Well, friends, it's been a while since I've gotten all philosophical, but I believe it's time to do just that. I debate with a few friends from my high school days regularly (often over my blogs) and one topic that comes up an awful lot is whether or not it is acceptable to use one's faith as a grounds for political decision making. The argument from one of them is basically that I can believe what I want but I should suspend my faith in my political opinions.
Honestly, friends, this is absolutely impossible. My faith defines me more than anything else in my life...more than my career, more than conservatism, more than my family. My identity, first and foremost, is that of a person purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ and saved by the grace of God. Due to this, the Bible is the primary document that sets my life in order.
There is however are two other documents that I hold only slightly below the Bible in terms of my ideas and ideals of what is right and wrong. The first document is the United States Constitution. The second is the Declaration of Independence. To give an analogy, if I said I hold the Bible in esteem of 1000 feet in the air, I'd say I hold the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence about 995 feet in the air in esteem. There is a difference, but I hold both very, very highly. As a matter of fact, I believe these two documents as they exist today (including the 27 ratified Amendments) best demonstrate in a modern sense God's perfect governmental style (now I said BEST not PERFECTLY, mind you) over all other forms of government.
So where is the balance? There are issues I am willing to go to the wall on. I also believe those issues are in line with both the Bible and the Constitution/Declaration of Independence tandem. One such issue is abortion. As Americans we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means those rights cannot be taken away, period) amongst which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I have asserted on more than one occasion that these three are a hierarchy, specifically, my right to pursue happiness ends at your liberty (I cannot enslave you as I pursue my own happiness) and my liberty ends at your life (I can do what I want, provided I do take your life.)
Since nobody can say with any level of certainty when human life begins (except for it's after conception...otherwise you show me a sperm cell or egg cell that grew into a person on it's own), it is best to error on the side of caution and not destroy a potential human life.
There are other issues, however, I must find compromise on in the political arena. I believe that all people have the right to equal protection under the laws of our nation. This is why while I will continue to insist that the word "marriage" specifically denotes one man and one woman, I cannot insist that other combinations of two adult humans cannot petition the government to recognize their union with legal privileges similar to those of the marriage union. I can even see considering the legal term for all unions "Civil Union" on the legal license, reserving the title "marriage" for those unions performed in church. (Yes, there will always be people who use the term "marriage" colloquially, but there's not much I can do about that.)
Why do I agree to this compromise? Simple. I respect our nation's founding documents. I respect the fact that the First Amendment not only gives me freedom of religion but also gives others the same right. It further gives me the right to share my faith with others and discuss our differences and yes, attempt to convince them that I am right (they have the same right).
I know I'll likely receive grief both from my fellow Christians and from those who disagree with me. But ultimately I believe this is the most equitable solution. There are other issues where the same type of pragmatism can be employed. (I've continued to argume to teach some form of Intelligent Design, not Creationism, alongside Evolution. Specifically focusing on complexity and signs of a designer without naming that designer.)
There is room for a middle ground without compromising one's faith. Because ultimately, if one respects the Constitution, they can find the balance between that and faith. I recognize it is akin to standing in the middle of a teeter-totter and balancing, sometimes with a person on each end who is not assisting in any way but just adding weight. However, it is reasonably possible to balance faith and the Constitution while being true to both and compromising neither.
Showing posts with label faith and politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label faith and politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Friday, December 9, 2011
It’s Merry Christmas…Get Over It
Earlier this week, I attended my company’s nondescript “Holiday Party” where we had a nondescript “Holiday Tree.” I’m officially done with it. I’m tired of the political correctness, and I don’t just mean the fact that I enjoy getting shocked looks when someone says someone is Indian and I respond “dots or feathers?” Yes, I do enjoy poking the liberal politically correct machine. I also enjoy calling homeless people “hobos” but that’s really just because “hobo” is a fun word. All that aside, there is something I’ve got to say to the liberal politically correct machine, and please, listen carefully: It’s Merry Christmas. Get over it.
That’s right, Merry Christmas. You see, it used to be that “Happy Holidays” was a short way of saying “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.” Now it’s become this way to not dare to offend someone. It used to be that you said Merry Christmas to basically everybody, and then if you had Jewish friends you wished them Happy Chanukah. I’ve got news for you liberals: 95% of Americans celebrate Christmas, according to Gallup. You got that? 95%...and the other 5% is not being injured in any way by being wished a Merry Christmas.
For the last few years, I’ve been intentional to wish people Merry Christmas. Do you know what they say? They thank me! They thank me for saying Merry Christmas…they’re tired of “Happy Holidays” too. That beautifully decorated tree in your living room? It’s a Christmas tree. It’s an old German Christian tradition that goes back about five centuries. Santa Claus? That tradition comes from Saint Nicholas, a Christian saint who would leave gifts in people’s shoes quietly and without being noticed.
Most importantly, and this cannot be minimized: Christmas is about Jesus. Christmas is the day we celebrate God sending His son to Earth to walk amongst us, to live the human condition for 33 years, then to go to the cross and suffer the worst execution man ever devised…for you and me…and then rise from the grave the victorious King! Christmas is the beginning of the greatest story ever told! Please hear me when I say this: Jesus is the reason for the season, and I’m not ashamed to say it! My savior was made incarnate man, and that’s why we celebrate Christmas.
