Thursday, September 4, 2008

The Wrong Time to Fall Silent

The Democrats have already held their convention; Obama has selected his VP nominee in Joe Biden. McCain has selected Sarah Palin to be his VP, and the Republicans are in the middle of their convention. And I haven't posted a thing. Of all times to disappear off the face of the earth, right? 

Well, I apologize. The fact is, my schedule is so busy right now that I don't see myself playing a consistent part in blogging the rest of this election cycle. Perhaps I will find a pocket of time in which I can insert my two cents every now and then, but I can make no guarantees. For now, I commend those who have remained committed to the task. 


Thursday, August 7, 2008

The Need Persists

Over the summer, I've been considering how my blog might evolve into a more general conservative Christian site. I've even tried to come up with a new name, thinking that "We Want a Christian President" was overly provocative and a turn-off.

But, during this past week, I've discovered through editorials written in The Washington Times, which accused evangelicals of religious bigotry against Mitt Romney (who is a Mormon), and the reaction of Huckabee supporters on Huck's Army, that there is still a great need for this site, explaining why a political candidate's faith is important, and why it is not hateful, irrational, or bigoted to hold to that position.

Some at Huck's Army believe that I am harming the effort simply by making such statements. In my opinion, some of them just haven't really chewed over what I'm saying (or simply disagree). Others are allowing the fear of being mischaracterized dictate what they will say. And some may even be placing political expediency and a misguided notion of ecumenism above the truth.

Of course, I think there is a certain level of discretion one should maintain; we shouldn't give our enemies fodder easy to twist and turn against us; and we should always speak the truth in love. But we should speak the truth.

So, WWCP will continue as WWCP for the foreseeable future. If I need a more general site to post my material on, I may create a new blog or return to Kingdom Advancing.

For now, I will post some of my recent comments from Huck's Army (an extra note can be found at the bottom of this post):

Other's comment: Religion has no place in politics and we must separate it and stick to the issues and character of the candidates. Romney's religion, whether it is Christian, Mormon, one and the same, should never come into play here. It should only be about the reasons Romney is not "ready to be commander in chief...or 2nd in command...."

My response: Does character not have some connection to a person's relationship with God? Obviously, we can't know that any public figure has a close relationship with God, but we can know that those who openly profess a false theology do not. This is not to say that a non-Christian can't have the outward expressions of good character. But I'd prefer for his/her character to flow from God.

Do one's positions on the issues not have some connection to their relationship with God? A true Christian should be guided by the Word and Spirit, and strengthened by them.

Do one's beliefs not have some connection with their readiness to lead? The case could be made that some religious beliefs are so illogical that one who holds to them cannot possess the judgment to lead.

Other's comment: Please don't disect the Mormon religion or any other religion on this website. The Rombots are just waiting to catch somebody who is doing that so they can put it all over the web. The Washington Times has hurt us enough for even implying that evangelicals are against Romney because he is a Mormon. What do you think John McCain and his campaign are thinking about all of this? Don't you think they might consider Mike a risk because of people who claim we are bigots? Commenting on somebody's religious beliefs is just a bad idea.It's not that you are doing anything wrong, just do it in your own mind..don't post it. Don't give anybody ammunition that might hurt Mike. Just about all of the people on this website don't like Romney because of his character and he cannot be trusted. Those are big reasons!

My response: I'm not dying to get into a critique of Mormonism. But when people on a conservative, greatly Christian site like this say that "religion should be kept out of politics," I have to speak up. When writers begin a tirade on evangelicals by saying that "Mormons are Christians, anyway," [as the opiner in The Washington Times did] I can't let that slide... The Bible tells us to "be of good repute," so that our revilers will be "put to shame." It never says, "For the sake of political expediency, avoid speaking the truth." Of course, there is a level of discretion. But I don't think we should hide what we believe.

Other's Comment: I agree with what many of you have already stated -- having a theological discussion is not helpful at this time. It would only feed into their belief that we are predjudice against Romney for his religion -- which we are not. It would be different if they were open to hearing different doctrine, and if it were one on one privately, but they are not open and it is public. In all respect, please reconsider no longer responding to this website:

II Timothy 2:23-26 NKJV "But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And the servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will."

Please dont flank me ... just sharing the concern of my heart.

My response: I understand what you're saying, but I still don't get the logic behind "don't stand up for truth, because our enemies might twist the truth and use it against us." That's just not a good enough reason to be silent on an issue.

What I'm concerned about is the possibility that some well-meaning Christians will dust topics like these under the rug because they're inconvenient, because they don't want to be branded bigots, because they don't want to hurt the movement, because they don't want to think critically about this issue. I'm concerned that there may be Christians who would prefer to know nothing about Mormonism except that "Mormons are good people," so that they can have some kind of plausible deniability with which they can say, "I could care less about a politician's religion."

That's unacceptable for the church to so cavalierly dismiss a person's relationship with God--a person who they are using their God-given freedom and ability to put into a position of great power.


