Rebuttal to Josh

This Blog is written in reply to Josh Packard's blog at http://myfourwalls.net/blog/C1916498817/E973094337/index.html. Josh has made some assumptions that need clarification. It didn't matter who was running for president, approximately 35% were going to vote for a democrat and 35% for a republican. The real analysis should be done concerning the approximate 30% who COULD HAVE BEEN swayed by debate. If you analyze the "exit polls" you will see that the categories chosen by the pollsters were fashioned so as to draw Josh's (and the major networks) conclusion. They asked voters what was their biggest issue. They broke out Iraq and terrorism when most agree the two should have been lumped together under terrorism. This technique drives up the relevance of the other categories chosen including 'values'.

From my perspective, this was the first election that a third party candidate was a much better choice than what one of the parties offered (Kerry). I thought it profound that Kerry being the much better speaker was least clear articulating on his platform. My perception is that though "values' might have driven some in their selection of candidates, election demographics show that in there was no disproportionate number of evangelical Christians that voted. Even though there was a higher turnout, there was no significant increase in any one group (gender, race, religion, etc). So I disagree on his initial premise. I also disagree with his assumption that "values" necessarily mean Christian values. My perception of Kerry was that he had no values; honesty, integrity, sincerity, etc. In fact, I talked to a lifelong democrat who said she was voting for Bush. I asked her why. She said even though she did not agree with some of Bush's social agenda, she could trust the man because he had core values. The values she described were not abortion or gay marriage but simply someone who seemed genuine.

I thought it interesting that in a post-election analysis of speeches shown that Kerry invoked the name of "Jesus" or "God" three times more often than Bush. In fact, Kerry spoke in churches 3 times more than Bush.

I would not single out Christianity as the only corrupt religion. However, I do accept Josh's right to do so, because I agree that the way man tends to manipulate the gospel is oftentimes corrupt. I think it true for most other religions too. I find it ironic that reporters often avoid the "Muslim" designation when reporting terrorism. They appear to be concerned that people might become prejudice towards Islam, because almost all recent terrorism has been practiced by Islamic fundamentalists. However, they are not so careful with Christianity.

I am a conservative Christian who like Josh, believes there is something lacking in the practice of Christianity. However, I have heard his arguments on the major news networks before by democrats who want to broad-brush Christianity. Yes, there are some who believe the way they describe, but using these examples to represent Christianity is the worst form of stereotype.

I support Bush's stem cell research plan. Unlike President Clinton, he has taken bold steps to create an environment in which it can be legitimately used and researched without abuse. It does not disallow research but it does limit government's role. There is concern that without some restrictions, stem cell research using certain fetal tissue will encourage the nation's abortion industry.

As to sex education, there may be some who have the misperception that schools required kids to have sex, but that is the exception and the example is used to lampoon conservative Christians again creating a mindless stereotype. I do believe that abstinence is a legitimate option to be also taught as do most of my conservative friends.

As to gay marriage, the term is an oxymoron. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman. There is no discrimination. A gay man can still marry a woman. However, if the government provides certain benefits to people who have entered a contractual agreement (gay or not), those benefits should be provided to all. Forcing the church (Jewish, Christian, Islam) to change their definitions is the worst form of a violation between church and state.
Josh's attempt to stereotype all Christians and 'moral value' believers is extreme. The issues are much more complicated. Isn't he here using the very same technique he is complaining about regarding Christians?

Josh takes a big leap when he says, "If you want to keep women from being married to each other, that's fine. As long as you recognize that it’s because you dislike gays." He is trying to say that can be the ONLY reason. I agree that two women should not be married, but not because I dislike them. Actually, most gay people I have know I like. I have actually met a few people who have murdered human beings, and I liked them too, but it doesn't make what they did right. I simply believe homosexuality is unnatural and is looked down on in the Bible. There is no commandment in the Bible that states, "Thou shall not be a homosexual". The Bible says nothing about child abuse either.

What is wrong with someone voting their conscience? I don't care how future generations judge me. I vote based on what I think is best. I have reasoning, a belief system, and a culture I must consider when making my decision.

I also disagree with Josh's logic (as was discussed during the election) as to the reason for the war. Our reason for going to war was NEVER based on WMD. Its execution was accelerated due to the perceived threat (not just US but almost ALL nations). Our reason for going to war was that Saddam violated the peace accord signed in 1990. His willful disregard of that peace agreement was in fact negating the peace. In retrospect, I find it ironic that the very same democrats that opposed Bush, Sr. in 1990 for not taking Saddam out in the Gulf War (disregarding the UN mission), are the very ones now arguing we should not have dethroned Saddam and complain about not having UN support.

I believe as a Christian we should love our neighbor. I believe that the New Testament was a document written and assembled for our personal use and enrichment. It was written for man and his personal relationship with man and God. It was also written to help the church. It was not written as a plan for government. To do so would again violate the separation of church and state. Bush's opposition is fearful that he will somehow force people into religion. Here is a good example where might have to violate his Christian beliefs. As president, Bush (as well as other former presidents) vowed to PROTECT the people. In his best judgment, he believed the best course of action was to seek out terrorism and destroy it before it destroys us. He was supported by his opposition. He had to weigh the pros and cons. He just didn't come into office and decide, "Let's go kill us some Arabs!" I believe you are wrongly judging the man....and I do mean judging.

I believe we as Christians should do something about poverty, but at the personal level. I do not agree that it is the government's job. Prior to the depression, welfare and charity was accomplished through churches and local charity organizations. The government adopted welfare during the depression thereby (IMHO) taking it from the church, another violation to the separation of church and state. Charity should be accomplished via the church community.

As to poverty, I would think Josh would also be concerned with the UN Security Council's active participation into the Oil for Food scandal where millions of Iraqi's were starved due to the corruption within the UN. Since overtaking Saddam, millions of Iraqis can now EAT.
President Bush is not our salvation. The government will never be our salvation. I don't care what other people do about the poor. It is our personal responsibility to be charitable. I do not like the government's involvement when it comes to charity. Just as one argues that what people do in their bedroom is their business should also be applied to what people do with their charity.

I appreciate Josh's concern for those in need. I too don't understand how a billionaire can complain about his caviar when there are many starving. Perhaps we should be praying for those more fortunate to be more charitable. I do know this, as a country, we are the most charitable. Last I heard, we give more money to others than all countries combined! Maybe we are not where we could be but change takes time.

I agree we do not have equal opportunity in the US. I can prove to you that I have less opportunity that most minorities. Why, because there are laws on the books that promote discrimination. It is called affirmative action. It provides advantages to those that are minorities. So I agree, we should create a US that provides the same opportunities. I do not agree with Josh that we are one of the most unequal countries in the world. Last time I saw, it wasn't people in Miami building boats to go to Cuba. How many people flooded into East Germany when the wall came down? Why is the Muslim community growing in this country? It is because we do have the best country in the world.

Maybe some voted for Bush because they thought somehow they were hoping to "Christianize" America. I voted for Bush not because he was Christian, but because he seems ethical and sincere. I agree with the direction he wants to take this country. Although I do not agree with him on every issue, he unfortunately for the US was the only real choice offered this election.

My father-in-law went to a lecture where the professor felt like we should give 2/3 of everything we have to charity. After the lecture, my father-in-law approached the professor and asked, "How much did you give last year?" The professor replied, "Nothing." My father-in-law said, "I thought so!" So Josh I ask you, "How much did you give last year?"