You are hereMy Letter to Senator Mike DeWine
My Letter to Senator Mike DeWine
Dear Senator, as the 2006 elections are behind us, I want to write a candid and open letter to you on behalf of myself and my family. I did vote for you, however reluctantly, on November 7th, but I want to follow my vote with a short letter to outline my concerns to you and to the Republican Party in general.Several years ago I was the guest speaker at the Xenia Chamber of Commerce, and I was very happy to share my message of Reagan-esque economic outlook, commerce and social policies. I told the Xenia businessmen how I was born in Communist Romania and how I lived a large portion of my life under Communism. I spoke about growing up in a country in which the central government got to decide what people ate for dinner, what car they could drive and when we could enjoy electricity in our homes, and I told them about my dreams as a child of some day living free in the United States of America.
That day came in 1992 when I was able to move to this country and finally have my life-long dream fulfilled. Of all places in America I landed in Cedarville, Ohio, less than a mile away from your own home. I did have the privilege of meeting you when you were serving as a Lieutenant Governor; I have attended ice-cream socials at your house and I still remember the dark infamous day in which your daughter Becky died in that car accident on U.S. 42, and the vigil we attended as Cedarville students in her memory. The straightened-out road curve a few miles outside Cedarville is serving as a standing memorial of things you've done to protect other drivers from having the same fate as Becky.
When I finished college I started a small business in Cedarville with a college friend, which has been successful considering my humble roots. Your son Kevin has even been our customer for a while, and the freedom enjoyed here allowed me to learn even more about the United States and market economics.
All my experiences have served to learn to appreciate you almost as a neighbor or even a distant family member. And this is what has prompted me to write to you. The loss you experienced on November 7th was not as much a loss for conservative principles and ideology, but a loss for Republicanism. Two years ago I was very excited to vote for the very first time as a U.S. citizen. A Republican victory became a reality and I was very much looking forward to seeing the Republican Party display fiscal responsibility, reduction in taxes, responsible immigration policies, elimination of eminent domain, and other crucial conservative items. Instead, the disappointment became tangible when you followed the lead of Senator John McCain and became a member of the "Gang of 14" which in essence undermined the U.S. Constitution and the right of the President to appoint his judicial nominees and have them confirmed by a simple Senate majority.
If I may respectfully suggest, this was the reason for your loss. I do not believe you lost your Senate seat because the Democrats ran a better campaign, rather I believe you failed to enforce the mandate given to you by the American people. It was a conservative mandate, which demanded conservative values, policies and conservative principles. That mandate was instead largely handed over to the losing party in the form of entitlement bills written by Democrat Senators, and strong-arming moves designed to block crucial judicial nominees to the federal bench. Together with Senator Voinovich you have failed us. Instead of standing for Conservatism, you as our Senator stood up for Republicanism and political convenience.
In 1987 I remember hearing President Ronald Reagan’s plea in Berlin made to Gorbachev to Tear down this Wall at the Brandenburg gate. I was able to hear that speech on an underground radio station financed by President Reagan’s foreign policies, called The Voice of America. On my desk I have a piece of the Berlin wall taken from the Brandenburg gate. I picked it out myself, and I use it as a memorial to make sure that I never forget what happens when a government insists on controlling freedom and controlling every aspect of people’s lives.
Senator DeWine, I did not come to the United States to watch a renewed rise of Socialism, and I cannot in good conscience continue to support a Republican Party that is refusing to believe it wins elections or that it has a mandate to govern. I do however continue to hope for a future where a renewed Reagan-esque vigor can flow through the veins of Conservative Americans (not Republicans), to not just win elections but also actively work to create less government, lower taxes, eliminate government regulations and intrusions in citizens’ lives and eliminate government-run retirement. The truth is that the Republican Congress is guilty of all those things, and has failed to curb or stop the liberal policies pushed forward by the Democrats; and most of the fault lies in the Senate, starting with those Republicans involved in the “Gang of 14.”
I am hoping that my letter will find an open ear and will be considered by you and your staff, and I am hoping that if you will ever be again a member of the U.S. Congress, you will reconsider the implications of your positions and the expectations coming from those whom you would be representing.
Respectfully,
Virgil Vaduva
In following the posts on this article and the one on New Heavens and Earth, it appears to me that there are those on this site who seem to advocate a "grey" theology. They don't seem to come out and say they believe this or stand for this but instead seem to talk in generalities. However, then when they are accused of believing something deemed "negative" they say they never said such a thing. And they didn't but their general way of advocating their ideas strongly suggests such to the reader.
