Evangelical student paper endorses Obama

As a graduate of Gordon, I am proud to see the evangelical community represented by this endorsement. People who consider themselves Christian cannot be pigeon-holed as easily as it might seem. There ARE thoughtful, engaged evangelicals whose vote cannot be cheaply bought with a nod to single-issue concerns by a ticket otherwise representing so little of what this faith position is about. I hope such an endorsement from young voters signals the end of the era of evangelicals as single-issue voters and I believe it does.

Striking--a political statement by so-called evangelicals that fails to even mention the word "abortion." The word 'evangelical' is based on the word 'evangel,' 'the good news' of the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. KBM, first poster, and Gordon College writers, can you honestly look in the mirror and say "My Lord Jesus Christ is in favor of abortion, would have endorsed a proabortionist, would vote for a proabortionist?" That was part of the Greco-Roman culture that he was born into, imperfect/unwanted babies were exposed to death, and i recall Him not being too easy on the cult-ure.

Somewhere down deep in his/her mother's uterus, the baby can hear the 'evangel' being addressed to her/him. what part of Ps. 139 "I fashioned you in your mother's womb' do you not comprehend?

Is abortion the only issue? of course not, but its the only issue to the baby. After you let the baby be born, then yes, Obama would make a good president.

An evangelical college in the heart of blue state/People's republic of MA is not really evangelical, its totally infested with the leftism of its surrounding culture, but is in denial that it marches to the beat of the secularist agenda.

Obama has voted "present" for the vast majority of his political career, but on one of the few times that he did take a stand, he voted against a law providing medical care to children who are born alive as a result of abortions - the children are instead left to die in storage rooms or medical waste bags of abortion clinics (the Illinois senate bill 1662 of 2002).

What sort of evangelical can support someone who wants the law to deny medical treatment to infant dying alone in a medical waste bag?

For shame.

I agree wholeheartedly, I think it is time for every American with differing views on a wide array of issues to come together and work toward understanding and accepting that we are not all going to agree on every issue all the time. We have more in common with one another than we have differences.. We are responsible for making sure that our government is always working in our best interests and as a responsible member of the global citizenry.

At least the Catholics still have retained their moral commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Bible (including Psalm 139) and the sanctity of life:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/10/30/cardinal_omalleys_statement_on_abortion_issue/?page=full

I applaud the Tartan for endorsing Barack Obama based on an extremely rational and reasonable assessment of his ability to serve as an effective President of these United States. Understandably, some of Senator Obama's views are at odds with those of the evangelical student body, notably on the issue of abortion. Which is why the Tartan's stand is even more admirable - the students are able to look beyond one single issue to see the greater picture. It is the culture of myopia that has given the faithful a bad name - thank you, Tartan, for not extending that point of view.

whatever happen to character this so called christian paper endorsing a pathological lier for president. He said he would take public financing but didn't.
He said he would participate in 10 town hall debates but didn't. He has no history of ever being in leadership has never had to make any tough decision. As a state senator when confronted with a difficult vote he votes present. he won't be allowed to vote present as president. Moreover, this is a sign of a coward not a leader. As the most liberal democrat in the senate how can you say he'll be non partisen . And what about partial birth abortion? You kids clearly lack any kind of spiritual discernment.

Gaudete, "My Lord Jesus Christ is in favor of abortion, would have endorsed a proabortionist, would vote for a proabortionist?" now replace that with "My Lord Jesus Christ is in favor of the death penalty, would have endorsed a executioner , would vote for a executioner?" That also doesn't sound too Jesus-y.

I am not an evangelical and I do not favor abortion. I have fallen into the trap of simplifying my opinion of evangelicals around this one issue. Because of this artilce I have realized how prejudice I had become. I admire the thoughfulness and courage of the authors and declare my new availabilty to the ideas of those for whom I thought I would have no common ground. Thank-you and my prayers are for all of us.

How can anyone think that Obama will look out for your best interests when he is the only senator that voted to allow a baby that had lived through a failed abortion could be allowed to die?

Maybe they chose Obama because he is Ultra Liberal? It's definitely not because of him having sound judgement. His voting record on http://obama.senate.gov/votes proves he is not of sound mind or judgement.

Obama has either voted Nay or Not Voting for MANY Scary things including:
- He voted against improving the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs and reduce the Federal debt by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse
- He voted against providing standards for clean coal-derived fuels. (Wouldn’t this Impact Pennsylvania?)
- He chose not to vote to ensure that employers make efforts to recruit American workers.
- He chose not to vote to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require individuals voting in person to present photo identification. (SCREAMS ACORN)
- He voted against establishing a permanent bar for illegal alien gang members, terrorists, and other criminals.
- He voted YES to importation of prescription drugs.
- He chose not to vote to protect the health and safety of the public with prescription drugs.
- He voted against requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop regulations regarding the transportation of high hazard materials
- He voted against the strengthening of security for cargo containers. (CRAZY considering the threat and the Increase of Piracy)
- He voted against prohibiting the recruitment of persons to participate in terrorism, to clarify that the revocation of an alien's visa or other documentation is not subject to judicial review, to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to detain dangerous criminal aliens, including murderers, rapists, and child molesters, until they can be removed from the United States, to prohibit the rewarding of suicide bombings and allow adequate punishments for terrorists murders, kidnappings, and sexual assaults, and for other purposes.

A TRUE LEADER would tell the Black Panthers to STAND DOWN and stop interupting people from the Democratic Process of Voting!

Makes you wonder if he is FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CONTRIBUTORS!

Why are they supporting a Marxists Mommy?
Well Dear all the wealthy people have the money and that is evil.
Ya! We don't have to work hard anymore.
The American Dream is for suckers...Right Mommy?
We must be neighborly.
I love the Democrats!
America is just another country dear...we are nothing special...

Very thoughtful and well-written. Congratulations to the Tartan editors!

In response to "gaudete," neither is Obama a pro-abortionist, nor is any Democrat that I know. Some of them may be pro-choice, but that does not mean "pro-abortion." Indeed, abortion rates tend to be lower in states and countries that permit abortion as an option than in those that do not. I don't mean to argue the issues of morality here because this is a deeply personal matter that defies bridging between opposite views. I respect gaudete's perspective, but do not wish it to be forced upon me. The issue is whether government should support the imposition of one person's morality upon another person.

Gaudete writes, "After you let the baby be born, then yes, Obama would make a good president." I agree with gaudete totally on that score!

Interesting endorsement. To the" pro-life" voters, keep voting to protect babies and in the meantime your votes advocate for the killing of soldiers and civilians "in the name of God". As long as the dead are not babies, their life doesn't matter, right? Oh, I forgot what's important is if America "wins" the war like McCain promises. I'd rather have our soldiers home alive in defeat than dead in "victory". The Consititution governs this country, not the Bible.

In response to gaudete..No on in this election is proabortion. I struggle to think of ANYONE I know that is "pro-abortion"

There is a very big difference in "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice"

Hey anti-abortion fanatics. Did you ever think that this paper is endorsing the candidate based on the broad scope of his policies and the kind of leadership and change he'll bring to the country, not just a single issue. Choosing the President is not about abortion. It's about a whole bunch of issues that just might impact the life of the unborn baby you're trying to save--like healthcare, education, security, the economy, etc. I'd like to suggest that encapsulating Evangelicals into a narrow category and grossly attacking anyone who questions your belief belittles what true faith is all about. And besides, we are choosing the leader of our government. The church should have little say in that decision. I know we all like to get on our moral high-horse and talk about following the path of righteousness straight to the polls, but it's time to wake up and realize that using a skewed view of religiosity is a poor way to make decisions. We are not better off than we were 8 years ago, everyone can see that no matter what faith. It's time for change. It's time for compassion, pragmatism, transparency, and someone who'll have an open dialogue with America.

