Democrats are getting very religious these days. They are concerned about pulpits and Jesus. And even “pro-life”?
But the hypocrisy with them is very strong. First, there is Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez who claimed that “Americans were listening too intently to what they were hearing from ‘the pulpit.’” Here’s the context of his comment:
And I had someone in northwestern Wisconsin tell me, “you know what? For most of the people I know, their principle sources of information are Fox News, their NRA newsletter, and the pulpit on Sunday.”
The pulpits of America belong to Democrats. Only Democrats can use religion and the pulpits of churches to make their case.
For decades Democrats have used the pulpits of black churches to extend their domination over the poor and disenfranchised. Black leaders like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton have been at the forefront of keeping blacks under the heel of the Democrat Party.
Let’s not forget that it was the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. who led the civil rights movement. In fact, without the black church, the Democrat Party would not exist today.
On September 25, 1994, Bill Clinton stumped for the former Democrat governor of New York,
Mario Cuomo. “Rocking to resounding gospel strains, President Clinton went to a black church in the heart of Harlem today to rouse a vital constituency to turn out its vote for Gov. Mario M. Cuomo.”1
An Associated Press report called the President’s antics “Bible-thumping politics.”2 Clinton’s message was decidedly religious and partisan, as was Governor Cuomo’s remarks as he “also cited religious themes and maxims.”
Why didn’t the press, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way, and the IRS cry foul? Compare this with the IRS ruling that revoked the tax-exempt status of the Church at Pierce Creek in Conklin, New York, for taking what is considered a partisan stance in a presidential election.3
Weren’t the President and the former Governor of New York, along with other Democrat attendees, engaged in mixing religion and politics? Where were the trumpeting cries of “separation of church and state”? For example, why didn’t Michael Gartner, who wrote a column for USA Today on why religion and politics do not mix, criticize Bill Clinton for mixing religion and politics?4
A perceptive letter writer noted the oversight: “Where is the outrage from the national media and the American Civil Liberties Union? Gartner’s omission was just the latest example of the conspiracy of silence.”5
Then there’s Rep. Luis Gutiérrez who “declared that the Trump administration’s immigration policies would have killed Jesus Christ during a scathing statement Thursday attacking Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.”
It is repugnant to me and astonishing to me that during Christmas, a time in which we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ — a Jesus Christ who had to flee for his life with Mary and Joseph,” Mr. Gutiérrez said. “Thank God there wasn’t a wall that stopped him from seeking refuge in Egypt.
This is the same Luis Gutiérrez who is a proud and consistent supporter of abortion on demand. If Planned Parenthood had been around when Mary got pregnant out of wedlock, the organization would have beat a path to her door ready to help her kill her unborn baby, and Luis Gutiérrez would have been right behind the baby-killing group supplying the funding. He voted NO on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion and has a 100% rating by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) indicating a perfect pro-abortion voting record. (On the Issues)
But all of a sudden, Luis Gutiérrez is concerned about Jesus but not about what the Bible says about killing unborn babies. Let’s look at the facts.
First, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were living within the confines of the Roman Empire. Egypt was part of the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus’ birth and their escape to Egypt.
Second, “an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt’” (Matt. 2:13). God (1) did not kill Herod, something He could have done (Acts 12:20-25), (2) did not warn the other families of what Herod was going to do, and (3) it was all part of some specific prophecies (Matt. 2:15-18). To say the least, the circumstances were unique.
Second, the angel could have warned Joseph to go into other parts of Israel where Herod had no jurisdiction, except that there is typological significance of Jesus being “called out” of Egypt. Peter J. Leithart’s comments explain Israel’s reversal of fortune by explaining that Israel had become like Egypt (Rev. 11:8):
All along the way, the exodus gets reversed, inverted, subverted, turned inside out and on its head. The murderous king is not an Egyptian Pharaoh, but Herod, “King of the Jews.” The threatening land is not Egypt, but Israel. And the land where the Son finds safety is not Israel but Egypt. The new Moses comes to deliver His followers not from Egypt but from an Israel that has become no better than Egypt.
Third, there is a second part of the command given by the angel. They were to remain in Egypt until the angel told Joseph it was safe to return. After the death of Herod, they returned to Israel and avoided Judea because another Herod was ruling there.
Fourth, from Nazareth to Bethlehem, to Egypt, and back to Nazareth, Jesus, Joseph, and Mary never left the Roman Empire.
- Todd S. Purdum, “At Harlem Church, Clinton Tells Cuomo to Keep Going,” New York Times (September 26, 1994). [↩]
- Barry Schweid, “Clinton defends U.S. mission in Haiti,” Marietta Daily Journal (September 26, 1994), 2A. [↩]
- See Tony Mauro, “Politicking costs church its tax-exempt standing,” USA Today (April 18, 1995), 3A. [↩]
- Michael Gartner, “Religion and politics just don’t mix,” USA Today (October 4, 1994), 11A. [↩]
- John K. Brubaker, “Clinton breaches religion wall,” USA Today October 7, 1994), 10A. [↩]