It seems to me that there are those who don't seem to believe in standing up and calling what God has called evil as evil. They seem to have lost that we are supposed to hate that which is evil or are we? By that I mean there is all this grey area when it comes to speaking out, or making laws, or enforcing laws regarding issues such as abortion (what I call murder), homosexuality (a sin as defined by God), etc... It seems some are advocating that "loving" everyone and "allowing" them to do something is the right way to go. They seem to have lost the belief that the reason evil is evil, or bad is bad, or this is immoral is because God says it is. There seems to be this prevalent concept that that is your "interpretation" on something. That there is no way to be certain that something is wrong or evil. Thus what are we as Christians supposed to do? Love our neighbor and "let" evil become everywhere in the land?
My point I'm trying to make is - Some on this website seem to be joining the humanistic secular evolutionary mindset of the day that morality is not based on God's Word or is built into us that somethings are just plain wrong and is an absolute truth but is whatever man deems fit at the time. There seems to be a lack of standing up for a moral code based upon not men's whims and wishes but on God. For if we are all came from slim over billions of years, then there is no such thing as morally right or wrong.
Glenn
Glenn,
Yourself - and others - are becoming confused as to what the real issue is. It's not that people don't take a stand on whats right/wrong - it's determining whether or not that's the best way to influence the world - let me explain.....
I think the Bible is very cautious when it comes to drunkeness. It doesn't outright condem alchohol but demonstrates that bad things can happen when one is drunk. Thus I believe drunkeness is a bad thing - this is my stand on the issue. But is passing laws against being drunk really the best way to spread the message of God's word?
We live in a wonderful nation whose spirit wants to protect its citizens while allowing its citizens the freedoms they need to pursue happiness. Does it do Christianity any good to take our personal moral opinions and begin to pass laws forcing others to adhere to the same principles because we believe them to be correct?
Kyle,
Maybe a look at history would help. Christianity first spread into pagan lands and changed them. Was it through preaching and changed lives of the church which influenced the society? What about societies that the "church became the state?" How successful were they? Why did the pilgrims come to America? How did they set up their government? How successful was it? What principles was the United States founded upon? Why are some things that were considered illegal and immoral in the past not now?
Kyle - "Does it do Christianity any good to take our personal moral opinions and begin to pass laws forcing others to adhere to the same principles because we believe them to be correct?"
Again are there moral things that are absolute or just opinions? Someone could say that I see nothing wrong with adults having sex with minors (the homosexual agenda). Is this just an opinion or is it morally wrong? Society is trying to head to the view that it is just a matter of opinion. That is what has happened with homosexual behavior. The behavior is sin to God, punishable by death under the old law. Now our society says it is just a behavior choice or they are trying to say people are born that way. Abortion I'd say is murder. But our society says that it is a woman's right. If God views it as murder, we as Christians just go along with society and say sure just a matter of opinion or do we attempt to uphold that it is murder?
Glenn
Glenn,
I would say that societies where the church became the state ended up in miserable failure. Pilgrims burning witches and Europe flogging people for missing church? Somehow I think the past missed the point of the gospel and we are just now beginning to realize the point of God's Word. It's not about legalism, its about grace and love.
Of course there are moral absolutes. But you need to realize that not everyone in this world agrees with your moral code whether it be from the Bible or any other religious source.
Just because people such as myself think its okay for others to have different opinions doesn't mean I agree with them.
We are on this planet with billions of other people - forcing them to agree with us is the worst way to bring them into a relationship with God.
-Kyle
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that society should not enforce any type of moral code upon its members? Or are you saying that Christians in a society should not enforce their moral code on other members of society?
Glenn
Every society needs a moral code to prevent chaos. Thank the red, white and blue that the founding fathers had enough insight to draft the Constitution for this country! Of course, similar to the Bible this document doesn't address modern issues - so we have to look towards the intent of the authors.
The Declaration of Independence sums it up nicely "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". This country does its best to guarantee personal liberties but not at the expense of other citizens - which is why assault, robbery and murder are all crimes.
I do not believe Christians should Force their moral code on other members of society. And just so we are clear - I do believe as Christians we can ENforce our moral code since enforcement simply means to "bring about effectively".
Effectiveness relies not on arm-twisting but rather a patient, loving and stoic attitude which allows us to form relationships with people and demonstrate the power of God's being.
"I do not believe Christians should Force their moral code on other members of society. And just so we are clear - I do believe as Christians we can ENforce our moral code since enforcement simply means to "bring about effectively".
But you have no basis for a moral code without God. The code then is only based on what man wants it to be. What is a personal liberty is what you or others want it to be. One can argue I'm not hurting anyone by "____"
What in the world is a "modern issue?" Sounds like situational ethics to me.
It seems to me you are advocating if enough members of society, not Christians, say something is wrong and make a law, then fine but if Christians want a law passed based on their moral code then that is not fine. You seem to be advocating that Christians are not suppose to participate in society to make it better? And it also sounds like if one held to your views, there would be no United States, we would still be under English rule.