It is heartening to see this endorsement. I am a staunch Democrat, and I have been hopeful that Obama's message of bridging the divides in our country would be heard by one and all. I have spoken to evangelicals within my family about our common concerns, how most Americans want the same things, a safe place to live, enough money to put food on the table, a decent job, good schools for our kids. I am hopeful to see the end to the culture of divisiveness that has been cultivated by the previous Republican administration. Thank you, Janet

As a recent graduate of the Gordon College I would have been surprised if the Tartan had not endorsed Obama. The paper has always been staffed by mostly liberals students from year to year. Not many students on campus even read the Tartan and those that do consider the publication's writing to be pretty awful. I actually found the posting of this on Boston.com pretty funny considering the way the Tartan is actually looked at from a Gordon College student's perspective.

Gordon College just lost a lot of respect among evangelicals. It must be a sad day for the leaders and founders of Gordon. I have many friends who graduated from Gordon. I have to imagine the annual fund will take a major step back this year.....very dissappointing.

As a graduate of Gordon, Im not quite sure why this is news. Gordon students (and most professors) have always leaned left in their politics. You see Gordon students live in a bubble. A bubble filled with grand ideas but never based in reality. While all of Obamas hopes and dreams may sound great to a 20 year old college student (health care for everyone?? yay! no more poor people?? yay! Obama will pay for my gas?? yay!!), there is no real way to achieve them without a substantial increase in taxes which would in the end result in the destruction of the American Dream. As these Gordon students graduate and leave this bubble they will understand the real consequences of government programs. Perhaps then their endorsement will mean something. But as for now, this is just another group of college kids getting caught up in the fanaticism that is the Obama campaign. I am also shocked that there is not one mention of Abortion in this.

Speaking truth with love - I find your post interesting. Can you direct me to anything Cardinal O'Malley has written in which he condemns war?

TJIC--Just to correct the record, Sen. Obama voted against the bill you referred to because Illinois already had other laws on the books which would protect the life of the fetus without denying the mother her constitutional right to privacy. So NO CHILD would be left to die as you contend. So congratulations to Gordon College for taking an important first step to healing the rift in this nation caused by the lies and distortions of extremists. You are to be commended for your open-minded and thoughtful endorsement of Sen. Obama.

Guadette (and the rest of the Catholic's without a single thought in the brain God gave you): You wish abortion were the main and only issue but because of a lack of intellect you haven't noticed a horrible economy, a deep dislike of our country and culture around the world and a worsening of our morals the past 8 years. Nope, it's either "abortion" or nothing.

Hate to tell you this but there are some very good and kind people who aren't opposed to abortion. Plus there are those who are against it that are clearly incompetent to govern (initials are S.P. to give an example). Get over your single issue and show you are capable of thinking about the entire welfare of our great country. It'll help your cause more by showing you understand reality.

To Gordon, I do not believe in your faith but applaud you for your excellent editorial. I wish nothing but good things to you and those associated with your obviously fine school. Kudos.

There is more than one issue facing our next president than abortion and it is certainly not the most important. Abortion is a horrible thing, but needless, unjustified war is a far worse thing. Depending on your spiritual background, abortion IS a gray area. War is not. Allowing corporations to step all over the poor and the powerless is not. As the Tartan points out, McCain can't even manage to run a smooth campaign for President, he couldn't even manage to not crash his fighter planes during practice runs, how is he supposed to run a country?

"the children are instead left to die in storage rooms or medical waste bags of abortion clinics"
This is a lie, and a shameful one at that. These situations were already covered by Illinois state law, Obama voted against it because the proposed law was intended to make it more difficult for women to get abortions.

To gaudete: Though our savior Jesus Christ is most likely against abortion, I'd like to think he'd also be against the prolonging of a war that’s killing thousands of innocent people a year. He’d probably be against capital punishment too. Does not Corinthians say (I’m paraphrasing) that it is the Lord who judges, therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart then each one will receive his commendation from God? That would lead me to believe that a matter of human life should solely be in the hands of God, and not government.

I guess my point is, our current president and Senator McCain are pro war and pro death penalty and therefore are not pro-life, they are just anti-abortion. And those who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion, they are pro the constitutional right of making their own decisions. It’s odd because most ‘blue state’ people I know are anti-war and anti-capital punishment whereas ‘red states’ are historically more in favor of the war and the death penalty . So, by that rationale, I would think that blue states are, in fact, the more pro-life ones.

Also, being ‘secularist’ isn’t really an agenda, it’s the foundation of our nation.

I am a Gordon alum and applaud the Tartan for endorsing Obama. Let's face it, realistically speaking we have the option of just two major party candidates, there will not be a candidate who shares our views on every single issue. We must step back and look at the larger national issues and seek agreement on those, and work for change on the so-called smaller issues. No one really likes abortion, but I think there are far more important things to worry about. We are fighting two wars with an exhausted army, the economy is on life-support, the environment is poisoned as never before, and there's global warming, taking care of the poor, seeking and doing justice and many more issues. We may not be of this world, but dammit we're in it, so we need to deal with it. Focusing only on one niche issue is naive and uninformed.

I, too, am a graduate of Gordon College. I grew up in a conservative, evangelical home. I will be voting as soon as I leave work today, and I will be voting for Barack Obama. This decision has come through much turmoil. I can assure you that I am very familiar with common Gordon student, and I imagine they are a lot like me. I can say that almost all of them would not have taken the abortion issue lightly. I've bandied back and forth with my bi-partisan group of friends over international trade policies, taxation cause and effect, abortion, gay rights, the war in Iraq, foreign diplomacy, the increasing wealth disparity, immigration, health policy, etc. My centrism and risk aversion tend me towards McCain, while my intense dissafisfaction with our hegemonic approach to the rest of the world, my interests in affordable housing, a reformed social safety net and my desire to provide a social safety net wound tightly enough so that none slip through lead me to vote for Barack Obama. A friend recently said in a post, there should be no excited support of Barack Obama (due to his stance on abortion) only somber hope. This is how I feel about this election. I feel a dull sense of hope that we continue to be a nation where I can freely express my religion, proselytize, etc. yet where our policies are 'pluralistic enough' to allow the freedoms that we need. After all, the most recent conservative evangelical response toward Barack Obama is an intense fear over loss of personal, fiscal and religious freedom. I am glad to see the Boston papers addressing the evangelicals as rational, intelligent voters. My Gordon friends (ranging from Christian Anarchists, to libertarians, to pacifists, socialists (not to mention hard-core dems and repubs who will certainly not be supporting Obama)) are a thoughful, engaged, interested bunch who, I assure you, do not warrant the tag of proabortionist, narrow-minded, secularist, or lacking a moral commitment to the sanctity of life. Certainly, given the fact that we must consider such a broad range of topics and pick from only two candidates, concessions must be made, no? I wholeheartedly, moralistically and ideologically am against abortion aside from health risks. Yet, I believe that we must remain pragmatic. After all, it's hard to vote ideologically, with only two candidates.

I am an evangelical, but I am NOT a single-issue voter. Yes, I am pro-life in my personal beliefs, but I believe Obama's platform (and that of the democratic party) GENERALLY supports Christian beliefs more than the Republican party does. I favor protecting our environment as good and faithful stewards of it (Genesis), meeting the needs of those less fortunate (as the early church did and as Jesus demanded in Matthew), regulating greed in industry and on Wall Street, taking guns away from criminals (really, do we need gun shows where ANYONE -- terrorist, criminal -- can buy from a private seller without any proof of anything), a balanced supreme court, etc., etc., etc. May we all come to vote for a RANGE of issues, and not a single one.

I'm appalled. As a graduate of Gordon College, this enfuriates me.

How can an evangelical school support a man who sat in Rev. Wright's racist church? How can they support a man who favors abortion? How can they support a man who voted against allowing doctors to give medical attention to babies who survived a botched abortion?

