My church magazine has an article this month suggesting ever so subltly, without naming the parties, that the Democratic party is more Christian in its views/agenda than the Republicans --whose main agenda of importance to conservative Christians, the article says, is family values, i.e. abortion and homosexuality. I deny that charge.
The writer reminds us, unnecessarily, that the Bible champions charity, compassion, social justice, and care for the poor, etc. implying that the Democratic party is the party of THESE virtues and the other party is not. Care for the environment and belief in global warming was emphasized in another article --without mention of the also credible opposition to the global warming ideologues and their theories and remedies.
Listen, it's Bill Clinton who tax-deducted a dollar for every pair of used underwear he gave to charity --before he was president. I suppose he can deduct a much higher value now, especially if they're unwashed. It was Al Gore whose taxes revealed he'd given a pittance to charity as vice-president, as I recall. It was George Bush who saw the value of faith-based institutions (including schools, prisons, re-hab and homeless programs) and their work among the disenfranchised, disadvantaged, etc. and said they should be as elegible for government aid as secularistic/atheistic (a-religious) groups whose track records tend to be less effective --or even destructive like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.
As for the super rich democrats, like celebrities, if they give away 50% or more of their fortunes in taxes they won't miss it --so they think the modestly, moderately well- off entrepreneurs and job-creators should be taxed to their eyeteeth, too --for the sake of the poor and Big Government redistribution of wealth. When you own an energy-guzzling house like Al Gore's or John Edwards', you can (apparently) afford to tell everyone else to tighten their belts, pay higher taxes to give raises to gov't employees and to support those who goofed off in school, made multiple babies with people to whom they weren't married, got addicted to meth, nicotine and alcohol, and now are suffering the consequences.
The social conservatives give more per capita to charity and religious institutions (which are always charitable) than any other group in the nation. They work with countless people who are the poor for reasons described above. They see transformation of lives harmed by drugs, alcohol and sexual immorality. They have ministries to everyone's children, youth and the poor. And we DO believe in government help to the needy. We just don't like this class warfare exacerbated by Democratic Party rhetoric --this sense of entitlement.
A friend of ours was seeing a young lady with great financial needs. He gave her a large sum of money specifically to help her pay her bills and get on her feet--and she went out and bought a fancy TV with it--though she already had a decent, working TV. He asked her why she used the money that way and she said, "I felt I deserved it --I deserve nice things." He's not seeing her any more--i.e. not to date her.
Lack of compassion is not the reason why conservatives advocate social policies which encourage responsibility and initiative. Many of the welfare-dependents acquired self-respect with jobs and education because of welfare reform led by social conservatives in the early 90's. Social conservatives did lead the abolition movement in England and U.S. Social conservatives are the ones wanting the church to be the agency that helps the poor --instead of the gov't --because the church deals with the root problems of so much poverty in America. Most poverty in our country IS rooted in our family life/sex life --and the lack of effort in education for many --the lack of family support, encouragement, structure, discipline, good priorities for money, etc.
It was Bush that advocated mega-bucks for AIDS meds and abstinence education in Africa. He's the one wanting to be lenient (merciful) to the illegal immigrants who have been here contributing to the economy, whose descendents are legally here by birth. I've been interested in this debate and don't think full citizenship with voting rights SHOULD be granted to the illegals--but the workers' permits might be a good idea. We shouldn't completely exonerate illegal immigrants letting them vote and determine the social policy in this nation. It's enough that we've been educating their kids and treating them in our hospitals. Bush is a realist, however, in visualizing how it would look for millions of Hispanic residents to be forced to evacuate the country. The majority may clamor for that now, but when it started to happen the media would highlight the sadness of families having to send Grandpa back to Mexico for his crime of illegal entry.
No more time to rant today.
The nation on this 3rd of July needs to remember the Lord and petition to bring our hearts into conformity with His. That includes a recognition that social justice (compassion, equal opportunity and hand-ups for the needy--REAL help) and family values are both important. And I think the conservatives realize this --whereas the democrats still believe gay and abortion wrongs are right.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life." "God sent not His son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it." --the Bible
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