There is no moral code without God. It has no basis in survival of the fittest mentality. Which is why the evolutionary God-less mindset is allowing pretty much "everything" now in this country. And apparently many Christians have a "not get involved" view of society, which is what you seem to be advocating. I disagree we Christian need to force a moral code on society. If we don't then anything goes - murder, rape of adults and children, and use your drunkenness example, I guess it is "wrong" to get drunk but no need for a law about it, if you kill someone due to your behavior (driving) by choosing to get drunk, then so what. Why is this wrong? It is not wrong in a supposedly moral world that doesn't have its laws and morals based in God.
Glenn
"There is no moral code without God."
That's all hunkey dorey, Glenn; but only a few of us believe that. Millions of other people obtain their moral codes from millions of other sources. Just as you don't view the Qur'an as a moral source, Muslims don't view the Bible as a moral source. What is their solution, Glenn? They attempt to spread Islam by force (any means necessary). It appears that yourself and others advocate Christians doing the same thing.
Uniting, Lobbying and getting laws passed is not considered force. I fully support anyone's right in this country to lobby for any cause. Like yourself I personally lobby for what I believe to be moral causes as well as certain personal freedoms.
One can argue I'm not hurting anyone by "____"
Because we live in a multicultural society we simply have to respect the beliefs, practices of fellow citizens in the scope of personal liberties. That is - up until the point their behavior affects others negatively. If their behaviors negatively affect a greater amount of people then those liberties need to be questioned in light of the harm they do.
And it also sounds like if one held to your views, there would be no United States, we would still be under English rule.
I find the use of this analogy somewhat humorous. The Pilgrims of the Plymouth colony escaped to the United States to avoid persecution from a highly influential theocratic society. The Separatists fled to the New World because they believed their worship should be organized independently of a central church. The Church of England required people to attend one of their official churches and penalized those for not doing such. If anyone's views represent the tyranny of English rule its your's.
Yes, America was founded on certain moral principles but it also guarantees the personal rights of every single one of its citizens (except when crimes are committed). That's the way the Pilgrims set it up and that is the country you and I live in. I don't know what else to say other than to either deal with it or buy your own island and make your own laws.
The point I have been trying to make is:
At the same time, these same moral misfits are defining their own brand of moral deviancy up. What was considered morally normal thirty years ago—two-parents of the opposite sex married and living together, participation in the Boy Scouts and being protected from homosexual predators, rejecting a pro-death culture, and stay-at-home moms—is now “portrayed as oppressive and shot through with pathologies. “As part of the vast social project of moral leveling,” [Charles] Krauthammer wrote, “it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized. The normal must be found to be deviant.” This situation is thoroughly perverse. Underclass values become increasingly acceptable to the middle class, especially their young, and middle-class values become increasingly contemptible to the cultural elites.”3
Americans have become desensitized to moral degeneracy. Immoral acts that were once only spoken of in hushed tones thirty years ago are now included in the curriculum of our nation’s government schools.
Brokeback Morality
by Gary DeMar
In my opinion, many Christians in America are not standing up, speaking out etc...to combat evil in the land but are allowing it to grow due to inactivity or apathy. Which I don't believe is pleasing to God.
Regarding the US not existing and still being under English rule I was referring to that many today in the church advocate against doing anything that has to do with politics. Which to me suggests that these people wouldn't have declared independence from England nor done anything to fight to create this country, although they are benefiting from the founders actions.
"Immoral acts that were once only spoken of in hushed tones thirty years ago are now included in the curriculum of our nation’s government schools."
Hmmm...One might consider that making sure black people didn't drink out of the same drinking fountain that white people did, immoral. Or perhaps sending them to the back of the bus? This same culture that is being waxed nostalgically over also considered interracial marriage as morally repugnant as gay marriage is considered today. Do you think maybe they were wrong about that and a few other things too? Their immorality was quite out in the open, I would say.
Since my words might be able to be misunderstood, I will try to speak for myself. I believe that God’s intent is to be very clear about the things in life that He hates and the things that He loves. He asks and expects us to love what He loves and hate what He hates. In this context, I think God hates when we take His word and make it say things He did not intend or He did not mean. It is in this realm that our contemporary culture affects us. As a wise man once asked, “Does a fish know it is wet?” Our culture will cause us to see things in scripture that other cultures have not seen. Sometimes our culture will guide us to a previously unseen truth; sometimes it will guide us to a lie. This is where conversation is necessary. I bring my scriptures and understanding to the table while you bring yours and we find truth and insight together to God’s glory. This is not “grey theology” it is the ongoing search for the heart of God.