Gordon College is not the same school I attended just a few years ago. This only further confirms that fact. As of today, I will no longer be supporting the school monetarily. Furthermore, I urge the school faculty to call for the resignation of the editor in chief of the school newspaper.

I take issue with the Tartan's criticisms of Sarah Palin. Senator Biden has shown just as many, if not more, "mix-ups" that could be construed as his lack of understanding for the position in which he is running. Biden did not know the role a VP plays. Biden has made racial slurs while on the campaign trail. However, the Tartan glazes over his record and unfairly critizes Palin's.

I'm ashamed of the Tartan's sexist criticism of Palin and would expect a higher standard from a so-called "evangelical" paper.

This is complete rubbish. Where in this editorial are the specific policy reasons for supporting Barack Obama. As more than one commenter points out, the word abortion appears nowhere in the piece.

Furthermore, why does the editorial not address the effect Obama policies will have on families across the nation? As evangelicals shouldn't this be a priority?

What happens when Obama's New Deal-like policies take effect? What happens when jobs dry up because the economy is filled with perverse incentives not to produce?

What happens in a decade when the baby boomers begin to retire and we can no longer afford Medicare or Social Security? How compassionate is that? As David Brooks -- who the Tartan editorial staff seems to approve of -- writes today, Barack Obama's brand of liberalism is woefully ill equipped to deal with the challenges we face in the very near future.

Brooks:

"In the next few years, the nation’s wealth will either stagnate or shrink. The fiscal squeeze will grow severe. There will be fiercer struggles over scarce resources, starker divisions along factional lines. The challenge for the next president will be to cushion the pain of the current recession while at the same time trying to build a solid fiscal foundation so the country can thrive at some point in the future.

We’re probably entering a period, in other words, in which smart young liberals meet a stone-cold scarcity that they do not seem to recognize or have a plan for."

Sadly, the Tartan Editorial today ignores realities while embracing the warm fuzzies of a campaign built on fluff. As a Gordon Alum and a former Tartan news editor, this saddens me greatly.

Its fine if the editorial staff decides to endorse Obama -- that is their prerogative, but for heaven's sake, put a little intelligent thought into it the next time. This piece reads as if it were written at DNC headquarters.

regarding the blogger who said that Obama voted against a law that provided for medical care to children born as a result of abortions... THE TRUTH IS there already was a law on the books in Illinois providing this- the law he voted against would have added stipulations that he did not agree with- he is very clear that OF COURSE He would not deprive children under these circumstances medical care.
Please everyone, do your homework before citing half truths here!

People in this thread that make comments about abortion make me laugh! Sure, its fine to endorse the republican administration held hostage by the military industrial complex that creates wars (and death of the living) to feed its own insatiable demand for greed and power.
Wake up.

I could understand the Tartan saying, "We cannot endorse any candidate this year. Both Obama's abortion support and McCain's preemptive war stance are collaborations with a culture of death. Is preemptive war the only issue? Of course not. But it should cause Christians to withhold their active support. Likewise abortion is not the only issue -- but it must be one that Christians stand fast against. The specter of concentration camps weren't the "only issue" in Germany in 1933 -- and I'm sure many Christians thought "my vote for the Nazis is not a vote for antiSemitism but for other things, like jobs and security." But that's what happens wehne you compromise on essential issues of life.

Dumb kids.
He is acting cool and collected, that is an act kids. He is tied up in the rackets in Chicago. Tony Rezko, a man who was caught on 16 counts of political corruption, a man who bought off politicans to provide political cover for his corruption; he used to steal money in housing projects that was set aside by society for the poor. Obama aided and abbetted a man who was stealing money from the poor. Rezko helped Obama buy his house. Rezko bought the land next to Obama the same day Obama made his offer. Rezko sold a small piece of his land to Obama rendering the remaining parcel of land too small/unbuildable based on zoning. Why would Rezko pay $625k for a parcel of land only to sell a piece to Obama and be left with a $500k piece of land that you couldn't build a house on? That was $500k worth of graft. Come on kids, wake up.

Beyond that, they say Governor Deval Patrick may be considered as a Supreme Court Justice. Do a little research and you'll see that Patrick wrote a letter to a Parole Board asking for the release of a grandmother rapist/ murderer Ben LeGuer. Patrick was working at the time as an NAACP lawyer and in his letter he called the jurors bigots, and after admitting never meeting Ben LeGuer he said that he was: humane, sincere, eloquent, and articulate. Is this the judgment of a potential Supreme Court Justice? According to Obama's people he is. Beyond that, Deval Patrick collected hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit on the Board of Ameriquest, one of the worst predatory mortgage lenders that targetted the poor and minorities. Most dumb kids didn't know that and fell in love with his fluffy "Together We Can" nonsense. Beyond that, he tried to pollute our State with casinos. He never mentioned casinos in the election, but opened the door for the casino industry right after taking a summer vacation at his estate. Do these religious kids think that is cool? How about seeing elderly piss away their social security checks on the slots; those are the people these casino predators go after. Did you know that they have bus trips for elderly at casinos and they force the elderly to remain in the casinos for hours before allowing them to go anywhere else? Nice religious bunch these casino people.

Don't be dumb, naive kids.

Obama never elevated the discussion about our Economy.

McCain was actually right when he said that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong". What we are seeing today is a healthy country passing through a virus that is running its course.

That virus is based on subprime loans. A capitalistic society has fundamental limits of affordability. When we inject socialistic policies we add a surcharge to the affordability limits and things like housing or college tuition actually raise in cost, well beyond the affordability limits because they become subsidized. Socialistic, bleeding heart policy actually hurts the people they are meant to serve.

You see college professors making way too much money and enjoying the spoils of capitalism actually preaching socialism to their students. Why you ask, because they know if bleeding heart liberals subsidize college tuition with guaranteed student loans and grants that the colleges can charge more and they will be richer. It is kind of disgusting when you think about it, on the one hand they are raking in money from the parents who pay the freight and get even more from the government subsidies and then they cry poor and complain.

With Obama, we will weaken our fundamentals. Obama tells us that it is ok to feel entitled. He tells us that despite the bottom 50% only paying 3% of the freight; they have the right to complain. This country's wealthy pays for the overwhelming majority of our police, fire fighters, educating our children, and paying for layers and layers and layers of unnecessary government. People have been delusional to have contempt for the very hand that feeds them. We are not going to put our resources, bet our chips on government instead of the industrious individuals that create the abundance for many. We are going to let the lazy government hacks like Dianne Wilkerson control wealth. Too bad Wilkerson didn't hold on another month, she could have been swimming in welfare money. They wanted 20% of the original Bailout money to go to groups like ACORN, can you believe that? Obama is undermining a meritocracy. He wants to give a welfare check to those that pay nothing. He is saying it is ok to invite drunks to an open bar. You don't build a society based on those lazy values. Ask yourself, how did Obama's long lost Aunt get government subsidized housing when she's here illegally? Think about the elderly that are on waiting lists to get that housing that actually paid taxes all along. She must have had contacts to get that deal. Do you know illegal immigrants get higher consideration for State Colleges, even beyond those from families that have paid taxes and helped build these universities? Think about the resources we're going to have to spend to untangle all this pollution and all the nonsense that these deadbeats will swamp everyone with. We're going into a period where workers need to have a better work ethic because we have a baby boom generation retiring and we need workers to work harder and not become deadbeats and swamp government social programs that are meant for elderly that have been paying all along.

