Christian Newswire: CNN Presidential Forum on Faith, Values and Poverty 'A Sham'

[Bluebear]

Contact: Dane Rose, Program Director, Faith and Action, 202-546-8329, 703-447-1072 cell


WASHINGTON, June 4 /Christian Newswire/ -- National Clergy Council President the Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK) , called Monday's presidential candidate forum on faith, values and poverty sponsored by Sojourners and broadcast by CNN, "A sham, a fraud and a travesty." The event, limited to Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards was billed as a "liberal Evangelical" forum.

Rev. Schenck stated, "What viewers saw tonight was a carefully scripted public relations effort to promote liberal political positions disguised as deeply held religious beliefs. The cynicism and sophistry of the participants in the event with regard to matters of faith was appalling."

Rev. Schenck said, "While I respect Sojourners CEO Jim Wallis's concern for the poor, this forum deceptively distorted what it means to be an Evangelical Christian. By definition, Evangelical Christians accept the Bible in its totality as the inerrant Word of God. Sojourners and their supporters do not. Otherwise, Sojourners would not provide advocates of abortion and same-sex unions a platform to espouse their views about faith and values. The purpose of this flimflam is to confuse and divide Evangelicals in order to diminish their importance as a constituency."

Rev. Schenck continued, "Sojourners has wrongly suggested that Christians have ignored the world's poor. It is a documented fact that people of faith, particularly Christians, are the most charitable individuals on Earth. Sojourners and their supporters would replace Christian charity with governmental redistribution of wealth – that is called socialism. History has shown that once in power, collective forms of government have little use for religion."

In 2006, Sojourners participated in the formation of the "Red Letter Christians", a group that concerns itself only with the words of Jesus Christ, often printed in the Bible using red ink. By exclusion, the group rejects other doctrines contained in Holy Scripture, particularly those dealing with the sanctity of life, marriage and the family.

Rev. Schenck pointed out, "Sojourners avoids discussion of abortion and same-sex marriage because the issues are 'divisive'. That is where we are in agreement, but for vastly different reasons. The murder of innocent children in the womb and the uniting of same-sex couples in marriage divides man from God's moral law as unequivocally expressed in the Bible. At the Day of Judgment, God will divide the righteous from the wicked."

http://www.earnedmedia.org/faa0604.htm

[BootinUp]

1. Rev. Schenck doesn't wanna wait for the day of judgement n/t

[donco6]

2. And people wonder why I'm down on Christianity.

It's not *me* interjecting (and demanding the interjection of) faith into government). Maybe some Christians can intercede with the head of the National Clergy Council. I don't see it, though.

[Cerridwen]

3. I agree that it is a sham - tho my reasons for such are quite

different.

[Windy]

8. My reasons may mirror yours... it was unnecessary, unwarranted

and an affront to the separation of church and state.

[Cerridwen]

9. I expect to see quite a few religious litmus tests applied

to many candidates for office after this sham. I hope I'm wrong.

Falwell wins.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. "liberal political positions disguised as deeply held religious beliefs"?

Jesus was a liberal, Rev Schenck. Deal with it.

[Cha]

5. But, it's okay to fucking SHAM

the SHITE outta people when you LIE to get INTO a WAR ON IRAQ and BOMB INNOCENT BABIES AND CHILDREN..NOT TO MENTION THEIR PARENTS?

Eh, schenck?

Quit being such a godamn hypocrite.. and yeah, the government can keep their noses outta our business.

Real Christians are into PEACE..I don't care what color the words are.

[AlinPA]

6. This religion "debate" is making me very tired. I have discussed

a lot of topics with hundreds of people this year and not once has religion come up in our discussions. I don't think people are that much interested in it. (My interactions have been in social situations, family gatherings, and volunteers groups)

[BlooInBloo]

7. Well DUH. It's a forum on religion.

[BuyingThyme]

10. The "Christian" bible has two chapters:

1. Sex.
2. Pregnancy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. It's amazing how little so many supposed christians know about

their own religion.

"By definition, Evangelical Christians accept the Bible in its totality as the inerrant Word of God."

Not true. Fundamentalist christians believe that. Evangelicals, by definition, are commanded to spread the word of the gospel. Most fundamentalists are evangelical, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalist.

"It is a documented fact that people of faith, particularly Christians, are the most charitable individuals on Earth."

As far as I know, there is no such documentation. And if you subtract the money sent to televangelists, money left in collection plates, money donated for the tax deductions, and 'guilt' money, I suspect that people of faith are likely less generous than the norm - they give so much to their churches that they have relatively less to donate to charities. And on that note, if there is a god I have to wonder how he would look upon people trying to bribe their way into heaven.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Exactly!

[LostInAnomie]

12. "...collective forms of government have little use for religion."

And, individualistic forms of government wallow in it to keep the ignorant little guy hoping for his big reward in the end. All he has to do is smile and get kicked in the teeth every day.

[kevinbgoode]

13. Another self-proclaimed spokesmodel for "God"

I'm beginning to think that it ain't the Ten Commandments these Pharisees want posted at every bus stop all over town...it's statues of themselves with requirements that instead of taxes, we pay duty and tribute to their idolatry.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. First they co-opted the name Christian, now they want to co-opt the term

Evangelical. Who says evangelicals have to be literalists? I mean, other than the literalists themselves, that is?