Why "We the people" Will Never Separate From "In the beginning"

Too often, as a Christian I am faced with the question of why I can't just separate my "religion" from politics. Why it upsets me that the Ten Commandments were removed from the Courts or why I fear that God is removed from the Pledge of Allegiance are conversations I have surprisingly frequently. Thanks to AGL's comic on her post about Embryonic Stem Cell research, I decided to write about it.
The title is metaphorical, as I believe that no "religious" person would ever separate their faith from their politics.
Religion is not reserved for Christianity. Or Buddhism. Or Islam.
Webster's Dictionary defines religion as:

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Now, while this is just one definition of the word, it's certainly not exempt from defining religion. So what does this mean? Atheism is a religion. Satan worship is a religion. Witchcraft is a religion. Liberalism....ok, I'll stop there.
In actuality, I do not believe that Liberalism is a religion. Liberalism is a result of religious belief. As is conservativism.

To imply that I or anyone should separate the two is preposterous.

Take, for example, abortion. The Bible says "....For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made...." I am no scholar, I don't pretend to be either, however the verses here clearly indicate that not only are we creations of God in the flesh, but in soul and spirit. That's there's more to a "fetus" than just the parts. This is why Christians are so opposed to abortion, and why we cannot separate our faith in this respect from our politics. Because, everything that Roe vs. Wade stands for, our faith stands against. It's not just about what the Bible says either, it's a matter of conviction, there are many things in the Bible that Christians struggle with following, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't, it just means that more prayer and struggle must be had.

Another controversial topic is homosexuality. The Bible says "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." We believe that homosexuality is a sin. But please notice the list of other offenses there. Not just homosexuality is a sin! There are many other ways in which people can offend God. Notice also, the message of hope, that because Christ died for all sins, we can experience communion with God for eternity. But because of this belief we cannot honor the desire of homosexual people to marry. Marriage is a holy union created by God for one man and one woman.

The idea of separation of church in state in practice, is a new one. There were several founders who came to the U.S. with the desire to set up a theocratic state. I believe that their desire was made successful as a lot of our documents are littered with references to God and the like. While opposition of this stands, the 1st amendment itself does not decline the right Christians have to keep these references alive. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Just because something is governmentally funded, does not mean that it cannot have references to the God of Abraham. The people put it there and, if enough people want it to stay there, there it should stay. While this is not a full democracy, it is the people who have the right to require of those they put in office to fulfill their desires.

I'm almost positive that one's politics will in some way be impacted by whatever religion they follow. Christianity is dominant in our country, and so, the Christian faith is what dictates to those who believe how to vote. Sure, there are gray areas, but those are the areas in which there is no established right or wrong and why shockingly enough, Christians disagree on a lot of issues! We are evidently not just robots that spew off biblical references at every turn.

I think that if you, dear reader, were to look at whatever religion you practice and compare that to your politics, you would see similarities. Otherwise, maybe the only religion you hold to is your politics, but that makes for a pretty sad "afterlife" now doesn't it?

Home for Awhile

Matt came home for awhile. Congrats to Matt and Essa. God bless, our prayers are with you.

Embryos Are People Too!

Good ol' George finally vetoed his first Bill. What a Bill to pick buddy. I'm sure everyone is going to love him for this one.
Now, being that most (if not all) people that read this blog disagree strongly with me in regards to most of my political stances up to this point, I have no reason to give in now.
Shock of all shocks, I'm glad Bush vetoed this Bill.
Aside from the Biblical reason of "Thou shalt not murder" I would like to provide alternatives for the science crew and just a touch of related experience.

I'm sure most people have been touched in one way or another by terrible diseases like cancer, MS, muscular dystrophy, authritis and altzheimers. I think that it's safe to say that we would all like to see a cure for each one of these in our lifetime. I would like to suggest to you that embryonic stem cell research is not the answer to this.

The embryo is the earliest detectable form of human development. If attached to the uterus of a female the embryo will develop into the fetus (or baby as I like to refer to it) until birth. So what then, does this mean?
It means that the embryo is a form of life. Life is precious. It is valuable. Remember, "thou shalt not murder"? Right. So how can we justify ending one life to save another? The person outside of the womb is not more important or more worth saving than the person inside the womb.
What I don't understand is why other forms of research are not being attempted or used.
Take umbilical cord research for example. Already, 70 different diseases have been treated with this method. Seventy! That's a lot more than the pathetic little list of 5 I gave.

So why isn't this being explored more? Why is it that the Left is pushing so hard on this? Might I suggest that it's not because they're pro-choice. It's because they're pro-abort. Or in this case pro-kill. If there's another option available besides that of ending a life, isn't that preferable? Both parties win with that thinking.