I perceive that I am guilty of finding a scripture which does not fit my current understanding and then placing it on the “back burner” and never trying to reconcile the two passages because that takes too much work and it may require me to change my paradigm, yet not my epistemology; all of God’s word is the source of all truth.
I think murder, abortion, and adultery are examples of behaviors that God has clearly set forward as behaviors he hates. Filling our lives with love, service, patience and hope are clearly behaviors God loves for us to have in our lives. Yet we need to be careful about creating lists as that will become too much like creating law
I think the areas that need to most exploration revolve around finding what is best and not settling for what is second best. What is the best way to educate my children? What are the roles for men women in society and the church; are they different or the same? Should I avoid all debt? Should I limit the number of children my wife and I have or should I “leave it up to God?” What are the roles for the family in society? Do the roles for family differ from the roles of the church and the state? How should I live to give the greatest glory to God? These are the areas where conversation seems to be crucial.
Mickey E. Denen
Glenn,
You hit the nail on the head. That was my case for abortion. Abortion is murder because of a particular interpretation of God's word. Political theory would suggest, then, that "religion must be kept from policy." "Life at conception" is a religious tenat, not a secular one. No one can "prove" or "see" a "soul" or "spirit" and certainly no one can "prove" that God somehow enables a "life" beyond that which is "seen". It is a fetus in the terms of secularism, pure and simple. To suggest that it is "precious" or a "person" or "a human being" would be a move in towards a metaphysical/non-empirical worldview (religious). That is why liberalism is "pro-choice" since the "choice" is based upon a woman's "right" to understand her "fetus" as a "person" or as a collected mass of DNA with the potentiality of becoming a human "person." Now, how can you hold someone guilty for killing a potentiality?
As far as Paige's comments, "anger", "lust," "pornography," "drunkeness" (something I am familiar with!), and the like are to all be considered as well. But, just because a Christian struggles in pornography does not mean that he cannot condemn abortion, or even pornography. If that were the case, then all "testimonies" of believers (their past lives and struggles) are for naught. After all, my response would be, "you say don't smoke dope, but clearly, you did." We would have to get rid of policemen and judges, too, since they are sinners.
We have to be specific about these things, understanding their relationships and struggles and calling for a life that represents the holiness of God. Certainly, forgiveness of sins and mercy represent God's holiness as well as abstaining from pornography or not having an abortion.
My point was that these discussions may be fine for Christians, but when you start issuing federal policy against pornography or abortion, you are doing so on the basis of a morality found in the Scriptures. Not everyone likes the Scriptures, but do like pornography. But, doesn't pornography "hurt" people? You can see where I am coming from on this.
Sam
Sam,
I'm not always sure my point gets across, but you seemed to have understood.
What seems strange to me, that in Christendom and seems here on PP as well, Christians don't seem to agree on what is sin or morally right (ie., groups who have admitted homosexuals as pastors etc...). I would think we as a group would be more vocal against what is morally wrong despite doctrinal differences in areas such as worship practices, eschatology, etc... I think we are not because we see all this grey. There is no longer clear cut "sin" anymore. It is not "popular" to condemn others behavior or for there to be consequences to it. Forgive, love, and move on. After all that is just your "interpretation" regarding that. We don't seem to agree on what I'd say is clear unambiguous teaching in Scripture.
I think the Bible is quite clear on what is sin. And I think we as Christians one need to strive to not do them and two to call evil what is, evil and oppose it. How to oppose it is the question? God allows government to wield the sword. And I believe there are times when the sinner needs to be punished or removed from society. Society still agrees that murder of a baby and up is murder, with well for the exception of allowing older people to die or helping those who are "terminally ill" to die. But the "other" sins are not really considered to be sins anymore, but a lifestyle choice or a woman's right to choose.
One point I am trying to make is that for all you "free love, universalists, everyone is saved etc" type holders - I wonder what you would do or say if for example, a convicted multiple rapist and child rapist, who is now "saved" and has served his time to society, is now wanting to teach your young children in Sunday school. Would you allow this person to do so? Unsupervised or even supervised. How about letting him drive the youth van to meetings? Or what about would you be comfortable with him being alone with your child or your wife?
I don't think we as Christians stand up against immoral behavior, especially not united. I would like to see a discussion on if we do agree on what is immoral behavior then what should we as a society do about it. However, I have made this call before here but have not gotten much discussion.
Glenn
valensname: One point I am trying to make is that for all you "free love, universalists, everyone is saved etc" type holders - I wonder what you would do or say if for example, a convicted multiple rapist and child rapist, who is now "saved" and has served his time to society, is now wanting to teach your young children in Sunday school. Would you allow this person to do so? Unsupervised or even supervised. How about letting him drive the youth van to meetings? Or what about would you be comfortable with him being alone with your child or your wife?