Allow me to add a few final thoughts: I am not advocating, and have never advocated, giving a candidate a leg up simply because he claims to be a Christian. Read the intro to my blog: "Not just in word, but in deed...Not just in deed, but in practice." My position has always been that a Christian candidate's faith should be reflected in his political positions, behavior, and speech. One also must look at a candidate's talents and experience. God does not gift all Christians with the wherewithal to run civil governments, and we should carefully consider whether a Christian candidate is qualified.

I've also held that there may come a time when a non-Christian candidate would be a better alternative than the professing Christian. But it would be very difficult for me to vote for either in that scenario, and, with John McCain's less-than-stellar appearance on issues of faith (See my post: Sitting in the Aisle?), I really hope he picks a strong VP.

Friday, July 25, 2008

POLL: Charge of the Other Side of Netroots

Every once in a while, you get so immersed in your conservative circles, like Huck's Army, the F3 Coalition, the Huckabee Alliance, and the like that you forget that there's another side to the "netroots" coin. Obviously, I never really get a chance to forget about it, because I hear about all the time. But I rarely see it personally.

Well, I got to see just a little bit of it in action recently with my latest poll. Someone commented on a popular liberal blog about my poll, and voila!

I asked: Which of the following best summarizes your reaction to the recent events relating to marriage in California?

The response:

A incredibly lopsided 242 (89%) said that "California's finally gotten it right. Now for the rest of the country."

The second-place group, consisting of 24 (8%), said that it "Just goes to show how much we need a federal marriage amendment."

A couple people each said that it "Just goes to show had bad activist courts can be" and that it's "Just a blip on the screen; stick with states' rights," neither attaining one percent of the vote.

With one vote, "Just goes to show how far-left California is" came in last.

You all may be interested in what my reaction was. Well, as the administrator of the poll, I have the luxury of not limiting myself to one answer. Needless to say, I do not agree with the 89% majority. I also don't think that it's proof of how liberal Californians are, although I think many of them are very liberal. This was a court decision, overriding the will of the people, who had already chosen to protect marriage and who will have an opportunity to do it again this November with a state constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Although I understand the point of view which urges us to stick to states' rights, I, as a proponent of a federal marriage amendment, do not concur, and I fear that this may be more than a blip on the screen in the long run if strong action is not taken.

I'm split somewhat evenly between seeing the need for a marriage amendment and recognizing the extent and effect of activist courts. Of course, the former is remedial action which one can take, whereas the latter is more just a realization.

Please vote in the next poll!

POLL: Credentials, Of Course!

Okay, time to get some of these old polls out of the way, and get a new one up and running.

First, I asked: In your opinion, what is the primary factor which McCain should take into account when selecting a running mate?

Overwhelmingly, you responded that Conservative Credentials were of the utmost importance. 37 (77%) of you chose that option.

Executive Experience came in a distant second with 7 (14%) votes. Yet, that was a solid second, for Youth/Freshness came in third with only 3 (6%) votes. State/Region captured a single (2%) vote. Neither Race/Ethnicity nor Gender garnered a solitary vote.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Decadence, Morality, and Homosexuality

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.

Friday, July 18, 2008

A Couple Updates on Marriage

Just wanted to update you all on a couple of marriage issues:

1.) The number of co-sponsors of the marriage amendment resolutions in the House and Senate continues to creep upwards...very, very slowly. In the House, new representatives lent their signatures to the measure for the first time in almost three weeks, bringing the total to 89. In the Senate, the number jumped from 11 to 16, but has been static for the past few days.

By the way, does anyone else think it is a shame that the House and Senate is split nearly down the middle between Republicans and Democrats, and yet the co-sponsors of these respective bills don't reach even close to 50% of the members of these two houses? Not to mention the Democrats who have joined in on this fight, pushing the Republican percentage even lower. It just serves as a reminder, all Republicans are not made in the same mold.

The Republican Leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, responded to two of my e-mails by saying that he supported and co-sponsored a similar bill in 2006, and will support this one when the "full Senate has a chance to vote on it." Perhaps the Senator should consider that he should, as the Minority Leader, lead on this issue, not follow or merely be a "yea" in the Senate rabble. Maybe I should contact him again and convey those sentiments.

There's no telling how many other congressmen and senators feel the same way: they plan to sit out until (and if) it comes to a vote; then they will cast their vote in favor of marriage, family, and morality.

That's why it's pivotal that the citizenry involve themselves. Perhaps, if a representative is contacted by enough of his constituents, he'll be energized and emboldened to stop sitting on his hands, and to start using them to co-sponsor the federal marriage amendment. Go to Traditional Wedlock to find helpful links.

2.) Good news! Homosexual "marriage" activists in California failed in an attempted lawsuit to get California's marriage amendment off the ballot. Now, perhaps the Democratic process can play itself out.

