I'm not a Mitt Romney apologist, but he's come under fire for this statement here....
But the criticism is entirely unfair. He was being trapped.
In 2003, Rick Santorum came under criticism because he disagreed with the 1965 Supreme Court decision of Griswald vs. Connecticut. This case has been used to argue that homosexuality, abortion, polygamy, etc. are constitutional, because the Court determined that there is an extended right to privacy in the Constitution. However, originally, the case was about the state of Connecticut's right to ban the sale of contraceptives. Back in 1965, a lot of states banned this. As Romney stated, there isn't a state out there now that even wants to ban the sale of contraceptives. With socialized medicine and welfare, it is a lot cheaper to prevent the birth of a child than to provide medical care and food for that child.
However, Romney is in a dubious place. As a former Mormon bishop, if he says no, states do not have this right, he risks ticking off the Mormon church, whose theology encourages large families. If he says yes, in principle, he alienates almost everyone else who believes that sexuality without procreation is a human right.
Romney made a dodge of the issue, which really is a complete non-issue. A rather clumsy dodge, but a dodge all the same. He wasn't saying that he didn't know the Constitution, but that he was passing it off on someone else, since it was clearly a stupid question. But I believe (and I am not sure) that Romney's health care program provided for birth control.
However, what this makes clear is that the media is gearing up on a full-court press on Santorum, and they are attempting to determine what others are going to say on this matter.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Response
Representative Mark Souder sent me this email today:
Dear Mrs. Horn:
I want to hear from you on the government's response to the economic crisis. Please click here share with me your story of the economic crisis. Specifically, how has the government's response in the stimulus and President Obama's budget affected you? Be sure to title your email, "My Story" so that we can quickly process your comments in our system.
The economic recession is hitting our entire country hard, but it has been especially challenging here in northeast Indiana. The government must respond, but it must do so wisely. I would like to know how tax increases would affect your ability to pay your health care premiums, send your children to college, start a small business, or otherwise achieve your American Dream.
Your perspective and experiences are very important to me and will help me better understand the needs of Hoosiers in our area.
Here is my response:
Dear Congressman Souder:
You asked for the stories of people in Northeast Indiana, and how they have been effected by the recession, the bailouts, and the President's budget.
My family is currently secure, but we have friends who have lost their jobs or who fear that they will lose their jobs because they work for companies that supply the automotive Big Three.
They are struggling on unemployment, they can't afford their COBRAs and so their children are on Hoosier Healthwise, but they can't take any kind of job that would help ease the strain unless it offers benefits, or their kids have no healthcare. This is a story I hear repeatedly from friends, people at my church, and people in my community.
Strangely enough, everyone that I have talked to in this situation is also against the bailouts of the automotive industry. They are also against universal, government run healthcare, because they see much more clearly than the people in Washington that it is the government's job to protect our freedoms, not provide daily security. Americans have faced very difficult times before, but there is tyranny in "being too big to fail."
Now, we'll talk about me. How have the bailout packages, the ecomomic stimulus package, and the new budget effected me? I'm afraid and I'm angry.
I grew up being with the value that we obey the rule of law, not men, and the most important law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. It is the greatest document written by man that was not inspired by God. I elect my representatives not to necessarily agree with me on every issue, but to uphold that Constitution. Yet I am afraid that it doesn't seem like these Representatives have read it, much less uphold it and use it as a rule to limit their own authority and responsibility for that matter.
As an American, I am being ruled by men who look to the next election, who are afraid of their constituents, and who are ruling by their emotion rather than law. The Constitution did not give the authority for either bailout to happen, for the programs in that stimulus package, and does not give authority for a good portion of our President's new budget.
People could lose jobs. People could struggle. The economic structure of the entire world could be at stake. I agree, it is a very scary time. But the Constitution does not lay the responsibility for this at your feet. The fact of the matter is that the only responsibility that government had was to regulate the banking and automotive industry to keep them from being too big, to keep them from making fraudulent investments that created this mess. In short, to uphold laws that were ALREADY on the books.
And it is not government's job to provide healthcare. God help us that the men who have created this mess manage our healthcare system. We may need something that is not tied to our employment, but the answer is not the government. The only role that I see that government should have in this is to keept he insurance companies from colluding to rip off their customers. Again, laws that are already on the books.
It also is not the government's job to inspire populist rage or respond to it. It is not the government's job to fire CEOs -- that is the investors' job, and it certainly is not the government's job to coerce a company into merging with a foreign company. It is not their job to prevent them from filing bankruptcy which would have allowed reorganization and possibly recovery.
It is also not your job to vote on bills that change the whole nature of the role of the government without reading it.