The Globe is putting years of journalistic integrity on the line for a man who has been tied up in the rackets in Chicago. You can not defend Obama's house purchase with Rezko, any involvement is abominable. He plugged Bill Ayers book. He almost broke a record voting "Present", he voted 97% down party lines, he took more from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than everyone but Chris Dodd, has less experience than anyone running for President in the past 50 years, etc. etc. etc. Beyond that, he wants to spread the wealth, is poisoned with vanity, is critical of the Founding Fathers and wants Supreme Court Justices to be pawns in his social engineering. Add to that a congress dominated by the furthest left wingers in decades, I appeal to the better senses of the Globe and its readers to heed the word of Arnold Schwartzeneger and not change this nation to that of a weak second tier european nation. People want to come to the United States to get opportunity. We don't want lazy losers who are looking for a hand out.
Further, the bottom 50 percent of earners only pay 3% of the cost of government. the top 25% pay 86% of the freight, do you think they get 86% of the benefits? In other nations the wealthy don't give nearly as much. Here, the wealthy pay and give opportunity to those that pay nothing. The wealthy pay the overwhelming amount of the freight for our police, firefighters, teachers, military etc. If people aren't paying for these services they at least ought to be thankful.
Obama wants to give welfare checks to people that don't pay taxes. How on earth does the Boston Globe believe that he is the right choice?
To the academic socialists, you make significantly higher profits than the oil companies and have gouged us more than them in the past fifteen years. You want socialism because when the market bears at affordabity limits, if education is subsidized you know you can charge more, and you do. You want governenment subsidies so you can get more than you deserve. Every social engineering policy tried has failed miserably and has hurt the people it was meant to help i.e. how affordability was made worse for housing due to socialistic policies like the Community Reinvestment Act.
Our elderly have paid into social programs and Obama will bankrupt and swamp these resources with deadbeats that ought to be out working and earning. Younger workers need to be sled dogs to help pull the weight of an aging population, we don't need lazy losers who feel "entitled" or Obama's base.
You don't build a middle class by letting the government control the resources of our Nation. Think about how resources will be doled out if Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Frank, etc. gets your money, they will give to groups like ACORN. Don't believe me, 20% of the Bailout money was headed to ACORN in the first draft of the bailout. At least private companies have profit and loss responsibilities and have to compete. Governments don't so if we let Obama control our wealth and resources we'll let government control them. Do you think government ever does anything correctly? Government screws up everything so the last thing we need right now is to let them tie up our wealth, which is one of our resources. Second tiered socialistic nations control their nation's wealth and that is why they aren't competitive and why their best and brightest come to the United States.

Wake up kids.

Good for the Tartan! A reasonable world view is exhibited by believers in Christian faith.
The hypocrisy of the Christian Right single-issue stance is unfathomable to me. Why is a candidate who supports the death penalty, or taking life in war, acceptable to these people? Certainly Jesus wouldn't support those positions any more than he would condone abortion.
If a Christian Right voter insists upon a candidate who would be acceptable to Jesus, then he should renounce the political process and advance his causes through other means.

I also graduated from Gordon and am very happy to see this well reasoned endorsement, but saddened to see the small minded comments of gaudete and TJIC. There are many Christians, including Barack Obama, who respect the rights of others and are pro choice but not "pro" abortion. By suggesting that Mr. Obama "wants the law to deny medical treatment to infant dying alone in a medical waste bag," TJIC is either ignorant of or choosing to ignore the circumstances of the vote in question, which everyone knows did no such thing. As Christians we should be supporting young mothers and social programs in order to lower the incidence of abortion rather than taking knee-jerk political stances that do nothing to stop abortions in this country. Christ also tells us to care for the poor, something you almost never hear about from conservative republicans. Bravo to the Tartan for taking a more broad Christian perspective.

this saddens me, when we can reason and rationalize Christ teachings we're doomed.

Beyond that their endorsement is based on Barry being able to inspiring our imagination? Wow. I hope my imagination can start paying the bills and fixing society's ailments. Or instead, let's look to our other human "leaders" for guidance instead of The Leader when deciding who has the best moral compass.

Three cheers for the school and the paper. Who would have thunk?
(I actually had to read this twice and blink a few times)

But of course you are all collectively screwed when Dobson, Falwell and co pick it up on the wires. Hey, a few moments of lucid thought coupled with feelowship goes a long way these days....maybe something might rub-off
It's arguably been fleeting at best in the GOP these past eight years whiich is no doubt central to the embarassment they will suffer at the hands of the voter across America later today.

Once again congrats! Your endorsement on balance appears to be in step with most of America.

To Independent - b.c.m. ...ever consider that America's image around the world, our moral decline, our economy and the treatment of every life - in womb or out - are all interconnected?

You're right though when you reference the "welfare of the entire country"...just get ready to pay for it. Clear-minded my eye.

Mommy, the people who disagree with President Hussein Obama are racists and bigots - Right?
Yes, dear they are and they will be re-educated.
Mommy, can we worship in Rev. Wright's Church .

Well, yes dear he is such a good man and he speaks the truth like Obama. Obama sat in the pew for 20 years.
Mommy, why do the Republicans question the truth we have created?
My son, one should never question. One must act like the respectful media.

The endorsement of Obama by the editorial staff of the Gordon College newspaper was one of the best, well written endorsements I have seen, and I have seen a lot. They are to be commended. The way-out comments by what can only be perceived as the rabid right are either wrong on facts or outright bigotted. Especially those of BFlynn who ended by referring to "you kids", as if they could have no independent thought, and the long tirade by JohnP, also with false observations, a typical republican reaction, who ends by saying "Wake up kids."
They may be young but that doesn't make them stupid, like some people.

To those people who are considering writing Gordon off as a liberal school that has fallen away from its values due to an editorial in the student-run on-campus newspaper, please don't.

I am voting for Obama, but I also know many MANY at Gordon who are not. Politics are something oft-debated on campus, and there is no official political stance on behalf of the administration--nor should there be.

If you're an alumni who is considering withholding donations due to this article, I would seriously think long and hard about that. Years and years of positive influence should not be negated simply because you do not agree with a simple student-written editoriall (similarly, funds should not be given just because you DO agree).

"At least the Catholics still have retained their moral commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Bible (including Psalm 139) and the sanctity of life."

HA! Yes, they also "still have retained" their commitment to butchery from Charlemagne's conversion at spear-point to the Crusades to the Inquisition to St. Bartholomew's Day to Bloody Mary to coddling fascists in Spain and Italy to actively assisting in genocide in Rwanda, plus thousands of other examples from the day they co-opted the Roman empire to whatever atrocities they are sanctioning this very minute. Sancity of life my Francis of Assisi.

As a former Tartan staff member, I have to wonder what this year's editorialists will think in the coming years when BHO's presidency proves to be politics as usual, just from the extreme left instead of the right. This whole transcending politics, envisioning the possible thing is a load of hooey to anyone willing to look past rhetoric and at the actions of their candidate. What Obama offers is nothing we haven't seen before - in the New Deal, the Great Society, and it's not some transcendent future that will fix everything. It's the same old liberal against conservative binary, and as long as people disagree (i.e., forever), we will not be able to "transcend politics as usual" the way starry-eyed Barack supporters believe.

"tenants" should be "tenets" I think.

I voted for Obama, so I know that I have a bias here ......

But, I think this is a very interesting endorsement. This is a clear break with expectation (who would have seen this from Gordon? Certainly not some of the alums!), and shows some true critical thought and soul-searching. Obama has given people some sense of hope, and I never really got any sense of excitement or hope from McCain. Time will tell how Obama will do, but I think one lesson of this election is how important it is to inspire and show vision. I think that if McCain was better able to do this, the election might be going much differently. Young people (like the Gordon students) often have really good "radar" for who feels like the best leader, and I think they have spoken in this case.

As a former editor in chief of the Tartan, I have to admire the courage this takes. I used to get more hate mail than I could handle for simply writing editorials about having to go to chapel or not being allowed to have girls on male floors after 9:00pm. And that criticism just came from other kids...now the Tartan has been opened up to the entire Boston Globe readership for critique and is about an issue that actually matters.

I may think they are wrong and ill informed (honestly, what college kid isn't?) but I feel for them as they get ripped to shreds.

I survived a radically less tolerant and respectful environment when I attended Gordon College in the early 90's.

