An Interesting Exchange

Recently, I have engaged an interesting political discussion with another blogger. My comments pertain to what I have written here recently, so I will re-post them here with a link to the original blog entry. Feel free to jump in and join the discussion!!!

Original Blog Entry: http://rachelshaffer.blogspot.com/2008/09/hypocritical-politics.html

My First Response:
"Karl Marx had "good" ideas to help the "poor and down-trodden". Men like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong [sic] ran with these ideas, and millions of Americans died in the later half of the 20th to protect freedom from the forces of communism and socialism.

Do a little research on Barack Obama (and Karl Marx, socialism, communism, etc.). Like Marx, on the surface, his ideas sound good, but after pealing away the layers of rhetoric, he wants to take away freedoms in order to preserve the "greater good". Its called socialism, and he really hasn’t tried to hide it (i.e., his friends, his pursuits). It is the same "wealth redistribution" plan, or a strategy described in the words or Marx, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

To site Jesus' disregard for legislating morality, to reference His disengagement of politics, and then to say that Barack Obama is a good candidate because of his ideas to help the poor is quite an imbalance. Obama says he wants to "help" others. He argues that he will do so by using the engine of government. As Jesus carried out his ministry without government, wouldn't a more consistent action be to just go out and help the poor, the sick, etc. Why do you need Obama?

Obama wants to raise taxes. He wants to increase the size of government. How many more resources would Christians have to help those "in need", if the government kept its hands out of its citizens' pockets. Name one success government has had when it got involved. FDR tried to help Americans with retirement plans. Where is social security now? Medicare and Medicaid are in shambles. Government run businesses such as the Post Office and Amtrak are only huge money suckers that taxpayers are forced to subsidize. Why, in the name of all that is good, would Christians turn to government, to politicians to impact the world with the message of Christ. Why not just go out and impact the world with the message and love of Christ?

Thomas Jefferson sited three "inalienable" rights: "the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness". Millions of unborn babies are denied these rights every year when they are mutilated and murdered in their mother's wombs. What could be more Christian than to protect the most innocent and defenseless human beings, unborn babies? Which is more compassionate? To induce labor, impale the child's skull, suck out the brain matter, crush its bones, all so that it will not be "unwanted"; or to stand outside of an abortion clinic and protest this inhumane and grotesque practice? What would have happened had the world chosen to react to the Holocaust by "working around" the Nazis rather than demanding immediate change? Is there any difference especially when considering the genocidal numbers? Is fighting abortion really the legislation of morality?"

The Blog's Author Responded: http://rachelshaffer.blogspot.com/2008/09/hypocritical-politics.html

My Response:
"It is hard telling what Republicans believe now. When Ronald Reagan was in office, there was a strong conservative message (i.e., less government, more freedom). Since then, liberalism has infected the party and the term "moderate" has been born. John McCain is a moderate. It is ironic, yet expected, that some of the same liberals to whom he extended the "olive branch" to gain his moderate and "maverick" status are the same ones that are going for his throat now (i.e., Harry Reid).

I never said that "smaller government" was a Christian idea. Unfortunately, it is not even a Republican idea any more. It is a conservative idea. It was also an idea shared by the Founding Fathers of this country. Coming from the tyranny of England, it is well documented that they had an overwhelming distrust of government. It was the primary force behind the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights). For more info. on this subject, research materials such as the Federalist Papers.

Deferring power to the local and state governments instead of one all-powerful federal government is not a "control issue"; it is called Federalism. The theory behind it is that by sharing power between several smaller entities (i.e., states) with a larger uniting entity (i.e., the federal government), checks and balances will exist to prevent any one faction from becoming too powerful. It is a system that is meant to protect the rights of citizens.

I think you may misunderstand conservatism, which used to be a Republican philosophy. Conservatism says that the government (state, federal, etc.) should stay out of peoples lives. It is there to protect rights, not to take them away. If people want to engage in homosexuality, it should be of no concern to the government. Civil unions? Sure. I won't vote for them, but it is not our place to control other human beings. God gave us all free will; who are we to do any different. While not a direct democracy, the Founding Fathers set up a form of government that conceded that immorality could sometimes sometimes have the majority vote. To have freedom, we have to accept this (another conservative idea).

The argument does creep into the living room of the Church when people want to have homosexual marriages. The concept of marriage comes from Judeo/Christian history. We (human beings) did not invent marriage. It was ordained by God (that of "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"). This really exposes the folly of the whole subject. Why do homosexuals want to get married in the first place? They obviously aren't concerned about Judeo/Christian values; what then is the need to validate their relationship with a Judeo/Christian sacrament and tradition?

Often Christians are not trying to prevent homosexuality; instead, they are trying to protect the institution of marriage. As far as this Christian conservative is concerned, people could have sex with animal carcasses as long as others don't have to see it. It is not the Christian's job nor the government's to control them.

It is inaccurate to say that Christians do not protect the institution of marriage by citing divorce rates. Countless Christian ministries exist that aim to prevent divorce: Focus on The Family, America's Family Coaches, Real Relationships, Smalley Relationship Center, etc., etc. Numerous marriage support ministries exist in local church bodies. The Roman Catholic church does not even recognize divorce.

These are all successful organizations that help people without the help of government. Government should only exist to protect the rights of such organizations (and all citizens) to do what they do. To get involved as a participant only creates an unhealthy dependency that inevitably arrives at corruption (social programs for votes).

Unfortunately, there is not a conservative candidate in this election, one that wants to remove the obstacle of government to allow a free people to do good things. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain fit the bill. It is quite frustrating for those of us who still agree with the Founding Fathers..."