Example of a friendly conversation about politics

I thought I’d share a conversation I had recently with an old friend on facebook. I’ll call him “John”.

Me:

You said: "Republican, Democrat ... you can be a chimp for all I care .. just be able to LEAD a country!"

It sounds like you voted for McCain. Because we all know (at least those who voted for McCain) that Obama doesn't have the experience to lead. ...which we are now finding out the hard way. (hope this doesn't offend you. : )

John:

I did vote for McCain, and no you didn’t offend me. Exactly ... Obama doesn’t have a clue. and I meant what I said. I don’t care about political parties. I think we should do away with them all together. We need to ONE in order to move forward and make progress. This bickering back and forth has gotten us nowhere. Meanwhile, we are just treading water as more and more illegal immigrants and terrorists enter our country, and we continue to spend over 300 BILLION $ a year to support them! WTF is up with that?!!! We are a mess and I’m really not that political in nature, until just recently when I starting being effected directly. It’s sad to see how corrupt and what a mess our political system is.

Me:

I’m glad, John, that you can discern Obama’s inability to lead our country correctly. I would encourage you, though, to reevaluate your advocacy of doing away with political parties. Politics with no partisanship means we are left with two (if I’m not mistaken) options: either we have no politics at all – which is called anarchy; or we have a one party system – which is called communism. (And I doubt that you are an anarchist or a communist.) Despite what we hear in the mainstream media (MSM), partisanship is actually a good thing. For instance, it prevents a radical president from enacting radical laws by having the opposition party (and others who are not radical) in the legislature stop him by filibustering or other obstructionist means. The MSM is trying to help him anyway. That’s why you hear of the press complaining of “gridlock” right now. Their guy is in the White House, and they don’t want less liberal and more conservative legislators stopping his agenda. So they simply blame the Republicans for the problem. What’s new? You would never hear of “gridlock” when Congress is more liberal and the White House is more conservative. The interesting thing is, it’s not actually the Republicans that represent the main opposition to Obama – its Democrats! – non-leftists, non-radical “blue dog” Democrats, to be exact. We see this, for instance, with the Stupak amendment in the House on health care. The American people, both Democrats and Republicans, don’t want the American taxpayer funding abortions. The Republicans are too small of a minority to prevent an Obama health care system that includes taxpayer-funding of abortions. It’s actually Obama’s less liberal, more conservative *fellow-Democrats* that are the ones who are successfully slowing down the Obama Express. But you’re not going to hear about that much in the MSM (minus maybe FOX).

I agree our political system is not perfect, but history shows that our partisan politics form of government has been the most workable system in this current broken age east of Eden. While speaking on the subject of democracies (as opposed to say communism), Winston Churchill once said: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

While our political system is not perfect, I believe the bigger problem is that our societal systems are systematically being subverted, and in many cases, *have been* subverted, by historically non-American and untenable worldviews: our economic system of capitalism is being replaced with socialism; our legal system of constitutional law is being replaced with activist adjudication; our country’s moral compass (philosophy/ethics) of moral objectivism, *has* been replaced with moral relativism; our political system of a representative republic/democracy may eventually be replaced by a ONE-party system of communism.

I’m glad, John, you’ve gotten more politically active and informed. I would just encourage you to continue on that trek armed with good information and analysis. (BTW, John, have you ever heard of townhall.com? It's a good place to go to get informed.) Indeed, as you said, politics does matter, because it always affects us – whether directly or indirectly, whether we are aware of it or not.

This year is critical for the American people to really learn what’s up, and then vote correctly. As Biden admitted recently, this year’s congregational elections will be the last chance the American people have to stop the Obama Express from becoming a full and irreversible reality.

"When the people fear government, that's tyranny; when the government fears the people, that's liberty." – Thomas Jefferson

Is Being Gay A Civil Right?

Let’s draw the distinction between homosexuality and the black cause. Homosexuality is a behavior (like pedophilia), whereas being black, is *not* a behavior. While homosexuality is an ethical issue, being black is an ontological issue in which blacks are endowed by their Creator with more melanin in their skin than non-blacks. They are still human. (Just as a homosexual, by the way, is a full human being.) But it’s important that we affirm what it means to be human without mistakenly bringing behavior into the mix.

