Here's yet another letter I wrote to a Florida newspaper. If you think I should send it to another newspaper, in any state, let me know.
Length: 243 words
Subject: Social Conservatism Still Holds Precedence
This letter is to affirm that social conservatism still holds a great deal of precedence with at least one voter. Apparently, most of the contenders for the Republican nomination don’t realize that people like me exist. Romney is trying to magnify the importance of the economy, which goes well with his business acumen. McCain is trying to spin everything to foreign policy and defense, which goes well with his military and defense background. Giulani tries to tie a lot of things back to 9/11 and his leadership experience from it.
This trend of emphasizing one issue is understandable, since each candidate has his own particular strength. But don’t forget that all these candidates are also hiding conservative weaknesses in the social realm.
Giulani is in favor of choice, civil unions, and locally-determined gun restrictions. Romney has shoddy track records on abortion and gun control. McCain does not support a Human Life Amendment or a Marriage Amendment, and his maverick nature has brought him on the anti-gun side of the fence more than once.
Mike Huckabee is the only one who has been a constant, complete conservative on all of these issues. He supports a Human Life Amendment, a Marriage Amendment, and the Second Amendment. Nothing in his record contradicts his stances on these issues. He is the only one who appears to have consistently believed in what I do as passionately as I do. Therefore, he is the only one I will support.
Alasan Bermain Judi Kasino Online
-
Perekonomian agen bola terpercaya dunia tidak berjalan dengan baik. Biaya
hidup semakin tinggi setiap harinya. Oleh karena itu, setiap individu[...]
7 years ago
6 comments:
Entering into Dialogue with a Fellow Christ-Follower
I would like to respond to two quotes from Huckabee's "Issues" section on the "war on terror":
He wrote:
"I believe in the Powell Doctrine of using overwhelming force to accomplish a mission."
Haven't you ever preached, as a pastor, on John 3:16 and the overwhelming love that was able to defeat evil at the cross?
"I will expand the army and increase the defense budget."
Do the prophets not speak about a time in which we will beat swords into ploughshares? Does Jesus Christ not speak about turning the cheek and loving our enemies? Does this quote not undermine the words and work of Jesus Christ THE Commander and Chief of all that is?
It saddens me to read of how willing Huckabee is to sacrifice the fathers and sons of our enemies even as he passionately plead for the life of the unborn child. Does God not love both enemy and unborn child? Is the gospel not meant for the killed fetus and also the disemboweled extremist?
Thank you for your comment.
I think the main mistake you are making in your logic is that Mike Huckabee is running for President of the United States--not missionary, not pastor.
Paul states in Romans 13 that the governing authority "does not bear the sword for nothing." (v. 4) Rather, it as "an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."
In 1 Timothy 2, Paul exhorts Timothy to pray "for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil in quiet life in all godliness and dignity." (v. 2)
If our government did not defend this country, we would live in fear and danger, not in quietness and tranquility. Eventually, if we refused to defend ourselves, it is likely that Radical Islamofascists would take over and force Islam on all, at the point of a sword. Thus, we would not be able to live "in all godliness." They would install Shariah law, so that we would not be able to live "in all dignity."
If Huckabee, as president, chose not to defend this nation, when he has power over one of the most powerful militaries in the world, he would be partly responsible for you and me dying in an attack, if we were to do so.
Yes, there will come a time when we will "beat swords into ploughshares." But there is nothing in the Bible that says, "And that time will be the year 2008 A.D.." Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, the prophets also spoke of a time in which we would "beat ploughshares into swords." Why didn't you quote them there?
Neither Jesus nor Paul ever criticized the military. In the Old Testament, God often helped Israel win wars, and even told them to go to war. In Revelation, Jesus will lead an army in battle.
There are many different interpretations of "turning the other cheek." Most Christians interpret it in a personal way, not a countrywide mandate.
Even on a personal basis, those who would claim this passage means you must allow your face to get beaten in with no resistance must answer this question: Why did Jesus tell his disciples to buy swords?
Here are the differences between unborn babies and Islamic extremists:
Babies don't hate us. Islamic extremists do.
Babies don't want to kill us. Islamic extremists do.
Babies are, practically speaking, innocent. Islamic extremists are not.
Babies can't defend themselves--they can't fight back. Islamic extremists can and do.
Babies never attacked us. Islamic extremists (even if not the ones in Iraq in 2003) did, and are planning more.
Finally, it's not babies' fault that they are conceived. It's their parents'. They should not be killed for their parents' convenience.
I agree with you that we should love our enemies. And I agree with you that the ultimate Love can bring victory. I'm not sure whether we can win the fight against radical Islam without conversion to Christianity being a central piece to the puzzle. However, refusing to defend ourselves is not the answer.
I think there is room for debate about whether the Iraq War was necessary and just. But I do not think the case can be made that the Bible requires governments to be entirely non-violent.
ya... but its the words of Jesus, "love your enemies, do good to them" that really keep me from agreeing with you. I'm impressed with your theological maneuvering... but what impresses me more is the Lordship of Christ. I am his slave... and no one else.
"I'm impressed with your theological maneuvering..."
I hope that's a compliment and not an underhanded insult. :)
I believe we can do good to our enemies, and still defend ourselves. It brings us back to whether the War in Iraq was just and necessary. If you want to make the case that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat, and therefore the war was unchristian, there may be a case to be made.
You seem to imply that one statement of Jesus' trumps all other Scripture and theology. But, remember, the Bible is a book, not a bunch of pages. We must look at issues contextually. Think how someone could take out of context some biblical statements, like James', "So you see we are justified by works..."
I respect your conviction, and, in order to follow the Bible, I can't expect you to go against your convictions, if you don't do so willingly, with a clean conscience. However, I hope you will give the same respect to my views.
Don't you see, it is precisely this kind of contextualizing of scripture that liberals also employ in justifying their murder of children. Why can't we just be agreed that God would have us love children and enemies, as it is plain in scripture that he does, and as He himself, as the Son Jesus, tells us he does.
No, liberals:
1.) Ignore the Bible and justify their position with their own reason.
2.) Twist the Bible.
3.) Distort the Bible by taking things OUT of context.
I'm saying that we have to see the Bible as a whole. We won't have the right perspective if we don't.
I can agree that we should love children and enemies. But you have to ask yourself this question: would you have 20 terrorists killed if you COULD and if you KNEW they were going to kill 2,000 innocent civilians?
If you answer "no" to that question, you are admitting that you'd rather concede (and become an accomplice to) the deaths of innocence than the elimination of evil.
And again, you have to admit that there are monumental differences between non-agressive unborn children and violent terrorists.
Post a Comment