Stupid should hurt. I know I've been hurt by own stupidity at times. This pain can manifest physically, emotionally, spiritually, or socially. Oftentimes, God can take our painful moments of stupidity and use them for our greater good. For the moment, I am speaking of a social pain to be inflicted on those who are acting stupidly, and specifically those who insist on continuing to act stupidly.
Have you ever been caught in a moment of self-awareness that illuminates an unflattering characteristic of your personality? All of my life I have had a tendency to be the least patient with and most critical of those whom I claim to love the most. Compounding this flaw is the time I have spent in the hospitality and service industries throughout my working life. I have strived for a long time to perfect the art of being the perfect gentleman to perfect strangers who are often really just perfect jerks! Then I come home and have no shyness in speaking to my loved ones the way I wish I could have spoken to those customers/guests while I was on the clock. I had one of those moments of clarity recently in the car with my wife. She had called me out on the tone I was using toward her while trying to figure out our morning agenda. It was a low-key, low-intensity, unserious moment, yet illustrative.
Moments later on the radio, Dennis Prager was replaying and commenting on a speech Netanyahu had recently delivered, in which he referenced Iran, its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the response that should be expected from Israel as they are continually threatened. A caller then tried to make the case that Iran should not be considered a nuclear threat because the current leader said he did not want nuclear weapons. The caller said it was the previous Iranian leadership that created the nuclear program, and this current leader was merely stuck with it. Taking this Iranian leader at his word, this lady sincerely felt Iran should be trusted just 'cause they said so!
Then I realized part of my life's calling. I need to be part of a movement that earnestly, consistently, and lovingly uses the ability, tendency, and gift for being a jerk to call out, expose, and challenge those who insist on being so stupid. I have so much to learn myself. I am no expert on the political issues of the day, but I am teachable. It hurts to be called stupid, but like touching a hot stove for the first time, pain is instructive. I am here to help and be helped!
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Balderdash?
As a Christian, and therefore, as a Conservative, (to separate them is to render each word meaningless), I have finally reached the limit of my tolerance for the hijacking of discourse by those who are neither Christian nor Conservative. Time and time again, talking heads with a hard-charging leftist agenda select a buzz word, use it slightly (or not so slightly) out of context, and slowly (or not so slowly), the meaning of said word morphs into one that can and will be used against those of us with a more conservative outlook.
Though I know it could not have been the first time it happened, I first noticed this with the word, "Progressive." This word has been around describing a political mindset for generations. Then suddenly those people, who realized that even the unwashed masses were catching on to the true danger of the thinking of a "Liberal," began preferring to call themselves "Progressive." It was pounded into America's collective psyche by the alphabet networks. The Liberals who began the trend were aware that the same viewing audience that had "lottery" as a top internet search word would be slow to notice and catch on. The politics never changed, except to move ever more to the left. Now, those who choose to be called Progressives, aren't so politically speaking, and are even less so by definition!
From my standpoint, this hijack attempt was brazen enough on its face. But it wouldn't have been much of a problem except for one thing: we Conservatives bought into it. Radio hosts, columnists, conservative TV hosts, and even election opponents used the word "Progressive" over and over. Sure, it may have been intended to be respectful, but it was their word -- a Trojan Horse of sorts. Despite this effective language change, Republicans still won most of the important races, and the most important race -- this time. But the reeducation of America as to the true and current meaning of "Progressive" must begin immediately!
It has begun to happen again. It came to my awareness, however slowly, during the Stanley Williams parade. There was much talk about the perceived inconsistency of being both Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty. As Christians we often hear the accusations of inconsistency from those who are ill-informed, or ill-equipped and too arrogant, or too ignorant, to have an honest discussion about what inconsistencies are!
Again we Conservatives fall prey to letting our opponents define our beliefs for the sake of their arguments. We try to engage them with their carefully chosen vocabulary, which inhibits the ability to expose their own inconsistencies. We allow, and therefore agree, that we are both Pro-Life and Pro-Death. No matter how intelligently we try to have this discussion, a Liberal, sounding much like your teenager trying to change the meaning of your "Maybe" or "We'll see," will keep coming back to, "But you can't be Pro-Life and Pro-Death!" Okay.
Let's use their tactics and change the vocabulary. From now on, I'm Anti-Abortion, not Pro-Life. My pro-life stance is not, and cannot be absolute. I am not in support of the continued life of a shotgun killer. I am in support of the penalty of his death.
