Persecution Politics: Christian Leaders Sign Historic-Futuristic Declaration

Why is Obama's Administration is Anti-Religion?  It's because they are Communists and Communists do not believe in God.  Overwhelming proof to back this claim here: http://www.commieblaster.com/index.html

If I can just sidestep Commieblaster's searing argument for one moment, I found reading the Declaration an interesting process, in 3 ways: (1) They've adopted a style and approach which they feel sets them inside MLK shoes, and the anti-slavers, and seem to believe this approach is the right one. (2) It's an amazing look inside their heads, where they clearly feel they're a minority, and this comes up repeatedly across these churches -- whereas we often see them as representing the majority culture. (3) They are claiming women's suffrage, civil rights and even slavery as historic victories - for them. Now, segments and slices of conservative churches actually played quite powerful roles in some of these movements, but certainly in recent decades, these folks have been opposed.

So, you have to wonder what goes through the heads - not just what comes out of the mouths - of people who: A) Support civil rights and women's suffrage; B) Know that Obama & Hillary have won, and were beneficiaries of these movements; and yet, C) Are the immoral monsters bringing you these new challenges.

I've seen the same thing repeatedly come up in churches in relation to the environment, where the churches all became increasingly explicit about supporting wealth creation and pro-capitalist means of doing that, and then... saw their own people, esp. the younger members, begin to challenge the environmental impacts. e.g. That whole "What would Jesus drive?" thing sounded funny, but was part of 000's of churches getting solar panels and so on. At a deep level, there's a big question here, of -- who's really winning? There's also the question of, if your "opponents" are actually having to take many of your attitudes and approaches on-board, how can you use this to peel members off, and split their ranks? And last but never least, there's room for some more thinking about Ressentiment, and the greatness of FN, and how the hell one handles a population that soaks in it.

Two opposing views on the Manhattan Declaration from WaPo's On Faith section. The first is by Timothy George, founding dean of Beeson Divinity School and a senior editor of Christianity Today. George embraces the "fundamental truths" found in the Declaration and invites believers and non-believers alike to "to join us in the defense of human life, marriage, and religious freedom."

The second and more interesting column is by Robert Parham, executive editor of EthicsDaily.com and executive director of its parent organization, the Baptist Center for Ethics, who is right on topic:

The document centered on abortion, gay marriage and anxiety about Christians being persecuted, having their consciences coerced.

Noting its "chest-thumping boldness and abundant fear-mongering", Parham also calls out the Declaration for its historical un-truthiness in the realms of slavery, women's rights, civil rights and AIDS. Finally, Parham takes on what the Declaration neglected:

Such signatories can hardly reinvent themselves as drum majors for justice if they ignore climate change, wars in two nations, health care reform, deepening unemployment at home and spreading hunger around the world.