Also posted here and here.

Someone really has to start keeping me from reading my local newspaper’s main section. I’m fine as long as I restrict myself to the sports section, the comics, and the features. But when I delve into the opinion columns and the readers’ letters, I likely won’t come out without being fired up.

Most of the time, I write a response in my head, and that is enough to satisfy me. But, today, I decided to actually write a rebuttal. I’ll post it here and a couple of other places, then perhaps submit it to my newspaper.

First, the original letter:

…America has become decadent.
It has become decadent when the personal, private and harmless activities of two consenting adults are grounds for immorality.
It has become decadent when one faith out of millions blelives that it has a monopoly on whom we may love.
It has become decadent when citizens believe their faith should override all others, ignoring the freedom of thought upon which this country was built.
And it has become decadent when fools cannot follow the teachings of their own religion: “Judge not, lest ye be judged” — Matthew 7:1.

~Mr. C. Payton

Did that get you riled up? Here’s my response:

~~
I suppose that the scathing “decadent” contributor on July 22 believes that his morality (if you can even call it that) should rule the day, for all legislation comes from a foundation of morality. He seems to feel very strongly on the issue of right and wrong, yet he gives no basis for his determinations. Is he depending on the “divine” wisdom or omniscience of his own mind? If so, that’s “just his opinion or preference, just truth for him,” as a relativist might say, and he might as well keep it to himself. Otherwise, he is the one exhibiting arrogance when he dares to pound the gavel on an issue with the arm of his own conjecture.

He certainly is not consulting the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as the Founders did, for he skewers reliance on God and turns a blind eye to the obvious, common-sense, self-evident realization of that which is natural and that which is not. Our ancestors would go so far as to call homosexuality a “crime against nature.”

We’ve reached an astounding level of illogic in this country when it is considered decadence to hold yourself and society to a standard of decent behavior, while following your own selfish passions no matter where they lead is deemed what? Virtue?

I fail to see where Christians are suppressing freedom of thought. I do see gay activists trying to restrict freedom of speech, the press, religion, and conscience through overreaching “hate speech” legislation, as well as employee “non-discrimination” measures. Not to mention how they endeavor to revolutionize the definition of marriage and family for everyone.

There’s an erroneous notion prevalent today that to be a tolerant person means to be a political pushover for your opponents. Now, while this is a very advantageous concept for those opposing you, it is utterly ridiculous, and I will not yield to it.

Matthew 7:1 is a condemnation of hypocrisy and a caution to pride in oneself, not a prohibition on biblical discretion. Just read the following verses to see what I mean. We are to be careful when judging others, but it is irrational to claim that we aren’t even allowed to judge conduct, especially when the Bible is so clear on a specific matter. Or else, there’s no point to a law system and much of the Bible–Old Testament and New–is negated.
~~

Here are two things which I would like to point out but chose not to include in the letter, for the sake of its length and flow:

1.) The original writer makes the faulty assumption that something is not immoral if it is “personal, private, and harmless.” First of all, he’s taking the liberty to define morality for himself, as I alluded in my response. The “private and harmless” concept, from the biblical commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself,” may form the basis for much of our civil justice system, but it does not decide what morality is and is not.

2.) He also makes the mistake of assuming that the sanctioning of homosexuality by our government would not have far-reaching effects on our society.

Originally posted here and here.

For the last month and a half, Governor Mike Huckabee spent no time with his boots on the ground in Pennsylvania. In fact, I don’t think he campaigned there period. His voice was not heard on radio ads. His visage was not seen in TV spots. The Hucka-bus did not traverse the turnpike. Calls were not made to prospective voters on his behalf. Any grassroots efforts were independent, few, and far between. No debates were held to match the Democrats.

Anyone up on their politics knows that the reason for this inactivity is the fact that Huckabee dropped out of the race after “Super Tuesday 2″ on March 4th, when it became unmistakably clear that he would not prevent John McCain from reaching the required 1191 delegates. According to his word, Huckabee threw his support behind the Arizona Senator.

Yet, over 91,000 residents of the Keystone State still pulled the lever, if you will, for the former Arkansas governor yesterday. While the mainstream media—and, by the trickledown effect, the rest of us—are enamored by the fracas on the Democratic side, this is a stat that will, in all likelihood, go largely unnoticed. But it should not.