I suggest that you, Representative Souder, start a reading group with your fellow representatives -- and start with that grand old document that you swore to uphold. I wish you had reviewed it and your oath to uphold it before you voted for both of those bailout packages. In the end, your vote probably didn't matter, except to how you chose to represent those constituents back home, since Republicans have been trying to talk out of both sides of their mouths for so long and have lost so many seats because of it...since they forgot their party platform as well as the Constitution.
This is how it has effected me. My friends still don't have their jobs back, but I am concerned that my freedoms, my rights, and my children's rights and freedoms are in jeopardy.
I thank you for your strong defense of Life, but if another Republican candidate comes against you in the primary with a strong prolife position as well, I am voting with the idea that while term limits might not be law, they are indeed good. These packages have made me do a lot of thinking, contemplating, and reading on issues that I value, but might have taken for granted previously.
As it was said in To Kill a Mockingbird, "I did not love reading until I was going to lose it. One does not love breathing." I didn't value my freedom enough until it is dying.
Sincerely,
__________________
If Mark Souder is your Congressman, the link for submitting your story is here: Congressman Souder's contact page. If it isn't please Google your congressman and submit your story as well.
Dear Mrs. Horn:
I want to hear from you on the government's response to the economic crisis. Please click here share with me your story of the economic crisis. Specifically, how has the government's response in the stimulus and President Obama's budget affected you? Be sure to title your email, "My Story" so that we can quickly process your comments in our system.
The economic recession is hitting our entire country hard, but it has been especially challenging here in northeast Indiana. The government must respond, but it must do so wisely. I would like to know how tax increases would affect your ability to pay your health care premiums, send your children to college, start a small business, or otherwise achieve your American Dream.
Your perspective and experiences are very important to me and will help me better understand the needs of Hoosiers in our area.
Here is my response:
Dear Congressman Souder:
You asked for the stories of people in Northeast Indiana, and how they have been effected by the recession, the bailouts, and the President's budget.
My family is currently secure, but we have friends who have lost their jobs or who fear that they will lose their jobs because they work for companies that supply the automotive Big Three.
They are struggling on unemployment, they can't afford their COBRAs and so their children are on Hoosier Healthwise, but they can't take any kind of job that would help ease the strain unless it offers benefits, or their kids have no healthcare. This is a story I hear repeatedly from friends, people at my church, and people in my community.
Strangely enough, everyone that I have talked to in this situation is also against the bailouts of the automotive industry. They are also against universal, government run healthcare, because they see much more clearly than the people in Washington that it is the government's job to protect our freedoms, not provide daily security. Americans have faced very difficult times before, but there is tyranny in "being too big to fail."
Now, we'll talk about me. How have the bailout packages, the ecomomic stimulus package, and the new budget effected me? I'm afraid and I'm angry.
I grew up being with the value that we obey the rule of law, not men, and the most important law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. It is the greatest document written by man that was not inspired by God. I elect my representatives not to necessarily agree with me on every issue, but to uphold that Constitution. Yet I am afraid that it doesn't seem like these Representatives have read it, much less uphold it and use it as a rule to limit their own authority and responsibility for that matter.
As an American, I am being ruled by men who look to the next election, who are afraid of their constituents, and who are ruling by their emotion rather than law. The Constitution did not give the authority for either bailout to happen, for the programs in that stimulus package, and does not give authority for a good portion of our President's new budget.
People could lose jobs. People could struggle. The economic structure of the entire world could be at stake. I agree, it is a very scary time. But the Constitution does not lay the responsibility for this at your feet. The fact of the matter is that the only responsibility that government had was to regulate the banking and automotive industry to keep them from being too big, to keep them from making fraudulent investments that created this mess. In short, to uphold laws that were ALREADY on the books.
And it is not government's job to provide healthcare. God help us that the men who have created this mess manage our healthcare system. We may need something that is not tied to our employment, but the answer is not the government. The only role that I see that government should have in this is to keept he insurance companies from colluding to rip off their customers. Again, laws that are already on the books.
It also is not the government's job to inspire populist rage or respond to it. It is not the government's job to fire CEOs -- that is the investors' job, and it certainly is not the government's job to coerce a company into merging with a foreign company. It is not their job to prevent them from filing bankruptcy which would have allowed reorganization and possibly recovery.
It is also not your job to vote on bills that change the whole nature of the role of the government without reading it.
I suggest that you, Representative Souder, start a reading group with your fellow representatives -- and start with that grand old document that you swore to uphold. I wish you had reviewed it and your oath to uphold it before you voted for both of those bailout packages. In the end, your vote probably didn't matter, except to how you chose to represent those constituents back home, since Republicans have been trying to talk out of both sides of their mouths for so long and have lost so many seats because of it...since they forgot their party platform as well as the Constitution.
This is how it has effected me. My friends still don't have their jobs back, but I am concerned that my freedoms, my rights, and my children's rights and freedoms are in jeopardy.