The next word I'd like to address is "support," as in, "I support the troops, but I'm against the war." Or, "If you support the troops you'd bring them home!" If a person wants support, shouldn't that person be able to define what that support would look like? Isn't it funny how the people who "support" the troops do not "support" their efforts? And isn't it odd that the troops who are getting all this "support" from those who do not "support" their efforts overwhelmingly "support" the man who sent them there? Do the troops really want the word "but" used in their definitions of what "support" means to them?
The word "support" has therefore been rendered meaningless in this context. The only way a person who is against the war can "support" the troops in my mind, is to build them a bridge to march across! From now on, we Conservatives need to refer to our attitudes toward the troops in terms much stronger than the word "support." We need to radically distinguish ourselves from liberal thinking, and liberal talking. We cannot limit our feelings by their vocabulary. And our feelings should not be limited to words, but need to be characterized by actions.
Though I know it could not have been the first time it happened, I first noticed this with the word, "Progressive." This word has been around describing a political mindset for generations. Then suddenly those people, who realized that even the unwashed masses were catching on to the true danger of the thinking of a "Liberal," began preferring to call themselves "Progressive." It was pounded into America's collective psyche by the alphabet networks. The Liberals who began the trend were aware that the same viewing audience that had "lottery" as a top internet search word would be slow to notice and catch on. The politics never changed, except to move ever more to the left. Now, those who choose to be called Progressives, aren't so politically speaking, and are even less so by definition!
From my standpoint, this hijack attempt was brazen enough on its face. But it wouldn't have been much of a problem except for one thing: we Conservatives bought into it. Radio hosts, columnists, conservative TV hosts, and even election opponents used the word "Progressive" over and over. Sure, it may have been intended to be respectful, but it was their word -- a Trojan Horse of sorts. Despite this effective language change, Republicans still won most of the important races, and the most important race -- this time. But the reeducation of America as to the true and current meaning of "Progressive" must begin immediately!
It has begun to happen again. It came to my awareness, however slowly, during the Stanley Williams parade. There was much talk about the perceived inconsistency of being both Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty. As Christians we often hear the accusations of inconsistency from those who are ill-informed, or ill-equipped and too arrogant, or too ignorant, to have an honest discussion about what inconsistencies are!
Again we Conservatives fall prey to letting our opponents define our beliefs for the sake of their arguments. We try to engage them with their carefully chosen vocabulary, which inhibits the ability to expose their own inconsistencies. We allow, and therefore agree, that we are both Pro-Life and Pro-Death. No matter how intelligently we try to have this discussion, a Liberal, sounding much like your teenager trying to change the meaning of your "Maybe" or "We'll see," will keep coming back to, "But you can't be Pro-Life and Pro-Death!" Okay.
Let's use their tactics and change the vocabulary. From now on, I'm Anti-Abortion, not Pro-Life. My pro-life stance is not, and cannot be absolute. I am not in support of the continued life of a shotgun killer. I am in support of the penalty of his death.
The next word I'd like to address is "support," as in, "I support the troops, but I'm against the war." Or, "If you support the troops you'd bring them home!" If a person wants support, shouldn't that person be able to define what that support would look like? Isn't it funny how the people who "support" the troops do not "support" their efforts? And isn't it odd that the troops who are getting all this "support" from those who do not "support" their efforts overwhelmingly "support" the man who sent them there? Do the troops really want the word "but" used in their definitions of what "support" means to them?
The word "support" has therefore been rendered meaningless in this context. The only way a person who is against the war can "support" the troops in my mind, is to build them a bridge to march across! From now on, we Conservatives need to refer to our attitudes toward the troops in terms much stronger than the word "support." We need to radically distinguish ourselves from liberal thinking, and liberal talking. We cannot limit our feelings by their vocabulary. And our feelings should not be limited to words, but need to be characterized by actions.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
I Am the Religious Right
Whenever a pundit speaks of the Religious Right, I've noticed that the moniker often hits me sideways (bends me outta round!) due to the fact that it usually seems to be an underhanded slight. I've wondered aloud, with squinty eyes and all, whom these people are talking to. I've noticed the way their opinions never seem to ring quite true. I've also questioned why I have a tendency to feel that I'm overhearing gossip about myself that is inaccurate and insulting. And I've realized my peculiarly self-conscious reaction to their tone has made me finally acknowledge that they are talking about me.