Glenn, IMO you really stretch credulity at times when trying and make a point, and not a very good one at that. Common sense might dictate a heightened sense of caution when "others" as opposed to one's self might be involved. So for mine I'd want other facts considered – supervision etc, just to name but one.
This phrase is part of your North American culture: "all men are created equal…" – now any truly consistent Calvinist might struggle with or even choke under their breath on those words, but I for one can agree with that statement. Now just because all men are created equal and all men are redeemed, regardless of whether they know it, and so are accepted by God as "redeemed" does not mean all behave accordingly – you can look no further than "the church" to know what I say is true. Just because "I accept" a given preacher is redeemed does not necessarily mean I'll choose to sit under his tutelage. Redemption does not negate responsibility, but it does negate liability – liability for SIN was borne by Jesus, so now we can be accountable for our actions, and where we neglect to do so society deals with us accordingly.
On a related matter – clearly you have an issue with the view that "all humanity is redeemed" that some of us hold to, unlike as you so often misstate it as "everyone is saved etc" when we've explained how we actually view this time and enough; anyway, you asked a question of me over in the "new heavens and earth" thread that as yet apart from everybody else's input you've not responded to – would you care to share you study on what you raised in response to my answer?
davo
davo – pantelism.com
Sam,
Thanks for getting specific. I appreciate the feedback (even though it wasn't directed to me, but to Glenn.)
"As far as Paige's comments, "anger", "lust," "pornography," "drunkeness" (something I am familiar with!), and the like are to all be considered as well. But, just because a Christian struggles in pornography does not mean that he cannot condemn abortion, or even pornography. If that were the case, then all "testimonies" of believers (their past lives and struggles) are for naught. After all, my response would be, "you say don't smoke dope, but clearly, you did." We would have to get rid of policemen and judges, too, since they are sinners."
In my perfect world, none of us would struggle with any of the nastiness of life. However, God in His sovereignty, has not seen fit to make that a reality. What is our reality? We are human beings. We have weaknesses. Every day I make judgements as to what I will do, and what I will not do. Some of my choices are better than the guy next door to me, and some may not be. How am I helping others make better choices by standing in condemnation of their imperfection? What have I proven? (Maybe it helps me feel better about me, but then I've missed the boat, haven't I?) I could stand outside my home with a bullhorn and daily decry the moral condition of those "less moral" than me, and I've still not accomplished a thing. I would much rather drop the condescension, roll up my sleeves, and get busy lending a hand in this world.
Would you like me to lend you a hand in "doing the right thing" by getting legislation passed to ban public education? Do you honestly think my time is best spent on this earth ranting and raving about the "immoral system" and condemning those who participate in it? I know the only thing it is going to accomplish with you is to bring on yet another debate about how the bible doesn't specifically say everybody should homeschool, or they are in sin, yada yada yada...
"We have to be specific about these things, understanding their relationships and struggles and calling for a life that represents the holiness of God. Certainly, forgiveness of sins and mercy represent God's holiness as well as abstaining from pornography or not having an abortion."
My problem is we're picking and choosing what that holiness looks like, and throwing away a lot of people in the process as if they are just worthless trash and not made in the image of God. To top it all off, we're presenting our own "trash" as acceptable or non-existent. Not the best way of representing Christ to the world, IMO.
What really gets under my skin is that if I make a choice to accept others as they are, not condemn them, but rather love them however they come to me; one group of people wants to tell me that that is tantamount to approving of whatever harmful thing they may be doing. As if my loving someone who approves of abortion means I'm an abortionist? Did Jesus' love of sinners make Him one?
Paige
"In following the posts on this article and the one on New Heavens and Earth, it appears to me that there are those on this site who seem to advocate a "grey" theology. They don't seem to come out and say they believe this or stand for this but instead seem to talk in generalities."
Glenn, I'm having a hard time following you here. Do you think you could be more specific?
On another note, it would be refreshing to see people point their fingers at those who gossip, practice hypocrisy, overeat, etc. as often as they do the homosexuals and people who've had abortions. Maybe we could even begin to reign down condemnation on those w/anger issues as well. Yes, I'm all for taking a stand.
(I am getting tired of typing this!)
The Liberal/Conservative, Left/Right, Democrat/Republican divide is meaningless. It is nothing more than the Hegelian Dialectic in operation and is intended as a distraction for the masses.
The march to economic collapse, global war and the end of national sovereignty continues unabated in almost every nation on earth. We comment on America most because the planet can survive the collapse of every other country, where America goes the world follows.
The final and ultimate questions we must ask ourselves are:
1) Can my family and loved ones survive what is coming?
2) Can the church survive underground?