I thank you for your strong defense of Life, but if another Republican candidate comes against you in the primary with a strong prolife position as well, I am voting with the idea that while term limits might not be law, they are indeed good. These packages have made me do a lot of thinking, contemplating, and reading on issues that I value, but might have taken for granted previously.
As it was said in To Kill a Mockingbird, "I did not love reading until I was going to lose it. One does not love breathing." I didn't value my freedom enough until it is dying.
Sincerely,
__________________
If Mark Souder is your Congressman, the link for submitting your story is here: Congressman Souder's contact page. If it isn't please Google your congressman and submit your story as well.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Obama Uniting the Right?
Here's an interesting article on The Standard's blog
Though I really wonder if that is true. As a matter of fact, I don't think it is.
People don't get united through "what we don't want." They are united by what they hold in common. That's why Reagan worked. He emphasized that.
Take the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, for instance. I use it as an example because I am always amazed at how what is going on in our church body, politically, is a strong reflection of what is going on in our government. However, it doesn't surprise me, since the LCMS governing structure was modeled on it.
Those who are conservative and confessional have been trying to take back the presidency for many years now, but have never been able to succeed. Instead of focusing on what they believe in common, they often focus on particular points that they feel particularly strongly about and that leads to further division, much like how the Republicans have social Republicans, evangelical Republicans, and economic Republicans. Each feels their particular issues are the most important and will then attack the others or refuse to join with them in order to emphasize their particular point. Look at how the Republican party tried to win moderates by minimizing the voice of the evangelicals, and how really, they've been losing strength ever since they claimed that there is enough room under "their umbrella" for differing views on abortion.
While I'm not going around saying "We need a Reagan," we do need someone who can emphasize those similarities and bring those groups together. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not necessarily true. They could just be another enemy for different reason.
If there is no way to unite on common values within the Republican Party, instead of just a common enemy, the party can just as easily collapse, and with many voters' disgust with the Grand Ole Party's abandonment of its values and its inability to communicate those values in an effective way -- that is truly a possibility.
The last election did not put forth a candidate who was a true leader with a solid sense of hope for America, except for Sarah Palin, but she wasn't the candidate. But the fact that she did so was why so many gravitated to her. McCain was one who just had the most hope of standing for just enough to unite conservatives and moderates into a place of complaisance. When he ran back to "rescue the government" but that rescue meant voting for a bailout that made no sense to Republican or American sensibilities, all was lost.
If Limbaugh, Steele, McCain, and other leaders cannot get along, it doesn't matter that they are against Obama, because they will be individuals against one very powerful, unified force. They can be flicked away.
"If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand; and if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand." Mark 3:24-25
We do not have a common enemy if we consider each other to be the enemy as well. I fear for the Republican Party (and yes, for the LCMS ). For some reason, the Republican Party has always been the one that has falls and has to be reincarnated (though the Democrats' message is the polar opposite of what it was pre-FDR). I'm wondering if we are about to see this party restrengthen, or die to be reborn as something else -- which will happen. It is the party that has left the values, not the values that have let down the party. A good portion of the American people still believe in those values.
Though I really wonder if that is true. As a matter of fact, I don't think it is.
People don't get united through "what we don't want." They are united by what they hold in common. That's why Reagan worked. He emphasized that.
Take the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, for instance. I use it as an example because I am always amazed at how what is going on in our church body, politically, is a strong reflection of what is going on in our government. However, it doesn't surprise me, since the LCMS governing structure was modeled on it.
Those who are conservative and confessional have been trying to take back the presidency for many years now, but have never been able to succeed. Instead of focusing on what they believe in common, they often focus on particular points that they feel particularly strongly about and that leads to further division, much like how the Republicans have social Republicans, evangelical Republicans, and economic Republicans. Each feels their particular issues are the most important and will then attack the others or refuse to join with them in order to emphasize their particular point. Look at how the Republican party tried to win moderates by minimizing the voice of the evangelicals, and how really, they've been losing strength ever since they claimed that there is enough room under "their umbrella" for differing views on abortion.
While I'm not going around saying "We need a Reagan," we do need someone who can emphasize those similarities and bring those groups together. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not necessarily true. They could just be another enemy for different reason.
If there is no way to unite on common values within the Republican Party, instead of just a common enemy, the party can just as easily collapse, and with many voters' disgust with the Grand Ole Party's abandonment of its values and its inability to communicate those values in an effective way -- that is truly a possibility.
The last election did not put forth a candidate who was a true leader with a solid sense of hope for America, except for Sarah Palin, but she wasn't the candidate. But the fact that she did so was why so many gravitated to her. McCain was one who just had the most hope of standing for just enough to unite conservatives and moderates into a place of complaisance. When he ran back to "rescue the government" but that rescue meant voting for a bailout that made no sense to Republican or American sensibilities, all was lost.
