Forum Navigation
You need to log in to create posts and topics.
A few things from Virginia Knowles on the elections
#1 · November 2, 2008, 4:47 pm
Posted by: virginiaknowles <virginiaknowles@...>
Dear friends,
I don't think I've sent much, if anything, about politics to the Hope Chest list recently. I just wanted to pass along a few things I've collected in my inbox lately. There is much more that I could send, but these are the things that are popping up right now. It's long enough as it is! Please do pardon the spacing and the fonts. I am leaving town tomorrow and don't have time to fiddle with it.
Which reminds me... An update on my dad: He is coming home from the rehab hospital tomorrow, three weeks after suffering a brain injury from being hit by a motorcycle while jogging. He can walk, talk, and read. He is sometimes confused and frustrated, and very often delusional. He will require around the clock supervision for quite a while, and may not be back to normal for several months. In addition, my grandmother, who lives with my parents, broke her femur a week ago and is awaiting a hip transplant as soon as her pneumonia clears up. Hopefully, this will be tomorrow, which happens to be her 94th birthday. This is not the same hip that she broke three months ago. My dear mom is running back and forth between hospitals and caring for my grandfather, who also lives with them. So I am flying up tomorrow to help for five days. Please pray for traveling mercies for me.
Amidst all of this, I don't want to lose sight of what is going on in our country. So I want to encourage you all to vote, whether you are excited about the candidates or not. I wrote about this on my blog at: I Am An American (A Poem and a Call to Vote).
Before we get started, here is one YouTube link: John Piper on the election
The articles in this e-mail are:
-
Christians & Politics: Big Government and Small God by Jesse Phillips
-
Note from Brenda Dickinson of The Home Education Foundation
-
Dr. James Dobson, October newsletter
-
Why I Can't Vote for Obama by Huntley Brown (a black concert pianist)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Jesse Phillips
(Virginia's note: You can find more articles in this series at http://www.JessePhillips.net. Jesse Phillips is an intern pastor at our church, and one of the few people who I know that, as a teenager, carried around a copy of the Constitution in his wallet... And yes, he was home schooled. Jesse and his wife Rebekah have two sons.]
If I had to summarize the current debate in America regarding our economic struggles, I could do it with one word: complicated. Everybody has a different opinion of what went wrong and how to fix it. Pundits on the radio, television and Internet expound a spectrum of opinions as vast as America's fruited plain. Sorting through the analysis and ramifications is like solving a Rubik's cube. Blindfolded. And upside down. At Mach 3.
I believe, however, amidst all of the confusing analysis, this present situation is not very complicated at all. I actually think it can be summarized in one sentence. What we are seeing in our economy is what happens when statism meets materialism. We are witnessing the perfect storm that occurs when man's insatiable demand for more stuff meets a government willing to make sufficient accommodations for such living irrespective of means.
As we discussed in the first article of this series, statism is the belief that the state is the ultimate autonomous entity, the Great Benefactor. Materialism is the belief that happiness can be found in earthly possessions. The illegitimate marriage of these two ideas occurs when people begin to look to government to meet desires to have more than God has otherwise provided.
Materialism: The American Dream becomes the American Right
These days, nothing is more American than prosperity. Of course, it is a great principal of our nation that all men are created equal and blessed by God with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For many, however, happiness means making enough money to achieve fulfillment of dreams of a life of peace, comfort and material prosperity.
The gospels warn us against this selfish ambition. "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money" (Matthew 6:24). Not surprisingly, when we subscribe to this version of the American dream, money becomes bigger and God becomes smaller. Add to that mix a sense of personal entitlement and the American dream quickly becomes an American right. Rather than being a dream that can be obtained by hard work, prosperity becomes an American right that doesn't include work, sweat, suffering or poverty.
Make no mistake; there are many aspects of the American dream that are good. We should defend life and fight for freedom. There is however, a danger of which we must also be aware, and to which many Americans are unfortunately blind. As prosperity comes raining down, or the winds of adversity blow, this American ideal can become a slippery slope on which we descend into materialism.
According to Dave Harvey, materialism was one of the greatest challenges to the church and a contributor to her general state of powerlessness and apathy in the 20th century. "Consumerism was the triumphant winner of the ideological wars of the 20th century, beating out both religion and politics as the path millions of Americans follow to find purpose, meaning, order and transcendent exaltation in their lives. Liberty in this democracy has, for many, come to mean freedom to buy as much as you can of whatever you wish, endlessly reinventing and telegraphing your sense of self with each new purchase." [1]
The harsh reality is that funding the American dream is expensive. Cars cost lots of money. Televisions, boats, clothes, additions to the house, renovations, lawn service, cosmetic surgery, jewelry, vacations and eating out cost lots of money. In our culture, we rarely have enough money to pay for what we want to do, and very often do not even have the money to pay for what we actually do. Yet the limits of God's provision has never stopped a sufficient malcontent whose defiance against God's boundary lines leads to inevitable bondage. The American dream of prosperity often becomes the American nightmare of debt.
