Jesus’ teachings do not match with a liberal political philosophy

I never thought to be writing a column for The Lebanon Enterprise, but I must respond to B.L. Conway’s column of Sept. 17.  In his column he states that we should not fear voting for Obama. He postulates that the three reasons that someone may choose not to vote for Obama is because he is a “man of color”, due to his name and its implications, or because he is a liberal.  He makes the comparison that Jesus was a “man of color” and a liberal. He also discusses how Jesus’ name was changed (an argument that I have never heard discussed before).   Concerning his first argument that Jesus was a “man of color”, I certainly have no issue with that assertion.  Since he was born in the area of the Mediterranian Sea, it is easy to assume that his skin was dark. As far as his name and Conley’s assertion that his name was changed, I have no problem with that either, although I certainly never had heard nor have I read in the Bible anything that would lead me to believe that.   What I do have a problem with is Conley’s assertion that Jesus was a liberal (especially as the term is applied in present-day American politics).  No doubt Jesus was a liberal, or even a radical, as far as the challenge that he presented to the thinking of many of the religious leaders of that time.  However, I do not believe that he would condone the thinking of the modern-day political liberal.  Conway, himself, makes the connection between liberalism and the Democratic Party as he discusses the nomination of Obama as their national presidential candidate. Let’s look at the position of liberalism on some of the important issues of our time.  Liberals consistently support unlimited abortion, gay rights and gay marriage, and many other “progressive” social policies.  This is where I really object to Mr. Conway’s depiction of Jesus as liberal.   He mentions in his article that Jesus teaches that we are not to kill. Yet liberals persistently and consistently defend the “right to an abortion” and fight fiercely to oppose any restriction to this “right” (even to the point that live births are killed in the barbaric method called partial-birth abortion). This is one thing that I have never understood about Marion County. It is apparent that many in this county oppose abortion. I see this in the position of the Catholic and Protestant churches, of which so many Marion countians are active members. I also see this in the anti-abortion messages that are prominently displayed on several billboards throughout the county.   Yet in spite of this opposition, Marion County seems to be overwhelmingly Democratic. Which party’s candidates repeatedly support abortion? You know the answer, the Democratic Party. To me there is no single issue greater than the right to life. When that right is violated, all other rights are meaningless. Mr. Conway goes on to link Obama with “progressive thinking”.  Progressive thinking is what has brought us virtually unlimited abortion rights, the idea of living together without marriage (a clear violation of Biblical teaching), same sex marriage (also unsupported by the Bible), and many other controversial topics such as gun rights, illegal alien rights, etc. Mr. Conway states that there is “goodness and potential for good in man”.  That is true, but, since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, there is also great potential for evil. We, as a nation, have turned from God and look what it has gotten us: wholesale abortion, devaluation of human life, same sex marriage, living together in sin, runaway drug abuse, adulterous relationships, teens having illegitimate babies, disrespect for authority, and the list goes on and on. Mr. Conway, there is no way that the teachings of Jesus can logically be linked with modern American liberal ideology. Obama says that he is a Christian yet his platform supports abortion rights. He has been a member for many years of a congregation whose minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, regularly spews out hatred for members of another race. The book of James tells us that a Christian proves his faith by his works. Read James chapter two, verses 19 and 22. Is Obama living out his faith through his works? Since I began composing this column, recent events in the economic news has become a source of concern for many voters. This, again, was largely to blame on the liberal agenda. The mainstream media and many politicians want to lay this on the policies of George Bush (of course it seems that every bad thing lately is George Bush’s fault).  In truth, the seeds for the current economic meltdown were sown through the liberal ideas of deregulating the banking industry and throwing the loan market open to virtually everyone (regardless of their ability to pay).   This began in the Clinton years with the fair housing initiative. This initiative, making mortgage loans available to low-income borrowers (subprime loans) and the deregulation of banking, took place under the Glass-Steagall Act that had bipartisan support (Republicans and Democrats). This was signed into law under then-president Clinton. So much for Bush being responsible for this mess. These events were further aggravated by the unique character of the institutions commonly known as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These are government-sponsored enterprises but are neither wholly public or private. Freddie and Fannie were enthusiastic supporters of the housing bubble and they were exempt (can you believe it!) from the capital requirements that governed private banks. “When outsiders noticed the precarious situation in Freddie and Fannie in 2004/2005, the ... administration refused to act and Congress actively stopped every attempt to regulate Freddie and Fannie, even after Franklin Raines (one of Obama’s current economic advisors) was fired, and then regulators brought civil charges that he and two others manipulated Fannie’s books to increase their (own) bonuses. The three received $115 million in bonus payments. Why did Congress stop the reform (to regulate Freddie and Fannie)? Because Freddie and Fannie made campaign donations to Congress and they were created by Congress. If Freddie and Fannie had been purely private institutions, Congress would have been more than happy to increase the regulation” (The Advocate-Messenger, Danville, Ky., Sept. 24, 2008). When you decide who is most likely to lead us out of this economic mess remember that it was liberal thinking that got us here in the first place. Also remember that Franklin Raines helped manipulate Fannie Mae’s books to increase his own bonuses. Guess who now has him as one of his economic advisors? Barack Obama, that’s who. Do we really need a president that takes economic advice from such a greedy, manipulative man, one who puts himself above the needs of the American public? I don’t claim to be smart enough in the area of economics to have pieced together all of this information myself. This information was brought to light by the writings of none other than Bob Martin, professor of economics at Centre College in Danville. When you consider that liberal thinking and policies are largely responsible for the mess that our country is in, I think the choice is clear.  Elect real change, not a continuation of liberal policies. The Democratic administration of Clinton got us into this mess. Why should we ask those who created the problem (Democratic administration and Democratic Congress) to intervene again to fix the problem? Isn’t that a bit like hiring a fox to guard the henhouse? Editor’s note: James H. Evans is a citizen of Lebanon.