If Limbaugh, Steele, McCain, and other leaders cannot get along, it doesn't matter that they are against Obama, because they will be individuals against one very powerful, unified force. They can be flicked away.
"If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand; and if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand." Mark 3:24-25
We do not have a common enemy if we consider each other to be the enemy as well. I fear for the Republican Party (and yes, for the LCMS ). For some reason, the Republican Party has always been the one that has falls and has to be reincarnated (though the Democrats' message is the polar opposite of what it was pre-FDR). I'm wondering if we are about to see this party restrengthen, or die to be reborn as something else -- which will happen. It is the party that has left the values, not the values that have let down the party. A good portion of the American people still believe in those values.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
The Bailout
I think Mark Cuban has an interesting alternative idea regarding handling the auto industry crisis. It doesn't help me much on my views on how the Constitution figures in, but it makes more sense than the bailouts do.
One point that he makes early on is a very valid one. I have never bought a foreign car...but have almost exclusively bought Toyota and Nissan when it has been my choice (my current car, a Mercury Villager is really a Nissan Quest). They have been made in Kentucky and Tennessee, and the majority of their parts were made in America as well. The profits stay in America for the most part as well. I have a friend who dogsat for the Vice President of Nissan America (remember a long time ago, they had a commercial that had "this space reserved for Bob" and a lot of other "Bob" stuff. He was Bob....had the sign in his garage. I was in Bob's house in Orange County, CA). We can't underestimate the role that these companies play in our economy, and the examples they play in how much better their business models are, top to bottom and bottom to top.
One point that he makes early on is a very valid one. I have never bought a foreign car...but have almost exclusively bought Toyota and Nissan when it has been my choice (my current car, a Mercury Villager is really a Nissan Quest). They have been made in Kentucky and Tennessee, and the majority of their parts were made in America as well. The profits stay in America for the most part as well. I have a friend who dogsat for the Vice President of Nissan America (remember a long time ago, they had a commercial that had "this space reserved for Bob" and a lot of other "Bob" stuff. He was Bob....had the sign in his garage. I was in Bob's house in Orange County, CA). We can't underestimate the role that these companies play in our economy, and the examples they play in how much better their business models are, top to bottom and bottom to top.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Why I Must Vote for John McCain
I've heard over and over again about how there really isn't a choice out there, and there really isn't. There hasn't been a choice for years. But not because I am left to choose between Democrats and Republicans who are fiscal moderates...but because only the Republican candidates are the ones that uphold Human Rights for humans from the moment of conception. As the pastor who interviewed both candidates said, we have a holocaust going on. 40 million babies have been killed. There is no choice, because John McCain is the only choice.
HT: A Round Unvarnished Tale
HT: A Round Unvarnished Tale
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Two Faces of Hillary Clinton
Yesterday morning, I woke up to NPR. My husband and I have found that it is easier to enter coherency when we reach consciousness already aggravated.
Surprisingly, they were not showing Hillary Clinton in the best of light.
The Democratic National Commitee had punished Florida and Michigan for bumping up their primary elections by making it so that the elections were null, and their delegates wouldn't count at their national convention (basically disenfranchising two highly populated states...two states full of minority voters). NPR played a tape of Hillary Clinton saying that these states weren't a big deal, because it will be clear who the frontrunner will be. She didn't bother to remove her name from the ballots of these two states because it wasn't worth the effort (and of course, still winning in those states would be good publicity).
Guess what? It is close. Obama and Clinton are neck and neck, and it even looks like Obama might take the nomination, if things go as they are. So Hillary has taken a reverse turn on these two states. She needs the delegates, and now she is concerned about their disenfranchisement.
The DNC is in a hubbub about what to do. It wouldn't be fair just to hand the delegates over to Clinton, because in Florida, she was the only candidate with her name on the ballot. The other candidates complied with the DNC's request. Redoing the elections probably wouldn't happen either. It is quite possible, that if it isn't adequately settled within the DNC, that this could go to the Supreme Court, though no one is saying that....yet.
This reverse stance happened recently as well, though we heard less about it. In Nevada, there was a big push by Democratic state leadership across the board to have caucus locations where everyone could vote (with the tourism industry being 24 hour in Las Vegas and Reno, a significant number of voters would be working while the caucus was taking place.
However, when Culinary Union Local 229 came out in favor of Obama, something significant happened. This union chapter is, I believe, the largest union chapter in the United States, and almost all of those who work in the food industry in the Las Vegas casinos belong to it. But all of a sudden, the Clinton campaign was very opposed to the idea of putting caucus sites in the casinos, where these people could vote, and effectively blocked that from happening.
It is clear that Clinton only cares about the rights of citizens when it effects her outcome, and she also doesn't care about reversing a position that she is on record to holding.