Dave Ramsey explains the widespread nature of this sad epidemic: "Just as slaves born into slavery can't visualize freedom, we American's don't know what it would be like to wake up with no debt. Last year 6 billion credit card offers were put into our mailboxes, and we are taking advantage of those offers. According to CardTrak, Americans currently have $807 billion in credit-card debt." Numbers that large are too big to process. Let me make it relatable: this averages to more than $4,000 of consumer debt for every working adult. The church is not exempt. We have chased the American dream, demanded the American right, and are now living in the bondage of our own idolatry.
Government: "Come, all ye who are discontent, and I will give ye more."
Eventually, something has to give. Illusionary living of this variety cannot be sustained forever. Reality always sends our dream world into a tailspin when we live as though we are richer than we are. We are experiencing the wake-up call necessary to lead to change. Unfortunately, with the blessing of a wake-up call also comes the opportunity for a seductive and far more dangerous offer. What if it were possible for some generous benefactor to bless me, allowing me to continue living beyond my means without consequence? Like smoke that causes a person to sleep while the house burns around him, we are being tempted by certain ideas and ideology to return to our former apathy, to ignore the God-given, life-saving alarms of conscience, and to sleep ourselves to death under the supervision of an entitlement government.
Long before the recent downturn of the economy, the groundwork was slowly and meticulously laid as godless ideas replaced biblical principals, beginning with God's ideas of equality. In God's economy, being equal before God means being judged impartially based on what we do. For God "will render to each one according to his works" (Rom. 2:6, 11). Today, being equal means being rewarded totally irrespective of works. We can't give trophies only to the kids who won just because they won. That might hurt the feelings of the kids who lost. Everybody gets a trophy. In God's economy, being fair means there is a proportional reward based on the quality of your labor (Luke 10:7). In today's thinking, however, being fair means there is a flat reward regardless of the quality of labor. In God's economy, mature competition is a virtue because it's the vehicle through which God-honoring industriousness is blessed, while sustenance and productivity are motivated. In today's mindset, competition is evil because it only promotes God's ideas of fairness and quality, which have been deemed untenable by the foolishness of man.
The negative result is the same as with our previous discussion of life and marriage: God's image is erased from the earth. Man is God's image bearer. What man was created to do uniquely reflects God's glory. The first thing man was commanded to do after creation in Eden was "to work it and keep it" (Gen. 2:18). To remove man's incentive to work—eliminating the relationship between work and reward—is to discourage participation in one of mankind's chief God-glorifying activities.
This is exactly what seems to have happened in the housing markets. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were commissioned to guarantee houses to people who had previously been deemed unable to afford them [2]. The political pressure to relax lending standards [3] led to the "rapid expansion of mortgage debt over the last decade and attendant excessive price appreciation and risk taking" [4] which this current downturn is attempting to correct.
In former days if you could not afford a house, you could not live in it and had to accept God's restriction on your life as it pertained to your housing. The Great Benefactor, however, disagreed with this Sovereign arrangement. People living under the limits of their own means? People being forced to live with what God provided them with through their work? How absurd and unfair! Do you feel poor because you don't have the house you want? Are you discontent renting with the current lot handed down to you by God and you want to own something for yourself? Come to government and you can have more. The only conditions are idolatry, enslavement and destructive spiritual apathy.
History is replete of examples demonstrating the fallibility of this ideology. Plymouth colony, one of the first experiments of American government, is a perfect case study of these two contrasting view points: benevolent government versus God-honoring industry. Governor William Bradford first established a system in which everybody was given the same plot of land and the entire harvest was put in a common storehouse. The result? No one worked hard, people did not take responsibility and the harvest was scarce. Why work hard? There's going to be this great storehouse that gets you through the winter, regardless of how hard you work on your little piece of land. Everybody was hungry because no one owned anything or had any responsibility before God. The first winters of Plymouth were nearly fatal to the life of the colony.
Then Bradford had a new idea. Why not give everyone their own land and let them keep everything they grow? How well did this work? Much better, according to Bradford.
"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content." [5]
Why did this work so much better? People were motivated because they had responsibility. They knew the day was coming when the work of their hands during summer would be tested by the winter. Not only were they able to sustain themselves, but also gave to those who were in need. Of course, they acknowledge God as the true source of their blessing through the great Thanksgiving feasts.
It's very telling to read why Bradford thought the previous communal storehouse strategy didn't work.
"The experience [proves] the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God (emphasis mine). For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort." [6]
Bradford laments his own failed attempts, essentially saying (paraphrase), "Folks the reason Plymouth languished so much was because we thought we 'were wiser than God.'" Ultimately, they figured out God was pretty wise to create man with instinctive industry, motivated by the future reward for present work. When the men of Plymouth were suppressed under unbiblical restraints and robbed of biblical motivation, there was "confusion and discontent" and the 'retard' of employment and entrepreneurialism.
In God's economy, the promises of a government, no matter how well intended can never replace God's provision. It always kills God's provision. This is why a benevolent government is actually not benevolent at all. It's a dangerous trap.