What about people who cannot have children? Shouldn't we be worried about offending them? (You know, because the Left is so against being offensive) Can you imagine not being able to have a child, while science is throwing them away in the name of research? How cruel.

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must, but I can't help but think that this is just one more way that the Left is trying to control the population, what with it being out of hand and all. At this rate, we could effectively implement euthanasia by the time some of the most prominent members of the current democratic (and even liberal-republican) party are old enough to participate. Although, at that point, I'm not so sure I'd be opposed to it.

Oh Treason, Where is Thy Punishment?

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Now, I don't know about you, dear reader, but I believe that revealing secret plans that aid in capturing, and ending the reign of terrorism falls under the category of treason. Which is punishable by death, by the way, a punishment that certainly fits the crime. (If you don't have access to, or don't want to pay the fee associated with reading the NYT article online, go here to read some clips from it.) Here's the great part! Only TWO witnesses are needed!!! Well geez, I think we've got that covered, I mean at least 2 people read the NYT right?
When is the NYT going to stop sabotaging US plans to capture and kill terrorists? Or at least cripple them? When is this administration going to get some....guts about them and start handing out punishment? Are they short on volunteers to help with the executions? I don't want to seem too eager or anything, but, where is the signup sheet?

Do they not understand the repercussions of their actions? Let me break it down for them. We are at WAR. It's like, dangerous and stuff, and like, people die in wars. Some of those people are our American Boys and they're not going to stop dying until the war is over. The war won't be over until the Iraqi government/people can get a grip on dealing with terrorism. Terrorism, in great amounts is funded by, you guessed it, money. We're trying to figure out the source of their income to cripple terrorism. We can't do that if the NYT is spreading how we're doing it ALL OVER THE WORLD!!!! Get the picture? Good, I'm glad that something that's obvious to second-graders is something you can finally grasp.

It is not an infringement on your freedom of press /speech to ask you not to publish something. If I were president (oh what a wonderful world....) I wouldn't have asked. I would have told. And yes, I am fully aware that this is not a dictatorship, it's a democratic republic. Sometimes, in their elitist mentality, the NYT forgets this. Sometimes it's in the best interest of the American people, especially the people actually fighting the war, to not know things. But, as the times editor so eloquently put it "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest." Oh, I'm sure those are their true intentions. If I may, I would like to translate:
"We are so bitter about the fact that this stupid Texan has been so successful with his plans in Iraq, that as a unit, we've decided to sabotage this portion of his plans so as to make him fail miserably, which is what we thought he would do in the first place. Since he hasn't, we're going to do the only thing we're good at, help the other team. You remember Jane Fonda, right? She's our idol."
There, I believe that is a more accurate portrayal of their line of thinking.

Since I don't have a loved-one actually in Iraq, I cannot pull out my soon-to-be-a-military wife-card. I do however know of several people who have been to Iraq, are there, or are about to leave. I'm not so sure that they or their family would appreciate the added danger to their already dangerous jobs. Read this woman's blog. Her husband is in Iraq. She longs to see him. She fears his death with such great intensity, she can't even write about it. Her only interest as a member of the general public is that her husband gets home safely. Not about secret plans to track terrorists financial transactions.

As a matter of fact, I believe the general public is more interested in finally seeing pictures of TomKat's baby than of secret plans to track terrorists financial transactions. You know, because we as Americans care so much about the welfare of our troops.

Which brings up another point. If you support the troops but not the war, and, this is a question pointed directly at the NYT and the supporters of their treason, why then is it acceptable to print something that can put the troops in more danger? Just a simple question. And please, do not insult my intelligence by coming at me with some response that contains the words free speech or freedom of the press. I've already addressed that.

Seems like treason just isn't taken all that seriously anymore. Well, unless of course a conservative were to commit treason. Then, the NYT would be the first in line to prosecute. Following them would be John Kerry, who's service record is sketch, Hillary Clinton, who makes noise just for the hope that people will forget what a dog her husband is, and Cindy Sheehan, just because she likes to make anyone conservative look bad.

Golly, with Americans like them, who needs enemies?