God Help Us All
There is a small still voice in the back of my head that keeps this scenario alive. Quite possible. Of course, the answer to both questions is "yes." But, that would require a God with all power.
Sam
Hopefully brother I am wrong wrong wrong! In fact that would make me the happiest Middle Aged Fat Guy on the planet .....
Al
Virgil,
Maybe the "conservative" Republicans are on a "journey" looking for "truth" in government principles. Maybe higher wages in Ohio and smoke free restaurants (like we have here in Florida) are just "pitstops" along the way to a newer, kinder Republicanism...maybe they are just trying to erase the "creed" of conservative laisse faire economics, individual responsibility and the like. Maybe Communism had some answers that need to be "explored" again...I mean, after all, we must be open to these things and "explore" all possibilities.
Sam
Sam,
Actually I believe states should be free to explore whatever their citizens want to - I do not want a federal suit to tell me how to live though. Your smart alec answer is indicative of how people in this country miss the point of federalism. If people in Ohio want to ban smoking, drinking and drug use and Florida wants the opposite, and prostitutes at every street corner, that is their prerogative and rights to choose, not Washington politicians. That's what liberarianism is about - living free to explore, not explore or do whatever the heck you want to do as long as you don't hurt other people.
- virgil
except abortion, right? but,if you "allow" states to have abortions, then, biblically speaking, that is "hurting other people." If you want abortions banned, then you are cramming your idea (when life begins) down others' throats. Postmodernists never "get it." somewhere, somehow, someone is being "hurt" by someone elses "journey."
Sam
Postmodernists never "get it." somewhere, somehow, someone is being "hurt" by someone elses "journey."
Where, how and who?
abortion, Virgil...maybe Evangelicals has misinterpreted the Scriptures (a theological doctrine) that "life begins at conception." I have read some theological works that are "pro-choice" because "life" that begins at conception is a thoroughly a CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. The liberals get this. That's why they are pro-choice. Maybe the evangelicals have "Boxed" in the word "life" to mean something God never intended. And, the guilt that has consumed many women because they view that what they did as "murder of my unborn baby". How tragic and HURTFUL, Virgil. Many women have committed suicide because of the fact that they believed in the churches DOCTRINE that "life" begins at conception. Well, let's be generous. Let's be kind. Let's enter into a journey and rediscover the meaning of "life". Perhaps exceptions to a staunch Pro-Life political movement can be avoided, and we can enter into a dialogue. Sure, the abortion of fetus' will continue, but at least the harmful emotional pain will not be there to accompany it. You didn't "kill a baby" you simply had a medical procedure performed that terminated that which would have been potentially viable for "person-hood." How does Virgil respond?
Sam
I am not sure where you are getting with this, but did I ever suggest that I am in favor of abortion or something? In fact most libertarians I know are against abortion for the very reason I outlined above: hurting another person or personS.
I really must be missing something in your argument because I am not getting what you are arguing against. Unless you are suggesting that one must be a Christian in order to be pro-life and vice-versa?
Determining whose rights are more important is a tricky job. One has to balance the severity of rights violation against the necessity (value) of having those rights.
Do we outlaw alchohol since hundreds of people are killed in DUI accidents every year?
Do we outlaw guns since people die in gun-related crimes every year?
Do we outlaw abortion?
Do we outlaw the sale of raw milk since it has bacteria in it?
Should Marajuana be legalized?
Where do the lines get drawn?
These are good questions, but I think the answers are easy (at least most of them). Go with what's already been said: hurting another person or persons.
"Do we outlaw alchohol since hundreds of people are killed in DUI accidents every year?"
No, people should have the right to drink if they want to. But, I think there should be servere penalties for people do things that might harm others while intoxicated (e.g. DUI).
"Do we outlaw guns since people die in gun-related crimes every year?"
No, people should have the right carry weapons. But certain uses of them should be outlawed.
"Do we outlaw abortion?"
This one is tricky. Aborting a pregnancy is really harming another being. But if the life of the mother is threatened, that's where determining the rights is difficult. Do you let the mother live or let the child live? Maybe the best answer is to let God take care of it.
"Do we outlaw the sale of raw milk since it has bacteria in it?"
No, As long as the sellers make the buyers aware of the possible danger, if you really want to drink "raw" milk, go ahead, you're not hurting anyone else.
"Should Marajuana be legalized?"
Yes, I don't think there should be a law against it. If you want to be stupid enough to do drugs, then go ahead. Just stay away from my family and friends. You only hurt yourself.
"Where do the lines get drawn?"
If it harms other people, then keep it away from other people. What you do to yourself is your business. But, I think it is up to us, as the Church, to help people not do stupid things.
I think that was a great answer. Extend personal liberties until they begin to infringe or harm other individuals. I believe morality plays a role in exactly what point the line between the two are drawn.