The lessons of Plymouth were not lost on the other founders. Consider the thoughts of James Madison: "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." [7] Madison also said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." [8]
Thomas Jefferson also chimes in, saying this form of 'fair' government is fundamentally flawed and unfair: "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." [9]
When Government Is Big and God is Small
As the quote from Dave Harvey says, materialism (or consumerism) was the predominant ideological and spiritual challenge for the church in the twentieth century. Now that the bubble seems to be bursting and American Christians and non-Christians are recognizing it as untenable, we are faced with a further challenge. I wonder if the most significant ideological battle for today's young Christians in the twenty-first century will be statism.
Will we turn to God and repent of our discontentment and selfishness? Or will we turn to the promises of government for more? Will we expect government to meet our felt needs for circumstantial improvement? Or will we work as we were created to do, and receive the blessing of God's provision?
If God doesn't give us the house, car or iPhone we want, will we complain to government for one? Or will we be grateful for what God has blessed us with and work even harder so we can be generous to others?
There are many young folks, even Christians, who hear the warnings about statism and socialism and wonder, "What's the big deal?" It is portrayed as an "antiquated" idea meant to incite false alarm. [10] Ignorance of the painful lessons of history and blindness to the spiritual enslavement that comes from pagan ideologies will lead to the inevitable repeated experience of past misery and decadence. To answer the question, the "big deal" with socialism and statism is that they make government big and God small.
Whenever God becomes small we place our trust in what is big. When the church puts its trust in something perceived to be bigger than God, the gospel is forgotten, the testimony is lost and the church becomes dead and irrelevant. These are the stakes.
The stakes of this pivotal juncture for the next generation of the church could not be higher. God is getting our attention and awakening us from our sleep to revive us. There is an awakening beginning in the hearts of young men and women who are seeing through the lies that happiness is found in anything other than knowing and serving Christ. We are realizing that true happiness comes as we lay down our lives for others in need, not as we serve ourselves. Happiness is found as we live the gospel, not the American dream. Joy comes as we share the gospel, not hoard our cash. Fulfillment comes as we stand up for others and defend the innocent, rather than protecting our portfolios.
The downturn of this economy is God's invitation to freedom from the stranglehold and idolatry of materialism. As the gospel meets mans greatest and freshly realized need, it could produce the widespread move of the Holy Spirit we all long to see in our land. We will either turn to God or to government. If we turn to government, our hearts will enter a much steeper recession than the economy is currently experiencing. But if we will turn to God this recession could birth revival.
1. April Witt, "Aquiring Minds: Inside America's All-consuming Passion," The Washington Post Magazine (December 14, 2003), 16. Quoted in Worldliness: Resisting Seduction in a Fallen World, CJ Mahaney ed., p. 96.
2. Fannie Mae was a New Deal organization established by FDR in 1938, privatized in 1968. In 1970, Freddie Mac was established for competition. In the late 1990's—see overview online at {http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Fannie_Mae}. Fannie Mae came under legal pressure from the Clinton Administration to underwrite loans for people previously unqualified to borrow, particularly minorities.
3. Holmes, Steven A. (September 30, 1999). "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending", New York Times.
4. "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" (July 12, 2008) , Econbrowser, http://www.econbrowser.com/ archives/2008/07/fannie_mae_and.html
5. Of Plymouth Plantation, Book I, Chapter VI, and Book II, Chapter XIV
6. Ibid
7. James Madison, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Presidential File [LC-USZC4-4097]
8. James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794
9. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Brenda Dickinson of the Home Education Foundation...
Dear Home Education Leaders,
Normally, HEF does not openly supporting a political campaign. I let home schoolers know which candidates have been or do support their right to home educated their children. However, I am stepping out a little more than usual because I think home schoolers need to consider a very important isse that may directly affect them.
Whoever wins the White House could detemine whether we continue to enjoy the freedom to home educate our children or not. If the Democrats take the US Senate and the White House, one of the first things they will most likely do is to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. President Clinton, actually signed it, but did not take it to the Senate because the Democrats did not have the majority at that time needed to pass it. However, if during the upcoming election, the Democratic party takes control of both the US Senate and the White House, it will most likely pass. Some news reporters are saying that Republicans may not win enough seats in the US Senate to even filibuster.
This is the greatest single threat to home education we have ever faced in this country. The teacher's unions pour millions of dollars into Democratic campaigns and as you know the Unions do not like home schooling. In fact, their platform usually has a plank opposing home education or requiring parents to be certified teachers. I have never used fear to motivate people and I am not doing it now. I am just reporting the facts.
Go to http://www.hslda.org, type in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and read until you are convinced this is a serious threat. If you are not sure that HSLDA is reporting the truth, go to http://www.un.org/children/conflict/keydocuments/english/theconventionont6.html and read the actual document. I did that about 14 years ago. It is very disconcerting. This treaty would strip parents of their rights and give them to the child. Ask the question who will decide what is in the best interest of the child?
The following is taken off the HSLDA website. Please read this and consider the consequences before you vote in this election.
Thank you,
Brenda Dickinson
Oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
After years of debate within the international community, child's rights activists reached an agreement in 1988 which created a comprehensive charter advancing the agenda of the children's "liberation" movement. What the child's rights advocates have for over two decades been unable to accomplish through the normal legislative process, may now be realized in one sweeping blow.
