News-Record.com

"Faith" being defined as socially-conservative Christian?

That's how socially-conservative Christians might define it, and they've had great success in molding the media usage to their ends.

I'm sure a lot of voters believe they are people of faith.

I put it in quotations so I could get at this expanded 'we're people of faith, too' effort that would be broader than the 'socially-conservative Christians' definition of last election. I wanted to look beyond how it was defined, to how people define it now. People say 'I'm people of faith, too.' I'm asking, 'So how does your faith impact who you vote for?'

Say, why is Obama's name not listed similarly as the other surnames?

I wonder. Religion is so powerfully divisive. Isn't it in the long term a mistake to try and mobilize voters to participate in the elections using religion?

Personally, I look for policies that are more or less near to biblical truth. A pro-life candidate would get my vote light-years ahead of a baby killer, for example. I'm leary of a candidate tauted as a "strongly religious" figure. As a committed Christian, I would of course PREFER a Christian President, VP or whatever. But, along with a Biblical worldview, important criteria for me are intelligence, strict constructionism, anti-adventurism in foreign affairs, very limited government, high moral standards and humility. So, while commitment to God and personal integrity are high on the list, practical abilities are also key. I do NOT want a religious demgogue of any stripe in office. We're talking godly POLITICAL leadership, not the Papacy.

All the Dems running are highly suspect when it comes to spiritual and moral issues, given their party's abysmal record in regard to abortion, gay marriage, and socialistic leanings. And the leaders of the GOP pack show little promise at this time either. It looks like it's up to God - the political lineup is spiritually unimpressive at this point. The lesser of "two wevils" would be the LDS guy over any secularist, left-wing Dem.

Do most of those opposed to the choice of abortion in extreme circumstance also believe a woman who finds that her best choice, in her own conscience, is thereby unfit for any position of authority, elected or appointed? Does that include teachers?

Many, many hundreds of actual babies are killed every year by the policies enacted against he interests of workers and families, against sound health and science advice ignored by this Republican administration, and perpetrated by good ol' God-fearin' drunk drivers. We need more protection against such rampages from our government, because each of us cannot singly work against the culture of violence, greed and irresponsibilty that glorifies and in some cases, makes millions off advertising the substances and behaviors that lead to these deaths.

And thanks for changing "Barack" to "Obama", Ms. McLaughlin.

Believe it or not, Freddy, no woman - or man - is God. It may be MY choice to wear a seat belt or not, but the state has imposed penalties for not doing so - to PROTECT me and others - so much for almighty human choice. The state imposes speed limits to protect against death and injury. It enacts regulations for heath care workers to protect against death and malpractice. But the feminist cry for choice regarding the lives of unborn human beings is somehow sacrosanct for left-wing feminists and their lapdogs. It is considered the linchpin of the liberal humanist monolith: if we can't continue to choose to murder babies then the whole house of cards will collapse – perhaps. (murder, because it is consciously committed with forethought) Yes, teachers too - anyone who does or advocates abortion is a murderer or an accessory. It is intrinsically immoral - and should be, along with murder of any kind, ILLEGAL. The state has a biblical and moral responsibility to protect innocent life.

You are, of course, right that that we live in an imperfect and dangerous environment - and other areas lethal to kids - and adults - should be addressed and corrected. That, IN NO WAY, either mitigates the sinful and abhorrent nature of abortion. It is NOT, repeat, NOT a matter of anyone's "choice" to kill innocent human life.

Admittedly, not ALL situations relating to the survival of mother and/or baby are easily resolved. But neither are countless others (life-support, feeding tube, living wills, etc.); but viable, although difficult, choices CAN BE MADE without abortion being a legal option. Such choices are being made even as we write and read.

I believe that the reason abortion is a watershed issue for both sides of the issue is that it strikes at the very heart of the nature and value of man. Are we indeed just evolved accidents of protoplasmic flux? Or are we purposely created in the very image and likeness of an omnipotent and loving Creator. In fact, no sane human being denies the wonder and value of infant and adult human beings – it’s patently obvious. But seeing humans as mere accidents of evolution, and babies as dispensable tissue devalues and clouds this perception; while seeing man as the highest earthly creation of God, "fearfully and wonderfully MADE," vastly expands the value and sacredness of human life – of ALL life.