One of the two major political parties in America is on the record of having a God problem or a problem with God in the public square. In the Democratic presidential debates, we are witnessing the culmination of what has been observed in years past regarding the view of religious freedom in America. Those hoping to receive their party’s nomination for president could have and should have expressed support for religious freedom in America. They have had ample opportunity to do so, but at this juncture, they have not.
It is my view and the view of many Americans that both major political parties should consider religious freedom a principle to be protected and defended. One Florida Democrat has publicly declared that any person who votes for Trump cannot call themselves a Christian. David French argues that the only reason Evangelicals support Trump is out of fear. He argues that Evangelicals think that Trump is their source of protection for religious freedoms. He argues that position is cowardly and repulsive. You may agree, but I adamantly disagree.
I do not believe that Evangelical Christians are dependent upon Trump to protect our freedoms per se. I believe that most see a very real enemy and a threat to our religious liberties, 2nd Amendment rights, and other liberties threatened by the toxic advancement of liberalism. We see the invasion of evil on many fronts and view Trump as a breath of fresh air giving us a courageous president willing to stand with us against this onslaught.
What Mr. French calls fear is a united effort to fight the destruction of our freedoms. We are not blind to Trump’s flaws nor are we blind to the dangers of the agenda of the Democrats. Therefore, we support the person who supports our fight for freedom.
When failed candidates like Robert Frances O’Rourke are willing to declare their intent to use the IRS against Christians and religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriages that identifies a God problem. When the 2016 National Democratic Convention would erupt in a chorus of boos when the words “God-given” was used, that expresses a God problem. When the Democratic Party advances the view that they consider the ‘religiously unaffiliated’ as their largest religious group, that suggests a God problem.
American Founders such as Thomas Jefferson contended that the American constitution must provide the right for every citizen to live according to his own beliefs. They recognized, as should we, that the government if given opportunity would invade the private space of citizens and stand between a man and his God. They understood that there was a very real danger of the government attempting to coerce man to violate his own conscience and bow to the ideological sentiment pervasive at any given time. They wanted to ensure that each of us had our religious liberty protected and provided the Bill of Rights to provide that guarantee.
America was founded with a view of God’s providence and on the day before signing the Constitution, John Adams wrote his wife Abigail. The first paragraph on the third page of the letter said, “I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the greatest anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by the solemn acts of God Almighty.”
In his closing, he said, “You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am aware of the toil and blood and treasures that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom, I can see rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see the end is more than worth all the means. And that posterity will triumph in the day’s transaction, even [although] we should rue it, which I trust in God we shall not.”
Moral relativism has become pervasive in the Democratic Party and too evident in our society in modern America. The devil has never ceased in his attempt to convince man that he can be like God or be god himself. What is moral relativism? A simplistic definition is: “The belief that ethical standards, morality, and position of right or wrong are subject to a person’s individual choice. We can all decide what is right or wrong for ourselves.” That eliminates moral absolutes and plunges us into the abyss of relativism and societal declension. It may sound good and tolerant, but it is a dangerous pathway that can only end in the destruction of society as a whole.
Billy Graham was right when he said, “The nature of God never changes.” Men change, societies change, and worldviews change but God is unchanging and eternally the same. (Malachi 3:6). Moral relativism allows for some incredibly immoral behavior which is deemed as acceptable and even normal.
If we are our own god and decide what is right and wrong, surely, we can see the potential dangers of that view. Some argue, that white lies hurt no one and it is okay to lie so long as what we do does not actually hurt another. They also argue, that so long as it is between two consenting adults it is okay. That is to ignore the clear teachings of the Bible and blur the lines of morality to the point that every person does what is right in their own eyes and selfishness and self-centeredness becomes our moral compass.
The God problem of the Democrats is one of the reasons I cannot support their Party. I am concerned that this continued plunge into depravity will result in judgment falling on our nation. People today are so driven by hate they no longer use reason and refuse to acknowledge any truth but their own truth. In my fifty-plus years of studying the Bible, I cannot ignore the reality that God sometimes allows a season of grace and mercy before judgment. I fear that our present pathway in America is leading to some incredibly dark times in our future.
The idea being presented by some national ministers that the Bible is open to interpretation has grown in the past few decades. I suggest that the Bible is and isn’t open to interpretation. It is the inspired Word of God and was written under the direction of the Holy Spirit. If the open interpretation view is embraced and practiced in all of society, we would have utter chaos. There would be no definitive right and wrong and no moral compass by which we could navigate the troubled waters of life.
A military office that gives an order expects that order to be carried out explicitly. If we adopt the view of private interpretation private property would be endangered because if a person believes they have a right to what is yours or mine, they would have no qualms about attempting to take it. Employees are not given the option of interpreting corporate edicts. If the rules and guidelines of the parents are open to interpretation the family unit would plunge into total anarchy.
We have allowed the murder of millions of unborn babies and called that a woman’s right to choose and made it about women’s health. We have allowed the destruction of the home and two-parent families with a man and woman. We have allowed the view to becoming pervasive that God blew it when He created male and female and put some of us in the wrong bodies. If urges are allowed to rule and passions not kept in check by some moral absolutes then no child, man or woman is safe.
I oppose the Democrats on a national platform because they have abandoned everything I believe in and everything that made America the Free Republic it has been and is. You can disagree and that is your right. I will vote to protect America and our American Freedoms. You vote as you deem best, but please consider what is being advanced before you make your choice and choose wisely.
God bless you and God bless America!