If ratified by the U.S. Senate, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child would undermine families by granting to children a list of radical "rights" which would be primarily enforced against the parents. These new "fundamental" rights would include "the right to privacy," "the right to freedom of thought and association," and the right to "freedom of expression." Such presumptions subvert the authority of parents to exercise important responsibilities toward their children. Under the UN Convention, parental responsibility exists only in so far as parents are willing to further the independent choices of the child.
The Convention Would Become Supreme Law of the Land
Under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause of Article VI Section.2, "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
In Missouri v. Holland, (252 U.S. 416), the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Supremacy Clause a treaty made by the President, with concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate present at the time of voting, would become the supreme law and take precedent over contrary state laws. Thus, the U.N. Convention would constitute legally binding law in all 50 states. Otherwise valid state laws pertaining to education, the family, etc., which conflict with the provisions of the treaty will be subject to invalidation.
Were this convention to be ratified, the United States would be required to alter large portions of long established law to cater to the demands of the United Nations.
The Convention Would Give Children the "Right" to Disregard Parental Authority
Although several of the treaty's provisions offer generally positive, nonoffensive platitudes, a substantial portion of this charter undermines parental rights. Some of the more relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are summarized below.
Severe Limitations Placed on the Parents' Right to Train Their Children
Under Article 13, any attempts to prevent their children from interacting with material parents deem unacceptable is forbidden. Children are vested with a " freedom of expression" right, which is virtually absolute. No allowance is made for parental guidance. Section 1 declares a child's right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice."
In Article 14, children are guaranteed " freedom of thought, conscience and religion." Children have a legal right to object to all religious training. Alternatively, children may assert their right against parental objection to participate in the occult.
Article 15 declares "the right of the child to freedom of association." Parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with people deemed to be objectionable companions. Under Article 15, children could claim a "fundamental" right to join gangs, cults, and racist organizations over parental objection.
The Convention Would Entrench the Right of Teenagers to Abort Their Babies
Under Article 16, the "right to privacy" is granted to children. This UN sanctioned "privacy" would seemingly establish as the child's right to obtain an abortion without parental notice, the right to purchase and use contraceptives, and the right to pornography in the home.
New Bureaucracies Would Be Created to Monitor Families
Article 19 mandates the creation of an intensive bureaucracy for the purpose of "identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up" of parents who, in violation of the child's rights, treat their children negligently.
To insure State and U.N. control over their development, Article 7 requires all children must be immediately registered at birth.
A Prohibition On Corporal Punishment
Articles 3, 19, 37 require all ratifying countries to protect children from "degrading punishment" and "physical violence" which includes corporal punishment. The U.N. Committee of Ten (pursuant to Article 44) must oversee the implementation of the treaty. Over the last several years, the Committee published reports criticizing several countries (including Canada and Great Britain) for allowing corporal punishment to continue.
Mandatory Outcome Based Education
The American Bar Association's 1990 publication Children's Rights in America: U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child Compared to U.S. Law states that Article 29 will force public and private schools in America to adopt "federally prescribed curriculum content." Each child must be prepared to be a responsible citizen by having "the spirit of understanding, peace, toleration, equity of sexes, and friendship [for] all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups of indigenous origin." All children must be taught the principles of the treaty. This is OBE mandated curriculum of the worst sort.
Can the United States Amend the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child?
According to Articles 50 and 51, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child can only be amended through a four step process. First, at least one-third of the nations must favor a conference even to discuss an amendment. Once a conference is convened, a majority of the nations present at the conference must vote to adopt the amendment. Then it must be submitted to the full General Assembly for approval. If the amendment is approved by the General Assembly, it must be then be accepted by two-thirds of the participating nations. The great difficulty in amending this Treaty is unthinkable. Furthermore, "A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted."
Will This Treaty be Enforced in the United States?
Our own Constitution requires us to enforce all treaties as the "supreme law" of the land. Also, Article 4 of the Treaty, makes it clear that the signatory nations are bound to "undertake legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights" specified in the Convention.
Toward this ends, the Convention sets up a committee to review the progress of signatory nations called the Committee on the Rights of the Child (also called the Committee of Ten). Examples of the Committee's oversight of the various nations which have ratified the Convention, are seen in recent reports called, "Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child."
In a 1995 report the Committee heavily criticized Britain for not implementing many aspects of the treaty stating
The Committee is deeply worried … regarding judicial interpretations … permitting the reasonable chastisement in case of physical abuse of children within the family context. Thus the Committee is concerned that legislative and other measures relating to the physical integrity of children do not appear compatible with the provisions and principles of the Convention … The Committee is equally concerned that privately funded and managed schools are still permitted to administer corporal punishment to children.
Essentially the Committee is pointing out that spanking, which is still allowed in Britain, is a violation of the treaty.
Regarding Britain's allowing parents to exclude their children from school (which includes home schooling), the Committee expressed concern that "the right of the child to express his or her opinion is not solicited."
