Re: “A marriage of doctrine, politics,” Patrick Caneday’s column, Sept. 8: I don’t seem to recall that we are voting on the head of the Christian Church this November, I thought it was for the head of our country, a political office and not on a candidate’s religious doctrinal beliefs.
I venture to say that if we were voting for a religious office, many Christians would be hard pressed to go along with the beliefs espoused by Barack Obama’s longtime spiritual adviser, Jeremiah Wright. Evangelical Christian Republicans have vastly more in common with Mitt Romney’s political values than with Barack Obama’s. For example, Christian Republicans tend to feel that innocent lives should be protected and are pro-life, whereas the Democratic platform supports abortion, paid for by taxpayers. Most Christian Republicans assert that the poor should be given an equal opportunity to make something of themselves, rather than being enabled by Big Government to stay poor for generations.
Oh, and as for “Rick and Rick” being allowed to use “marriage” to legally define their relationship: Let’s not pretend that changing the definition of one of the oldest human institutions, namely that of marriage, is not an immensely important decision and one that most Christians feel should be maintained along its traditional meaning.
In all these areas that Caneday pointed out in his column, Christian Republicans would be vastly more in agreement with the positions of Mitt Romney than Barack Obama. But I practically fell off my chair when I read what Caneday wrote about the threat to Christendom presented by a “cult member near the doomsday button!” I hope he was being facetious. I certainly have enjoyed Caneday’s lighthearted pieces about family and everyday life in the past. However, he crossed a line with that ignorant and prejudiced remark.