I continue to like what Rick Santorom has accomplished here, in changing America by raising social issues this election cycle; despite this being a cheap political red herring and not in the best interests of the zany GOP party.
This week at church, my pastor gave a good sermon on righteous anger. Just like Jesus did. Many people do not understand Jesus was kind of like a social issues politican. Now Jesus really ticked off the rich and powerful, including land owners. Especially related to the tradition of the Jubilee every 50 years as practiced prior to his being crucified for upsetting a lot of politicians related to some of these social issues.
Further the pastor directed the congregation that we really should avoid not being apathetic and cynical. Christians have a duty to take real action in their own lives, which includes addressing social issues.
The pastor stated when any of us take action against social injustice, there is be expected some backlash against those who battle for moral and righteous social issues, just like Jesus. It is not enough to merely read the Bible and go to a church and sit back passively thinking that makes one a good Chriatian, by being passive instead of walking the Christ-like talk.
Now I listened, understood and thanked my pastor for a very good sermon helping provide me with a call for some of my own righteous anger as being justifiable. So, how do I as a candidate for United States Congress be like Jesus and Rick Santorum-a Christian advocate on many of these social issues?
Most of us candidates dislike declaring our own personal position on social issues, much less try to be the voice and represent what we think is the consensus of all the of the voters of our political district on social issues, when we are asking voters to let us be their next elected representativeor as I call them-yahoo politicians.
The rationale for most cowardly politicians is due to the very real possibility of voter alienation on any one given social issue. When a candidate states what he thinks represents the will of the electors, the more social issues a candidate has, the greater the odds of voter alienation including voter backlash in direct opposition creating controversy.
Further, on many social issues, there is a deep divide in our nation. So, whenever, any political candidate states what he or she believes is in the best interest of our nation, there is going to be alienation of those who disagree on any given social issue.
But not Rich Santorum. If I were Rick, I would be proud of stating firmly, his position on social issues and because he did, it is now a huge discussion politically. This takes a lot of courage and Santorum took a big risk politically in being attacked for not being a cynical Christian hypocrite. So Santorum should be very proud of himself for at least making social issues an important campaign issue in 2012.
So like Rick and Jesus, having been a candidate for a long time, I too am going to state my position on a few social issues, taking a quantum risk of of dealing with some voter alienation. Who knows what can happen when a candidate declares what they believe on social issues, based on their religious believes.
So for the record, I continue to have sufficient confidence acting and stating my political position based on my relation with Jesus; as well what many of the voters in this nation want. Therefore, below is a short list of what voters expect and have a right to demand a candidate do, upon being duly elected.
I am taking firm stand based on the United States Constitutional guarentees related to life, as being pro-life on several issues. That includes very limited exceptions to abortion. And that does not include a women being able to get an abortion, merely by having anxiety about becoming a mother.
I am taking a firm stand on marriage being between a man and wife. I do understand the civil rights perspective of the GLBT community. But I cannot support gay marriages, as being Christ-like. I am aware of the discrimination of the GLBT community because in most states, they cannot marry each other.
As a civil rights activist, I understand the angst of the GLBT community. But as a statesman, I do not think expanding the traditional concepts of marriage to include gay marriages would make our nation better. I do not think Jesus would advocate for the gay community. I think Jesus would find such relations to be an abomination of natural law and most Americans widely held spiritual beliefs.
Social issues related to contraception: In a prior post last week, it was my opinion Jesus would not be thrilled about contraception, but would be ok with it. Now both my pastor and myself understood contraception is a very complex issue.
Both of us understood the complexity of this issue. And since I am relatively old, I remember the uproar in 1968, when the Pope stated Catholics should not use any contraceptive devices. To me, the Pope was being more political on his suggestion to Catholics, merely wanting more and more Catholics to be born. I do not think the ban by the Pope in 1968 was based on what Jesus would have stated.
Further, in regard to Planned Parenthood, some of their social work is beneficial. Such as the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. Planned Parenthood does acutally do some good word, just like the liberal ACLU does, every once in while. Neither of these two organizations are inherently evil or bad for our nation.
However, I cannot support Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, or RU-486-the day after abortion pill. Nor do I think federal funds is a proper application for giving this kind of non-profit our federal tax dollars for several reasons, but most importantly, what is the federal nexus of giving this organization our federal tax dollars? To me, funding Planned Parenthood is merely doling out our federal tax dollars having nothing to do with the operation of our national government.
Planned Parenthood is merely another special interest group that is bribing and greasing some of our yahoo polititians corruptly getting their hands on our federal funds. This is some kind of evil quid pro quo advocating a special interest agenda to get candidates votes from those that support this kind of non-profit based on their limited social agenda.
I would not support the funding of Planned Parenthood. Also, if Planned Parenthood if getting federal funds, why not also give funds to the Pro-Life organizations to balance this inequity out. Better, give no federal funds to either special interest group lacking any nexus to the operation of our federal government.
Further, I do not want Planned Parenthood presenting a biased and one-sided presentation in the local high schools without also allowing Pro-Life groups to present a different view so our teenagers get a balanced perspective; instead of only the social agenda of Planned Parenthood, that includes their zealous positon on abortion, or infancide.
I do find strength in those that practice abstinence. I do. By doing so, it makes for a far better relation, than one that is based on active sexual activities.
To summarize my position on social issues, I continue to try my best to practice what Jesus would do, if he were a candidate or a United States Congressman. How can as a candidate for United States Congress, lose votes by putting my Christian beliefs, including supporting other Christians like myself as my position on social issues.
Like I stated in prior posts, moral and social issues are the right of the individual-not the right of a national government or of yahoo politicans to choose for us what our national moral and social agenda should, or should not be.
I do not want big brother telling me, or you how to live your life morally or socially. I will oppose any legislation upon being duly elected that tries to regulate or legislate moral and social issues in direct contradiction to seperation of church and state. My source, Jesus and the United States Constitution.
If one does not like those guiding sources, go ahead and vote for a heathen that wants a zany national government that determines social and moral issues for you as an individual.
Finally,I also have to do my best to understand and state what is my political position in applying the word, liberty. So, this is an important word in doing a full evaluation of what voters want, in addition to following Jesus and the United States Constitution.
So that word liberty also is important in politics and understanding how a candidate would vote, after the election. This fundamental word liberty is worth its own seperate blog post(s) and I will state my best understanding of what voters expect and demand politicians ensure them, will guide them post-election, as guarenteed by the United States Constitution. In other words, I am going to ask myself:
What would Jesus's position be on liberty if Jesus was running for United States Congress?.