Is it just me, or is anyone else having a deja vu moment to the last time the Clintons were in office?
Surprisingly, they were not showing Hillary Clinton in the best of light.
The Democratic National Commitee had punished Florida and Michigan for bumping up their primary elections by making it so that the elections were null, and their delegates wouldn't count at their national convention (basically disenfranchising two highly populated states...two states full of minority voters). NPR played a tape of Hillary Clinton saying that these states weren't a big deal, because it will be clear who the frontrunner will be. She didn't bother to remove her name from the ballots of these two states because it wasn't worth the effort (and of course, still winning in those states would be good publicity).
Guess what? It is close. Obama and Clinton are neck and neck, and it even looks like Obama might take the nomination, if things go as they are. So Hillary has taken a reverse turn on these two states. She needs the delegates, and now she is concerned about their disenfranchisement.
The DNC is in a hubbub about what to do. It wouldn't be fair just to hand the delegates over to Clinton, because in Florida, she was the only candidate with her name on the ballot. The other candidates complied with the DNC's request. Redoing the elections probably wouldn't happen either. It is quite possible, that if it isn't adequately settled within the DNC, that this could go to the Supreme Court, though no one is saying that....yet.
This reverse stance happened recently as well, though we heard less about it. In Nevada, there was a big push by Democratic state leadership across the board to have caucus locations where everyone could vote (with the tourism industry being 24 hour in Las Vegas and Reno, a significant number of voters would be working while the caucus was taking place.
However, when Culinary Union Local 229 came out in favor of Obama, something significant happened. This union chapter is, I believe, the largest union chapter in the United States, and almost all of those who work in the food industry in the Las Vegas casinos belong to it. But all of a sudden, the Clinton campaign was very opposed to the idea of putting caucus sites in the casinos, where these people could vote, and effectively blocked that from happening.
It is clear that Clinton only cares about the rights of citizens when it effects her outcome, and she also doesn't care about reversing a position that she is on record to holding.
Is it just me, or is anyone else having a deja vu moment to the last time the Clintons were in office?
Monday, January 14, 2008
Finding Her Voice
I've been really busy (well, not busy), but I did manage to catch a few presidential debates and you can't be around my parents without having the news be on. After the New Hampshire Primary, where Hillary Clinton won on the Democratic side, she said this "I have listened to the people of New Hampshire, and by doing so, I have found my own voice."
Does anyone find it remarkable that a strong woman who is a United States Senator, has served as the First Lady, and has been a prominent attorney -- hasn't found her own voice by now? Why would she run if she didn't know what she wanted for herself and for her country? It was a ludicrous statement, representative of the trendy speak of the feminists ten years ago when they were so dramatically pushing how young girls lose their voices in our modern educational system and in our society, ignoring the fact that MOST adolescents, male OR female are afraid to call attention to themselves by speaking their mind. It's a developmental phase, not a gender disenfranchisement.
It is also reminiscent of the Clinton Administration where they say something offensive, recant saying it was a joke, or when they really screw up, they send for Tony Robbins and then "reinvent themselves." Pay attention. She is reminding us what it was like during the Clinton Administration. She is attacking, blaming others for her foibles, and reinventing herself constantly.
Does anyone find it remarkable that a strong woman who is a United States Senator, has served as the First Lady, and has been a prominent attorney -- hasn't found her own voice by now? Why would she run if she didn't know what she wanted for herself and for her country? It was a ludicrous statement, representative of the trendy speak of the feminists ten years ago when they were so dramatically pushing how young girls lose their voices in our modern educational system and in our society, ignoring the fact that MOST adolescents, male OR female are afraid to call attention to themselves by speaking their mind. It's a developmental phase, not a gender disenfranchisement.
It is also reminiscent of the Clinton Administration where they say something offensive, recant saying it was a joke, or when they really screw up, they send for Tony Robbins and then "reinvent themselves." Pay attention. She is reminding us what it was like during the Clinton Administration. She is attacking, blaming others for her foibles, and reinventing herself constantly.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Partisanship
When I turned eighteen, one of the first things I did was go down to the post office and register to vote. My parents, registered Republicans, had always actually encouraged their kids to register as Democrats. There really weren't that many Republicans in Nevada at the time, and the Democrats were generally conservative, and they just wanted it to be worth our time to vote in the primary elections.
I couldn't do it, though. I knew almost nothing about fiscal and social differences between the parties. I also had been brainwashed by liberal teachers toward liberal taxation policies (sales tax isn't fair because it is even across the board, graded income tax still isn't high enough for the rich, etc). But I was going to register Republican and there was ONLY one issue that made up my mind. Abortion. The Republican Party was Pro-Life, and it was very clear to me that abortion was killing a defenseless human being. I hadn't stepped foot in a church in years, but that was obvious.