I am now proud, for the first time in a long time, to say that I attended this school; a place where one can have faith, and a world view, and a healthy discourse about the relationship between the two.

It is with unbelieveable joy that tonight, the Republican party as we know it comes to an end. The days of the religious right's (which is neither) stranglehold on the Republicans is over. Finally, the group that holds the puppet and financial strings of the party will be told to hit the road. It is with great hope that the GOP goes back to its roots of less government, less government spending, and less governement intrusion into people's lives. You see my friends...there's faaaaaaaaaaaaar more to being a conservative than loving your pal jesus and hating abortion. John McCain wanted nothing to do with the vilalge idiot Falin, but had no choice as the jesus freaks assigned him that dope. He clearly wanted a moderate like Lieberman as his running mate, but the freaks wouldn't have it that way as they wanted someone who would "energize the base" (ie religious nuts who want to dictate morality ). The real irony here is that in doing so it cost John McCain the election. So evengelicals...tonight or tomorrow when you're wondering why it all went wrong...
TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think this editorial is laughable and shows an incredible level of naivete among the paper's editorial staff. There is ZERO policy discussion, which should be the basis of an endorsement - either the editors don't view policy as important or they don't understand it enough to comment on the candidates' proposals. Either way, it's naive and short-sighted. As a former Opinion Editor of the Tartan, I'm embarrassed for the staff.

As a Gordon Alumnus I am disappointed with the paper's decision to endorse of B. Obama. Abortion is an important issue, albeit not the only one. Roe v. Wade is poor law and poor science. Someone asked if Jesus would be in favor of the death penalty -- well the fact that he was crucified willingly and by choice should answer that question. "Thou shalt not commit murder" is different than "Thou shalt not kill." As to why they support Obama it was vague enough to be written by an Obama speech writer. My Gordon diploma is hanging upside down in my office at the disappointment. I am truly disgusted.

So much hatred, so many closed minds, so few real Christians.
Hence the problem.
And don't worry "Dr", nobody will notice as they pass your chiropractic clinic in the mall.

Thank you. You just took my son, a Jr. in high school, off your list. I know three others who were considering Gordon. I will tell them of this news. Fellas, it is impossible for you to be "evangelical" and vote abortion, gay marriage, etc. You fail to even mention that in your "endorsement" of such a platform.

I would rather my son be a part of a vibrant group of believers, at a school that does not proclaim to follow Christ, than to see him mixed up with the likes of you. You endorsed a man, that even by his own video taken in 2006, campaigned for a Kenyan politician that wants that country to be under Islamic law. Are you blind?

Is the spelling
"basic tenants"
" the job she would resume"
from the student paper, or from the transcriber to the web?

Angry Scot? Yup, you're steamed, for sure.

You write that you "urge the school faculty to call for the resignation of the editor in chief of the school newspaper." Fire him or her because s/he came to a conclusion with which you disagree? How arrogant is that? It certainly sounds like a good, solid educational approach for promoting tolerance of diverse viewpoints and exercise of independent thought. In any case, the "school faculty" is quite unlikely to possess the authority to fire student leaders. You know, there is a constitutional First Amendment. It applies to all citizens, angry or not.

Congrats to Gordon.

To paraphrase Buster Kilrain, anyone who casts their deciding vote for elected officials because of a stance on one issue is a peawit. Because people disagree over prochoice/prolife, we can't get our economic or military house in order.
Someone rightfully pointed out that the folks whose only issue is abortion, don't seem to mind all their sons and daughters dying oversees in a senseless war. Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not kill."? It didn't just say unborn embryos. There is no other word after "Thou shalt not kill,"
And to all those that have been reacting to the "proabortion" term, don't. The ones that use that term are versed in styles of argument in which you inflate the rhetoric of the opponents views and minimize the weaknesses of their own views. This is also how people like Rove get the fringes crazy for his views. Red meat works.
The "red meat" language only works when you pay no attention to the man or issue behind the curtain and only focus on the offending word.

That flushing sound you hear is NOT the country going down the toilet. It's the mighty hand of the people (believers and non-believers) flushing the republicans out of office. The stink will finally be gone. PHEW!!! Thanks be to God.

How could any newspaper, which benefits from our right to 'Free Speech' and 'Freedom of the Press' , support a Socialist who wants to implement policies like the 'Fairness Doctrine' which are diametrically opposed to our Constitution?

Where, in that glowing apotheosis of Obama, was there any mention of real leadership experience? It is telling when the only evidence given in favor of Obama consists of how he has handled himself in the public eye. One could just as easily have applied these bromides to anybody pretending to be the President on TV, say, "The West Wing." Essentially, their argument is: we like the image this guy conveys while campaigning, and we'll take that as a substitute for actual, proven leadership over time.

Notice that the statement never once gives any substansive details about Obama's actual political history or achievements, and for obvious reason, since it is either scant, dubious, cloaked in mystery, or patently opposed in its ideals to what a majority of Americans think.

The great irony of the Tartan's statement, of course, is that it then summarily dismisses Palin as woefully lacking the leadership experience to be the Vice President. If only they would apply their own logic: given Palin's ability to hang tough and endure an uprecidented, all-out media smear campaign against her, whilst Obama gets softball questions and a media pass on all the skeletons that have managed to rack up in his political closet, I'd say she deserves at least the kind of ringing tones given to describe the Young Senator's bid for immortality.

Never mind the fact that a state governor has more executive decisions to make on daily basis and across a broader spectrum of life than a U.S. Senator of equal or similar years of service. Palin, the Vice Presidential candidate, has more executive experience than Obama, the Presidential candidate, and yet somehow, the Tartan has drunk the Kool Aid Media Mantra that it's the other way around, as if that's even where the comparison should lie. It's McCain, remember?

So what's wrong with McCain? For the Tartan, it appears to boil down, again, to the image he portrays to the public. One is reminded of Ray Bradbury's satirical portrayal of the dystopic American political "future" in Fahrenheit 451, in which a group of vapid socialites compare the relative "merits" of candidates Winston Nobles and Hubert Hoag without reference to any issue of social or political import, but instead, fixate on such trivialities as the fact that one of them is taller, more articulate, better looking, and has a more "presidential" sounding-name.

As a professor at an evangelical university myself, I am similarly appalled to see such vacuousness mirrored in the Tartan's statement.

As a current Gordon student I find it absolutely hilarious that the globe even mentions us, much less because a few students endorse Obama. The entire edition is dedicated to the election and does a pretty good break down of Gordon College as fairly split voting between both Obama, McCain, and even a good number to other candidates. This single article reflects the thoughts of some students and not others and so it is a gross misrepresentation to make any generalizations about Gordon College (other than maybe we are not quite as conservative as other Christian Schools). The best representation of Gordon College students is that they are far too busy trying to do all their homework that they don't have time to accurately research candidates and so don't feel all that extremely passionate. (of course there are always exceptions.)

As a former Editor-in-Chief of the Tartan, I request readers recognize that an editorial is not a blanket statement of the political tendencies of the Gordon population. Gordon prides itself on allowing students to make decisions within “freedom in a framework of faith”. If you want a college who pressures all their students to vote as all “respectable Christians” would, rather than choosing for themselves, I’m sure you’d be welcomed at Liberty (http://chronicle.com/blogs/election/2579/liberty-u-students-keep-the-faith-for-john-mccain).

Referring to the editors as “kids” or to be “ashamed” to be Gordon Alumni only proves your small-mindedness. Judging the entire student, staff and faculty body by the opinion of one editorial, written by a small collective of likely 2-3 students, is unfortunate and narrowminded.

As an alum of Gordon College, I find no shame in reading this article. Senator Obama did not receive my vote, but I am proud to come from a school where political dialogue is born, not molded.

The distinction between Gordon's student newspaper and the general Gordon community is important here.

