics, education, medicine, business and every public area.”

 However, he reminds readers:

 “Even if we live in a country like the United States that, as G.K. Chesterton suggested, in some way has ‘the soul of a church,’ our loyalty to country can never be confused with our prime allegiance to the tribune God with whom we are in covenant relationship. “

It’s important to remember that our politics shouldn’t overshadow the faith. Our faith must come first in all things. That being said, we should also practice better discernment. As 1 John 4:1 suggests, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (NIV)”. True, John was speaking of religious leaders, but I think that same healthy skepticism should and must be applied to our politicians.

Whether Elizabeth Warren is a woman “of deep faith” as the Boston Globe claims or not, I don’t pretend to know. People of religious faith should not simply take politicians at their word when it comes to professions of faith; but they should look closely at their voting records, their stance on various issues, and hold their feet to the fire should those same politicians fail to deliver.

Ultimately the question shouldn’t be why politicians continue to use faith to pander to religious voters, the question is: why do we as religious people keep falling for it? I only hope that one day the throngs of the faithful will stop buying into the empty words of politicians as they hollowly wave Christianity around for votes.

 

 

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Muslim leader in Ilhan Omar’s district: ‘When David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan agrees with you…’

Published

on

Muslim leader in Ilhan Omars district When David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan agrees with you

The controversy over Representative Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) antisemtic statements and Tweets have garnered the freshman Congresswoman criticism from some unlikely sources, including many of the Muslim leaders in her own community. They, along with Jewish Democrats in the district that voted for Omar, are uniting to condemn the way Omar has been handling her first few months in office.

“When David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan agrees with you, you’re not doing something right,” said Mohamed Ahmed, a Muslim activist who spoke with a panel of other local leaders.

The Congresswoman came under fire for her statements, but the response from Congress was muted. Rather than focusing on antisemitism or even including her name in an “anti-hate” resolution, they watered it down to include essentially any form of hate and refused to note Omar’s role as the catalyst for the resolution in the first place.

In other words, she got off without even getting a slap in the wrist.

But the words are still out there and thus far the antisemitic Congresswoman seems more concerned about other people’s reactions than whether or not her words were wrong. Apparently, she still sees no problem in what she said, but will refrain from saying them in public for political expediency.

My Take

As noted here before, one of the goals of the Democratic Party is to normalize antisemitism. While everyone seems to be focused on whether or not Omar is sorry for her words, nobody’s wondering why the Democratic Party as a whole seems to be perfectly fine with her feelings.

It’s getting harder and harder for conservative news outlets to speak out against such things. It’s not that there aren’t enough willing to say it, but between social media and search – the two primary traffic drivers for many conservative sites – they have to tone down their news so as not to get banned. This is just one of many reasons it’s so important for our readers to support us so we can continue bringing these stories to light.

The last thing we need is for someone like Ilhan Omar continuing to spread her feelings unabated. It’s clear the Democrats are unwilling to do something about it. Perhaps it’s time to help a moderate Democrat win a primary election against her. She was endorsed by the Justice Democrats, so it’s pretty clear how her radical ideologies emerged.

The world needs to know that Ilhan Omar doesn’t represent American perspectives. More importantly. voters in her district need to know this. We need to keep spreading the truth.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Aotearoa, The Land of the Long White Cloud, needs to step back and look at Christchurch objectively

Published

on

Aotearoa The Land of the Long White Cloud needs to step back and look at Christchurch objectively

On the 12th of September 2001, the United States began dealing with the unthinkable horror of the day before. After the terror attacks, members of Congress had stood on the Capitol steps and in unison sang God Bless America! Unfortunately, the Kumbaya moment was fleeting. Now in our 18th year after that event that united us, we are more polarized than anytime since the U.S. Civil War.

Day before yesterday, New Zealanders were shocked that their country too could become a target when they knew full well they didn’t deserve it. They had created an open society that welcomes anyone and everyone from anywhere and everywhere. Diversity they recognized to be their greatest asset.

So who would want to do them harm? A self-proclaimed white supremacist from across the Tasman in neighboring Australia chose the city of Christchurch on New Zealand’s South Island as the optimum place to massacre Muslims in their mosques during their Friday prayers.

I will submit to you that the combination of a soft target and optimum world media attention were significant factors in his decision. Kiwis were not expecting it. But, who would be?

I will not repeat the perpetrator’s name here to deny him the notoriety he seeks. Nor will I go into everything his manifesto may say. But, because New Zealand is focusing on some of his statements to determine why they were targeted and how to prevent such an occurrence in the future, there are some points that we need to consider.

This heinous hate crime and terror attack must be called exactly what it is. It allegedly was done to make a point about anti-immigration and perpetuation of Eurocentric society. However, in my estimation, it has accomplished precisely the antithesis of that stated objective.

The wanton slaughter of 50 Muslims at last count with at least an equal number wounded beyond that has overnight changed the narrative worldwide. American politicians are jumping on the bandwagon to express their solidarity with adherents of Islam against Muslim victimhood in our own country and elsewhere.