I mention pedophilia to show that behavior, even if shown be in-born, does not mean that that behavior should be tolerated or condoned by society. The question is what kind of behavior ought a society deem to be beneficial to that society, and what behaviors should be deemed not tolerable. That’s what a government needs to address – that is, a just government.

It gets more interesting when you bring in an evolutionary worldview into the mix, and then contrast it to a Christian worldview. True Christianity teaches that blacks are children of God just like whites. Adam and Eve had the genetic diversity that made whites and blacks and every other racial difference that natural selection brought out. Evolution, on the other hand, believes that blacks are not as advanced as whites in the evolutionary continuum. Racism is at the heart of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, whether that side wants to admit it or not.

Moreover, Christianity better explains homosexuality – even the “gay-gene.” It’s called the Fall. We are all broken and guilty for our messed up family business – whether we are homosexual perverts or heterosexual perverts. Gay activists who say they believe in evolution, in contrast, assert that homosexuality is an evolved trait that should have the right to exist and be celebrated along with those who hold to heterosexual traits. Notice that word “ought” implied in their claim. “Ought” connotes morality. What is the supreme morality at the foundation of an evolutionary worldview? – getting one’s genes into the next generation. Yet a basic understanding of science tells us that two human beings (or human-oids in the past) practicing in homosexuality would NOT pass their genes to the next generation. In essence, according to their own presuppositions, one who holds to macro-evolution, if they are going to be consistent to their own moral standards, would deem homosexuality as immoral (that is, unable to pass their genes to the next generation). Again, a Christian worldview has a better grounding in claiming homosexuality is wrong, than a homosexual activists has in claiming that homosexuality is right.

What does it mean to have faith?

Recently, someone ask me: “What are your fundamental beliefs when it comes to faith?” Here was my answer:

A lot of people are confused about what faith actually is.

Some say that faith is a passive, intellectual accent, or acknowledgement of something. While this is indeed a type of faith, it is not the faith that brings about salvation for which the Bible talks about. After all, as the Book of James says, “the demons believe in God and they shutter” (2:19); yet they are not saved.

Some say faith is a matter of what you SAY you believe. But the Bible says "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven.” In other words, not everyone who claims Jesus is claimed BY Jesus.

Their close cousins are those that believe that faith is encapsulated in the very words themselves. They are referred to as the “Word of Faith” movement. Their faith is in the words themselves. They believe that the louder you say the words (like “Jesus!”) the more powerful the Spirit moves.

Others think that faith is just some sort of energy force that we just need to pay $19.95 for, and it will quickly rescue us from all our problems.

But real faith is something else. Real faith, first, involves active trust. Real faith is an active, receiving and trusting belief. This is what the Bible speaks of in terms of salvation. John 1:12 says, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (ESV)

Second, real faith involves active trust in something particular. In other words, real faith has an object of faith. When someone says they have faith, the common sense response should be “Faith in what?” One’s faith is only as good as the object by which it is placed. Something implicit in real faith is that it is also a right faith – that is, the object of their faith is worth trusting in. Conversely, one’s faith is misguided if the object of one’s faith is NOT worth trusting in. For example, if you had a physical condition that required treatment, trusting in the right doctor is critical for your recovery. Trusting in an incompetent doctor will only lead to worse physical problems. Similarly, let’s say you have a spiritual ailment. You need a competent spiritual doctor to help you, not a quack. We need faith (to trust) in the real God to save us.

Third, real faith always involves having reasons for why one believes in this object. Real faith is “trust based on evidence.” Some people think that the opposite of faith is reason. But the opposite of faith is disbelief. Everyone has reasons for their beliefs. Having reasons for one’s belief does not mean their beliefs are correct, but they have them because they have reasons. So if you’re trying to understand someone and where they are at, after asking the first question about faith (“what do you have faith in?”), another helpful question to ask is: “Why do you believe in that?”, or: “What are the reasons you have for believing that?” The answer one gives is their reasons. The reasons help them make the decision to trust in that thing. Those reasons can also be helpful in exploring whether one has trusted in right things.

In summary, real faith can be defined as an active trust based on reasonable assurance in right things. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith similarly: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”