As a current Gordon student and former editor for the Tartan, I know that many of this year's staff lean left politically. There has been much support for Senator Obama on this campus, but I and many others have voted for Senator McCain. So I would caution readers against believing that the student newspaper is the authoritative political voice of our campus.

That said, I am very proud of Gordon College staff, faculty and my fellow students for engaging in authentic discussions this campaign season. The conversations we've had in class, in the dorms, or in campus-wide gatherings reflect the thoughtfulness that has informed our individual votes. I trust that my fellow students, however they have voted, have made their decision based on a sincere effort at grappling with the political issues this election season in light of the Christian worldview they have developed at Gordon.

The surprised reactions that this article has elicited tell me that there still exists the belief that all evangelical Christians are bound to- or should align with- the political right. Not only is this belief inaccurate, but it also diminishes the individual faith convictions that I am confident have led many of my fellow students and friends to vote for Barack Obama.

Remember: Jesus is not a Democrat or a Republican. Christ calls his followers to an active and responsible public life, but he most certainly LAUGHS at our “politics.”

As someone who attended Gordon in the mid-90s, I stand up and applaud the Tartan for this editorial and endorsement. Since I ultimately graduated from another school, it has been a long time since I felt connected to Gordon and proud to have been a member of the community. Today, I am reminded that Gordon did have a hand in shaping my character and that was in the idea that they never let me feel comfortable jumping on any bandwagon. Living in the Gordon community taught me to never get lazy and believe something just because someone or some group is affiliated with that belief system. My time at Gordon taught me to examine the world from a Christian worldview, but to really ask myself what that meant. Thoughtful consideration of God's will often yields surprises!
I do feel that the most important ideal that this article seeks to accomplish is to begin to repair the painful rift our country has been living with for the past 10+ years. Obviously, that is an unrealistic goal for a tiny student paper from a tiny school, but if this article inspires others to examine their belief systems, it has done its job. I am proud to stand with the Tartan and others and say that I am sick and tired of the sad, hopeless nation we are becoming. Today, I too stood up for unity and hope. Go America!

As a student at Gordon, I am shocked to hear that the Tartan endorsed Obama. The student body mirrors the complex views in evangelicalism today. I am saddened by the Tartan's choice. How can a paper that claims to represent the campus not even mention the issue of abortion?

Hooray Gordon! And Hooray Tartan staff! I am a former editor in-chief of the Tartan (99-00) and I am so proud to see this. This is a very thoughtful and compelling editorial and one I can whole-heartedly endorse as well.

I think the Tartan and the students of Gordon College show their lack of wisdom and understanding by endorsing Barack Obama for the next president of the United States of America.

As an alumni of Gordon, I am both surprised and embarrassed by this endoresement.

As an alumna of Gordon (and former Tartan staffer), I am neither surprised nor embarrassed by this endorsement, but I am embarrassed by your misspelling of "endorsement," Ben.

Snark aside: Sure, this endorsement doesn't reference abortion -- awesome; one fewer piece of knee-jerk reactionism. But it also doesn't say anything about Obama's health care plan (which could be construed as caring for "the least of these" in society) or his stances on energy and the environment (which, it could be argued, show more care for creation than McCain's). So what does it say, if implicitly? IMHO, merely that endorsing Obama is hip.

As an adjunct instructor, and husband of a faculty member at Gordon, I note the Tartan editorial, and Dan Hayner's response (#63) - he was courageous enough to be identified - as the very best thing about Gordon College in my experience - fostering respectful dialogue, while having the courage of one's convictions. May it ever continue to be. We will need that in spades to repair the social fabric of this country, as is apparent in so many angry responses posted on this blog site. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all.

I am a gordon alumni. I am also not ridiculous. That is all.

I am disappointed to see that some graduates are ashamed of Gordon College and the newspaper, and that some are threatening to withhold financial support. The educational experience at Gordon is one that teaches students to make their own decisions within a Christian worldview. It provides "freedom within a framework of faith." We are not expected to all have the same ideas, and therefore we should not expect that all Gordon students support the same presidential candidate. This endorsement, I am sure, does not reflect the entire student body, and should not be treated as a blanket statement. Rather, it should be admired that a school would foster such political dialogue, and respected that college students would bother to create such a thoughtful editorial. I applaud both Gordon College and the Tartan, and am proud to have graduated from there.

I am a Gordon graduate as well and i believe that the right to a free speech is for all, including Gordon college students, Republican or Democrat! No body and i mean nobody should expect the entire Gordon Community to back one candidate. Both of them have their flaws... You might as well not vote if you are going to rely on a single policy... Thank God, thats why you can vote and thats why you voted for Obama or Mcain. Whether or not you are still at Gordon should not be a determination of who you should vote for, your convictions should/ or at least should have a part... and you should not expect the entire Gordon community to have the same convictions as you do... Most of us are grown ups and we need to grow up. We are never going to have all Christians believe the same things we do.. and for that reason should leave room for what others (that may have a different opinion from us) have to say.. being embarrassed and surprised and what nots is not going to solve the problem!! Dont forget evangelicals make mistakes too.. and you are not perfect... Contact me if you have a problem with this post! @ trytextinme@gmail.com

Many of the pro-Obama posts here say something to the effect, "No, Jesus would not be pro-abortion, but he would not be pro capital punishment or pro-war either."

Several big differences: Executions per year? wild guess maybe 300; killed in Iraq, 5000; aborted babies 1,000,000 per year. Which is the bigger loss of human life?

Also, those executed are not innocent, the unborn babies are. But if you makes you happy, I will wave my magic wand, and have these several hundred preventable deaths go away, if you agree to wave your wand and have the million preventable deaths go away. Deal? You would make that deal if you were pro-life.
Our soldiers killed, while a tragedy, are killed in a war that at least is arguably by some to be just, and they volunteered their brave lives, but there can be no just offensive war against the unarmed, defenceless: unborn babies, who did not volunteer to be in harm's way.

For those of you still using the rhetorical dodge 'pro-choice,' There are only 2 choices. So a pro-choice person is at the same time pro-choice-the-choice-to-not-abort, and pro-choice-the choice-to-kill-unborn-babies. So many/most of the time the CONTENT of the empty category of choice results in a dead baby. We never speak about being pro-choice for slavery or rape or terrorism--why pick on the most defenceless, unborn babies?

No one has yet answered my question to my satisfaction. Everyone is in favor of the rights to healthcare, housing, job, food, education, the whole liberal agenda. But the baby only needs that one more right, the platform, the gateway, to all the other rights, the right to life, without which she/he won't be able to enjoy all those other rights.

Another Gordon alumni here, and I am also heartened by this article. I applaud the Tartan staff for being brave enough to post what has proved to be a very controversial editorial, and also the Boston Globe for moving beyond the stereotype of the "Religious Right" to demonstrate that the evangelical community is a diverse and thinking bunch. I would like to add compassionate, but by this point, you have read many of my fellow alumnis' comments.
Agree or disagree with Mr. Obama and his policies. Bicker about the quality and depth of the Tartan's editorial. But, the fact that you cannot deny or ignore, is that the evangelical community can no longer be coopted by any one side. As Dan Hayner mentioned, originally noted by author Jim Wallis, God is not a democrat OR a republican. And this election has proved that we are not a one-issue group.
I am pro-life. However, I also seem to fall into fairly liberal categories in regards to my interpretation of what policies are best, according to the Bible, for the economy, foreign policy, justice, and our environment. ALL of these issues make up a “consistent ethic of life,” as embraced by many Catholics, and I believe my faith is better represented when I vote for ALL of these issues as opposed to just “Jesus hates abortion.”
That is not to say, of course, that my brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with me have misinterpreted the Bible, or that they are not Christians. Their policies just differ from mine. However, as Christians, policies and perspectives is not what will save us. Parents, alumni, and students alike should appreciate that Gordon is giving all Christians an opportunity to wrestle with these issues in a context of faith, as opposed to denouncing the school for a differing issue that is truly small when put in perspective of eternity.