It seems to me to be generally true that a person who might be considered to be center-left is one who has never had a run-in with faith. She is probably one who is quite well-intentioned, often over-educated and under-experienced, and is convinced that nuance, relativism, humanism, and self-righteousness--the sense that a person gets to choose what is righteous for oneself--trump the quaint black and white clarity of someone who is "religious." The problem with this approach is an arrogant self-importance that too easily dismisses a Christian's faith in an all-powerful, benevolent and, most importantly, flawless God (capital g emphasized). It's stronger than "religion." It's faith in Christ the Messiah that these folks have the real problem with. God has put forth things in this world that will confound the so-called wise among us. A man who is crucified, buried, and risen can make no sense to the "intellect" of these well-read, over-schooled masses. So when they are given a soap box on TV or radio, they put forth their "witness." Their disregard for Christians and the simplicity of our views cannot be concealed.
I've recently come to the conclusion, though, that people who lean further left than I do are actually just as well-intentioned in most of their views as I am. The problem is a lack of logical follow through to logical ends. They are unaware of any type of principle of unintended consequences, and often like to disregard personal responsibility. So I apply this new realization to the center-left pundit's approach to the "Religious Right" the same way. I believe these talking heads are just hoping that we will see the foolishness of talking out loud to an invisible Charlton Hesston in the sky. I believe they think we are wasting our time, and ought to start enjoying a worldly life, rather than spending so much time denying ourselves the simple pleasures of that worldly life.
The writers and politicians think they are talking only to their subscribers and constituents. They come from localized enclaves of like-minded yes men and women who, like themselves, have not had a run-in with faith either. This creates a reality of the non-faithful, preaching to the non-faithful, about the faithful, as though the faithful are not listening. Have you ever seen two men speak about a woman in a different language and say things to one another about her they would never say to her? And have you ever seen their reactions when they unexpectedly learn, due to her unsolicited response, that it turns out she understood every vile thing they said about her? As the anti-Christian rhetoric heats up, and as the left continues to depend so strongly on a misapplication of the principle of separation of church and state, and as character assassination and name-calling become the normal spew from Democratic leadership, watch the punditry take up their secular versions of the Cross (Probably a footed fish symbol that reads, "DARWIN"). Then watch their reactions when they realize we Christians were paying attention all along, and understood what they were really saying!
The "Religious Right" is a too-quiet majority of Americans who have the all too vocal "Secular Left" on the run. Like any scared and cornered animal, the left is only going to continue to yell louder, fight harder, and get nastier. The "RR" is a group whose hearts bleed as much as the left's. The difference is the object and objective of these hearts has a higher source and deeper meaning than those of the wide-eyed Maureen Dowds or the red-eyed Christopher Hitchenses of the world. Christians understand the ramifications of turning away from their beliefs for the purposes of government. The Bible is littered with the ruins of nations which did just that. The "Religious Right" is populated by people who are absolutely as smart, witty, wise, and talented as any member of the left. The difference is a willingness to realize that they aren't the smartest, wittiest, wisest, and most talented people who have ever populated the planet. And finally the "Religious Right" is a group of people who, although they love their country, and although they are concerned about its future, they have slightly higher, longer-termed aspirations. The difference is how the left is so convinced that this is the only world they will know, that they will spend every ounce of energy making a world in which they can be endlessly happy -- in and of.
It seems to me to be generally true that a person who might be considered to be center-left is one who has never had a run-in with faith. She is probably one who is quite well-intentioned, often over-educated and under-experienced, and is convinced that nuance, relativism, humanism, and self-righteousness--the sense that a person gets to choose what is righteous for oneself--trump the quaint black and white clarity of someone who is "religious." The problem with this approach is an arrogant self-importance that too easily dismisses a Christian's faith in an all-powerful, benevolent and, most importantly, flawless God (capital g emphasized). It's stronger than "religion." It's faith in Christ the Messiah that these folks have the real problem with. God has put forth things in this world that will confound the so-called wise among us. A man who is crucified, buried, and risen can make no sense to the "intellect" of these well-read, over-schooled masses. So when they are given a soap box on TV or radio, they put forth their "witness." Their disregard for Christians and the simplicity of our views cannot be concealed.