In 1997, when one of the delgates from Australia argued that the Convention did not specifically forbid spanking, the Committee disagreed stating
[T]he Convention should be interpreted holistically taking into consideration not only its specific provisions, but also the general principals which inspired it.
In other words, the Convention means what the Committee of Ten says it means.
The 1998 report on Japan equally disturbing,
[T]he convention on the Rights of the Child has precedence over domestic legislation and can be invoked before the domestic courts ...
France was evaluated in the 2004 Final Observations of the Committee and, along with a variety of issues, the Committee addressed the area of corporal punishment. They recommend that the State party "expressly prohibit corporal punishment by law in the family, in schools, in institutions and in other childcare settings." They also recommend "awareness-raising and promotion of positive, non-violent forms of discipline, especially in families."
These reports further confirm the United Nations belief that all nations who sign the Children's Convention are obligated to apply its mandates which override the country's own domestic law. This is a direct usurpation of national sovereignty.
Prepared by the legal staff of the National Center for Home Education. Reprint permission granted, P.O. Box 3000, Purcellville, VA 20134, (540) 330-7600
Dr. Dobson's October Newsletter
Dear Friends,
Can you feel the tension in the air? The nation — and indeed, the world — is holding its collective breath as the final days of the presidential campaign wind down and the candidates engage in one last round of electioneering and debating. By this time next month, we'll know whether Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama will be inaugurated in January as the 44th President of the United States.
Considering the stark differences between the two presidential candidates and the critical issues that are hanging in the balance, it's not difficult to understand why Campaign 2008 has been such a spirited affair. I'd like to take a few moments to consider what is at stake in this year's election, particularly for those of us who embrace a biblical worldview. Please understand that I will share these thoughts under the umbrella of Focus on the Family Action™, which has supported the preparation and distribution of this letter. Focus Action is, in turn, supported by contributions from those who do not receive tax deductible receipts for them. Thanks so much to you who made it possible.
Let's start with the need to elect a pro-family, pro-life President. The importance of this objective cannot be overstated. Between 2009 and 2012, there will likely be two or more opportunities for the President to nominate new justices to the Supreme Court. Some court watchers say there could be as many as four resignations. That alone should give us serious pause as we consider for whom to cast our votes. In the months ahead, the Supreme Court will likely hand down rulings that will impact America for generations to come. We need a President who will nominate conservative, strict-constructionist judges to the Court. If that doesn't happen, the highest court in the land could become stacked even more than it already is with justices who will endeavor to legislate from the bench and impose a liberal agenda on the nation. It will likely affect the definition of marriage, religious freedom, and the protection (or lack thereof) of life in the womb.
It's probably obvious which of the two major party candidates' views are most palatable to those of us who embrace a pro-life, pro-family worldview. While I will not endorse either candidate this year, I can say that I am now supportive of Senator John McCain and his bid for the presidency. This is not because I am beholden to the Senator from Arizona or to the Republican Party. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with my views knows that I have agonized at times during this election process, and have been strongly critical of Senator McCain and the Republican Party on numerous occasions. My concern is for the biblical and moral values that I and millions of Americans hold dear. I will gladly support politicians of any stripe who are willing to defend the sanctity of human life, support the institution of traditional marriage, protect the country from terrorism and advance the cause of religious liberty. While certainly not perfect, the 2008 Republican platform comes closest to embracing those ideals by a wide margin.
In recent weeks, I have received some measure of criticism from those who feel that my "change of heart" toward John McCain is unwarranted. I understand those views and concede that the Senator continues to embrace positions that concern me. I don't apologize, however, for reevaluating our options in this election year. John Maynard Keynes, whose views I have disagreed with strongly, said this about reversing course: "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"1 In this instance, Keynes' perspective is correct. Every thinking person will eventually have reason to change his or her mind as circumstances evolve, as they have done during this long political ordeal.
There are four primary — and I believe compelling — reasons why I now view the McCain presidential candidacy favorably:
- During the "Saddleback Forum" on Aug. 16, Sens. Obama and McCain fielded questions from the Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren. Senator McCain gave very solid and encouraging answers to questions about the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage, whereas Senator Obama came down at the other end of the argument.
You will recall the following interchange during the forum:Pastor Rick Warren: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"Senator Obama: "...Answering that question with specificity, you know, is, uh, is, above my pay grade."2With all due respect, Senator, if this question is above your pay grade, then so is the job attached to it.
- The Republican Partyís 2008 national platform is a remarkably conservative document.3 Indeed, it is the strongest pro-life platform in the history of the party, surpassing even the pro-life advances of the Reagan years. It was approved and sanctioned by the McCain campaign.
- Senator McCain selected an astonishingly strong pro-life, pro-family running mate in Governor Sarah Palin. Although he could have embraced a liberal Vice Presidential nominee, such as Senator Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, he made the bold decision to join forces with a VP pick whose views reflect those of the party's conservative base. I'll discuss Governor Palin's candidacy in greater detail in a moment.
