Thursday, October 25, 2012

Mail Call Two

The other piece of mail I got yesterday was the newest issue of Decision magazine (volume 53 Number 11). I think the publishers of this tax-exempt publication may have decided to influence the election.

On the cover is a picture of two campaign buttons; one is red-white-and –blue and has the word “VOTE” on it, and the other is black with white letters forming the word “PRAY”. In the lower left hand corner red capital letters order the reader to “TAKE A STAND FOR BIBLICAL VALUES ON NOV. 6”.

On the inside of the front cover is a picture of a younger Billy Graham (he looks barely 80 in the black-and-white photo) holding a book and looking resolved. At the top of left hand side of the page are the words “VOTE BIBLICAL VALUES TUESDAY NOVEMBER 6” in an over-sized font. Just to the right of the command is a special message from Billy that ends with an image of his cursive signature.

“The legacy we leave behind for our children, grandchildren and this great nation is crucial. As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election could be my last. I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me that America will remain one nation under God.” – Billy Graham

The BGEA has a page asking everyone to share the information and reprints of the inside cover on all sorts of social media sites, and to print it out to show to people.

The first article in the magazine is titled “the Campaign for Immorality”. In this article John Macarthur expounds on an edited excerpt from Romans 1:

“ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness …[this portion removed by Decision magazine]…God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness…[this portion also removed by Decision magazine]… haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things,” -- Exerpt from Romans 1 18, 26-30 NKJV

In his article John tells us of the biblical teaching that “if you don’t work you don’t eat”. I bet there was a voucher program in place to make sure this pre-Randian principle was not violated by “The lilies of the field” (Mathew 6:28).

John gets more specific by stating that the “elimination of god” by one party created a "Romans 1 platform”. He states that putting God back into the platform was blasphemy because the platform talked about “sexual freedom”. John also states, in an apparent contradiction to his ire at leaving God out, that God should not be in either agenda; John is very hard to please.

In his article John repeatedly states that what he is saying is “not about politics”. John must have a keen sense of the seemingly contradictory nature of his irony as most people would casually think that the question of who a person votes for is the essence of politics in a democratic society. John is apparently not trying to tell us to vote for a particular party. No, he is just saying that the Democratic Party is “literally creating a platform out of what God hates”.

John is terribly concerned with homosexuality. He talks about unnatural acts, and I bet he has a much more vivid picture of the details of those acts than I have. He may even have pictures; I don’t know. The picture of a LGBT (though I prefer QUILTBAG) demonstration did not look terribly unnatural to me. The photo did feature an agitated-looking ginger with a nosering and a sign asking people to “SUPPORT LGBT EQUALITY NOT WAR”. I guess I could see this picture as a bit unnatural; noserings must be awfully inconvenient now that cold and flu season is upon us.

Throughout most of the article John pulls back from directly naming the Democratic party as being the target of God’s potential wrath. At the end he lets it slip that the Democrats are the one who will burn in hell, and he does so in a parting bit of self-contradictory irony that puts paid to any doubts about his sensibilities:

"What I’m saying is not hate speech. What the Democratic Party is saying is hate speech, because they must hate homosexuals if they will allow them to go the direction they are going, if they affirm that direction, knowing that it will take them to hell. That’s hate speech. This is love speech.” -- John Macarthur

This issue of Decision has at least five other articles that deal directly with the election. Because I’ve just eaten I’ve only been able to skim them, but they are very focused on the idea that the country is denying God, homosexual sex, and abortions. It looks like denying God is the root cause of abortions and homosexual sex.

On the surface this appears contradictory as one of the often cited problems evangelicals have with homosexual sex is that it does not lead to abortions. I think the only thing that they are clear on is that being an atheist is bad. Since they are clear that laws should be enacted that help to eliminate homosexual behavior and abortions it is logical to assume that they will go after the root cause.

There has been a call to eliminate religious freedom in the US, and the religious freedom they want to eliminate is none.

Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion.


Anonymous said...

Billy Graham the pastor of presidents seems to only show up when the GOP is in trouble. Another fraud the Bible warned about. Besides Mormons. But hey. He ran a full page ad in the Chicago Tribune with the same stuff you wrote up. What a tool.

adult onset atheist said...

I think the idea is that by not specifically mentioning a candidate to vote for they are able to wear the transparent veil of being non-political, and therefore tax-exempt.