ALL-INCLUSIVE POLITICS

ALL-INCLUSIVE POLITICS

As we examine the electorate, it seems only natural to categorize voters along party lines. Republicans in 2008 tend to be the more conservative of the two-party system, and Democrats tend to be the more liberal party. We realize that there are many different viewpoints within each party that define the degrees and kinds of conservatism and liberality. Just as it is unusual for any two people to agree on all the issues, so it is even more unlikely for all members within political parties to completely agree. The inevitable compromises are predictably along “party lines” that have been established historically by the parties-in-question. The issues that are chosen for consideration then become a focal point for those seeking to move the party into adopting certain issues into the party platform. There are issues chosen for their universal appeal, such as national defense, where both parties favor a more-or-less strong national defense, but may disagree on its implementation. The methods of implementation may then become the “wedge-issue” that divides the two parties along party lines. Once these “wedge-issues” have been clearly defined, the electorate proceeds to vote for the candidate that they trust will best-be-able to implement the party platform. There are, however, certain issues that have not been chosen for their universal appeal, but have been formulated to persuade skeptics that their opposition is based on certain groundless and unsubstantiated fears and prejudices. Two such issues confront the electorate again in November of 2008, and they are “abortion-rights” and “homosexual-rights.” Advocates for these positions appeal to the electorates’ sense of fairness, justice and legitimacy. Arguments include the contention of Roe v. Wade that a mother has a “right-to-choose” life or death for a developing child. “Homosexual-Rights” advocates contend that individuals have the right to choose sexual partners from the same gender, enter into domestic partnership, and be recognized by the state and society as married in the same sense as heterosexual couples. Both of these issues have gone from being closet issues in the ‘50s and ‘60s to becoming “wedge-issues” in the ‘70s, ‘80s, ‘90s, and now into the 21^st century. Proponents argue that justice demands that we legitimize freedom on behalf of pro-abortionists and pro-homosexuality advocates. The “umbrella of democratic principles” we are told, must protect these “minorities” from infringements that obstruct their exercise of freedom and its legitimization. There are some advocates who view questions of morality on their face-value, reasoning that “as long as no one gets hurt, what’s the difference?” Others seek to persuade us that we must choose “the lesser of two evils” and permit the mother to choose life or death for her child. Still others reason that no government, person or power has the right to dictate sexual rights and prohibitions to any human. These viewpoints can all be categorized as humanistic in the sense that their advocates represent the view that humanity can best determine the most legitimate course of action for its members. Some who hold these views claim that religion and even morality have no place in politics and the establishment of the rule-of-law. They reason that humanity can decide on a case-by-case basis what course-of-action should be taken. They argue that, as times change, so our public policy must change, in the same way that we set traffic laws and curfews. The impression has been created that religion and morality itself are the results of the evolution of codes-of-conduct that shelter us all under a common umbrella of shared protection—sort of a “you-don’t-bother-me-and-I-won’t-bother-you” mentality. The church is viewed as an enemy of those who would seek to implement moral self-determination. Governments and law enforcement bear the brunt of individual objections to the rule-of-law. The church boldly stands in contradiction to this self-deterministic attitude by stating that we are NOT the source of our own rule-of-law. The church says that laws and rules of behavior were given to us by God, that He expects these laws to be respected, obeyed, enforced, and lived-out in our daily lives. Furthermore, God expects us to be perfect, (since He is the One Who enables us), and to love His Laws, and to hate when His Laws are disobeyed. There are some “christians” who choose to ignore some of the commands of God, to their discredit. The best source of Truth is found in the Bible itself which will lead you into a relationship with God Himself, through the person of the Holy Spirit: “For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to Him.” II Cor. 16:9. American law is founded on Biblical principles. God does not permit “killing-for-convenience.” Life is sacred to God, and those who deliberately take-a-life without legitimate cause risk God’s judgment of death for breaking His Law. Similarly, God’s penalty for practicing homosexuality is death. I am well-aware that reminding you of how these things stand with God is a bit old-fashioned, but I, like all Christians, have been told by God through the Bible and the Holy Spirit, that practicing and advocating abortion and homosexuality are both prohibited by God and punishable by death. You might ask, “well—who is this “god,” that we should fear him or pay any attention to him?” This was the same question Pharoah asked Moses and Aaron before the ten plagues of Egypt descended. Again, regarding homosexuality, you might ask, “who is this fellow, trying to tell us what to do?” This was the same question asked by the men of Sodom before God caused the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone that created the Dead Sea and the lowest point on the surface of our planet. Consider the following: Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against His Anointed One. “Let us break their chains,” they say, “and throw off their fetters.” The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. Then He rebukes them in His anger and terrifies them in His wrath, saying, “I have installed My King on Zion, My Holy Hill.” I will proclaim the decree of the Lord; He said to me, “You are my Son; today I have become Your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations Your inheritance, the ends of the earth Your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; You will dash them to pieces like pottery.” Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for His wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in Him. Psalm 2:1-12. So I have some advice for you who call yourselves liberal, conservative or independent in the election which is fast-approaching: Consider wisely the issues before you. There is a God in heaven Who cares very much about the choices we make. Think about your children and those who share the planet with us. Don’t snuff out the beacon of God’s Love that has been present in America since its foundation. If you think that your independence is worth more than God’s kingdom, you are mistaken! Kiss the Son! Soli Deo Gloria!

Mark Overt Skilbred