- The longer the campaign continues, the more concerned I have become with Barack Obama's liberal views. Certainly, he is an attractive and very charismatic candidate who has embarked on a campaign of historical proportions. However, the majority of his policies represent the antithesis of principles I hold dear. Senator Obama's record is more liberal than that of any other Democrat in the Senate4 — and that's saying something! For example, when he was a state senator in Illinois, he voted four times in three years against legislation that would have saved the lives of babies that managed to survive the abortion process.5 The U.S. Senate subsequently passed similar legislation called The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act by unanimous consent.6 (Obama was not a U.S. Senator at the time.) State Senator Obama was chairman of the committee that opposed this protection of babies, and in 2001 and 2002 was the only legislator who rose to argue against the Illinois Born Alive Act.7 That is an undeniable fact!
My good friend, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum published a scathing analysis of Senator Obama's pro-abortion record earlier this year. Here is an excerpt of what he wrote:
In March 2001, [Senator] Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child."8 So according to [Senator] Obama, "they", (babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns,) should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.9
To further underscore Senator Obama's radical devotion to abortion rights, he has promised that "the first thing I'd do as president" would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.10 The FOCA is a devastating piece of legislation that would overturn nearly every local, state, and federal anti-abortion law passed in the last 40 years.11 In fact, it's so broadly written that legal analysts suggest the bill may prevent institutions and physicians from refusing to provide abortion services by invoking the conscience clause.
Earlier this year, while talking about sex education and abortion, the Senator said the following: "I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."12 In other words, a pre-born baby is viewed as a form of punishment, and can therefore be murdered in the name of convenience.
It is a matter of historic significance that Barack Obama has become the first African-American to capture the nomination of a major political party for the office of President of the United States. I applaud that remarkable accomplishment. Nevertheless, I cannot support his candidacy because the positions he holds on moral, social and family issues place him at the extreme left of the political spectrum. What the Senator believes and the policies he would seek to implement are on a collision course with the biblical principles and beliefs I have fought to defend for more than 35 years.
Turning the corner, the significance of Governor Palin to the 2008 presidential race is also worthy of further consideration. Here is a woman who is a deeply committed Christian, and who is pro-life not only with regard to her policies, but in her personal life. She and her husband welcomed their latest child, Trig, into the world even though he was diagnosed with Down syndrome while still in the womb. Approximately 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted,13 but Governor Palin carried her precious child to term and now loves and cares for him despite the challenges associated with a special needs child. Similarly, her teenage daughter, Bristol, who became pregnant out of wedlock, could have bowed to cultural pressure to seek an abortion. Instead, she and the father plan to get married and raise their child together. Governor Palin has been married for 20 years, and by all accounts, she is a portrait of Christian motherhood and womanhood.
As for Governor Palin's qualifications to be Vice President of the United States and to assume the mantle of President, should that ever become necessary, she is much better suited for the job than the talking heads on the liberal Left would have you believe. She came out of nowhere to win the Alaskan gubernatorial race against a powerful incumbent. While in office, she bravely fought widespread corruption — including that within her own party — in the face of great opposition. Govenor Palin's critics suggest that her experience as mayor of a "small town" is somehow a liability, but it is an asset. In fact, her time as Mayor of Wasilla and then as Governor of Alaska gives her a greater degree of executive experience than Senator Barack Obama can claim. Her qualifications to be Vice President, I would submit, exceed those of Senator Barack Obama, who spent only 143 working days in the U.S. Senate prior to announcing his run for President.14 He authored no significant legislation during that time.
I'm sure you have heard the shrill voices from the political Left decrying Mrs. Palin for any and every reason under the sun. They gloat over the pregnancy of her daughter Bristol and claim it as "evidence" that abstinence education, which Sarah Palin strongly supports, is somehow a sham. They criticize Governor Palin for daring to hold political office and run for Vice President while having a baby at home, even though the Left has for decades supported a woman's right to do just that. The attacks on Governor Palin and her family in recent weeks have been astonishingly unfair and mean-spirited. If she were a liberal Democrat, she would be praised and lauded for making the same decisions for which she is now being criticized. The double standard is obvious.
Governor Palin's decision to run for Vice President while raising a baby with special needs has given pause to some conservative voices as well. Some have even questioned my enthusiasm over Governor Palin's candidacy in light of these circumstances. It's important to note that although I have often said stay-at-home moms are vitally important to raising the next generation, I have never suggested that it is wrong for mothers to work outside the home. Indeed, Focus on the Family® has hired thousands of mothers over the years. I have said, however, that if a mother is going to enter the workplace, she and her husband must first find a way to meet the needs of their children. Sarah Palin appears to have done that. Todd, her husband, is actively involved in the raising of their children, and it seems obvious that Sarah will continue to be a positive force in her children's lives even as she carries out her duties in the political arena. Regardless of your political views, may I suggest that the Palins need our prayers, not our disdain, at this critical moment in our nation's history.
Senator Obama's selection of fellow liberal Democrat Joseph Biden (Del.) is also extremely revealing. While the National Journal ranked Obama the most liberal Senator last year, Senator Biden was ranked 3rd on their list — just ahead of Vermont's Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed socialist.15 While the Senator of 36 years from Delaware stands in blatant opposition to the pro-family movement, many of you will remember him from his vociferous opposition to several of our finer Supreme Court justices, namely, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas.