Knowing history, I also took pride in belonging to the political party whose very inception 
centered on rectifying the evils of slavery. It was also the first political party to favor women's suffrage. Over the next few years, I learned a lot about conservative economics, social policy, and how these shape legislation.
centered on rectifying the evils of slavery. It was also the first political party to favor women's suffrage. Over the next few years, I learned a lot about conservative economics, social policy, and how these shape legislation. There has been a lot of fuss this year about certain evangelical groups threatening to not support Guiliani if he gets the nomination. I have also heard from other Republicans that the main thing is party unity, and whether Guiliani gets the nomination or not, it is crucial that we stick together and support whatever candidate gets the Republican nod, because we cannot hand the White House over to the Democrats.
As a joke, I told a friend that I would vote for Hillary before I voted for Guiliani, if nothing else, just to tell the Republican Party to never let this happen again. I could not in good conscience vote for Hillary or any of the other Democratic candidates. They just do not represent my values or outlook on life. But for that very same reason, I could not vote for Guiliani or Romney, either. Both have pro-abortion and liberal political leanings that I cannot endorse with my vote.
The Republican Party was born on the platform that slavery was evil. That slaves have been denied their rights as human beings, and are entitled to those rights beyond anything else. They took a country to war over this -- a terrible but a just war. They also fought and pushed for the rights of women to vote for their representatives, to be heard by a court of law, and to own property. To abandon the history of standing up for those who are denied their human rights, as human embryos are now denied their right to their own hearbeat, their own existence -- would be turning their back on everything the Party has ever stood for, because in the end, it is saying that some do not have the right to basic existence, to have the opportunity to rise to their own potential, to the value that they were given by God. Those are the values that kept me Republican. To say that a human baby is not entitled to those rights unless its mother and its society says that it is worthy is against the party's very core foundational values. The party will not stand if it treats abortion as something that does not matter, and instead places the value on the party-name itself.
The Republican Party is not what is important. What is important is the role that it serves in representing those who register as Republicans. I am not Pro-Life or small government because I am a Republican. I am a Republican because they claim they are Pro-Life and small government as well. If the party should cease to represent its constituency, then the party has ceased to represent those who chose them. I would go elsewhere.
And while I would grieve this happening, I also am reminded that parties come and go. The Federalist Party collapsed and was replaced by the Whig Party, which was replaced by the Republican Party. If the Republicans cease to be truly conservative and are no longer the party that will right terrible social wrongs as it has done so well in its past, another party will rise up to represent those that the party abandoned and take over that role. I have no doubt.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Ponderings on Hillary
Sometimes I just sit aghast, wondering if people remember what having the Clintons in the White House was like?
Does anyone remember their renting out the Lincoln Bedroom; White Water; the Rose Law firm scandals? How all of these things, plus her husband's repeated sexual harassment and affairs brought lawsuits and disgrace to the Office of President? How about how the Clinton Administration trashed the White House before they left? How about all of those pardons that were signed for a price?
How about promises that we would be out of Bosnia in a year (hint, we we weren't...actually, we're still not), our military being put under U.N. authority for the first time in history, The U.S.S. Cole, or promises that Osama Bin Laden would be captured?
In case you want to say that Hillary is better than that, she was the partner at the Rose Law Firm, it was her colleagues that were appointed to key positions, she was the investor in White Water, and despite all of the affairs and the law suits, when she could've ditched the bum she was married to and set off on her own (and when she might have even been more admired for it), yet she has happily remained with our former president, and wants to put him back in the White House. I wonder what kind of "first man" he will make, and what he will choose to do with his time in that role?
I'm not trying to be nasty. But I do remember. It was a national disgrace. In fact, if my son had been born a girl, his name would've been named Monica. And two months after he was born, when that scandal broke, I thanked God that it never happened, because to this day, there is only one thing that comes to mind when simply the first name "Monica" is spoken.
Maybe I shouldn't judge Hillary by these things...however, her staying with him tells me a lot about her morality. I honestly believe that she will ressurrect their previous administration, and reestablish their friends back in their administrative roles. I really don't want to see any of that happen to our country again.
We may have differing positions about our current President, but I am at least glad that the issues are truly political, not about how crooked and untrustworthy the President is, because whether we should be in Iraq is an ideological question, and yes an ethical question, and maybe even one about the failure of government to do its job...but it isn't about whether our President can keep it in his pants, or about whether he will be in jail before all of this is through, and what is his price when it comes to political fundraising and lending out rooms of the White House, or sending members of his own party blushing in shame.
So tell me, does anybody remember what it was like when the Clintons were in office?
Anybody?
