Posted by
Lisa on Monday, August 13, 2007 1:59:29 AM
Crossposted to
Organized ChaosPeople of faith, and Christians in particular, need to get out of
the political king-making business. We have more important things we
need to be worrying about than who wins elections. We condemn elitists.
We say that politicians are out of touch with our values. And you know
what? We are absolutely right to be doing that. But we cannot, and we
should not, be telling people to vote for or against a candidate
because of the level of their belief or non-belief in God. With all the
flaws in the Democratic strategy over the years, I don't recall them
ever fighting about which candidate is more religious, and basing their
support on who appears to love God the most. It's a stupid argument
that we are having here, and we need to recognize that the more
important characteristic than a person's religion is how competently
that person can run the US government and how aggressive she/he is in
protecting this country from foreign enemies, both terrorists and rogue
regimes seeking nukes. If we can find someone as a Republican nominee
who will appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court in
addition to that, that would be a bonus.
We have to ask
ourselves how aggressive we want the federal government to be as
advocates for a social conservative agenda. Do we really want
government programs to push an agenda that would be better carried out
in the private sector with non-profits and charities rather than adding
another appendage to the government monolith? I would like a candidate
who is a social conservative and who shares my values, but I would have
to think about whether I want the government to be funding religious
activity. The reason for that is that what government funds, it will
eventually control. I don't want the government to have any control
over religious organizations at all. So keep funding of faith-based
organizations in the private sector where it belongs.
Many of
the social conservatives running for president seem to want to have an
activist government on social policy. Is that really what we want?
Here's something else to consider. Is it the government's job to
provide free health care to all Americans? Is it the government's job
to ensure that people can afford a house? Is it the government's job to
make sure that you have a job?
No. It is not.
If we say
that we are for limited government, and we actually mean it, then this
should mean that the candidate we nominate should be more interested in
protecting our country than protecting our faith. That's what churches
are for. That's what our pastors are for. That's the role of our
families. That's not the role of our government.
Tags:
'08 election,
Ames,
Iowa Straw Poll,
Republicans