I graduated in 2007. I have to correct a few other alums. The Tartan has actually been a very politically balanced paper, which has accepted articles from students and faculty with widely varying viewpoints. The staff have also been diverse. During my four years at Gordon, the paper's senior staff was actually dominated by conservatives, but was still willing to publish articles from all points of view. With regard to Gordon's professors and other staff, a great many are also conservative-leaning or at the very least, moderate! Everyone knows that most college professors tend to lean more to the left of average citizens, but ours were by no means leftist or Marxist. In fact, our professors took stances that reflected a great deal of thought and introspection. On one more note, being pro-life means a lot more to me than being opposed to abortion. It means being concerned about a gamut of global issues like the environment, conflicts like in Darfur, world hunger, disease, and malnutrition, and responsible foreign policy. Single issue voting (or double if you include homosexual marriage) has allowed the republican party and the so-called "moral majority" to hijack the evangelical vote. If nearly the amount of resources and time poured into anti-abortion and anti-homosexual marriage lobbying, etc. by evangelicals were spent on these other issues, our world would be a much better place. I'm an evangelical who involved myself in several democratic grassroots campaigns this election and I voted for Obama with pride.

As a graduate of Gordon College, I think it is important to address some of the comments that have been posted by other graduates--those who have had a strong, negative reaction to the Tartan's endorsement of President elect Barack Obama. I do not believe that Gordon's founders or current administrators would be disappointed by the stand taken in the Tartan; one of the things I loved best about Gordon was that students were encouraged and supported in their efforts to consider issues, take stands, and think through difficult matters. Gordon's motto is "freedom within a framework of faith." For the Gordon student, this sentiment means a commitment to owning your own perspectives, not merely accepting or swallowing what you've been taught your entire life. In their endorsement of Obama, the writers of the Tartan have met this challenge; their arguments were well reasoned, intelligent, and sincere. Instead of submitting to the right-wing ideology that states that this election should have hinged upon one issue (abortion), the writers of the Tartan expanded their outlook and exercised their right as American citizens, to participate in the democratic process and to voice a hard-won opinion rather than a canned and predictable assent to the evangelical camp--this is what makes Gordon different from other Christian colleges, this is why I'm proud for Gordon to be my alma mater.

I am a graduate as well. I agree with Steve Walsh...I would add a couple thoughts on abortion. This was one of the main issues that put Republicans in office in 2000. Without the "Christian" vote there's no way they could have gained control of the house, senate, and executive branch. Through history greatest ruling power has been obtained through siding with God. The GOP is good at selling this marriage of ideas. BUT when republicans held complete control for six years, what did they do to end abortion? NOTHING!! Also, until 2007, McCain also didn't believe Roe V Wade should be overturned. Here's a quote from him: “I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
— San Francisco Chronicle and CNN, August 1999
He strangely changed his mind when he ran for prez. Thank you Tartan for being more thoughtful than the average "Christian". Conservatives might have stood for something I could agree with as a follower of Christ...but not now...they are a party devoted to policies enabling GREED while telling us they're moral...why do so many "Christians" believe this?

I am a parent of two Gordon graduates and am very pleased that President Obama was endorsed by the Tartan. In response to the criticism of the school, I would like it to be known that I am very pleased with the education they received, teaching them to search out the truth after seeking both sides of any issue. They do not teach the students to stick their heads in the sand but how to live responsibly in the world and fulfill the commandment of Jesus to be in the world, but not of it. They were encouraged to engage in the suffering/issues of mankind and to contribute to the solution by building up rather than tearing down, accepting with respect differing views because all of us are made in the image of God.
Thank you Gordon for encouraging my kids to stand for what they believe, whether it is the popular “Christian” stand or not. It has helped them to persevere in their relationship with Jesus Christ in difficult situations.

To the alumni/ae, students, and friends of Gordon College whose angry postings hardly hide their neo-conservative ideology, I say, "Stop being such cry babies." President-elect Obama is the choice of the Tartan, of much of the Gordon College community, and of the American people. And thank God for that.

Post #80 represents what I have come to expect from the liberal movement of our "progressive" culture. Usually resulting in name calling ("Cry babies"), the arguments typically provide little if any substance. The Tartan article is much of the same. (show some guts and identify yourself "Faculty Member").

As an alumnis, my response is anything but the "angry ranting of a neo-conservative ideologist". It's a response of sorrow. The departure from morality and conservative family values in our culture has long been under attack. It has in large part been the result of the abolishment of absolute truths and removal of moral guide lines. The christian campus is one place this should never had happened. Anyone who would suggest that a concern over the departure from evangelical values as "close-minded" and "stuck in the past" is guilty of the same crime for which they so freely indite others. Christians are to be in this world, and not of it. We are to differentiate ourselves and lead by example. Was John McCain the ideal candidate? Of course not. He did however represent pro-life values, with his running mate infuriating the feminist movement b/c she became the new standard for women who could be career oriented while raising a family.

I was disgusted over the course of this race and the pathetic news coverage and it's one sidedness. To now see my old school paper endorse Obama with the lack of substance they made their case with, was beyond nauseating.

They say:
"He has offered strong, even-keeled leadership in the face of economic turmoil; he has remained calm, thoughtful, and articulate when discussing issues of healthcare, energy, and foreign policy; and he has inspired a grassroots movement � both at home and abroad � to support his candidacy"

Superlatives? Is this why we are electing him? B/c he was "calm and thoughtful"?
Because he inspired a "grassroots movement"? Why not endorse Joel Osteen or Toni Robbins?

Furthermore:
enator McCain�s advertisements and stump speeches were consistently negative � trying to tear down his opponent, rather than make a case for his own candidacy. This way of campaigning is in line with the Rovian tactics of the last administration � a type of campaigning that America would do well to leave behind moving into the future."

The Tartan writers have fallen for the trap. Why do people usually get angry at "dirty" politics? Because they are often the truth. Rev. Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etc., all showed a pattern. Obama is not in fact a man with wise judgement. When you are children your mother told you that "you are the company you keep". That does not change as an adult .

Lastly, I would like to know how they arrived at the following:

The Tartan believes that Senator Obama possesses the necessary leadership skills, policy experience, and critical thinking ability to be an effective commander-in-chief."

It seems fitting that college students with zero real world experience would choose to endorse a man who has about the same. He has never been the head of a major corporation, Never tried a major court case, voted "present" 120 times in a STATE SENATE of all places, and has been a US senator for 200 weeks (for most of which he has been running for president). It seems to me that his major qualification to be president, is that he is running for president.

Finally, to post #80 again: The man who was supposed to unify and unite the people, excite us all, energize a nation...56,900,642 people did not think so.

It actually seems somewhat fitting that in an election where the media was so in the bag for the Dems, that even the Tartan would follow suit. Too bad.

I would not say that Obama is the choice of "much of the faculty." Was there a poll on campus that I missed?

I am a Gordon graduate and I would have to say, wow, I didn't see this coming and I am absolutely disgusted.

Instead of repeating what has already been said, refer to article #31 and #81, I share the same thoughts.

The Tartan and its editors sum up again students with lack of real world experience living in the Gordon bubble, easily swayed by the rhetoric of Obama. If they actually dug deep and did their research on Obama, I am sure they wouldn't have written this article and realized they were voting for the wrong person. Once they graduate and get into the real world they will hopefully wake up and smell the coffee.

We really need to put even more of our hope and trust in God in these next 4 years, it is going to be a rollercoaster.

Upon reading the Tartan article and many of the responses above I would like to add that after years of being slack about alum donations, I am inspired anew and an anxious to be a more supportive alum as of this moment.

The Tartan article was well thought out and articulate,showed a developed
worldview, an excellent awareness and a great understanding of the complexities
of choosing a leader who can best navigate our country.