Does anyone remember their renting out the Lincoln Bedroom; White Water; the Rose Law firm scandals? How all of these things, plus her husband's repeated sexual harassment and affairs brought lawsuits and disgrace to the Office of President? How about how the Clinton Administration trashed the White House before they left? How about all of those pardons that were signed for a price?
How about promises that we would be out of Bosnia in a year (hint, we we weren't...actually, we're still not), our military being put under U.N. authority for the first time in history, The U.S.S. Cole, or promises that Osama Bin Laden would be captured?
In case you want to say that Hillary is better than that, she was the partner at the Rose Law Firm, it was her colleagues that were appointed to key positions, she was the investor in White Water, and despite all of the affairs and the law suits, when she could've ditched the bum she was married to and set off on her own (and when she might have even been more admired for it), yet she has happily remained with our former president, and wants to put him back in the White House. I wonder what kind of "first man" he will make, and what he will choose to do with his time in that role?
I'm not trying to be nasty. But I do remember. It was a national disgrace. In fact, if my son had been born a girl, his name would've been named Monica. And two months after he was born, when that scandal broke, I thanked God that it never happened, because to this day, there is only one thing that comes to mind when simply the first name "Monica" is spoken.
Maybe I shouldn't judge Hillary by these things...however, her staying with him tells me a lot about her morality. I honestly believe that she will ressurrect their previous administration, and reestablish their friends back in their administrative roles. I really don't want to see any of that happen to our country again.
We may have differing positions about our current President, but I am at least glad that the issues are truly political, not about how crooked and untrustworthy the President is, because whether we should be in Iraq is an ideological question, and yes an ethical question, and maybe even one about the failure of government to do its job...but it isn't about whether our President can keep it in his pants, or about whether he will be in jail before all of this is through, and what is his price when it comes to political fundraising and lending out rooms of the White House, or sending members of his own party blushing in shame.
So tell me, does anybody remember what it was like when the Clintons were in office?
Anybody?
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Theological Inconsistencies
I love the Colbert Report.
But as funny as it often is, I am not ignorant of the fact that it is a show that uses humor to try to push a liberal agenda, and I am sure that as with The Daily Show, it will become more painful and angering to watch as we get closer to the election year.
I was watching yesterday afternoon, and they were playing a rerun of a recent show where Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was promoting her book Failing America's Faithful: How Today's Churches are Mixing God and Politics and Losing Their Way. She stated that her main point was that the church has become too concerned with the three issues of abortion, homosexuality, and stem-cell research, and has forgotten the feeding of the poor and helping those who are hurting.
What really caught my attention is that she said "Nowhere does the Bible talk about abortion, gay marriage, or stem-cell research. Nowhere in the Bible is stem-cell research specifically mentioned, but caring for the poor is." She put A LOT of emphasis on the fact that these three issues are not mentioned by name, yet the evangelical church has rallied around them.
From there, Stephen Colbert quoted a verse that I cannot find specifically find. It had components of Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:24-28, regarding homosexuality, but mentioned God putting them to death, which I cannot find. Leviticus says they shall be cast out, and Romans says they "receive in themselves the penalty of the error that is due them."
Townsend got this knowing look on her face and proceeded to explain how there were issues back then that were different than now and should be treated differently. She used slavery as an example, saying that there were verses in the Bible that seem pro-slavery, but our fathers during the Civil War understood that the Bible was for freedom and justice.
A person could've gotten whiplash just listening to how quickly she went from "Christians shouldn't be dealing with issues that the Bible doesn't literally speak about" to the completely opposite stance of "we don't take the verses literally that are there."
Now, the author's view is that Christians in the churches need to stay in their churches and be active in insisting that the churches return to the role of caring for the poor and having mercy on them. The book description states: "individual actions can return our churches to their traditional role as shepherds to their flock. "
Kennedy-Townsend's first error is this: the main role of the church is to administer the Word and the Sacraments. That is - it is to faithfully preach and teach the Word of God faithfully to her people and to grant the forgiveness of sins through the Bible, Holy Baptism, and Holy Communion. The main purpose of the Church is to nourish its believers in the one true faith. Then it can go on to providing for the needs of believers and unbelievers alike, as they are led by God.
The Church holds to God's Word, and if there is something in our society that is so clearly against God's Word then we are supposed to proclaim that it is wrong, and we definitely as a body of believers, are not supposed to embrace it, but to do what we can to counteract it. Killing helpless babies in the womb of its mother is destroying God's creation, and Scripture does speak to it. Psalm 139: 14-16, for one place - it talks about how God regards us as precious even when he was knitting us together. And to prey on our unborn children in the name of science is just a further descent into that evil.
