Tuesday, November 16, 2004

A dissenting opinion

I was e-mailed this and thought I would share a dissenting opinion. I don't agree with most and believe that some answers are too simple, but I think it does give an excellent insight into the type of thinking that I just don't understand.

As an evangelical Christian who reads the Word daily for sustenance; has read it thru many times to root my life in His Way, Truth and Life--there was no question as to who to vote for. Surely as an evangelical you know what happens to the nation that forgets God?

1.  I have held four of my own newborns in my arms, and eleven of my own grandchildren as newborns, dear little fuzzy heads next to mine.  I never hold a wee new creation of my Lord's anymore without thinking, with tears, of the scissors that doctors are now, BY LAW, sticking in dear little heads before they breathe a breath of life.  The opposition candidate supported this barbaric procedure and voted against its ban.
[The U.S. is now aborting 1.5 million babies a year.  Abortion is but a tragic symptom of the decadence that has fallen on the nation I love, and the failure of too many mainline pulpits to address the fact that without hatred of sin and remorse for transgression, one cannot walk in the grace and peace of God. While I recognize that abortion is but the end result of sexual immorality; said immorality is glamorized 24/7 by an entertainment media which has claimed for decades it is but 'reflecting' society , whereas it has, in fact created society in its own wretched image, and evangelicals weep. I cannot help but wonder at the daily news reports of one more tragic loss on the battlefield in Iraq--when there is a never-reported loss of another baby every few seconds of every minute.

2.  While many liberals cry "keep the gov't out of my bedroom"--evangelicals and folks of reason respond with the fact that what's happening in said bedrooms affects children, families, and life in communities.  Permissiveness, divorce culture, absent dads, pornography, the abandonment of absolutes--the 'horror' expressed at the presence of a bible or a prayer in a school or the ten commandments on the walls of a courtroom MATTER and they matter to this President and he is not afraid to say so.  His stand on the marriage amendment-- marriage being the foundation of civilization, always has been, and must remain between one man and one woman--as per the scriptures--seems simple and clear.  His opponent opposed it.  The truth is many of us feel the President of the United States is and should be a symbol of who we are and what we stand for--to include our Judeo-Christian heritage.  The oft-spoken "wall of separation between church and state" which appeared in the Soviet constitution, not ours, and which Jefferson spoke ONCE in response to one Christian denomination's fear that ANOTHER Christian denomination might be named state religion was NEVER and SHOULD never be used to deny the foundation of life in these United States, or our Lord will surely remove His mighty blessing and take it elsewhere--sending us into exile.  Why not? 

 We have guaranteed freedom to anyone to worship or not to worship.  But banning His Name to anything but blasphemy is getting very close to losing said blessing, I fear, a point on which scripture is very clear indeed.

3.  Creating life to destroy it:  embryonic stem cell research.  While experts tell us there is no evidence that the great promise of this said "research" is even there, the President's opponent chose to finesse the moral issue here by calling himself "pro-science," l repeatedly declaring the President against enabling folks like Christopher Reeves to "walk," tho' in fact this President is the first President to provide millions for already created stem lines for research, forbidding the creation of more.  Many of us cannot countenance creating one life to "use" it to prolong our own.  Playing God is not in our understanding of serving our Creator.   [According to experts in the field, there is considerable evidence that umbilical cord stem cells, and those taken from one's own body--have more potential.]

4.  Iraq.  I believe, as I've said before, that those of us who did nothing to earn the freedoms in which we are blessed to walk, have a responsibility to those not so blessed, or we can, and frankly deserve to, lose our own.  While people are fond of prattling:  "What about  No. Korea, Iran ?" [interestingly, those are the nations the President was mocked severely for including in his 'Axis of Evil' speech.]  To quote Tony Blair on Meet the Press Sunday, "where we CANNOT win their liberty, we cannot, but where we can, we MUST."  To undertake the difficult, only with sure results, is not that noble; and surely the possibility of failure is a reality given the history of the place we have undertaken it; but thanks to this President, and the likes of U.K.'s leader, we may succeed in planting liberty in the heart of tyranny.  Freedom is on the march in Afghanistan, and may succeed there. 

This President's much mocked but oft-spoken understanding that freedom as a gift of God IS, as you must know from your Scripture study,  true freedom and is from Paul's remonstrance to the Ephesians:  "Freedom is what we have!  Christ has set us free!"  And surely it IS the stuff of which makes up the yearning of every human heart made in the image of God.  We do not shrink from what the President's opponent called:"the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place," imitating HIS opponent, Howard Dean. 

We believe in this President.  Not that he is not without flaws like the rest of us--but that he is willing to stand tall in the winds of controversy, unbending to the whims of the polls, willing to listen to all points of view, but with a core of his own rooted in sound principles from which to make decisions as he seeks the Lord of His life, unlike our previous president or his opponent.  We believe that a man in the oval office that seeks the Lord for His wisdom is worth ever-so-much, and we are grateful to have him.

I absolutely appreciate the clear and concise message, but wonder if the writer and I live in the same world. I certainly believe that abortion is wrong, but wonder if late-term abortion (the description of which is the scissors in the head) is somehow more evil or abhorrent than 1st trimester abortion and would the writer be any happier if the late-term abortions were outlawed. If yes, why? If no, why differentiate between procedures for abortions?

I suppose I agree about the bedroom issue, but I wonder how does a government enforce those type of laws. I also agree that removing any reference to Christ/christianity is silly. However, the government only has two options if it wants to allow people the ability to believe differently. It can outlaw all mention of religion (see France) or allow ALL reference to religion (see Britain). The US has chosen the French way and I think that is wrong. However, I'm not sure that praying in schools or having the ten commandments on the courthouse wall would do anything. I've been cut off in traffic by plenty of people with Christian fish on their bumpers.

Again, creating life to destroy life is morally reprehensible, but the option that Kerry supported allowed for the use of discarded/unwanted frozen embryos from fertility clinics. He wasn't about turning women into farms for embryos, but using embryos that are on ice and will never be used. Kerry clearly spelled this out in 2nd debate. Is this ok? No, but it is probably the lesser of two evils.

As for Iraq, where does one start? I think I'll just point out that the 9-11 commission has established that there was no connection between Iraq and terrorism, many people stated that Iraq didn't have WMDs, but were not listened to. Seems to me that the President lied to create a reason to go to war. While my writer has said that the president is "willing to stand tall in the winds of controversy", I see that as being stubborn and refusing to admit that he is wrong. I don't find pride and arrogance to be particularly Christ-like.

It is complete faith in President Bush that baffles me. It is the belief that because he declared that Jesus was the best philosopher ever in a primary debate in 2000 and speaks of how he doesn't drink anymore that Bush is somehow morally stronger than other competitors. I don't doubt Bush is a Christian and I don't doubt the effect Jesus has had on his life, but doesn't Jesus say you will know my disciples by their fruits? I just don't see the fruits of the Spirit in Bush's life. Then again, I don't see the fruits of the Spirit in many politicians lives.