Kyle Peterson: Extend personal liberties until they begin to infringe or harm other individuals.
I believe you are right, but this is where "churchianity" has turned the gospel, which is meant to be the revelation of God's righteousness [Rom 1:17], into the a moral code FOR righteousness, and in the process simply exchanged what was OT law into what we claim to be NT law – and then "drawn lines" [qualifying requirements] as to who has the grace of God according to beholden "practices", or the lack thereof, i.e., "salvation according to works".
While there is most definitely "moral" or personal value in a life lived after God its essence is evidenced NOT in pious morality as much as it is demonstrated ETHICALLY as in – living for God equates to living for the interests of others:
Mk 9:35 And He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”
…at least that's what Jesus said; in fact he scorned the moral police:
Lk 11:40-42 Foolish ones! Did not He who made the outside make the inside also? But rather give alms of such things as you have; then indeed all things are clean to you. “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass by justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
IF moral purity is deemed to be the touchstone of or for righteousness then absolutely everybody has failed. Thankfully moralism is NOT the way to finding peace with God – but rather coming into the revelation of His righteousness and grace as given to us in Christ, and that alone – that revelation works change in the inner man, a process we call "conversion".
davo
davo – pantelism.com
Virgil,
Your letter is excellent. I concur with your original letter and the subsequent comments. I found the election in Ohio interesting on many levels. I perceived the election was set to bring voters out who desire more government involvement in their lives and less personal responsibility for their lives. Therefore, the election yielded a “left-leaning” outcome. I don’t like to use the term liberal, as I do not understand how more government means more freedom. Two issues on the ballot yielded the expected results.
The “smoke-less” amendment and the “smoke-free” law was all about move government and less personal responsibility. As a physician, I am acutely aware of the hazards of first hand smoke and the perceived risks associated with second hand smoke, but do the risks truly go down for people who live with smokers when these smokers stop smoking in public? Do my risks for second hand smoke really go up if I choose to not visit places that allow smoke to spread to the non-smoking sections? What is next to be outlawed in Ohio? Body odor? Flatulence? I suggest many more deaths and injuries occur from the “second hand” effects of alcohol than tobacco, i.e. traffic accidents, beatings and other violent crimes. What brought about a reduction in these “second-hand” effects of alcohol? Not constitutional amendments which are later repealed, but grass roots education of consequences and individual responsibility.
The minimum wage law also was designed to also bring out the government loving crowd. I am not an economist and maybe those who understand economic theory better than I do can comment more. I perceive raising minimum wages arbitrarily, leads to inflation. Then those with the least amount of disposable income have to pay higher prices for goods and services, unless government puts caps on them, and the low wage earner is back to square one. I perceive the solution for the low wage earner who cannot make ends meet is to live with less or employment advancement. For the individual who cannot accomplish either option, then the church is to help, not the government. I perceive for every dollar I give to somebody in need that is a dollar that person has to use of invest. If I go through the government, that individual gets something less than a dollar. I admit my biased view since I do live at the top of the food chain though. Former Senator Rick Santorum has many interesting ideas in his book, “It Takes a Family.”
Knowing that we had these types of ballot issues, I would not expect a different outcome.
Mick
Mickey E. Denen
Keep in mind that Issue 5 didn't outlaw smoking. Even though it passed, Issue 5 still allows smoking in several places.
This was more or less a clash of the rights of several groups of people:
1) Smokers want the right to smoke wherever they want.
2) Non-smokers want to the right to not have to breathe second-hand smoke in public places.
3) Restaurants want the right to choose whether or not they want to allow smoking or not.
4) Individual communities want the right to either allow or disallow public smoking.
Whose rights are more important? Judging from the outcomes of Issue 4 and 5 it appears that people support the rights of the non-smokers not to have to breathe second-hand smoke in public places.
Smokers can still smoke in their homes, outside, in private clubs, tobacco shops and outside patios. In reality nobody is taking any rights away from smokers - simply giving back the rights to non-smokers to live without nicotine smoke.
It's a very good letter, and I hope it does get the attention of Rush and Sean. Unfortunately, the pressure will be on the Republicans to become more "moderate" so as to win back the swing voters who swung over to the dark side this time. I don't see any Reagans out there in the sense of prominent politicians who combine national prominence, a thorough understanding of what has made America work, and the ability to articulate what needs to be said.
Given that the mainstream media and our educational institutions seem more committed than ever to destroying the Christian foundation of this nation, it is vital that conservatives who combine knowledge and communications skills do their best to offset the forces arrayed against us. The challenge is huge.
