THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO A COMMENT ON MY LAST POST

Nathan,

I largely agree with what I think are your intentions, but I disagree with some of your reasoning. I’m going to respond to what you said from the bottom up.

To say that the church is too involved in politics makes me wonder if you’ve bought into the lie that church and state should be completely separate in all aspects of American life. This is not so, historically or constitutionally. I also feel, as a Christian, that we should be involved in all aspects of our community, locally and nationally. We must not create a false dichotomy here. Local communities aggregate ultimately to form the nation, so to say we shouldn’t be concerned with national government and only community is, as I said, a false dichotomy. Whatever your political persuasion may be, we must face facts: The nation today is run federally regardless of the founders’ intentions. National decisions pervade even the smallest of American communities. To be concerned with national politics is, in a way, to be concerned with the politics of the community, and I am convinced this is part of the holistic duty of the Christian citizen.

Now, having said that, I agree with you one hundred percent that it must begin in the community. Beyond that, if we are to be biblical, it must begin in the home, with the family – this, and not some backwards, fear-mongered homophobia, is why conservatives should oppose gay marriage and abortion. Community, as you have rightly indicated, should be the daily concern of the church. I think if we focus our gospel living and gospel service in the community the outcome will be far better than trying to legislate morality from the top down. But we must not shirk our responsibility to vote responsibly while waving the community service flag.

Let the above be an umbrella for what I say next. I don’t care if Obama and his family make the Cleavers look like petty thugs. I want a president with family values; I want a leader with a decent home life; I want a Commander in Chief who values community (i.e. what we had in George Bush). I, however, rightly question the man’s values and sense of justice when he consistently stands for the murder of infants. There is something fundamentally skewed within a person who shrugs their shoulders at the idea of hacking an unborn infant to pieces in the womb. That’s what abortion is. It’s not a quiet drifting off to sleep for the baby. The reality is babies are slowly, chemically disintegrated in the womb, or they’re cut up with knives and flushed away, or their skulls are punctured and their brains sucked out. Do a google image search, type in abortion, and you’ll have more than enough proof of the atrocity. Actual, scholarly research on the subject is even more gruesome. Anyone who shrugs their shoulders at such practices has a hideously distorted view of social justice – abortion is the height of INjustice and not the behavior of an enlightened society. Obama is not merely a shoulder-shrugger; he is a proactive, vehement supporter of abortion. His words of reduction policy are empty; his actions speak volumes.

President Obama’s voting record holds many disappointed moments for me, but the two most disturbing are his opposition of the Born Alive Treatment Law (Illinois Senate) – requiring medical attention be given to babies born after failed abortions – and his no vote on a 1997 proposed ban of partial birth abortion in Illinois. Here is what he had to say about it during the debates:

“I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.”
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

I will never in any way support a man who couches this despicable behavior in terms of “profoundly difficult decisions.” Deciding whether or not to have corrective surgery on your child’s heart condition is a “profoundly difficult decision.” Deciding whether or not to have a doctor puncture your child’s skull and suck the brains out is infanticide.

So he can play with the kiddies at home and remain faithful to his wife and pick up litter in the park and rescue baby seals from oil spills and build homes for Katrina victims and rally the community for better and brighter days, but I feel it’s fundamentally all for naught. Our society cannot continue or progress towards better community and stronger moral fiber if we deny life from conception.

Working my way up to the top of your comment, Nathan, let me say that I believe you’re completely wrong about Sarah Palin. The media tore that woman to shreds, and what a decent woman she is. She didn’t make a mockery of herself; CNN and NBC and CBS did a wonderful enough job. The GOP spent a ridiculous amount of money on her clothing…. Ok…. Michelle Obama spent ridiculous amounts of campaign money on clothes and food, yet because she’s the democrat candidate’s wife she gets the pass. The media quickly recognized Sara Palin’s appeal to middle america and rushed to snuff out that opportunity beforer the McCain campaign could jump ahead in popular opinion. Greta Van Susteren (who usually grates on my last nerve) did a wonderful interview with Palin, post election. You should check the Fox News archives if you ever have that much time to kill. Personally, I don’t think it matters now, anyway. And I think anyone who wished for McCain to die so she could ascend to office is disturbed on many levels.

I want to know why you think it’s interesting that I don’t want to be conservative for the sake of it. All I’m saying is that there’s a time for being what you’re raised to be and then there’s a time to own or disown it, and the latter requires an intellectual journey of sorts where you question your parents and your teachers and your upbringing and you listen to other opinions and wrestle with the big questions. I think this is true politically as well as spiritually. At any rate, we may indeed find ourselves having to abandon the “conservative” label in years to come, but that doesn’t mean you have to get onboard the left-wing agenda either. How about let’s all shoot for sensible, constitutional-driven politics? Let’s shoot for substance, people! All races in America, hand-in-hand, practicing the politics of substance. I’m gonna make some t-shirts.

Having said all of this I’ll close by saying I’m not afraid of the future, even though I believe it bodes ill for we who seek some semblance of morality upheld both locally and nationally. Yet we should all press on joyfully and expectantly for we know Whom we’ve believed, and we’re convinced that He is able… Not Washington, not republicans, not Barrack Obama… (and not even Itzhak Perlhman)

Grace and peace,

Bryant