Evangelicals, Wake Up For The Election

:::I started this back in mid January and finished it today:::

Well, we’re almost two weeks into 2008, which means we are nearly two weeks into an election year. I must say that a year ago I was largely apathetic to the notion of choosing a new president, but I must say I now have the bug. I see this year as an opportunity for change in the U.S., or we may just maintain the same course we’ve been on for a while. New times mean new issues. New issues are ways of showing the deficiencies in our prior decisions/laws/declarations.

Everyone has the answer though. Every single presidential candidate has their own solution for the problems at hand, and all the future problems to come. This is certainly hailing as the election for change. I would say there is much desire for change coming from the Democratic party, which makes sense since they haven’t been running things for eight years. There is also a fair amount of talk for change coming from the Republicans, although on a much smaller level. As much as a party desires to uphold their own, there are certain consequences from G.W.’s administration that can’t be overlooked (although most of these decisions are not all from George, but have been handed down from president to president, sometimes in a snowballing effect). The Democrats certainly point the finger at George a lot, while the Republicans do their best to point the finger at Clinton wherever possible.

I wonder how important the Evangelicals will be perceived in the upcoming election, since they were widely credited as a (or the) major support in getting Bush elected for a second term. Are they still a driving force in our country? What do they look for in the President? What contributes to their common ideals? What are those common ideals? If Eric Clapton shot the Sheriff, who shot the deputy?

I found a website detailing what the “Evangelicals” in general are looking at as key issues, and answers to those issues.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51686

Here’s a brief summary…

The Candidate must be:

- A social/fiscal conservative

- Strongly opposed to abortion

- Strongly opposed to same-sex marriage

- Adamant about religious freedom

- Desiring to unite the government and private sectors

- Desiring to unite government and religious institutions (Christian, Jewish, Muslim? I wonder what Evangelicals mean by that.)

- Very strongly supporting the war on terror, both at home and abroad in countries like Iraq

- See the terrorist enemy as inhuman killers and incapable of rationality or being appeased civilly

- Immigration

o Close border with a $10 Billion fence

o Stricter laws for getting into the country/kick out illegals

- Use our country’s own oil

o “But a handful of environmental alarmists have convinced many lawmakers to pretend the oil is not there. I want to preserve the beauty of our nation as much as anyone, but I also think we need to utilize our God-given resources and thus liberate the U.S. from dependence on many nations who hate us”

Okay, let’s break this down. Since the most inherently unifying commonality of Evangelicals is Jesus, let’s get him in the mix.

I’m going to skip the first one for the time being.

Opposition to abortion and homosexuality is key to the followers of Jesus. To my understanding Jesus never directly addresses the issue of homosexuality. It doesn’t mean he’s in support of it, but it must not have been at the top of his priority list. I have some of my own thoughts on it, but that’s pretty irrelevant here. Other followers of Jesus have commented on homosexuality, just as many of his followers today have, but Jesus never mentioned it.

Abortion, by the definition could be considered murder. I know the word “could” in there might make people angry, saying “IT DEFINITELY IS!” The definition speaks of killing another person with malice aforethought, characterized by premeditation. Abortion is probably usually done without malice toward the child, but in the view of the one(s) making the choice, merely a sense of grace upon the child who would have an unfair life due to the parental situation. Often times it’s done from selfishness, where it isn’t convenient. And I’m sure sometimes it’s done with little to no thought. So the potential good-will or the supposed mercy of the abortion could negate it by definition as “murder.” I would go as far to say that many mothers know that what they’re doing is wrong, but consider it a necessary evil.

This takes me to the war on terror. Abortion is often justified by saying the fertilized egg is just a clump of cells and not a real human or child yet; an argument that evangelicals traditionally disagree with. How is it that Evangelicals could support the killing of full-grown, completely developed humans? Sure one could say that it is in the desire for safety and security that we must commit less than desired acts on others. But isn’t this similar to the necessary evil that a mother might take into consideration in order to secure her economic/education safety and security to help her ensure a better future for herself and the possibility to raise other future children in a more proper, less dysfunctional home? I don’t think it’s much different, and I don’t think either is justifiable by humanity (especially Evangelicals).

I do believe it was Jesus who said “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” Maybe today we could put it, “he who lives by the easy way out that disregards others, dies by the easy way out that disregards others.” We have undeniably made enemies out of terrorists. Didn’t Jesus say to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you. Didn’t Jesus make a huge stand and a huge impact by being at peace with those killing him, even forgiving them? Didn’t Jesus end up fine in the end, despite his lowly, humble position when faced with Roman injustice? I thought the Evangelicals were the ones who followed Jesus’ teachings. Why are they some of the greatest advocates of war, and then hypocritically against abortion? They are for the life of unborn children and opposed to the life of adults who have different belief systems.

Love could go a long way in this “war.” Considering a major cause of the hatred of America by Islamic fundamentalists is our progressive economic and dominating military imposition on the more traditional ideals of their own territory. Love and respect would go a long way… as well as perhaps learning lessons on how to live from their culture.