I’m tired of hearing Happy Holidays. It’s Merry Christmas! (To my Jewish friends, Happy Chanukah!) Beyond that, this season is about Jesus! Jesus is the reason for the season! Now join me in saying it: MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Friday, June 17, 2011
Faith is Inseparable from Politics
Yes. You read that right, faith is inseparable from politics. I've recently spent a lot of time in debates with agnostics and atheists who are telling me that I can't include my faith in the political discussion because other people don't share my views. My response is of course I can!
Here's why: America is not made up of groups. America is made up of individuals who form groups. Each individual's personal beliefs effect their personal opinions on any given issue. Those beliefs are based on life experiences and their religious beliefs. (Those who are atheists, their lack of belief is also part of their opinions.) To tell an individual to simply ignore their faith when making decisions is, in a word, preposterous.
Let me give you an example. It's a hot button issue, but it's also one of the best examples in this case: abortion. Deep down in my heart, I am staunchly opposed to abortion. I'm opposed to it because I believe the most fundamental right of a human being is the right to life. I believe that life ought to be protected at all stages, including in the womb. This is something that scientific evidence, the Bible, and basic logic (by that I mean that I know life begins at some point after conception, it is safe to consider life beginning at conception in an effort to not destroy human life) has convinced me is true.
Given that I believe that unborn child is a human being and that I also believe that the arbitrary destruction of a human being is the most basic definition of murder, I therefore believe that abortion is murder and ought to be illegal (except in cases where the mother's life is in danger and the doctor chooses to save the most viable life), regardless of how that child was conceived. (In short, I see the abortion issue, first and foremost, from the perspective of the unborn child and his right to live, and secondly from the perspective of the mother.)
How could I, in good conscience, not stand up and fight against abortion in the arena of ideas and support candidates who do the same? How could I reasonably ignore the beliefs I hold so dearly when I go to cast my ballot, just because those values are not shared by all? The answer is I cannot, and I will not. Nor should I be asked to ignore those beliefs.
Now I am by no means recommending terrorist tactics like blowing up abortion clinics or murdering the doctors who perform the procedure (regardless of the immorality of that doctor's practice, right to life extends to that doctor as well). What I am saying is that it is incumbent upon me to engage this issue in the arena of ideas in an effort to convince other Americans that I am right and to convince them to also vote that way. Those who disagree with me have the same right to so work to change hearts and minds of those around them.
In a society where people decide who to vote for base on how pretty they give speeches or, in the famous case of David Brooks, by the crease in his pants, don't tell people of faith that the Bible is an impermissible way to arrive at your political values. Quit trying to silence us, and just let the debate happen. What are you afraid of, exactly?
Herein lies the real issue: Liberals have been taught to silence their opponents as a rhetorical tactic, mainly because actual head to head debates between Conservative and Liberal perspectives have never ended well for the Left. Sure, there are certain front statements made, like attempts to take an intellectual high ground with the idea that opinions reached without a faith based perspective are somehow more scientific, but I say baloney. Let's have a debate, a public one, with the judges being voters. Stop saying that certain paths to an opinion are invalid.
Here's why: America is not made up of groups. America is made up of individuals who form groups. Each individual's personal beliefs effect their personal opinions on any given issue. Those beliefs are based on life experiences and their religious beliefs. (Those who are atheists, their lack of belief is also part of their opinions.) To tell an individual to simply ignore their faith when making decisions is, in a word, preposterous.
Let me give you an example. It's a hot button issue, but it's also one of the best examples in this case: abortion. Deep down in my heart, I am staunchly opposed to abortion. I'm opposed to it because I believe the most fundamental right of a human being is the right to life. I believe that life ought to be protected at all stages, including in the womb. This is something that scientific evidence, the Bible, and basic logic (by that I mean that I know life begins at some point after conception, it is safe to consider life beginning at conception in an effort to not destroy human life) has convinced me is true.
Given that I believe that unborn child is a human being and that I also believe that the arbitrary destruction of a human being is the most basic definition of murder, I therefore believe that abortion is murder and ought to be illegal (except in cases where the mother's life is in danger and the doctor chooses to save the most viable life), regardless of how that child was conceived. (In short, I see the abortion issue, first and foremost, from the perspective of the unborn child and his right to live, and secondly from the perspective of the mother.)
How could I, in good conscience, not stand up and fight against abortion in the arena of ideas and support candidates who do the same? How could I reasonably ignore the beliefs I hold so dearly when I go to cast my ballot, just because those values are not shared by all? The answer is I cannot, and I will not. Nor should I be asked to ignore those beliefs.
Now I am by no means recommending terrorist tactics like blowing up abortion clinics or murdering the doctors who perform the procedure (regardless of the immorality of that doctor's practice, right to life extends to that doctor as well). What I am saying is that it is incumbent upon me to engage this issue in the arena of ideas in an effort to convince other Americans that I am right and to convince them to also vote that way. Those who disagree with me have the same right to so work to change hearts and minds of those around them.
In a society where people decide who to vote for base on how pretty they give speeches or, in the famous case of David Brooks, by the crease in his pants, don't tell people of faith that the Bible is an impermissible way to arrive at your political values. Quit trying to silence us, and just let the debate happen. What are you afraid of, exactly?
Herein lies the real issue: Liberals have been taught to silence their opponents as a rhetorical tactic, mainly because actual head to head debates between Conservative and Liberal perspectives have never ended well for the Left. Sure, there are certain front statements made, like attempts to take an intellectual high ground with the idea that opinions reached without a faith based perspective are somehow more scientific, but I say baloney. Let's have a debate, a public one, with the judges being voters. Stop saying that certain paths to an opinion are invalid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)