I've recently come to the conclusion, though, that people who lean further left than I do are actually just as well-intentioned in most of their views as I am. The problem is a lack of logical follow through to logical ends. They are unaware of any type of principle of unintended consequences, and often like to disregard personal responsibility. So I apply this new realization to the center-left pundit's approach to the "Religious Right" the same way. I believe these talking heads are just hoping that we will see the foolishness of talking out loud to an invisible Charlton Hesston in the sky. I believe they think we are wasting our time, and ought to start enjoying a worldly life, rather than spending so much time denying ourselves the simple pleasures of that worldly life.
The writers and politicians think they are talking only to their subscribers and constituents. They come from localized enclaves of like-minded yes men and women who, like themselves, have not had a run-in with faith either. This creates a reality of the non-faithful, preaching to the non-faithful, about the faithful, as though the faithful are not listening. Have you ever seen two men speak about a woman in a different language and say things to one another about her they would never say to her? And have you ever seen their reactions when they unexpectedly learn, due to her unsolicited response, that it turns out she understood every vile thing they said about her? As the anti-Christian rhetoric heats up, and as the left continues to depend so strongly on a misapplication of the principle of separation of church and state, and as character assassination and name-calling become the normal spew from Democratic leadership, watch the punditry take up their secular versions of the Cross (Probably a footed fish symbol that reads, "DARWIN"). Then watch their reactions when they realize we Christians were paying attention all along, and understood what they were really saying!
The "Religious Right" is a too-quiet majority of Americans who have the all too vocal "Secular Left" on the run. Like any scared and cornered animal, the left is only going to continue to yell louder, fight harder, and get nastier. The "RR" is a group whose hearts bleed as much as the left's. The difference is the object and objective of these hearts has a higher source and deeper meaning than those of the wide-eyed Maureen Dowds or the red-eyed Christopher Hitchenses of the world. Christians understand the ramifications of turning away from their beliefs for the purposes of government. The Bible is littered with the ruins of nations which did just that. The "Religious Right" is populated by people who are absolutely as smart, witty, wise, and talented as any member of the left. The difference is a willingness to realize that they aren't the smartest, wittiest, wisest, and most talented people who have ever populated the planet. And finally the "Religious Right" is a group of people who, although they love their country, and although they are concerned about its future, they have slightly higher, longer-termed aspirations. The difference is how the left is so convinced that this is the only world they will know, that they will spend every ounce of energy making a world in which they can be endlessly happy -- in and of.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Thank God for War
I saw a new maddening bumper sticker the other day. "LOVE THEM, DON'T LOG THEM." If it had audio, I'm sure it would have had the medicated mellowness of an NPR host. I wonder where the owner of the car lays her weary head at the end of each day.
I'm trying to think of an appropriate way to celebrate Independence Day. Hot dogs, beers, music, and pool time just don't seem to be the way I should spend my time while men and women are sacrificing, sometimes to the fullest extent, their lives trying to spread some measure of the same independence we inevitably take for granted. And we do take it for granted. How can we not? After all, it has been granted to us from on High through the blood, sweat, tears, and courage of countless Americans for generations. No flag-burning, war-protesting, free-loving, bumper sticker-sticking, petition-signing, or ten commandments-fearing has ever saved the life or freedom of anyone, ever. These self-serving endeavors stand in stark contrast to the self-sacrifice that has distinguished this nation from most others in the world today.
As stories of the birth of the nation abound during the week, I am struck by the obvious hand of Providence in the events that brought America into existence. Each of the founding fathers brought to the table abilities in thought, communication, philosophy, and submission to the greater cause than almost any one of today's professional politicians.
Our freedoms were built on the foundation of that blood, sweat, tears, courage, and, yes, bullets, shells, and bombs of those who were willing to die for the cause of my freedom -- and yours. In response to the other sticker on the bumper I opened this post with: Sometimes, because we live in an imperfect world; sometimes, because this world is littered with imperfect people; sometimes, because this world is the playground of Satan and not the physical Kingdom of Heaven; sometimes, my dear, war is the answer. And I believe I'll be thanking God this weekend for the war so long ago that allowed this great nation to exist. For, without war, it wouldn't.