Religious freedom is the reason this country was formed. We certainly uphold this ideal to a point of near idolic worship. In our 21st century billboard infested culture advertisement rules. Sometimes advertisement might become a bigger concern than even quality control. We're all about winning... winning equals fame, pride, superiority, power, money, and probably some others. Religious freedom has become the right for me to advertise my belief system. It's not about what I practice, it's about what I believe in.
This goes right along with the evangelical desire to unite government and religious institutions. It's all about how much clout I can gain for Jesus. Christians have no desire for the Hindu religious affiliations or the mosque-run organizations to be holding hands with the United States government. After all, we're a CHRISTIAN nation!
I would agree that when our nation's first ancestors took their first few steps off the Mayflower they had trouble walking straight after being on a ship for a few months. But after that I think they had the intention for a theocratic society of sorts. Run differently than in England, but surely a nation of people like them. The problem is that it didn't work all that great, although we did survive... there were those darn witch trials though; the spawn of a theocratic society.
A while later this was all remembered, as well as how things were in England, and also the consideration of known history. The Constitution was not written for a theocracy, it was written for a democracy. If we're a Christian nation, we run the risk of deeming anyone who is not Christian as an evil threat to our society. If we are a nation that is filled largely with Christians, well that should be very different. It allows us to set up laws based on Christian morals one might say, another might say Natural Law that is common knowledge to all (or most) of humanity.
As long as a religious institution is conducting itself by means of this Natural Law it should not be judged any differently than another organization, Christian or not. We are not a Christian bully nation. We are not a Christian favoritism nation. We should not be a huge billboard for Christianity. But we should allow all people and groups abiding by the laws to represent themselves on their own, perhaps partnered with the government, but not specially endorsed by it.
Another issue is the illegal immigration. Who is our biggest culprit here? If I have read things correctly I believe it is Switzerland. Do you believe that? Why not? What about Canada? Who do you think the country with the most illegal immigrants in the U.S. is?
I should look this up, although I'm not, but I'd say it's probably Mexico. Why would Mexicans as opposed to the Swiss or Canadians by trying to sneak in? Because it's freakin' hot down there! Ok, not really. Probably because it's poor down there. Bad health care, bad living conditions, bad gas from all the burritos. So our idea to keep those people who are unfortunate away from our great stuff that is ours and not theirs is to build a 10 billion dollar fence.

Alright, I'm probably an idiot, but how about this. What if we put 10 billion dollars into their economy. What if we gave loans to their people to start business, to initiate trade, to better conditions, to promote better health care into the country? Will it solve everything? No, but it'll help. It should at least keep most of them occupied so they don't feel the need to come to the U.S.

Also, for all you Jesus lovers, I think Jesus told a story about a poor beggar that was outside this rich man's house. The rich man had walls separating him from the poor man, but when they died things reversed. The rich man tried to keep his superiority and authority over the poor, but it was no longer there. Maybe someday Mexico will rise up and become a power. How will we be treated by them? How are we treating them? Is this impossible? Was it impossible for China not too long ago? The Bible talks many times about allowing foreigners into your land. I do see an economic problem with that, and even some overcrowding. My solution is to reach out and make their land inhabitable for them, then we can live in peace. I kind of think Jesus would have liked that. He tends to support interaction between the rich and poor, where they both share what they have.

It's also kind of funny that these Evangelicals who are very conservative want the GOVERNMENT to build the 10 billion dollar wall. Why not have the states effected raise money for that. The immigration problem isn't in Nevada so much, ya know? But I'm against the wall anyway.

I think Evangelical conservatives can do so much to lessen government control. Just like the whole wall senario... they can share. The government just distributes money, with some corruption and improper spending mixed in there too. We wouldn't need them for many things if we'd seek out those in need and share. Welfare, health care, social security, unemployment, education, etc etc etc. These are things we can share. If someone can't afford a necessity and you are planning a nice vacation, give. If you're in a medical profession and someone needs looked at or treatment, give. If someone is without a job and you know of one or can create a job for them, give. Better yet teach them a trade so they can get a job. We're all about disconnected higher education, with its standards and tests; but we've lost the personal training found in an apprenticeship. We're spending thousands and thousands of dollars on an education you can learn from a mentor for free. Or how about this. Instead of both the mother and father in a family having a job, just let the mother get one, and the father can stay at home and cook/clean. That way more people can get jobs, instead of having them taken up by families who don't need the money, but just get bored at home all day. That's conservative. Think big, think different. In Acts 2 no one had any needs cause they shared. They sold their possessions to make sure no one was without.

And finally, oil. We are fools. We trick ourselves into thinking we're being ecologically friendly by getting the car that gets 35mpg, but we forget that we haven't walked anywhere in 3 years and that we have 3 cars for our 4 person family. It's overabundance that is draining our earth of resources and filling it with pollution. Oil wouldn't be such an issue if we hadn't sucked up over half of the worlds energy for our %5 of its population. Sure we need to get cleaner and more renewable energy, but we also need to stop producing so much. I don't care how recyclable a car is, if you make billions of them, you will have waste and pollution. Americans believe we deserve it because we're so strong, but we're wrong. Evangelicals, you guys are building 7, 10, 20 million dollar facilities. Could you build with less and save the Earth some? Maybe God wouldn't mind your house for him not looking as lavish in exchange for his tabernacle of the Earth not being dilapidated.

I know this is long, and congrats if you made it this far. I don't mean to be a downer, but I just want to expose hypocrisy along with what doesn't make sense. I believe in the words of Jesus, although I get much criticism for what I say, even (especially) from Christians. I find they tend to have trouble seeing the big picture, being creative, and having hope toward new ways of living, God's ways of living. Just like the prophets who seemed to have bad news, I am presenting our woes. It's the opportunity to repent and find joy in repentance.