Some may say that this was merely a collection of protest votes. If that is the case, it’s still a big deal. Combined with Ron Paul’s votes, over a quarter of Republican voters said “no”—or at least “not yet”—to McCain. This is a stern warning to the presumptive Republican nominee: He does not have the conservative base locked up; he should not get too cute with his VP pick.

But what if the eleven percent Huckabee garnered is more than a display in Republican “civil disobedience”? After all, Ron Paul reportedly ran radio ads in Pennsylvania, and his supporters are still battling hard with their “Operation Chaos.” Paul actually received almost 128,000 votes, or 16 percent. If people wanted to simply register their disdain for McCain, they’d either write in their favorite candidate or vote for a candidate still in the race (albeit feebly), who hasn’t endorsed McCain, wouldn’t they? (Unless, of course, there’s that much antipathy towards Ron Paul and his non-interventionism.)

Perhaps the people of Pennsylvania were sending a clear message: We like Huckabee. The Keystone State is critical in November, and McCain’s not going to pick Paul (Would Paul even accept the invitation?). So, obviously, that leads us to Huckabee.

Huckabee is the kind of fella who can connect with those “bitter,” “frustrated,” “clingy” small-town Pennsylvanians whom Barack Obama apparently has no qualms about insulting. For those who “cling to religion,” Huckabee is very outspoken and articulate about his faith. He’s a full-blown supporter of the Second Amendment, for those who “cling to guns.” He rejects gay marriage and amnesty, for those with “antipathy” towards those different from them. He even supports a policy of fair trade, as opposed to our broken free trade system, for those who have “anti-trade sentiment.”

Huckabee knows how to reach out to the little guy. He is one himself! People don’t see a lifelong politician, a business mogul, or a big-city elitist when they look at him, because that’s not who he is. Who is he? The type of guy who could help McCain in Pennsylvania this November.

Now, I don’t mean to start a big brouhaha of all the reasons why Huckabee would be a terrible choice. I’ve heard them. I’ve also heard legitimate arguments as to why a Huckabee supporter shouldn’t want McCain to select him. But two points of this post are clear: McCain has a lot of work to do, and he could use someone like Huckabee to help. Pennsylvanians proved that.

Originally posted here and here.

More than enough pundits and writers with larger audiences than mine have already pointed out that Barack Obama’s “bitter” comments about small-town Pennsylvanians seem tinged with elitism, incomprehension of sincerely religious people, and the idea that something must be “wrong” with those people who refuse to support liberal candidates. But, although those three promulgations are important, I feel that there are other insinuations in his comments that may be the most egregious of all.

Obama later clarified the statements he made at a private San Francisco fundraiser, saying that when politicians don’t do small-town citizens any economic favors, the latter turn to “what they can count on.” Since they haven’t been able to count on the government to handle the economy well recently, they turn to what’s left: their faith. The inference here is that, if Democrats can just use the government to fulfill people’s desires, belief in God will become unnecessary—or, at least, that festering fervent faith in Him, which dictates the way one votes, will.

This sounds like something straight out of a secular humanist strategy book: the deification of government. When government cares for all our needs like a loving, “heavenly” father (or mother—let’s be politically correct), God can be relegated to a small, comfortable, controllable “box.”

But another intimation underlies Obama’s words. His statements suggest that money drives the most fundamental aspects of our lives. After all, if the government’s bumbling with the economy is what causes us to “cling” to God (or “religion,” as he puts it), then prosperity would naturally trigger a drift away from God, or at least cause us to relax our grip, right? Now, that right there is a biblical concept. Of course, prosperity spawns temptations and lures us into trusting in ourselves and our wealth rather than God; material things can make us lose perspective, and they can grow into our god. On the other hand, we cry out to the Lord in trials and tribulations, and in such situations we often come to the realization of that which is most important. Somehow, though, I just don’t think that’s the point Obama was trying to make.

His reference to guns, hinting at his anti-gun sentiments, carries similar connotations (obviously, as it came in the same sentence). Never mind the foundational principles of self-defense and constitutional rights. According to Obama’s rationale, you have to pry the firearms out of gunners’ cold dead hands—not because they feel so passionately about the right to keep and bear arms—but because they’ve died from economic hardship.

Obama’s policy seems quite straightforward. Pad their wallets, and maybe they won’t notice if you empty their holsters.