I'm trying to think of an appropriate way to celebrate Independence Day. Hot dogs, beers, music, and pool time just don't seem to be the way I should spend my time while men and women are sacrificing, sometimes to the fullest extent, their lives trying to spread some measure of the same independence we inevitably take for granted. And we do take it for granted. How can we not? After all, it has been granted to us from on High through the blood, sweat, tears, and courage of countless Americans for generations. No flag-burning, war-protesting, free-loving, bumper sticker-sticking, petition-signing, or ten commandments-fearing has ever saved the life or freedom of anyone, ever. These self-serving endeavors stand in stark contrast to the self-sacrifice that has distinguished this nation from most others in the world today.
As stories of the birth of the nation abound during the week, I am struck by the obvious hand of Providence in the events that brought America into existence. Each of the founding fathers brought to the table abilities in thought, communication, philosophy, and submission to the greater cause than almost any one of today's professional politicians.
Our freedoms were built on the foundation of that blood, sweat, tears, courage, and, yes, bullets, shells, and bombs of those who were willing to die for the cause of my freedom -- and yours. In response to the other sticker on the bumper I opened this post with: Sometimes, because we live in an imperfect world; sometimes, because this world is littered with imperfect people; sometimes, because this world is the playground of Satan and not the physical Kingdom of Heaven; sometimes, my dear, war is the answer. And I believe I'll be thanking God this weekend for the war so long ago that allowed this great nation to exist. For, without war, it wouldn't.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
The "Distorted" View
While listening to the Laura Ingraham show this morning, I heard a few clips from that venerable think tank "The View." I was once again amazed by the rampant display of absolute ignorance of the show's hosts and guests. The guest in question this time was Rosie O'Donnell.
Rosie outdid herself with an absolute demonstration of Democratic Pary values and her complete lack of a grasp on actual facts of any given topic she spoke about. First she spoke about her demand that her life partner stop breast-feeding because she was beginning to be jealous of the bond the baby was making with its mother! My response is, "Welcome to fatherhood!" and "Let the baby eat!" But that sacrifice of one's most selfish desires seems to cut against the nature of a lot of Hollywood folks these days.
Then during a segment with Sean Hannity as the other guest, the topic of stem-cell research came up. Once again the panel was exposed as the ignorant, uninformed, illogical and indignant bitties they are. Rosie put on her most dramatic voice in order to blame those opposed to the destruction of human fetuses to harvest stem cells for the fact that Christopher Reeve died "without hope" of a cure. She implies, and an otherwise uninformed public might infer, that the Bush administration had banned such research, when in fact Bush only wants to keep the government out of the business of funding the research. The way the left ignores the finer details of accuracy and truth drives me quite crazy. The fact that Conservatives don't expose these frauds and their methods drives me even crazier! What Rosie O'Donnell and people like her need to know is that if Christopher Reeve died without hope of a cure, it is only because embryonic stem cells have shown virtually no promise to provide a hope for a cure. If there is any hope so far, it has been shown with far greater efficacy to be from adult stem cells. Maybe the government should fund the heck out of this research!
And finally, Joy Behar took the rhetoric to a new idiotic low when she compared fetal destruction vs. the desire to conserve life with the waging of war, calling indiscriminate fetal harvesting and war "the same thing." I guess it was just a little peek behind the moral equivalence curtain of the Left.
All of this the same week you can hear time and again major players in the Democratic Party distancing themselves from the convoluted rants by Howie Dean, saying that as Democratic Party leader, he doesn't speak for the party! If the party is looking for spokespeople, they only need to check their local listings and catch up with the washed up and washed out on a certain daytime talk show!
Rosie outdid herself with an absolute demonstration of Democratic Pary values and her complete lack of a grasp on actual facts of any given topic she spoke about. First she spoke about her demand that her life partner stop breast-feeding because she was beginning to be jealous of the bond the baby was making with its mother! My response is, "Welcome to fatherhood!" and "Let the baby eat!" But that sacrifice of one's most selfish desires seems to cut against the nature of a lot of Hollywood folks these days.
Then during a segment with Sean Hannity as the other guest, the topic of stem-cell research came up. Once again the panel was exposed as the ignorant, uninformed, illogical and indignant bitties they are. Rosie put on her most dramatic voice in order to blame those opposed to the destruction of human fetuses to harvest stem cells for the fact that Christopher Reeve died "without hope" of a cure. She implies, and an otherwise uninformed public might infer, that the Bush administration had banned such research, when in fact Bush only wants to keep the government out of the business of funding the research. The way the left ignores the finer details of accuracy and truth drives me quite crazy. The fact that Conservatives don't expose these frauds and their methods drives me even crazier! What Rosie O'Donnell and people like her need to know is that if Christopher Reeve died without hope of a cure, it is only because embryonic stem cells have shown virtually no promise to provide a hope for a cure. If there is any hope so far, it has been shown with far greater efficacy to be from adult stem cells. Maybe the government should fund the heck out of this research!