I understand that many people, particularly Christians, choose to vote
Republican no matter who the candidate, and that some people felt that John
McCain was the best candidate. If this were my opinion, I would hope that even
though I was being disagreed with by the Tartan, I would have appreciated and
respected their argument and their carefully considered decision. My professors
at Gordon inspired me to "come to the table" in the face of disagreements rather
than be threatened and walk away. My faith and relationship with God has not
declined or suffered because I choose to come to these tables (for there are
many!), with Christians or non-Christians, but rather it is built up and
deepened, demanding humility,steadfastness and much prayer.

Politics is bigger than one party or one issue. We each have the right, or a
calling, to choose which issues are most important. As a former alum and staff
member, I am so pleased and proud to see the issues that our current students
have chosen as important. And on a personal note, I am glad to agree with the
article wholeheartedly and to have cast my vote with Barack Obama.

I am also a Gordon graduate. I have no problem with the Tartan editorial staff's endorsement of Obama. I only wish they would not have been guilty of the same negativity about the Bush Administration for which they accused the McCain campaign.

What has bothered me about the current Democratic Congressional leadership is their practice of blaming Bush for everything and doing nothing to resolve all the ills they spew off. When I read the words Rovian, secrecy, and abuse of power, I could not help but think of Pelosi, Reid et al.

Barak used a lot of that same rhetoric in his campaign. I wonder if he will have a better track record than the current Congress when it comes to effecting "change."

By the way Tartan editors, thanks for not ending your editorial with the Democratic National Convention opening mantra, "John McCain is bad. Barak Obama is good".

Some of my thoughts from this blog - http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2008/abortion/story.php?response=529996

I'm a Gordon College graduate who is re-engaging with my home church where I came of age spiritually throughout my teenage years. Coming from a liberal culture in the Boston public schools, I attended Gordon College, a Christian liberal arts institution, and really wrestled with spirituality, ethics, and politics. I believe we ought to protect life in all forms, but I am frustrated at how Evangelicals have engaged in politics with a holier-than-thou attitude and a non-negotiable approach to complex public policy issues.

It's been difficult trying to articulate a biblical view of justice, compassion, and equality (therefore endorsing some "liberal" agenda items) and not be dismissed by fellow Christians as "not serious enough about faith." The assumed norm is that a Christian should have a clear conviction on life ethics and marriage and family values, and when political support for a candidate who is pro-choice — that is deemed to be an unchristian and immoral choice. This seemingly unequivocal support for pro-life candidates and the GOP is only matched by a stubborn suspicion of liberal candidates and movements, which advocate for moral values such as creation care, economic stewardship, equality, peace-making and justice — all of which are prominent moral issues in the Bible. I personally believe that this type of support is encouraged by the assumption that Christians ought to stand up for what's right while the secular society is doomed — which is an incomplete and divisive view of civic engagement.

Moreover, the reality that life-ethics is such a vital issue adds to the self-righteousness of Christians that are for it. However, this is often just a proxy for conservative agenda to maintain the status quo of unfettered spending (government and individuals), free-market fundamentalism, and worst of all, not addressing the problem Christians are trying to tackle in the first place. Voting pro-life thus becomes the easy choice for Christians because it ultimately asks very little for the Christian in terms of civic engagement and in return rewards him or her with the satisfaction of standing for the truth. Why wrestle with justice, inequality, gender and sexuality in a pluralistic society when a Christian can start and end political engagement with the ballot and the picket signs? When the battle is focused on verbally attacking pro-choicers, harassing abortion clinicians, and fanning the flames of culture wars (of sexual ethics, class, and race) — it diminishes the opportunity for Christians to step in as agents of compassion, affirmation and effectiveness. This then results in extreme pro-choicers and other secularists filling the vacuum with inconsistent life-ethics and removing moral and spiritual dimension in such vital choices — leaving pregnant women with little middle-ground alternatives.

After all, public discourse is important, but uncivil debates do not serve women who are facing the decision to terminate to sustain pregnancy. Christians should be as scandalized by the daily murders via abortion as daily struggles that women face and the larger culture and narrative of gender roles, sexual ethics, social accountabilities, family, and class. Unfortunately, these conversations are quickly deemed as socialist or liberal and therefore unwelcome in Evangelical religious discourse — a dynamic which I think shows that Evangelicals are "single-issue" voters with an underlying materialistic and individualistic agenda. I think, therefore, voting pro-life feels good, a Christian feels good to know he/she is on God's side, but are slow to examine the causes of high abortion rates (abortion is not always just a convenient choice), slow to lead a lifestyle of service and sacrifice (think about how frugal and generous habits can affect the community, and make room for adoption, counsel or service for women and families), and slow to see the humanity in the other side, the victims and those who deserve reaching out to and working with to reduce the number of abortions.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that the GOP and conservatives in the political class recently have courted the Evangelical vote quite effectively, but in fact have betrayed our trust not just by acting with arrogance, exceptionalism, and alienation of opponents, but also simply by being ineffective and unapologetic — which shows in the Bush Administration's recent cutbacks of contraceptives in Africa. If Christians can start walking humbly in this issue, God also has a host of issues He invites us to be co-workers with him on — to steward nature, to administer justice, to feed the hungry and care for the imprisoned, the sick, and oppressed.

Mr. Obama is quick to show his true colors. He has already backed away from his campaign promises and has now said that much of what he set out to do could not be done in a single presidential term. Should have thought of that before promising it right?
The students who work at the Tartan got caught up in an emotional response like much of the country who voted for Obama and couldn't tell you even one of his policy positions. I'm guessing that the Tartan would have mentioned one in the article if they were fully aware of any. Alas they didn't and now all forms of liberal media will have to committ to projecting a certain image of the man they elected whether he can uphold his campaign promises or not. As Chris Matthews said, "I am committed to making this presdiency work." When did the media start writing the story instead of just reporting it?

As another former editor of the Tartan ('03-'04) this editorial makes me proud, and the vitriolic, over the top, condescending comments posted here remind me of everything that made me hate being a student at Gordon College. There is nothing more frustrating and depressing than to have a sect of Christianity declare who is a True Christian and who is a Heretic.

I believe in the sanctity of life, but I don't believe Life begins at conception, therefore I don't believe abortion is murder. The Bible does not speak to at what point life begins and nowhere does it name abortion as a major tenet of the Faith. The New testament instead spends much more ink talking about poverty and spreading the wealth. The Evangelical movement needs to realign its priorities if it wants to remain relevant.

>> he voted against a law providing medical care to children who are born alive as a result of abortions -

Maybe I can help clear this all up...Perhaps the folks at the Tartan are just a little confused. Like any Christian, they are eagerly awaiting the return of our Messiah, and based on the recent coverage from our so called "journalists", I for one can understand how they have been mislead. Did anyone explain to them that Barack Hussein Obama is not really the Messiah? This is only a name his lap-dogs in the media gave him...

Well said, Matt D. The vast majority of people who are pro-choice simply don't believe life begins at conception, making it logical that a woman should have a choice to abort it. At some point, however, they shift their opinion, want to take away a woman's right to abortion (usually late-term or partially-born), and then protect the child. The precise point seems to vary by person. This was my position until seeing a film (the Silent Scream, http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm) that shows a baby in the womb at 11 weeks (first trimester) that has hands, legs, eyes, mouth, feet, etc. and reacts to the doctor's instrument (if you Google "fetus" and look under "Images" it also shows this developent). The thing is, if we indeed have scientific proof of a human life in the womb, most everyone agrees it should be protected, because it's an innocent human being. Whether it's a soldier on the battle field, an elderly woman in her home, a hobo on the street, or a baby in the womb, all are equal in their worth and deserving of protection. Most everybody agrees with this, but again to Matt D's point, many do not believe it's really a human being in the mother's womb. But it is why pro-lifers, who do believe it's a human being, can pretty much sum up a candidate's world view on this one issue--nothing in the hierarchy of values outweighs life itself.