As horrendous and unforgivable as the events in Christchurch are, they do not negate the worldwide narrative that reveals thousands of Christians being slain in their churches in Nigeria. Nor Kenyan Christians targeted and killed if they cannot or will not recite the Islamic shahada by neighboring Somalis. Coptic Christians whose ancestors predated Islam in Egypt being persecuted and killed. A Pakistani Christian woman imprisoned for blasphemy by Muslims who refused to drink water from a cup her unclean lips had touched.

None of these other events have gotten significant world attention. But Christchurch is now a household word for everyone everywhere.

As one who has long been in touch with Kiwis for 30 years or more, monitored security threats in their country and throughout the Pacific Basin, having an admiration and respect for the good people of New Zealand, the events that have unfolded recently absolutely break my heart. I am saddened but honestly not totally surprised.

Law enforcement in New Zealand is respected and respectable. They liaise with counterparts throughout Oceania as well as in North America. The problem is New Zealand politicians who carry political correctness to a level that would make American politicians inside the DC Beltway envious.

Radio New Zealand has been my primary source of breaking events in the Pacific for many years. Even when the Pacific Islands Report from the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii ceased publishing a few years ago, they recommended RNZ which often covers even current and former U.S. territories better than our own American media. That’s why I have relied almost exclusively on RNZ for relevant updates regarding events in the aftermath of the Christchurch Massacre.

Now let’s go back about 48 hours and consider the developments as they occurred chronologically. Not so much the attack itself but moreover the reactions to it both in New Zealand and here in the United States.

One of the more troubling, though not unanticipated, responses of New Zealand politicians is to censor any kind of online expression which they don’t like. But what is over the line when it comes to free exchange of ideas? Who are the authorities and what are their criteria for censorship? Only the United States has our 1st Amendment protections of free speech and even those are under assault by today’s Democrats.

Politicians in Wellington should understand that censorship will only further polarize their own citizens. If they do not have a legal conduit to share their beliefs in social media, what extra-legal means will they find? Censorship invariably creates more problems than it solves.

The other to be expected knee-jerk reaction of liberal politicians is gun control. The perpetrator of Christchurch himself declared that he wanted to cause a 2nd Amendment rift here in the United States over this very issue. This is another indication that the Aussie was not just attacking New Zealand, but the USA and the world. Certainly not just Muslims ~ they were just a convenient scapegoat.

Once they have banned guns, will they turn their attention to box cutters, pressure cookers, knives and vehicles that run people down? Where does it stop? The gun does not pull its own trigger. The evil in the gunman’s heart is the problem that nobody seems to want to address.

New Zealand Police originally indicated as reported by media sources that multiple gunmen were believed involved. There were suggestions of a cell of perhaps 3 to 5 people and even allegations that perhaps 10 or more could have been implicated. One RNZ report, even without detail, lent suspicion that a nearby hospital was also targeted.

Within 24 hours or so after the original incident, a 180° turn has been made and the perpetrator is said to have acted alone. So, did somebody in authority over-react to begin with? Or, are there other suspects still at large that they don’t want to talk about?

Why did they suggest Jews not attend their own Sabbath Services in their synagogues the day after the attack on Muslim mosques? If the perpetrator is in custody and if Muslims were the only object of his hatred, then protecting Jewish synagogues makes no sense whatsoever if there was no such threat.

“The national security threat level has been increased from low to high for the first time in NZ’s history.” A related search was reportedly conducted 225 miles from Christchurch in Dunedin. All this for a lone perpetrator now in custody?

Even here in Hawaii, the Honolulu Police Department and the FBI reportedly contacted the Muslim mosque in Manoa to express their solidarity and to ensure additional security measures would be implemented. Nothing in the scenario in Christchurch suggests that a mosque near the University of Hawaii would become such a target.

A more objective analysis might be that retaliation could be taken to avenge the attack in New Zealand. But I haven’t seen any warning that synagogues and/or churches here in Hawaii should be on the alert. So why alert the mosque if they had no specific threat information?

Christchurch has under 1/4 the population of Auckland. The city name likely figures into its selection for this atrocity. Be it anti-Muslim or false flag, somebody wants to tear NZ apart.

The people to whom the perpetrator allegedly attributes his inspiration seem to totally run the gamut of the political and ethnic spectrum from U.S. President Donald Trump to Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik to black American conservative Candace Owens. But he’s a white supremacist, right? Let’s look a little further into that as well.

“The attack had been planned for two years and … New Zealand was not the original choice for the attack. [The perpetrator] chose firearms for the affect [sic] it would have on … the politics of United States.”

“In the post, the accused said he was visiting Pakistan for the first time. He called it an incredible place filled with the most earnest, kind hearted and hospitable people in the world.” This simply does not compute! Persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan is among the worst anywhere on the planet. How does this contribute to the suspect becoming a white supremacist who slaughters Muslims?