And finally, Joy Behar took the rhetoric to a new idiotic low when she compared fetal destruction vs. the desire to conserve life with the waging of war, calling indiscriminate fetal harvesting and war "the same thing." I guess it was just a little peek behind the moral equivalence curtain of the Left.
All of this the same week you can hear time and again major players in the Democratic Party distancing themselves from the convoluted rants by Howie Dean, saying that as Democratic Party leader, he doesn't speak for the party! If the party is looking for spokespeople, they only need to check their local listings and catch up with the washed up and washed out on a certain daytime talk show!
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Lose the Stickers!!
I've noticed with great interest the number of stickers on bumpers and car windows that so loudly declare support for the John Kerry 2004 campaign. More than six months ago the American people chose, albeit closer than I would have liked to see, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney over the Misters Kerry and Edwards. I understand the disappointment over your choice losing an election; but what I don't understand is a nonsensical clinging to an unalterable past. The demonstration of your disappointment through the use of fading stickers really speaks volumes! I think I can throw support behind the theory some have put forth about the mental health state of certain political standpoints!
To qualify some of that thought,though, I want to reiterate my belief that I truly believe that most people who consider themselves to be liberal have what they incorrectly believe are good intentions. Unfortunately, political correctness and intellectual dishonesty, perpetrated on liberals by liberals, cloud their ability to see how their intentions really play out.
I can see how higher taxes, welfare, affirmative action, and other planks in the Democratic platform can at one glance (one very short, single-eyed glance) seem to be the answer to some social problems. But to play even these three items out, we can see how higher taxes actually slow the economy, netting less revenue, plus you have to be able to see that the government cannot manage and spend the money of its citzens more efficiently than individuals; welfare keeps those who exploit the system from having to become more productive citizens; and affirmative action inherently assumes the inferiority of minorities, although the success of those minorities is patently demonstrated in such institutions as the Bush administration. And what liberals don't understand is that this doesn't mean conservatives don't support spending money where it is needed. Conservatives obviously care about the less fortunate among us--see the size of contributions in the forms of cash and sweat equity from Christian groups to charity. And affirmative action too often comes across to me as lip service more often than an effective tool for the advancement of women and minorities--see the way Democrats are dragging their feet in confirming judges who are Female, or Black, or Hispanic.
The bottom line is to say that as I encounter disappointment in my life with the state of political affairs, those who disagree with me need to know that my fight back will not end at the backside of my car. It will be in support of the Word, demonstrated by my actions with my checkbook, my back, and my vote.
To qualify some of that thought,though, I want to reiterate my belief that I truly believe that most people who consider themselves to be liberal have what they incorrectly believe are good intentions. Unfortunately, political correctness and intellectual dishonesty, perpetrated on liberals by liberals, cloud their ability to see how their intentions really play out.
I can see how higher taxes, welfare, affirmative action, and other planks in the Democratic platform can at one glance (one very short, single-eyed glance) seem to be the answer to some social problems. But to play even these three items out, we can see how higher taxes actually slow the economy, netting less revenue, plus you have to be able to see that the government cannot manage and spend the money of its citzens more efficiently than individuals; welfare keeps those who exploit the system from having to become more productive citizens; and affirmative action inherently assumes the inferiority of minorities, although the success of those minorities is patently demonstrated in such institutions as the Bush administration. And what liberals don't understand is that this doesn't mean conservatives don't support spending money where it is needed. Conservatives obviously care about the less fortunate among us--see the size of contributions in the forms of cash and sweat equity from Christian groups to charity. And affirmative action too often comes across to me as lip service more often than an effective tool for the advancement of women and minorities--see the way Democrats are dragging their feet in confirming judges who are Female, or Black, or Hispanic.
The bottom line is to say that as I encounter disappointment in my life with the state of political affairs, those who disagree with me need to know that my fight back will not end at the backside of my car. It will be in support of the Word, demonstrated by my actions with my checkbook, my back, and my vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)