Barack Obama's on the make for evangelicals - specifically the conservative, registered-to-vote variety. The same type of voters he previously referred to as being "bitter" and who "cling to guns or religion".
A few weeks ago he told such voters that, if elected, he would expand and overhaul President Bush's federal faith based initiatives, announcing his own "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships". He has begun regular attempts to appeal to evangelicals, speaking to them on multiple occasions in recent weeks as part of what his campaign terms its "Joshua project".
The slippery slope of secular humanism continues to become even more so all around the world. We are quickly moving beyond a mere degradation of social virtues to outright hostility against religion and potential criminalization of adherents who practice their faith in their daily lives.
In recent years we have seen the Dutch government change its laws to allow euthanasia, gay marriage, infanticide of imperfect children, and most recently, the sanctioning of gay polygamous unions.
In our current political climate, diversity is a buzz word that is most often used to justify the promotion of liberal viewpoints in our mainstream culture, usually at the expense of the views of the majority. If such importance is to be placed on diversity however, it must be recognized that true diversity also includes the views and preferences of those in the mainstream, such as a conservative voice that promotes pro-family values and Christian beliefs.
Free markets and traditional values are the twin pillars of conservative thought. Ronald Reagan embodied both of these beliefs, and was a master at promoting both of these ideas. However, Reagan fully understood that a reflexive anti-regulatory, pro-market ideology does not always promote the core values of decency and family that are at the foundation of the conservative movement. He believed these ideas must exist in concert, not one at the expense of the other.
This past Wednesday, President Bush issued the first veto of his Presidency in rejecting legislation that would have used taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life in the name of science. This is in keeping with his previous commitments to work to foster a culture that respects life in our country, rather than cheapen it.
As President Bush stated in his veto message, "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." Exactly. So why all the fuss? The simple answer is politics and money.
Now that the Senate has begun consideration of Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the US Supreme Court, the American public would do well to use this as an opportunity to consider the role of the judiciary in our society and the need for judges that will faithfully apply our Constitution, rather than make law from the bench.
Currently, the opposition to Judge Alito is doing everything possible to distort his record and incite fear among the American public. Some opponents are suggesting that he is anti-civil rights and anti-minority. They have said that he is opposed to the principle of "one man, one vote" and and that he is a religious radical. In short, that he is an extremist.