Returning to our theme, America's future seems to hang in the balance at this time. Our next President will have a dramatic impact on countless legislative issues. Since being relegated to minority status in 2006, Senate Republicans have skillfully used the rules of parliamentary procedure to frustrate many of the Democrats' attempts to pass bad legislation. To this point, that effort has almost always been backed by a President who is willing to use the veto pen when necessary. The threat of President Bush's veto on hate crimes legislation and issues regarding the sanctity of life have kept a Democrat-controlled Congress from implementing its liberal agenda. Will our next President stand up to Congress in the same manner, or will he side with them, thereby giving the Democrats free reign to impose their liberal values on America?
It is likely, say the pundits, that both the House and the Senate in the 111th Congress will still be controlled by Democrats. If that party also takes the White House, a wave of anti-family, pro-homosexual legislation is almost guaranteed to pass in 2009. The bills put forward and advanced this year by Democrats reveal where they want to take the country. For example, they inserted hate crimes language into the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, but were forced to remove it in conference, again under the threat of veto.16 While in the Illinois Senate, Senator Obama voted for a bill authorizing "comprehensive" sex education beginning in kindergarten. Defenders have attempted to downplay its significance, citing the fact that it called for the content to be "age appropriate" and "medically accurate" — dubious and subjective qualifiers given the sensitive nature of the topic and innocence of the audience!17 (When criticized for supporting this legislation, the Senator was dismissive and said proudly, I quote, "It's the right thing to do."18)
Large portions of the agenda promoted by homosexual activists will also be enacted. The implications for a federal hate crimes law are clear. People speaking against homosexuality have already been prosecuted under hate crimes laws both in the United States and abroad. If a federal hate crimes law passes, there will be little to prevent the government from endeavoring to control and curtail religious speech, especially from the pulpit. It is entirely possible that a pastor could be charged with inducing a federal hate crime simply by preaching from one of the many biblical passages that address homosexuality.
Congressional Democrats will also seek to pass the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, meaning businesses will be forced to accept and condone homosexuality — and possibly transgenderism — in making employment decisions. Further, business owners, including religious businesses, will not be able to make hiring and firing decisions based on their religious convictions. Earlier this year, Senator Barack Obama said, "I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepherd Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Nondiscrimination Act."19
Finally, I am deeply concerned about the tax and spend policies Senator Obama will impose on the American people if he is elected, especially in light of the current financial crisis. This is not the time to be taking money out of the economy, yet, he has proposed enormous new federal programs and entitlements that will cost multiple billions of dollars. These initiatives cannot be effected without huge increases in taxation on businesses, which will be passed on to the public and to individual families. This will almost certainly require a return of the odious marriage penalty tax that plagued families for 32 years!
The races for the White House and the Congress are hardly the only matters worthy of concern in this election cycle. At the state and local levels, numerous policies and pieces of legislation are being put to a vote, and many of them are directly related to family and moral issues. For example, the definition of marriage is on the ballot in Arizona (Proposition 102), California (Proposition 8) and Florida (Amendment 2). Voters in Colorado will be given the opportunity to expand the definition of "personhood" to include all human beings from the moment of fertilization (Amendment 48). In South Dakota, voters will be asked to ban all abortions except those involving cases of rape and incest, or when the pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the life or physical health of the mother (Measure 11). Michigan is considering whether to legalize embryonic stem cell research, which would result in the killing of tiny human beings. In California, voters will also get the chance to decide whether minor girls should be required to give 48 hoursí notice to a parent or adult relative before having an abortion (Proposition 4). Arkansas voters will decide whether to prevent couples living together out of wedlock — heterosexual or homosexual — from adopting children or serving as foster parents.
These are just a few of the important issues that, depending on which state you live in, will be on the ballot next month. I implore you to spend the few days remaining before the election researching the various amendments, ballot measures, and local and national candidates. Then, exercise your responsibility before God to vote on or before Nov 4. Please, let your voices be heard. For more information, visit Focus on the Family Actionís Web site at focusaction.org.
Regardless of your political views, I want to urge Christians everywhere to be in prayer about this election. There are many scriptural references wherein King David "inquired of God" when he was faced by troubling circumstances (1 Samuel 23:2,4; 30:8; 2 Samuel 2:1; 5:19,23). It is time for Christians everywhere to turn to Him for guidance and wisdom. Find some time to be still and listen to what He wants to tell you. The National Day of Prayer Task Force, led by my wonderful wife, Shirley, has embarked on a national campaign entitled "Pray for Election Day." All around the country, individuals and groups are being encouraged to gather every Thursday leading up to Nov. 4 between 12 noon and 12:30 p.m. Spend time with the Lord, asking Him to guide and direct those privileged to cast a ballot. If you are able, I would also encourage you to fast and pray immed"ately before the election. After all, it was the Reverend Billy Graham who once said that ìTo get nations back on their feet, we must first get down on our knees."20 Amen, Dr. Graham.