Many secularists and anti-gun activists would like a world where faith and firearms are accents, not cornerstones, of our lives. Although I can’t nail down Obama’s position officially on the faith issue, he does seem to be in the same ballpark, which seems odd, considering that he openly calls himself a Christian. I’m not going to presume to know exactly what’s in the deep recesses of his heart, but we must not forget Obama’s political positions on abortion and homosexuality, along with other issues important to Christians. The more people who “cling” to their faith—specifically, Bible-believing, Christ-centered, all-encompassing faith—the worse it is for Obama’s political ambitions. Like an atheist says in Ben Stein’s new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, religion will ideally become something that people “do on the weekends” for fun as a social event—something that doesn’t really affect the rest of their lives. Obama’s translation? Something that doesn’t really affect their votes.

Originally posted here and here.

Right now, I’m imagining a church sanctuary, divided right down the middle by a solitary aisle. On the left side sit all the churchgoers who may read the Bible, and even believe the parts that they like–in other words, nominal, moderate, and liberal Christians. On the right side sit all the churchgoers who believe that the Bible is God’s Word and not something to be twisted, taken out of context, or brushed aside–a.k.a., conservative evangelicals.

In my imaginary edifice, which happens to resemble the ecclesiastical incarnation of Congress, I’m trying to figure out, “What side would John McCain sit on?”

I’m starting to think that he would sit in the aisle. On the one hand, he wants the fellowship and support of the “right side” of this church. He desires that identity. But, deep down in his heart, he seems to belong right in the middle, or even on the left side.

I believe this is the case for a few reasons:

First, he called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance.” Now, there are many ways that you could describe these two Christian leaders, including “insensitive” or “lacking discretion” for their post-9/11 sentiments. But McCain utilized terminology that is usually reserved for the “anything goes” liberal left. McCain reportedly reconciled with Falwell, but one has to wonder whether his original statements were sincere, and his latter statements were for political expediency.

Then, McCain said that he doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin, a view that goes right along with his opposition to a federal marriage amendment (although he doesn’t support gay marriage).

Moreover, WORLD Magazine, in the article “Divided We Stand,” described what happened when McCain was asked about his faith at a gathering of the CNP:

McCain launched into the story he has told often about a prison guard in North Vietnam who showed him compassion and once, in the prison yard, drew the sign of the cross in the dirt at McCain’s feet, then quickly brushed it away. The story received polite applause. Later Family Research Council head Tony Perkins told WORLD, “He had a golden opportunity to talk about his faith.Instead, he talked about the faith of his guard. It was a great story, but not what we were looking for.” Bill Owens, founder and president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, was more direct: “It was a disaster. It just proves he has no clue what we’re about.”

McCain is pro-life but he has supported embryonic stem-cell research, causing one to question his convictions on the issue and whether he fully grasps the issue at hand. As James Dobson has said, “You can’t truly be pro-life” if you advocate the killing of babies—even those least developed as embryos. These concerns are further legitimized by the fact that he thinks rape and incest exceptions are appropriate. Apparently, he feels that one sin (rape or incest) justifies another (killing a baby). Beyond that, he would give the “benefit of the doubt” to any abortion seeker alleging rape. In other words, abortion rates might not decline all that much, while “rape rates” would rise, unless some sort of restrictions were put on claiming rape. Not to mention, he would also give the benefit of the doubt to any state which decided to keep abortion legal. He supports the overturning of Roe v. Wade (although he hasn’t always supported such a judicial move), but he does not support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.

On a personal level, John McCain’s infidelity may also end up being an issue with conservative Christian voters. Like it or not, McCain needs to address and fully disclose that issue. Can he admit that he sinned, failed, yielded to temptation?
He needs to say more than that he is a “believer in redemption.” He needs to say, “I really need to be redeemed.”

As of now, McCain just doesn’t seem to understand what makes conservative Christians’ clock tick, and time is running short for him to figure that out.

I honestly don’t think McCain can, with much credibility, synchronize his watch to that clock by November. In my opinion, the best way for him to get the gears turning in his favor is the selection of a true conservative Christian as a running mate, someone who can walk the walk and talk the talk, two things seemingly beyond McCain’s capacity.

And why not former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee? Does he have his political downsides? Well, yes. By little fault of his own, he may turn off the Mormon community, along with the “Mitt Romney community” in general. But the substantial and enthusiastic evangelical constituency which he represents may outweigh any negatives that he brings to the table. In any case, McCain must recognize that the evangelical voting bloc is not something to be taken for granted, and that we will not easily be fooled by a little election-year pandering.