Monday, July 14, 2008

A Journey Worth Taking on a Summer Afternoon

Journey to the Center of the Earth -- 3D

Starring: Brendan Fraser, Josh Hutcherson

Plot Synopsis: A disrespected scientist and his teenage nephew take a trek to Iceland to investigate a previously unknown seismic sensor, which could lead to a great discovery or even information about the scientist's brother's (and nephew's dad's) mysterious disappearance. Hiring a mountain guide to lead them, they stumble onto (or should I say into) more than anyone could have expected (unless, of course, you've seen the movie's trailers or commercials).

Objectionable Material: Fortunately, there's not much to list under this heading. At one point, the young nephew uses a recently discovered scientific term as a euphemism of the s-word. And some may consider the female mountain guide's apparel to be less than appropriate at times, but that's about it. The main character does make a reference to "millions of years" when discussing a bird that had supposedly been extinct for that long. Of course, this is a science fiction movie, so why not allude to the most popular science fiction of all?

Analysis: The best part about this movie may be the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously. In the parts that it does, I found myself pulling out of the story mentally, thinking "this is corny." Specifically, I'm referring to any part in which Trevor (Brendan Fraser) and Hannah--the mountain guide--tried to converse in an overly passionate, intense way. The movie is much more in its element when the expeditioners are falling endlessly and screaming their lungs out, only to momentarily fall silent. After a few seconds, Trevor yells, "We're still falling!!!" Or, while in the act of running from a T-Rex, Shawn (Josh Hutcherson) asks Trevor, "Haven't you ever seen a dinosaur before?" To which Trevor replies, "Not with skin on it!" The sarcasm and humor is at its best in situations where you'd never expect someone to be sarcastic or funny. The other area in which the movie finds its niche is in intense moments broken by humor or setting up a humorous conclusion to the scene.

If you're going to see this movie, you have to see it in 3D, as long as that doesn't make you nauseous. Without the third dimension, I think that some moments in the film would seem run-of-the-mill or even pointless and time-wasting (in terms of pacing). With the third dimension, something as ordinary as blowing on a dandelion (granted, a gigantic dandelion), becomes an almost magical experience. A yo-yo becomes a thrill-machine. And the whole movie, including the parts without explicitly 3D material, feels unusual.

This movie isn't going to make it into my Top 10, Top 20, or perhaps even Top 50 list (if I ever took the time to make that long of a list). But if you want to see a quality, entertaining movie that doesn't require ear-muffs, blindfolds, or stomach pumps, Journey to the Center of the Earth--3D is a solid choice.

Friday, July 4, 2008

Happy Independence Day!!!

As so happens with my knack for great timing and preparation, I have prepared nothing eloquent to post about my country on this, its birthday. But I still wanted to express my adoration for my country, in spite of its faults, because of its merits. Today, I encourage you to ponder the sacrifice of those who paid the price for the freedom which we now enjoy, in some form similar to the way our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ paid our debt so that we could be free, set so by the truth.

Enjoy your freedom today, and if you see a military serviceman or woman, go ahead and thank him/her. While you're at it, thank God for the grace He's shed on this country, and pray for all the more. Not that we deserve it. Not that we expect it. But that we so desperately need it.

Happy 4th!!!!

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

What's On Your Radio?

I rarely post things just for fun, encouragement, and fellowship, and I think that's a problem. I also don't provide you with good opportunities to interact, besides the chance for some of you to express your disdain for me and some of you to take up arms by my side.

So, today, I want to tell you about a few of my favorite songs at present. Here goes:

Song of Hope
By: Robbie Seay Band

Stay Strong
By: Newsboys

You Are Everything
By: Matthew West

Let It Fade
By: Jeremy Camp

We Need Each Other
By: Sanctus Real

Washed by the Water
By: Needtobreathe

That's a good playlist to invigorate and inspire you to go out as a member of the body of Christ, to get up and dust yourself off, to come out stronger from your trials, to persevere, to leave your old life behind.

Tell me what you're listening to these days!!!!

p.s. To hear thirty-second snippets of these songs and/or to have the opportunity to download them for 94 cents a piece (plus state sales tax), you can visit Walmart Music Downloads.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

86 in the House; 9 in the Senate

The number of cosponsors for H.J.RES. 89, calling for a federal marriage amendment, continues to creep upwards. Marilyn Musgrave from Colorado became a cosponsor on Thursday, bringing the total to 86.

In closely related news, Senator Wicker of Mississippi has introduced a similar bill in the Senate. It currently has 9 cosponsors.

For action instructions, please visit Traditional

In WWCP news, I've been considering how I might transition this blog from an Election '08 effort to a more general Christian conservative site. My main dilemma is that my URL, "http://christianpresident," makes a simple name change problematic, while changing the URL or creating a whole new blog would cause other issues (such as informing all those who have linked or visited here). Anyways, just wanted to let you know that I've been pondering over such measures.