As for Senator DeWine, when he joined the gang of 14, I sent Elizabeth Dole's NRSC a note stating that I would no longer contribute funds to her group, and I stuck with that position through the half-dozen solicitations I received from the NRSC during the next few months. I hope I am now off their mailing list. I voted for Corker in the general election after voting for Ed Bryant in the primary. Reluctantly, I have to say that the Republicans did not deserve to win this time around. I hope that some of the good people they still have can bring them back around, but if they get back, I hope they do so with some slogan other than "compassionate conservatism"; i.e. a government of big federal spending on social programs. Genuine Christian-based conservatism is compassionate by its nature.
We can now look forward to a parade of nonsense from the new Congress in the form of bipartisan legislation, such as the forthcoming "Bill to Create Unemployment"; i.e. the minimum wage increase. Of course it won't be called that, and it will be embraced by all our "drive-by media" experts, but it will be a job killer and a work-experience killer. The good news is that because the federal minimum wage hasn't been raised for a while, the damage done this time will be quite limited, at first. The bad news is that because the understanding of basic economics is so primitive in both the general public and the media, the temptation to keep raising the minimum wage will be irresistible.
On that pleasant note I sign off.
John S. Evans
I have to agree with Virgil. I think deep down inside most people value their freedoms.
I recently read an article where the State of Ohio is "cracking down" on the sale and consumption of raw milk. I mean, c'mon!
I think Republicans need to take a more constitutional approach to government (smaller govt..etc) if they want to win things back.
John, I forgot to make a quick comment regarding the minimum wage. I have always found those 10 or 20 cent increases fascinating. Why is it that those concerned so much with the minimum wages of workers in this country do not propose a $20 or $50 an hour minimum wage, and settle the matter once and for all? If that kind of a proposal sounds ridiculous and outrageous, why would a 20 cent increase not be so?
Minimum wage increase politicos know perfectly well that if you push the minimum wage above the market equilibrium level, unemployment results, so they avoid proposing a minimum wage that is well above that level. The real purpose of raising the legal minimum is to procure wage increases for public employees and union workers whose wages are scaled up from the minimum wage. So if the minimum wage increases, your local county clerk can say that his/her wage should be adjusted upward. Needless to say, the politicos play the sad violin music about how much they care about providing a "living wage" to the deserving low-wage workers when the real reason for the increase is quite different.
Unfortunately, the pressure will be on the Republicans to become more "moderate" so as to win back the swing voters who swung over to the dark side this time.
That is what Carville suggested, but that may not be an accurate analysis of what will happen. I don't know if you have a subscription to National Review (which I consider to be the best magazine out there), but Ramesh Ponnuru had an excellent editorial in this week's edition titled "Conservatives on the Couch." He makes several points that are interested. Whether or not they are accurate it's another thing:
1. Small-government conservatism is not viable. I disagree with this to a point, mostly because the majority of people will always be those who want to plunder the rich to some extent, and they need the power of the government to do so.
2. The GOP has nothing to offer to libertarians or Reagan conservatives. Cato Institute released a survey that claims that 15% of Americans hold to Libertarian values. That is staggering. While the number is not large enough, it may be large enough to make a difference in races where we are talking of a few thousands votes - and that is a lot of races.
3. The religious right has lost control of itself by only focusing on gays and sex education. As a result the GOP eager to please, has focused on these things and paid no attention to huge spending bills, education, social security and medicate...all bills written by Democrats and signed by Bush without hesitation.
Those are all valid issue - the question is, will the GOP go to the left or to the right in order to win elections? Did they learn a lesson this time around? It looks like the answer is NO. Since Reagan they have not learned that Conservatism cannot be changed, modified or adapted to fit their statist agenda. Here is an excellent quote from Ramesh:
Anti-statists can take heart, in a way, from the second horn of the dilemma. Conservatives don’t seem to be able to move forward in any other way than theirs. Every attempted makeover of the conservative movement and Republican party over the last 15 years has been driven by the political weakness of anti-statism. Patrick Buchanan tried to throw out the free traders to bring in socially conservative union members. George W. Bush offered a “compassionate” (read: more statist) conservatism. John McCain and his fans had a “national-greatness conservatism.” Conservatism has rejected each ideological novelty like a body rejecting a transplant.
That certainly doesn't sound like populism does it? And if it is not, how do we explain that Ronald Reagan won by landslides?
Ronald Reagan was able to win by landslides because he was a true conservative, understood this country very well, and had a great ability to communicate. But beyond that, he was helped incomparably by the ineptitude of Jimmy Carter and, before him, Gerald Ford. It may be that we need a few years of seeing the Democrats in action before the pendulum will swing back to sanity. Already I see that "Simple George" MoGovern has returned to the podium. Folks like that are great builders for the conservative movement.
Excellent. This letter has been forwarded to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Terry M. Hall
Dayton, Ohio
Thanks Terry, but it's not that good! :)