Why I Like Ann

In light of recent "interest" into my adoration of Ann Coulter, I decided to write this article. It is extremely ironic, and purely coincidental that a fellow blogger just so happened to write about her this week. (I swear AGL, I really was going to write about her anyway!) It is also ironic that she was just attacked by the New York Post for alleged plagiarism in her most recent work Godless: The Church of Liberalism and even some of her columns prior to that. Read the article for yourself. Their allegations are shoddy at best, lack of concrete evidence will do that to you. Also, newsflash NYP, she does cite her sources, maybe reading the book would educate you!
Anyway, on to the goods.
Where should I begin? You can hear (and see) her coming from a mile away. She's witty, charming, offensive (to the opposing crowd, of course) educated, and not afraid to speak her mind. She epitomizes everything that the conservative crowd is thinking but afraid to speak. She is Ann Coulter. (Great opening, don't ya think?)
I first heard of Ann through my Father (thanks Dad!) who has, as far back as I can remember, been talking about her "spunk" and "fear of nothing liberal". She and Laura Ingraham are among my dad's favorites in political commentary. Anyway, I decided to delve into the world of Ann and see what she was really all about. Now, I must admit, a political bias was instilled in me relatively early in life, however, through watching the news and thinking for myself I am now an unconvertible conservative Christian-Republican. I put Christian first because it is my faith that dictates my belief system. I'll touch on that later.
I'm sure anyone, those who oppose and support Ann Coulter, found that the first time you read her material or saw her in an interview, she was extremely hard-hitting. She doesn't mince words and she certainly doesn't skate around the issues, she tells it like it is in spite of the fact that you may feel as though you were punched in the stomach afterwards. This is my favorite thing about her.
For too long now conservatives have all but been told to sit down and shut up in the political arena. Especially when it comes to social issues, i.e. abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools. etc. etc. When we finally woke up and realized what was happening, it was too late for some things. Roe v. Wade, Engel v. Vitale are just part of what was affected as a result of the silence of conservitivism.
Now that the sleeping giant has awoken and we have a spokesperson in Ann Coulter, the left is freaking out because she is exposing years of liberal hypocrisy and debauchery (well, at least in the Clinton camp).
I do not walk around quoting Ann Coulterisms all day. I do, however, respect her opinion because I see almost daily what she is talking about. Like for example:

"Why hasn't the former spokesman for the Taliban matriculating at Yale been beaten even more senseless than he already is? According to Hollywood, this nation is a cauldron of ethnic hatreds positively brimming with violent skinheads. Where are the skinheads when you need them? What does a girl have to do to get an angry, club- and torch-wielding mob on its feet? There is not the remotest possibility that a man who was recently defending shooting women in the head for wearing nail polish will so much as be snubbed on the Yale campus. The only violence on college campuses these days occurs when people like David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin and me show up to give a speech in defense of America. Then we need bomb-sniffing dogs and a lecture hall lined with armed police. But a Talibanist goes about his day at Yale unmolested. "

or how about...

"Democrats adored the independent counsel statute — until it was used to catch an actual felon in the Oval Office. Then they noticed all sorts of problems with the law. Democrats swore up and down that women never lie about rape — until that same felon was credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick on "NBC News," not to mention the four other card-carrying Democratic women who described being raped by Bill Clinton in eerily similar detail in Christopher Hitchens' book "No One Left To Lie To."

Ann Coulter's way of speaking provocatively tends to cause those who read and listen to her to really find out what it is she's talking about. Maybe this is why the government is dominated by the conservativeve party. And why Bush won both times. And why for the first time Bin Laden and all his cronies are being dealt with. Bill Clinton certainly didn't do anything about him. (see the link on my previous post for this source)
Ann sees and calls Liberals on how they really are. In Godless she talks about the state imposed religion of the Left and how "This is a country in which taxpayers are forced to subsidize “artistic” exhibits of aborted fetuses, crucifixes in urine, and gay pornography. Meanwhile, it’s unconstitutional to display a Nativity scene at Christmas or the Ten Commandments on government property if the purpose is to promote monotheistic religion."

Am I the only person who gets it? (Obviously not, she tops the NYT Best Seller list frequently) The crazy thing is. IT'S ALL TRUE. Research it, question it. I doubt you'll be able to disprove it. Ann's just one of the few people that scream at the Godlessness that is the Democratic Party.
No, not all Dems are Godless and not all Republicans are Godfull (you like that). That's not the point she's making. Her point is that those extreme views are the views of those who are trying to weasel their way into the government by lying to the American public. Those that she offends are just scared of being exposed and that's why they sling mud at her. They try to discredit her all to no avail.
This plagiarism scandal will come and go, but here's my question. If she is truly guilty of plagiarism where is the lawsuit? What's that, there isn't one? Well that must mean that this is all just a ploy to damage her name and reputation. Way to be different New York Post. If all else fails, sling mud. That's the only thing Liberals have left in their little bag of tricks and it's getting old. Start coming to us with facts and maybe we'll listen. Until then, I'll be reading Ann's articles every Thursday, thank you.