Whenever a Muslim kills Christians, everybody wants to claim it’s due to mental illness and not anything to do with Islam. But such conflicting statements by the man who shed so much blood in Christchurch deserve to be looked at from a psychological and mental perspective. Why did he go to Pakistan and view it through rose-colored lenses? White supremacy appears more of a crutch to fulfill his own perverted fantasies.

It’s more than just irony that the mosque attack occurred in a city named Christchurch. It’s probably deliberate. An alleged white supremacist chose such a locale. So could a Muslim offended by the city name. In this, they’d have common cause. Both wonder why Muslims chose to live there.

In this time of shock and introspection, Kiwis are asking how could such hatred be spawned by someone in their midst. But, in fact, it was not someone who developed these views in their midst. It was a man from another country who chose their country as a soft target for maximum media exposure and global impact.

New Zealanders need to realize that love and acceptance of others and a strong defense and security posture are not mutually exclusive concepts. There is absolutely nothing any of us can do to preclude someone with evil in their heart from wanting to do us harm. We have to be proactive in anticipating threats and able to intervene and stop the act before it occurs.

Acceptance of others is never unconditional. It must be conditioned upon their willingness to reciprocate and not seek to impose their will upon us or to do us harm in any way. That applies to white supremacists. That applies also to jihadis. Both are a danger to decent freedom-loving people.

It is not surprising to read reports of panic buying of firearms in New Zealand before the government can impose draconian gun control measures. Once again, as with censorship, you do not want to further polarize your nation. The shooter in Christchurch wanted to tear your country and my own country apart. We must not let such evil intentions and actions succeed. If you prohibit free speech and prevent people from being able to defend themselves, you are just sowing the seeds of future discontent.

While I’m tempted to outline the prevailing world situation in which Christians are the persecuted targets in countries ruled by either Islam or Communism, we shall let just two brief anecdotes suffice in this context.

2017 Palm Sunday church bombings in Alexandria [Egypt] killed 45 people and was all but ignored by the Western media and politicians. That was just two years ago. But you can rest assured Christchurch will not disappear from public consciousness that quickly. More correctly, a Muslim on Christian attack in Egypt never really attracted any real attention to begin with. As with the genocide in Nigeria, the world just yawns.

An article dated today published by Gatestone Institute is entitled, Iran Inches Closer to its Goal: “Wipe Israel off the Map”. This helps demonstrate that Islam is more often the perpetrator rather than the victim. NZ’s neighborhood is far safer than Israel’s, but on the same planet!

I have focused mostly today on the reaction within New Zealand itself. There will be repercussions in the United States as well. As I mentioned, our own politicians are jumping on the bandwagon to paint Muslims as the victim of hate crimes. But, Christchurch was both an aberration and a total exception to the rule of what has been going on for at least a generation all over the world.

This has been just a snapshot of a developing story. Future reports, particularly actions taken by New Zealand authorities in the wake of Christchurch (which unfortunately may become a one word symbol of terror), will influence interpretations for sure and understanding if we’re lucky.

I don’t wish to offend anyone, certainly not our great Kiwi friends, but I must take that risk in order to admonish Aotearoa to emerge from its cocoon. There is no neutrality in the face of evil which has many masks. Be strong!

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Rajmann Sanders accused of ‘marrying’ 14-year-old girl at Philadelphia’s Masjid Uthman Dan Fodiyo mosque

Published

on

Rajmann Sanders accused of marrying 14-year-old girl at Philadelphias Masjid Uthman Dan Fodiyo mosqu

Child brides are a known problem around the world, but we’ve heard more about them happening in the United States in recent months than we’d heard in the news before. It has gotten to the point that a heinous crime involving a 14-year-old bride and her 10-year-old sister married in a Philadelphia mosque to a man more than twice her age barely makes local news, let alone state or national news.

Rajmann Sanders has been arrested and charged with multiple felonies, including raping the two girls for the last three years. According to his “bride,” she was forced to marry the man at the Masjid Uthman Dan Fodiyo mosque in Philadelphia. She claims the mosque covered up the crimes against her and her younger sister.

My Take

When I first heard about the story, I figured I would be able to find something about it on Fox News, Townhall, Breitbart, or some other right-leaning news outlet. So far, nothing. This is just another reason that we’re so adamant about growing this news site through donations by our readers. Conservative media is so focused on Robert Mueller, Chelsea Clinton, or whatever the “big” right wing story of the day is that there’s not nearly enough attention being paid to stories patriotic Americans need to read.

This is sick and we may be seeing the tip of the iceberg. As can be seen by a visual of the mosque, this doesn’t look like a place where people come to worship. It appears to be hidden away, run down, and intentionally inconspicuous. If one were to imagine a place claiming to be a mosque where sickening child marriages happen regularly, this is what we’d imagine. Thankfully, police are investigating.

Protecting children should be one of our top priorities, yet stories like these slip through the cracks. If it weren’t for this brave young lady who has been abused herself and wants to stop such things from happening to her children, we may never have even heard of this crime and possible criminal ring.

Where’s the outrage? If this were a Christian church or a synagogue allegedly performing forced marriages between adult men and young teen girls, it would be huge news. There would be protests. Ask yourself why this is.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report