Random Thoughts On Christians, Public Figures And Bloggers

Bear with me as I allow the montage of images in my brain to flow out onto this screen. Forgive me if it’s a little disorganized; I didn’t want to lose any thoughts. Everyday there is something different to think about, talk about, write about and pray about.

Christians

People take umbrage with my assertion that conservative principles are more reflective of biblical ethics than are liberal ones (see Update below). Why? Because they mistakenly believe that politics and faith (they actually mean “religion”) should be separate. Where do they get this idea? Mainly from the secularization of public life, one of the worst things to happen to this country.

We all have a worldview, and that worldview influences the decisions we make and how we live our lives. Your god or “higher power” may not bear the name Jesus Christ, but make no mistake that whatever code of ethics you choose to believe in, they guide every aspect of your lives. For instance, if you believe women should have the freedom to kill their “fetuses” because personal choice is a higher virtue than protecting the unborn, you will likely vote for John Kerry.

I get a fair amount of e-mail and comments from non-Christians (and a few Christians) who question my faith as it pertains to my support for George Bush. As I’ve written many times on this blog, I’m voting for Bush because, as a conservative, his policies and his worldview are, in my opinion, more aligned with biblical principles and ethics than Kerry’s.

Let’s take the previous example of child killing, euphemistically referred to as “abortion.” According to the Bible, God knitted us together in the womb, knew us before we were born and predestined us to receive his glory. He chose us unto salvation from the beginning. That same God deems the shedding of innocent blood to be murder. Who could be more innocent than the unborn?

By innocent, I mean under the law on the books. An unborn child has not and cannot commit a crime for which capital punishment — death — is due, or any other act considered in violation of the law. In that regard, to snuff out that precious life, with no justification (is there ever justification?) is murder.

Now let’s assume that Bush is pro-choice. It is my assumption he is not, but let’s assume he is. Since Kerry is also pro-choice (but believes abortion is murder), I would not be voting on Tuesday for either man. I won’t cast a ballot for someone who I know considers abortion a woman’s right.

I’ll go one step further. Unbelievers do not want Christians to profess Christ or even hint about their faith in the political arena. As a matter of fact, many Christians are critical of others engaged in political discussions. But I assert that secularists have changed the argument. We’ve allowed them to turn child killing into a political issue. As a consequence, saying that we believe abortion is murder because God says so makes us seem like lunatics to them.

Since the protection of innocent life is a “Christian” view, I argue that if you are a Christian and your conscience is not bothered by voting for someone who supports a woman’s “right” to kill her baby and who will appoint pro-child killing judges to our nation’s highest court, it is “un-Christian” of you. That is not to say you are not a Christian.

I challenge you to examine what the Bible reveals about God and us, and how to apply biblical principles and ethics to your life, including who you vote for on Tuesday.

Public Figures and Bloggers

I want to address why I don’t allow commenters to gratuitously attack me, make personal negative remarks or even insinuate certain things about me in my personal space in the blogosphere. This is the standard: Because I say so. A little humor there.

I’ll be more specific. I am not a public figure. I’m a private person. John Kerry, on the other hand, is not only a public figure; he is a man campaigning to lead my country, to be entrusted with all the powers of the Chief Executive of the United States and leader of the free world. His character and that of other public figures purporting to know best how to govern me are open to attack, not mine.

I allow people to disagree with me on this blog because it makes for a robust discussion, whether it’s actually productive or not. Under very rare circumstances will I allow negative personal remarks. In most all instances, I allow positive ones. What did you expect? I’m human.

I notice that many bloggers blog negatively about other bloggers (say that five times fast). I’ve never gotten into that practice, but that is my thing. Bloggers can do what they want on their own sites, and I choose not to “attack” other bloggers. While I make general reference to vague “liberal bloggers”, it is unacceptable to me that I should call people out and link with the intent of luring them here so they can read the bad things I’ve written.

In that same vein, I wouldn’t go to someone else’s “house” and disrespect them. If I comment on liberal blogs, which I rarely do, my “attack” is on the argument, not other commenters and most certainly not the blog host. I can’t even conceive of such a thing. I guess it’s the way I was raised.

“Hypocrite” seems to be a popular accusation. I would indeed be guilty of hypocrisy if I disallowed personal attacks on my blog, but then personally attacked someone on theirs. Keep in mind the distinction I’m drawing between bloggers and public figures. I am not a hypocrite simply because I say negative things about public figures but won’t allow commenters to do the same to me on my blog. If I attacked you personally on my site, then deleted your comment counterattacking me or defending yourself, I would be a hyprocrite.

FYI, this is the definition of hypocrisy — “The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.”

It is impolite, bad manners and just plain offensive to personally attack a blog host. That’s just me, OK? I don’t like it, and I don’t do it.

More than a few people have remarked about my “fawning” readers heaping on the praise. Strangely enough, I don’t consider such comments delete-able. On the other hand, if I’m harshly criticized by someone, whether they eventually get around to arguing my points or not, I consider such comments delete-able. Am I odd, or what? Where is Dr. Freud when you need him?

I’m not odd or strange. I’m human. And those accusing me of not allowing dissent when it gets too “hot” should really pull out a mirror and look in it once in a while. Would you allow rude comments (in your opinion, not the commenter’s) on your sites? If not and you are rude on someone else’s, then feign surprise when your comment is deleted or edited, you are a hypocrite.

While this verse was written with the believer in view, its principles apply to us all:

And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother’s eye. (Luke 6: 39-42)

I struggle, as all Christians do, with living a life in submission to Christ. But as one touched by grace, I know that my sins are covered by his blood. In the struggle I rest in knowing that it is not my own effort that pardons me, but his grace alone. Can you say the same?

Just a few random thoughts on a joyous Sunday afternoon.

Addendum: A commenter brings up an interesting topic for discussion. Are bloggers (excluding journalists and writers like Michelle Malkin and David Limbaugh, for example) public figures?

See resources here and here on the Protestant Reformation.

Update (11/1): A reader comments on this sentence: People take umbrage with my assertion that conservative principles are more reflective of biblical ethics than are liberal ones.

He doesn’t think faith and politics should be separate; he disagrees that conservative principles are more reflective of biblical principles. Another good topic for discussion.

Unbelievable. One of Jim Treacher’s posts was published in the Wall Street Journal.