This election is about the future of the nation, but it will also go a long way toward determining the culture your children and grandchildren will come to know. I know you will vote with your children and your children's children in mind. That certainly puts the election in a different light, doesn't it?
You know my heart on these issues, and I hope you understand that I am less concerned with politicians and political parties than I am with the timeless biblical principles that those parties have the power to either strengthen or damage. No candidate is perfect, whether in this election or any other. Please don't make your decisions lightly. There is simply too much at stake. May God grant each of us wisdom as Nov. 4 approaches.
Sincerely,
James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Founder and Chairman
Please share this with your friends and family.
This letter may be reproduced without change and in its entirety for noncommercial and nonpolitical purposes without prior permission from Focus on the Family Action.
ENDNOTES
1 Louis Uchitelle, "2 Mavericks in Economics Awarded Nobel Prize," The New York Times, Oct. 12, 2004, http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/aml6/econ001/pdfs/nobel2004.pdf (Sept. 29, 2008).
Also: Alfred L. Malabre, Lost Prophets: An Insider's History of the Modern Economists (1994), p. 220. (Responding to criticism when changing monetary policy in the midst of the Great Depression.)
2 Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum, CNN Transcript, Aug. 16, 2008. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/16/se.02.html (Sept. 29, 2008).
3 Republican National Committee, 2008 Republican Platform, gop.com/2008Platform/ (Sept. 28, 2008).
4 "National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings," National Journal Group Inc., 2008, nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm (Sept. 29, 2008).
5 bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.aspx (September 2008).
6 frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S7084&position=all (Sept. 29, 2008).
7 bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.aspx (Sept. 30, 2008).
8 "Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act," Illinois Federation For Right to Life Daily News online, April 3, 2008, ifrl.org/ifrl/news/080403/1/ (Sept. 29, 2008).
9 Rick Santorum, "The Elephant in the Room: A Harsh Ideologue hidden by a feel-good image," The Philadelphia Inquirer, February 29, 2008, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/rick_santorum/20080228_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Obama__A_harsh_ideologue_hidden_by_a_feel-good_image.html (Sept. 28, 2008).
10 youtube.com/watch?v=uUl99id2SvM (Sept. 29, 2008).
11 aul.org/FOCA (Sept. 29, 2008)
12 "Ballot Bowl 2008: More Campaign Happenings," CNN Transcripts, March 29, 2008, transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/29/bb.01.html (Sept. 29, 2008).
13 Patricia E. Bauer, "What's Lost in Prenatal Testing: Why Encourage Testing for Down Syndrome," Jan. 14, 2007, Washington Post. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201954.html
14 "Days in Session Calendars," Thomas, The Library of Congress, thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/ (Sept. 29, 2008).
15 National Journal online, 2008, Ibid.
16 Paul Kane, "Hill Negotiators Drop Hate-Crime Provision," Washington Post, Dec. 7, 2007, washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120602453.html (Sept. 29, 2008).
17 Byron York, "On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right," National Review Online, Sept. 16, 2008, article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY= (Sept. 29, 2008).
18 "Obama on Sex Ed in Kindergarten: 'It's the Right Thing to Do,'" Free Republic online, Sept. 10, 2008, freerepublic.com/focus/news/2079415/posts (Sept. 29, 2008).
19 Michael Foust, "Obama: If elected I will use the bully pulpit for gay causes," Baptist Press, Feb. 28, 2008, bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=27510 (Sept. 29, 2008).
20 Chuck Spinner, A Book of Prayers: To the Heavens from the Stars, (AuthorHouse: 2008), p. 225, excerpts online at: books.google.com/books?id=cfgSFGcC_n0C&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=%22To+get+nations+back+on+their+feet%22+and+%22get+down+on+our+knees
%22+and+Graham&source=web&ots=HjqHwcw-mT&sig=OYFZAIONNVb_Ff138BCi2TmH1yo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result (Sept. 29, 2008).
"Adoption isn't Plan B"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An article from Huntley Brown - a fabulous concert pianist, a man of God and a black man.
Why I Can't Vote For Obama
By Huntley Brown
Dear Friends, A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an email with a few points. With the election just around the corner I decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list have seen some of this before but it's worth repeating...
First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I process my identity through Christ . Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader.
I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning to name a few, wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King 's words, don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record. His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.
NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100 % rating. There is a reason the homosexual community supports him. There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez , Castro , Hamas etc. love him. There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court. There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill. There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion. There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
God help him. There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law.
Think about this: You can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an aborti on without parental notification. This is insane.
There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright 's church for 20 years.
Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now?
Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you; talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they h ave a ...
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community.
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?& nbsp;
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside.
This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.
A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like th is would never get my vote.
Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone , author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.
Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.'
Then God says
1 Samuel 1:18 ' When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel . 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'
Here is what we know for sure.
God is not schizophrenic&nbs p;
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.
Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.
Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,
1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation.
2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?
Blessings, Huntley Brown
--
To subscribe, send ANY message to: [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: [email protected]
Visit my web site at www.VirginiaKnowles.com