That is not to say that we should focus ONLY on these things, but the idea that the church is fixated on these issues to the exclusion of all else (even the politicized evangelical movement) was a brazen exaggeration on her part, as well. And to indicate that there is no relationship with our faith and what we do with our bodies, especially when it goes against the Scripture is also a convenient lie. The Bible is clear that if we are wilfully rejecting Scripture, we are willfully rejecting God, and you can feed all the poor in the world, but if that only comes from the figurative goodness of your heart and not from a desire to serve the God who considered sin to be so serious that sent His only Son to die on the cross because it was the only thing that could destroy sin's hold on us -- then we are still damned to Hell.
We fight for the babies because they are being denied the chance to be baptized, to hear God's Word and be saved. They cannot fight for themselves. We fight against the normalizing of homosexuality because God's word doesn't just call it a sin, but call it an abomination and specifically says that is not what man was meant to do.
But as funny as it often is, I am not ignorant of the fact that it is a show that uses humor to try to push a liberal agenda, and I am sure that as with The Daily Show, it will become more painful and angering to watch as we get closer to the election year.
I was watching yesterday afternoon, and they were playing a rerun of a recent show where Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was promoting her book Failing America's Faithful: How Today's Churches are Mixing God and Politics and Losing Their Way. She stated that her main point was that the church has become too concerned with the three issues of abortion, homosexuality, and stem-cell research, and has forgotten the feeding of the poor and helping those who are hurting.
What really caught my attention is that she said "Nowhere does the Bible talk about abortion, gay marriage, or stem-cell research. Nowhere in the Bible is stem-cell research specifically mentioned, but caring for the poor is." She put A LOT of emphasis on the fact that these three issues are not mentioned by name, yet the evangelical church has rallied around them.
From there, Stephen Colbert quoted a verse that I cannot find specifically find. It had components of Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:24-28, regarding homosexuality, but mentioned God putting them to death, which I cannot find. Leviticus says they shall be cast out, and Romans says they "receive in themselves the penalty of the error that is due them."
Townsend got this knowing look on her face and proceeded to explain how there were issues back then that were different than now and should be treated differently. She used slavery as an example, saying that there were verses in the Bible that seem pro-slavery, but our fathers during the Civil War understood that the Bible was for freedom and justice.
A person could've gotten whiplash just listening to how quickly she went from "Christians shouldn't be dealing with issues that the Bible doesn't literally speak about" to the completely opposite stance of "we don't take the verses literally that are there."
Now, the author's view is that Christians in the churches need to stay in their churches and be active in insisting that the churches return to the role of caring for the poor and having mercy on them. The book description states: "individual actions can return our churches to their traditional role as shepherds to their flock. "
Kennedy-Townsend's first error is this: the main role of the church is to administer the Word and the Sacraments. That is - it is to faithfully preach and teach the Word of God faithfully to her people and to grant the forgiveness of sins through the Bible, Holy Baptism, and Holy Communion. The main purpose of the Church is to nourish its believers in the one true faith. Then it can go on to providing for the needs of believers and unbelievers alike, as they are led by God.
The Church holds to God's Word, and if there is something in our society that is so clearly against God's Word then we are supposed to proclaim that it is wrong, and we definitely as a body of believers, are not supposed to embrace it, but to do what we can to counteract it. Killing helpless babies in the womb of its mother is destroying God's creation, and Scripture does speak to it. Psalm 139: 14-16, for one place - it talks about how God regards us as precious even when he was knitting us together. And to prey on our unborn children in the name of science is just a further descent into that evil.
That is not to say that we should focus ONLY on these things, but the idea that the church is fixated on these issues to the exclusion of all else (even the politicized evangelical movement) was a brazen exaggeration on her part, as well. And to indicate that there is no relationship with our faith and what we do with our bodies, especially when it goes against the Scripture is also a convenient lie. The Bible is clear that if we are wilfully rejecting Scripture, we are willfully rejecting God, and you can feed all the poor in the world, but if that only comes from the figurative goodness of your heart and not from a desire to serve the God who considered sin to be so serious that sent His only Son to die on the cross because it was the only thing that could destroy sin's hold on us -- then we are still damned to Hell.
We fight for the babies because they are being denied the chance to be baptized, to hear God's Word and be saved. They cannot fight for themselves. We fight against the normalizing of homosexuality because God's word doesn't just call it a sin, but call it an abomination and specifically says that is not what man was meant to do.
Something Kennedy Townsend doesn't acknowledge is that it is because of a desire for mercy that we speak out against these things. We want to bring healing and God's forgiveness to those who have had abortions. We want to bring healing to those who seek to have relationships that are outside of God's order, because we do not believe that this is good for their everlasting souls. And we do not want to see a culture that is joyous and glorious fall apart because they prey on their own young. We seek to show God's love, but we cannot do so without pronouncing God's judgement.
And we fight against these evils because we cannot quote God's Word as authority in one instance, and expect to have anything to stand on when in the next breath we say that it is irrelevant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)